The Adventures of MDawg (in progress)

[Bob21]

[QUOTE=kewlJ;99143...and that is what so much of this forum comes down to. Bitter people trolling. [/QUOTE]

What about bored people trolling? Have you ever thought the people trolling might be bored rather than bitter? Just something to think about.

[coach belly]

It is no different than someone telling you to wait until 5 reds in a row have come out on Roulette and then start betting black.

Your example above is someone predicting what will happen, MDawg reports what has happened.

Of course there is a difference.

It was calculated earlier that a player needs to win 401 of 800 baccarat hands to finish ahead for that session of flat-betting 800 hands...

you need to win at least 401 hands of the 800 hands to win that session (flat betting as you mentioned)

However, when considering varied bets, the percentage of bets needed to win cannot be calculated, but the betting ratio of winning bets vs losing bets can be calculated...

The average bet on winning hands should be greater than $1.047 for each $1 bet on losing hands.

Are you claiming that ratio is mathematically impossible?

How do you win at Blackjack?...your average bet on your winning hands is higher than your average bet on the losing hands...right?

[kewlJ]

How do you win at Blackjack?...your average bet on your winning hands is higher than your average bet on the losing hands...right?

Yes, BUT that is based on something, in the case of blackjack card counters it is based on the hands that you are playing with an advantage.

MDawg, near as I can tell, by what he has explained, is never playing at an advantage. He is varying his bets based on hunches. All that does is increase the average bet placed at a disadvantage....increase the total amount bet at -EV and that can't make you a longterm winner.

[MDawg]

It as absurd to state that it is impossible to win at a house edge game as it would be absurd to claim that one must win at a positive player edge game. In both cases the percentages are so small that anything could happen.

[kewlJ]

It as absurd to state that it is impossible to win at a house edge game as it would be absurd to claim that one must win at a positive player edge game. In both cases the percentages are so small that anything could happen.

Short term, YES, anything can happen. Longterm, NO. At some point the math takes over and you can not defy the math.

The best example of this continues to be roulette. Can a player walk into a casino, bet on black and win 3 of 4 spins and leave? Absolutely. Can he do that every day for a year. Absolutely NOT!

Look, frankly I am not the best messenger for this, because I am not a "math guy". I am not particularly strong at math and admire those that are. BUT, math matters! Everything in life is math. The cure that will save us from covid-19 is math. What you are claiming MDawg is mathematically impossible. It simply goes against the math, as you have stated this.

Also frankly, I am tired of arguing this. I have been arguing variations of this with various people making claims that are mathematically impossible or using "alternative math", twilight zone stuff. I have nothing against you. I enjoy your posts and trip reports, but the longterm results that you are claiming are simply mathematically impossible, as stated.

[accountinquestion]

Mdawg is a meta-troll. The fact that you guys argue with him is repeated face-palming. Comment on it and move on but to engage back and forth is what this person thrives on.

I have a tiny hunch I may know who is behind it. Probably not.

[BoSox]

It as absurd to state that it is impossible to win at a house edge game as it would be absurd to claim that one must win at a positive player edge game. In both cases the percentages are so small that anything could happen.

That above quote #544 is in response to post #543 only you conveniently omitted to quote KewlJ post because of the fact that you could not defend that your style of play will only lose in the long term.

[AxelWolf]

It as absurd to state that it is impossible to win at a house edge game as it would be absurd to claim that one must win at a positive player edge game. In both cases the percentages are so small that anything could happen.

Wrong, many Advantage plays come up where it would be almost impossible to lose over a short of time if done correctly. The biggest fear is either getting kicked out, or having the casino screw you.

[coach belly]

Yes, BUT that is based on something, in the case of blackjack card counters it is based on the hands that you are playing with an advantage.

If MDawg's average bet on his winning hands was more than on the losing hands, does he have to qualify his win by explaining his basis for betting as he did?

All that does is increase the average bet placed at a disadvantage....increase the total amount bet at -EV and that can't make you a longterm winner.

Are you asserting what can or cannot happen going forward?

MDawg has reported what did happen.

Are you insisting that what he reported could not have happened, and therefore did not happen?

[MDawg]

Axel: Posting about me here too? Can't get enough of MDawg! apparently.

It really bothers you that I won doesn't it? Actually I don't believe it's that - it's that you can't stand to have been proven wrong? How old are you - you must be twenty or even thirty years older than I am and yet you can't admit that you were wrong? I hope that by the time I get to your age I won't be so stubborn.

Boz is the one that asked me to post the rest of my win statements because he wanted to see that the 2019 Cosmo would substantiate the prior numbers I had been claiming - not a peep out of him since. He seems far more mature than you. And yet, now that I have provided even more substantiation, you come with the inane theories that I am sure not even you believe.

