Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 110

Thread: The Mdawg "challenge"

  1. #61
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Originally Posted by PositiveVariance View Post
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    can you choose if you want +2 or -2 when betting or does it have to be one or the other?

    Either way, it certainly seems as if that would be a good deal. I think I would have to say yes to that offer if there was no time to get the math or data, but somehow I get the feeling the data is going to show that it's not +EV.

    I agree, I would initially take the wagers without doing research, but As you say I think it will somehow be -EV. However the same situation but with NBA, I believe would be +EV, even though 2 points in an NBA game as a percentage is “worth less” since NBA scores are much higher than NFL scores, so they have a lower value. Not a huge sports better but I believe .5 point would cost -010 (10 cents per dollar). It would seem a half point would bring you even after considering the juice. Without over analyzing it, seems to be a 1.5 point advantage per game. But I’m sure There is more to the situation, possibly something to do with it being the closing line. Mickey, I’m curious what the answer is since this would seem like an obvious +EV situation.
    I have no idea how many games in a season cross key numbers. But my thinking is that your downside would be very little if you wrong in thinking it's +Ev, but your upside has huge potential if you're right. And of course, you could always find a way to make it +EV somehow once you got locked into the bet via other sports books, online bonuses etc. etc.

    It would be funny if Mickey is trolling us and says, “Of course it’s +EV dummies!”
    Here we are thinking there is going to be “more to it”, and it turns out to be just what it seems - An obvious +EV wager! lol
    Last edited by PositiveVariance; 07-21-2022 at 12:36 PM.

  2. #62
    This reminds me of a situation when I first started playing blackjack. I dont know what we were doing, but I think we were practicing. The subject came up that the average hand value for the player or dealer was over 18(18.5 iirc) and you would be a loser if you as the player started with 18 every time. I said. I think I'm willing to take that bet, Set me an 18 each time and play the dealer's hand as you would normally. My thinking was the fact that I was eliminating ever busting "going first". The betting commenced and I was cleaning up. My friend/partner said he needed to stop and revisit this situation.

  3. #63
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    This reminds me of a situation when I first started playing blackjack. I dont know what we were doing, but I think we were practicing. The subject came up that the average hand value for the player or dealer was over 18(18.5 iirc) and you would be a loser if you as the player started with 18 every time. I said. I think I'm willing to take that bet, Set me an 18 each time and play the dealer's hand as you would normally. My thinking was the fact that I was eliminating ever busting "going first". The betting commenced and I was cleaning up. My friend/partner said he needed to stop and revisit this situation.


    That is interesting. I think the number you are looking for is less than 18.5. More like 18.3 iirc. Not That it matters.

    I wouldn't think that eliminating player breaking first wouldn't matter in this situation. That is not Going to effect the averages is it? The dealer "average" will still be 18.3 or whatever and the player 18.

    But what do I know. You may be right. Are you sure your trial size was big enough to be relevant?
    Last edited by kewlJ; 07-21-2022 at 01:51 PM.
    Dan Druff: "there's no question that MDawg has been an obnoxious braggart, and has rubbed a ton of people the wrong way. There's something missing from his stories. Either they're fabricated, grossly exaggerated, or largely incomplete".

  4. #64
    Now speaking of the math, the dog person posted at wov today about players playing -EV, but setting a win limit of$3000 and being able to grind their way to that $3000 win every day based only on having a large 100k bankroll.

    Is there nobody left there that is able to challenge that kind of crap? Why is wizard silent on something like that. That is sad
    Dan Druff: "there's no question that MDawg has been an obnoxious braggart, and has rubbed a ton of people the wrong way. There's something missing from his stories. Either they're fabricated, grossly exaggerated, or largely incomplete".

  5. #65
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Now speaking of the math, the dog person posted at wov today about players playing -EV, but setting a win limit of$3000 and being able to grind their way to that $3000 win every day based only on having a large 100k bankroll.

    Is there nobody left there that is able to challenge that kind of crap? Why is wizard silent on something like that. That is sad
    That has Chrissy Mitchell written all over it. 3% daily return is exactly what Chrissy pitched in his Amazon coloring book on how to be a millionaire in a year. Yes, it’s a real thing.

    https://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-B.../dp/B091F5QRM6

    It seems like he is just throwing anything out there now trying to get attention and interaction. And we can be sure the Wizard will just ignore it.

  6. #66
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Redietz avoided answering this question I put to him specifically. So I will ask it of everyone. Here's the scenario.

    It's the NFL. If someone propositioned you to FLAT BETTING (same wager every game) every game every week for the entire season. All bets made in the same book. And they offered you a 2 point discount on the closing line of every game. By 2 point discount I mean if the line closes at -7 you get the game at -5.

    Would you take the bet?

    And conversely, if they offered you 2 more points than the closing line would you take it? By 2 more points I mean if the line closes at +7 you get +9.

    Remember you have to bet every game every week for the entire year.
    What the fuck, I'll take a shot even though I am not a sports bettor.
    Assume that fair value for half a point is 10 cents on the dollar. The vig is 10 cents on the dollar (-110) so the free 2 points would cost 40 cents on the dollar if we were paying for them instead of getting them for free. Since 40>10 we are good to go with the bet as we are getting the 40 for free.

    I won't bother with the underdog explanation since it uses the same logic.

  7. #67
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    This reminds me of a situation when I first started playing blackjack. I dont know what we were doing, but I think we were practicing. The subject came up that the average hand value for the player or dealer was over 18(18.5 iirc) and you would be a loser if you as the player started with 18 every time. I said. I think I'm willing to take that bet, Set me an 18 each time and play the dealer's hand as you would normally. My thinking was the fact that I was eliminating ever busting "going first". The betting commenced and I was cleaning up. My friend/partner said he needed to stop and revisit this situation.


    That is interesting. I think the number you are looking for is less than 18.5. More like 18.3 iirc. Not That it matters.

    I wouldn't think that eliminating player breaking first wouldn't matter in this situation. That is not Going to effect the averages is it? The dealer "average" will still be 18.3 or whatever and the player 18.not

    But what do I know. You may be right. Are you sure your trial size was big enough to be relevant?
    NO, the sample size was nowhere big enough to conclude anything either way. I'm not claiming I was right, or that it was a good bet. IIRC I was still told it was a bad bet, I dont cant recall how all that played out. I'm sure the information is out there.

    I'm just saying what my thinking was a the time without knowing the actual math, and I went with it. My downside was very little had I been wrong, but if there was somthing to the fact that eliminating going first made a significant difference then my upside was also significant.

  8. #68
    Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Now speaking of the math, the dog person posted at wov today about players playing -EV, but setting a win limit of$3000 and being able to grind their way to that $3000 win every day based only on having a large 100k bankroll.

    Is there nobody left there that is able to challenge that kind of crap? Why is wizard silent on something like that. That is sad
    That has Chrissy Mitchell written all over it. 3% daily return is exactly what Chrissy pitched in his Amazon coloring book on how to be a millionaire in a year. Yes, it’s a real thing.

    https://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-B.../dp/B091F5QRM6

    It seems like he is just throwing anything out there now trying to get attention and interaction. And we can be sure the Wizard will just ignore it.
    Easy

  9. #69
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Redietz avoided answering this question I put to him specifically. So I will ask it of everyone. Here's the scenario.

    It's the NFL. If someone propositioned you to FLAT BETTING (same wager every game) every game every week for the entire season. All bets made in the same book. And they offered you a 2 point discount on the closing line of every game. By 2 point discount I mean if the line closes at -7 you get the game at -5.

    Would you take the bet?

    And conversely, if they offered you 2 more points than the closing line would you take it? By 2 more points I mean if the line closes at +7 you get +9.

    Remember you have to bet every game every week for the entire year.
    What the fuck, I'll take a shot even though I am not a sports bettor.
    Assume that fair value for half a point is 10 cents on the dollar. The vig is 10 cents on the dollar (-110) so the free 2 points would cost 40 cents on the dollar if we were paying for them instead of getting them for free. Since 40>10 we are good to go with the bet as we are getting the 40 for free.

    I won't bother with the underdog explanation since it uses the same logic.

    What is the point of the question?

    The question itself is silly and horribly flawed for multiple reasons. I'll mention a few of the more obvious ones.

    1) Mickey didn't attach a seasonal year to the question. He asked a blanket question as if all years are identical or close to identical.
    2) Mickey phrased the question without mentioning totals. How can you ask the question without delineating between sides and totals?

    Less than 5% of my wagering is on the NFL, and the majority of that is totals, both of which I have stated before, so I am clearly not an NFL sides bettor and would have no interest or expertise to apply to this particular question.