Let go Axel - it's okay to be wrong sometimes. If anyone is making himself look absurd, it is you. They're laughing at you on the MDawg streets!


All right here we go again. I posted video of some of the 2019 and 2020 WINS here
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...14/#post760518
2020 (to date) Cosmo: 20,600
2019 Palms: 11,400
2019 Wynn: 44,125.

---

AND NOW, by popular demand (Boz asked for this), here are the rest:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...-of-mdawg/117/
2019 Cosmo: 11,150
2018 Cosmo: 3850
2019 T.I.: 48,350
2018 T.I.: 2200

As I explain in the video, I went to Cosmo only once in 2018 (this was the year I started up playing again, and our first trip of the year to Vegas was in September as I recall - hadn't played for about a decade - decade or so hiatus), and as I described in one of my WOV posts before we even actually stayed at Cosmo and soon after I got my line there, I went in and dumped three grand at this 6:5 BJ table before I even realized that it was a 6:5. So then at some point after that we checked in to the Cosmo, and I won seven grand, which made the sum total for the year 3850 or so.

And then also, the reason the Cosmo 2019, win is only 11,150, is there was that ONE NIGHT I described at WOV where I DUMPED a bunch of money at Cosmo in one session, then WALKED all the way down the Strip to T.I., and won a gang in one session or so. This is why the T.I. win is 48,350 almost all of that was in one session, a "spite" win used partially to pay off Cosmo (I dumped a bunch at Cosmo that one session). Once I had the T.I. money to pay off Cosmo, I didn't really care about the one session loss at Cosmo.

But in any case, ALL wins, and this is on top of the maybe a hundred grand a year these casinos are comp'ing us for the full RFB treatment, spa comps and events. Hell I even have a second barbecue at home now, a two thousand dollar job, and she has yet another pair of high end thousand dollar or so sunglasses, both courtesy of Steve Wynn. Or rather, courtesy of whoever his successor is. No, little things like that don't mean much, but when they come on top of WINNING, they actually do.

The point of all these corroborations - is that I post the TRUTH. It's much easier to post the truth play by play, than to make things up. I've been posting MDawg Adventures for two years now and if I were making things up I would have contradicted myself many times by now - I have not. And if you compare these win numbers with my stories going back two years, they should match.

[kewlJ]

If MDawg's average bet on his winning hands was more than on the losing hands, does he have to qualify his win by explaining his basis for betting as he did?

YES, absolutely he does! If he is doing something that may make those larger wagers +EV. An example would be that JStat (occasional poster here) has for years claimed to be "counting" at baccarat. There are few that believe baccarat can be counted to gain an advantage, but at least that would be a different discussion. So far MDawg hasn't divulged anything that would explain his winning in general or why these larger bets are at an advantage. So far the only explanation is hunches.

Now, you will notice, I have left the door open to that there is more to the story than we are being told. Maybe something that MDawg doesn't want to share. I don't really think that is the case, but I allow for that possibility. All I know is that AS EXPLAINED, it doesn't add up and the math doesn't work that way.

[mickeycrimm]

This session was a loss...There is another session where I lost

You just blew up their 40 or 80 wins-in-a-row argument...

stating that you have won 40 or 80 or whatever the number is....trips in a row

...and the often-repeated claim that you never post about losing sessions.

No, no, no, Coach dumass. He didn't blow anything up but his own lies. He's been cliaming for months that he never has a session loss. Here he is admitting to a session loss. He blew himself up. And here you are typically getting it bass ackwards. LOLOLOL!!

[AxelWolf]

Axel: Posting about me here too? Can't get enough of MDawg! apparently.

It really bothers you that I won doesn't it? Actually I don't believe it's that - it's that you can't stand to have been proven wrong? How old are you - you must be twenty or even thirty years older than I am and yet you can't admit that you were wrong? I hope that by the time I get to your age I won't be so stubborn.

Boz is the one that asked me to post the rest of my win statements because he wanted to see that the 2019 Cosmo would substantiate the prior numbers I had been claiming - not a peep out of him since. He seems far more mature than you. And yet, now that I have provided even more substantiation, you come with the inane theories that I am sure not even you believe.

Let go Axel - it's okay to be wrong sometimes. If anyone is making himself look absurd, it is you. They're laughing at you on the MDawg streets!


All right here we go again. I posted video of some of the 2019 and 2020 WINS here
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...14/#post760518
2020 (to date) Cosmo: 20,600
2019 Palms: 11,400
2019 Wynn: 44,125.