    By asking the question in the tense mickey did, in a garbled present tense, I assume he's asking if I would accept the wagers in 2022. By not pinning down dates and tenses, mickey makes the incorrect assumption that all NFL seasons are the same and should yield the same conclusive answers. By not delineating between sides and totals, mickey makes a similar error in lumping very different things in a single category for the sake of what? Being imprecise?

    This is a relatively common problem with math specialists trying to apply what they know to sports. Sports isn't rolling dice. Sports isn't hitting a slot button. Sports is fluid. Mickey asked a crystalline question. Sports isn't crystalline. If you answer this particular question by quoting data mined stats from 2017-2020, for example, whatever conclusion you draw or lesson you try to teach may not only be dated and useless, things may have changed in such a way as to render that lesson completely wrong going forward.

    I don't know what point mickey was trying to make with the NFL question. If he was trying to emphasize that point shopping for the NFL is overrated and line moves are often wrong, thus rendering something like a parlay calculator possibly more useful, well, here's a shocker -- everybody knows this.
    Last edited by redietz; 07-21-2022 at 08:09 PM.

  10. #70
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post


    That is interesting. I think the number you are looking for is less than 18.5. More like 18.3 iirc. Not That it matters.

    I wouldn't think that eliminating player breaking first wouldn't matter in this situation. That is not Going to effect the averages is it? The dealer "average" will still be 18.3 or whatever and the player 18.

    But what do I know. You may be right. Are you sure your trial size was big enough to be relevant?
    The 18 bet in blackjack had about a 1.8 to slightly over 2% house advantage. It was countable but not worth much. There was also a side bet called Instant 18 or something. Although I didn't ever see that very much. The 18 bet was pretty available during the eastside Cannery days if I remember correctly. But I'm sure the answers can be found by whoever analyzed those side bets.
    Last edited by MaxPen; 07-21-2022 at 10:42 PM.
    FraudJ's word is worth less than the prop cash in Singer's safe...RIP

  11. #71
    I don't have the answer to the question. That's why I asked redietz. He doesn't want to answer.

    If you could choose between laying the favorite or taking the dog on every game then that would bring handicapping into it.

    I want to know what the answer would be without any handicapping of the teams so let's say you have to either lay the favorites all season or take the dogs all season.

    I would think that one would have big edges on games that are-1, -2, -3, -4 and they would cover for games that are -8 and higher.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  12. #72
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by tableplay View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Redietz avoided answering this question I put to him specifically. So I will ask it of everyone. Here's the scenario.

    It's the NFL. If someone propositioned you to FLAT BETTING (same wager every game) every game every week for the entire season. All bets made in the same book. And they offered you a 2 point discount on the closing line of every game. By 2 point discount I mean if the line closes at -7 you get the game at -5.

    Would you take the bet?

    And conversely, if they offered you 2 more points than the closing line would you take it? By 2 more points I mean if the line closes at +7 you get +9.

    Remember you have to bet every game every week for the entire year.
    What the fuck, I'll take a shot even though I am not a sports bettor.
    Assume that fair value for half a point is 10 cents on the dollar. The vig is 10 cents on the dollar (-110) so the free 2 points would cost 40 cents on the dollar if we were paying for them instead of getting them for free. Since 40>10 we are good to go with the bet as we are getting the 40 for free.

    I won't bother with the underdog explanation since it uses the same logic.

    What is the point of the question?

    The question itself is silly and horribly flawed for multiple reasons. I'll mention a few of the more obvious ones.

    1) Mickey didn't attach a seasonal year to the question. He asked a blanket question as if all years are identical or close to identical.
    2) Mickey phrased the question without mentioning totals. How can you ask the question without delineating between sides and totals?

    Less than 5% of my wagering is on the NFL, and the majority of that is totals, both of which I have stated before, so I am clearly not an NFL sides bettor and would have no interest or expertise to apply to this particular question.

    By asking the question in the tense mickey did, in a garbled present tense, I assume he's asking if I would accept the wagers in 2022. By not pinning down dates and tenses, mickey makes the incorrect assumption that all NFL seasons are the same and should yield the same conclusive answers. By not delineating between sides and totals, mickey makes a similar error in lumping very different things in a single category for the sake of what? Being imprecise?