---

AND NOW, by popular demand (Boz asked for this), here are the rest:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...-of-mdawg/117/
2019 Cosmo: 11,150
2018 Cosmo: 3850
2019 T.I.: 48,350
2018 T.I.: 2200

As I explain in the video, I went to Cosmo only once in 2018 (this was the year I started up playing again, and our first trip of the year to Vegas was in September as I recall - hadn't played for about a decade - decade or so hiatus), and as I described in one of my WOV posts before we even actually stayed at Cosmo and soon after I got my line there, I went in and dumped three grand at this 6:5 BJ table before I even realized that it was a 6:5. So then at some point after that we checked in to the Cosmo, and I won seven grand, which made the sum total for the year 3850 or so.

And then also, the reason the Cosmo 2019, win is only 11,150, is there was that ONE NIGHT I described at WOV where I DUMPED a bunch of money at Cosmo in one session, then WALKED all the way down the Strip to T.I., and won a gang in one session or so. This is why the T.I. win is 48,350 almost all of that was in one session, a "spite" win used partially to pay off Cosmo (I dumped a bunch at Cosmo that one session). Once I had the T.I. money to pay off Cosmo, I didn't really care about the one session loss at Cosmo.

But in any case, ALL wins, and this is on top of the maybe a hundred grand a year these casinos are comp'ing us for the full RFB treatment, spa comps and events. Hell I even have a second barbecue at home now, a two thousand dollar job, and she has yet another pair of high end thousand dollar or so sunglasses, both courtesy of Steve Wynn. Or rather, courtesy of whoever his successor is. No, little things like that don't mean much, but when they come on top of WINNING, they actually do.

The point of all these corroborations - is that I post the TRUTH. It's much easier to post the truth play by play, than to make things up. I've been posting MDawg Adventures for two years now and if I were making things up I would have contradicted myself many times by now - I have not. And if you compare these win numbers with my stories going back two years, they should match.

Dude, I'm not reading all this s***.

I responded to the PM you sent me. I'll post my response here.

It Absolutely does NOT bother me if you won. People hit big scores all the time. I've hit a slot machine playing $3 for over a 100k and some other pretty significant wins. I just happen to be playing with an advantage, but that didn't mean I didn't get completely ass lucky to hit it.

What I want everyone to realize, and what I don't believe is... that you've played a significant amount of hands over the year's and you are still beating Baccarat due to your incredible hunches (or the stock market, only having a few losing trades over years of plan the market). Had you only played a few hands with some significantly sized bets then I could completely understand getting lucky and being ahead(any blow Joe can do that). I still think you're up to something self-serving I just don't know what it is(I'm not claiming it's nefarious). However, I would be more than happy for you to prove me wrong. Once they open up the casinos again, let's set this s*** up with Mike and another member. Oh for fucks sake invite me and Mike. Ask around, ask Mike and give you a list of many others that will vouch for me that I would never do anything out of line. I've been in this business way too long and there hasn't been any issues other than some internet bulshit back and forth. As a matter fact you'll find out that I have went so far as to protect and help people at my own risk against being scammed and conned. I just want the facts whatever they might be. I'm not out to get you or anyone else for that matter. I was just invited to the Blackjack ball after-party, they don't just invite anybody to that stuff without people knowing your pretty honorable. If anything, I should be more worried about meeting up with you. I have had some Looney Tunes actually try to mess with me going over lines that should never be crossed.

[mickeycrimm]

[/B]

This scene from Casino was filmed in the old Leroy's Sportsbook.

[LMR]

It as absurd to state that it is impossible to win at a house edge game as it would be absurd to claim that one must win at a positive player edge game. In both cases the percentages are so small that anything could happen.

Everything in life is math. The cure that will save us from covid-19 is math. What you are claiming MDawg is mathematically impossible. It simply goes against the math, as you have stated this.

Science is not inherently a religion, but it is often turned into a religion known as scientism. People who adopt this religious view are usually atheists that actually believe that their beliefs are all derived from science, and that the only kind of true knowledge humans can have is scientific knowledge.

But it is not difficult to see why this religious view is self-refuting:

How could a statement such as, “The only kind of knowledge that we can have is scientific knowledge,” be verified scientifically? With a chemistry experiment utilizing a bunsen burner and test tubes? With a physics experiment utilizing a particle accelerator? Because the belief that, “The only kind of knowledge that we can have is scientific knowledge” can itself never be scientific knowledge, it is a self-refuting belief.

Or take the premise, “No belief can be accepted as true and rational unless it can be known by science or quantified and tested empirically.” How can that premise be known by science or quantified and tested empirically? With a biology experiment involving a microscope and a petri dish?! It can’t be quantified and tested empirically, and therefore such a premise is self-refuting.