    This is a relatively common problem with math specialists trying to apply what they know to sports. Sports isn't rolling dice. Sports isn't hitting a slot button. Sports is fluid. Mickey asked a crystalline question. Sports isn't crystalline. If you answer this particular question by quoting data mined stats from 2017-2020, for example, whatever conclusion you draw or lesson you try to teach may not only be dated and useless, things may have changed in such a way as to render that lesson completely wrong going forward.

    I don't know what point mickey was trying to make with the NFL question. If he was trying to emphasize that point shopping for the NFL is overrated and line moves are often wrong, thus rendering something like a parlay calculator possibly more useful, well, here's a shocker -- everybody knows this.
    Typical, Comrade that you are being an ass fuck over the question. I put lines out there like -7 and -5. I didn't say a fucking thing about totals. So why the fuck would you have to ask a stupid fucking question about whether I'm talking about sides or totals. It's obvious, dickweed, that I'm talking about sides.

    Totals are not part of the equation because you have to bet every game every week for the entire season. So you are not going to know what the totals are before agreeing to the bet. Use your head for something besides a hat rack.

    And this "which season" nonsense. The only seasons that matter are the ones going forward. So when is the next season coming up. Do you need help figuring that out?

    Data mining is not allowed. When you get propositioned to the bet you have 5 minutes to make up your mind. Take it or leave it.

    If you want to bet on past games let me know. I'll offer you some lines....or even totals if that's your gig. I'll cut you some unbelievable lines. Some very crystalline lines.

    PS: I don't bet parlays you stupid fuck.
    Last edited by mickeycrimm; 07-21-2022 at 11:50 PM.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  13. #73
    How many believe redietz opinion that math is irrelevant in sportsbetting, that only opinions matter?
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  14. #74
    By asking the question in the tense mickey did, in a garbled present tense, I assume he's asking if I would accept the wagers in 2022. By not pinning down dates and tenses, mickey makes the incorrect assumption that all NFL seasons are the same and should yield the same conclusive answers. By not delineating between sides and totals, mickey makes a similar error in lumping very different things in a single category for the sake of what? Being imprecise?
    Mickey,
    Literally what was he suggesting? You're going to hustle him by trying to agree to make him take your pastposts as legitimate bets? Dude is just too sharp.
    It is official. Redietz will never be on Dan Druff's podcast. "too much integrity"

  15. #75
    Another thing the Strip majors have going on as far as comp'ed events - are events that have nothing to do with their casinos. You might be flown from home to wine country, taken to local sports stadium events in owner's boxes, race tracks in private suites, dinners at local restaurants, all that, if you are up for it and have the time. These sorts of off-site events are offered only by the top casinos in Vegas.

    Today at WoV, Mdog made the above post. I think everyone, regardless of level of play is aware that higher end Strip casinos offer these kinds of perks to their bigger LOSING players, who they categorize as "whales" and "jr or mini whales".

    Mdog congrats on qualifying as a top losing player. Enjoy your perks.
    Dan Druff: "there's no question that MDawg has been an obnoxious braggart, and has rubbed a ton of people the wrong way. There's something missing from his stories. Either they're fabricated, grossly exaggerated, or largely incomplete".

  16. #76
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    How many believe redietz opinion that math is irrelevant in sportsbetting, that only opinions matter?
    More than believe Singer played the DUB, had a Newell, or hit a $1.5 million UX hand on his 5th time playing after hitting a multiplied dealt royal on his 2nd time playing the game..... RIP
    FraudJ's word is worth less than the prop cash in Singer's safe...RIP

  17. #77
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Another thing the Strip majors have going on as far as comp'ed events - are events that have nothing to do with their casinos. You might be flown from home to wine country, taken to local sports stadium events in owner's boxes, race tracks in private suites, dinners at local restaurants, all that, if you are up for it and have the time. These sorts of off-site events are offered only by the top casinos in Vegas.

    Today at WoV, Mdog made the above post. I think everyone, regardless of level of play is aware that higher end Strip casinos offer these kinds of perks to their bigger LOSING players, who they categorize as "whales" and "jr or mini whales".

    Mdog congrats on qualifying as a top losing player. Enjoy your perks.
    All of that said, I can prove I (we, my wife and I) made money at Caesars Vegas casinos on 1 trip in 2021 and haven’t been back since then. And we get the top level offers to come back based on the play we put through on one trip.