[kewlJ]

Look coach belly, here's the thing. Let's say that MDawg claims he has flapped his arms and flown around the block like a bird. So I respond that it is impossible for a human being to flap his arms and fly around the block. (the closest I am aware of is Monica flying off the roof of the Monticello casinos and crashing into the casino down Las Vegas Blvd in the old TV show "Las Vegas')

So you coach belly, come on and say "Yeah but MDawg has already done it". Your statement carry's no weight. You aren't even saying you have seen him do it. You are just saying that Mdawg says he has done it. We already know that.

Now, as I have argued before, MDawg is under no obligation to provide any proof that he has flapped his arms and flown around the block. But in the absence of that, those of us that know it is impossible to flap one's arms and fly around the block are free to decide for ourselves what we believe.

So here's the solution. MDawg has had 40 winning trips in a row, or so he says. So if and when Vegas reopens and he schedules his next trip, how about he co-ordinate with someone that lives here, like Axelwolf who can witness his play and results. Since MDawg only seems to play sparingly each day, shouldn't even be THAT time consuming. Plus we would all have the added entertainment of seeing what occurs when Axel and MDawg spend time together.

And if the next couple trips, verified by Axelwolf turn out to be the same winning ten's of thousands of dollar trips....well I think that would go along way to silencing everyone's doubts.

Edit: oh wow, Axelwolf had a very similar though (above) as I was writing....verification.

[coach belly]

He's been cliaming for months that he never has a session loss.

You are the one that got it wrong, tick.

He posted about losing sessions months ago.

His claim was no losing trips.

Go back to bed before you collapse again.

[MDawg]

MickeyCrimm, I suppose you're just trying to act deliberately obtuse to get back at me for calling you on your minimum wage calculation...but you know those posts of mine about losing sessions were posted last year. You can't be that dense. Yes I freely posted about losing sessions as they happened, the same as posted about all sessions as they happened. I left no sessions out.

I just post what happens as it happens. The main problem I suppose is that you're just reading the Adventures of MDawg (IN PROGRESS) on this here thread. If you went back two years you'd see the full story, which is corroborated by the win statements I posted more recently.

What is funneee is that the more of the requested proof I provide the more hysterical the opposition gets. Their panties get even more twisted, why?

[coach belly]

If MDawg's average bet on his winning hands was more than on the losing hands, does he have to qualify his win by explaining his basis for betting as he did?

YES, absolutely he does!

Absolutely? Why does he have to qualify it, and to whom?

My understanding is that he can bet whatever he wants (within approved limits) for whatever reason he wants...he's not required to explain why he bet what he did.

Does the dealer or some supervisor demand to know the basis for his bet before they pay him?

[MDawg]

The best example of this continues to be roulette. Can a player walk into a casino, bet on black and win 3 of 4 spins and leave? Absolutely. Can he do that every day for a year. Absolutely NOT!

Some will say that streaks are all imaginary, that we see what we want to see, that there are no patterns in random events.

But...the difference between Baccarat and dice, for example, is that IF there is a pattern set in that Baccarat shoe, it WILL come up and repeat because the cards are fixed, set, may not be changed, once placed in the shoe.

While with dice (or roulette), there is no set future pattern, as each roll of the dice is a truly independent event.

A subtle, but substantial difference.

I have heard of Bacc. players who have a general rule of "I bet whatever hand just won." Well for such a player, if he chances upon a shoe with a twenty-two bank or player run, and also has a general rule of pressing after each win, which many Bacc. players do in fact have these two rules, then every time he comes upon a shoe that has runs in it, he will make a lot, especially if he leaves right after the long run and doesn't keep playing that shoe.

However, these two rules of "always bet whatever just happened" and "press each time you just won" won't necessarily matter with events where the future is not fixed, like in dice rolls.

I mean yes, people will come back and say that over time no matter how much you make on runs things will even out over time and you'll give it back trying to bet on runs that never materialize. But, if you play the shoes with a discernible pattern hard and play lightly or simply get up and leave when presented with a random shoe, you might wind up ahead! including over time.

If you may imagine it, let's say that slot machine spins were not each truly independent, and some machines were set to pay off huge and nothing you could do would alter that pay off as long as you sat down and played at the machine. For me, a good baccarat shoe is like a slot machine that is set to pay. And, I am able to discern well before the shoe is over, whether this shoe is a pattern shoe that will pay off big, or a random shoe that will not. I sit down at the shoe and I bet according to pattern. If I am winning, that means this is a good shoe, and press my bet. If I keep losing, this is a random shoe and I leave it alone and reduce my bet or leave in search of another shoe.

If you don't believe that there is such a thing as a good shoe, where any decent player will win big, then you shouldn't play Baccarat.