    To the guy posting as MDawg, we will be among the 100 invited guests at the opening of Martha Stewart’s restaurant at Paris on the 12th. I look forward to meeting you, even if we don’t know who is who. We can shake hands, take pictures and smile while enjoying the free meal.

    Unlike you, I won’t be giving them money. And I’m guessing you won’t be there but you will come back with a bigger invite.

  18. #78
    Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    I can prove I (we, my wife and I) made money at Caesars Vegas casinos on 1 trip in 2021 and haven’t been back since then
    Boz, I hope you are kidding with this "I can prove" comment. But just in case you aren't, let me explain, no one need prove or explain any kind of win over a trip or any short-term period. That happens all the time, both players winning playing -Ev and players playing +EV and losing. That is gambling and variance.

    I realize not everyone cares, but for me the problem occurs when someone claims winning over the long term playing -EV with no explanation. Mdog claims winning almost every day for 16 months playing -EV with no explanation other than "betting into streaks" and a large bankroll somehow enables a player to over come -EV and win.

    Singer, well his claims have been all over the place and change frequently. At one time he claimed 10 years, over a million dollars of winning, playing -EV video poker, not playing 100+ % games, not even using a players card for that added EV, just using a progression system and some "special" less optimal plays and I guess machines telling him when they are hot or cold. Now when Singer stole the DU bug claim, he shortened this period from 10 years to 4 years, which he is still claiming (even repeating it today).

    So years of winning -EV with no explanation, other than voodoo nonsense (Singer) or winning nearly every day for 16 months, with no explanation of how you overcome -EV are the things that have become pet peeves to me. Not someone winning over a trip or two or three. THAT happens regularly.

    Congrats on that big win BTW.
    Dan Druff: "there's no question that MDawg has been an obnoxious braggart, and has rubbed a ton of people the wrong way. There's something missing from his stories. Either they're fabricated, grossly exaggerated, or largely incomplete".

  19. #79
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by The Boz View Post
    I can prove I (we, my wife and I) made money at Caesars Vegas casinos on 1 trip in 2021 and haven’t been back since then
    Boz, I hope you are kidding with this "I can prove" comment. But just in case you aren't, let me explain, no one need prove or explain any kind of win over a trip or any short-term period. That happens all the time, both players winning playing -Ev and players playing +EV and losing. That is gambling and variance.

    I realize not everyone cares, but for me the problem occurs when someone claims winning over the long term playing -EV with no explanation. Mdog claims winning almost every day for 16 months playing -EV with no explanation other than "betting into streaks" and a large bankroll somehow enables a player to over come -EV and win.

    Singer, well his claims have been all over the place and change frequently. At one time he claimed 10 years, over a million dollars of winning, playing -EV video poker, not playing 100+ % games, not even using a players card for that added EV, just using a progression system and some "special" less optimal plays and I guess machines telling him when they are hot or cold. Now when Singer stole the DU bug claim, he shortened this period from 10 years to 4 years, which he is still claiming (even repeating it today).

    So years of winning -EV with no explanation, other than voodoo nonsense (Singer) or winning nearly every day for 16 months, with no explanation of how you overcome -EV are the things that have become pet peeves to me. Not someone winning over a trip or two or three. THAT happens regularly.

    Congrats on that big win BTW.
    Nope, I am not.

    I can show we played at a positive number in Vegas in 2021 on one trip. And yes, regardless of what I played in positive EV games my wife played regular slots. But we put a lot through and I can prove we made money because of a few good hits.

    Of course it’s luck to be an overall winner and we could argue the numbers on what I played versus what she played versus the comps we received.

    And of course I won’t argue it’s not a winning strategy overall.

    But we are invited to multiple huge events. Until of course we don’t meet casino expectations.

    But yea, I can prove anything I put out there.

  20. #80
    Originally Posted by MaxPen View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    How many believe redietz opinion that math is irrelevant in sportsbetting, that only opinions matter?
    More than believe Singer played the DUB, had a Newell, or hit a $1.5 million UX hand on his 5th time playing after hitting a multiplied dealt royal on his 2nd time playing the game..... RIP
    mental midget max having another spazz attack.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Mdawg Blackjack Challenge
    By kewlJ in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 10-12-2021, 10:55 PM
  2. Replies: 201
    Last Post: 10-03-2018, 06:51 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-02-2018, 11:10 AM
  4. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-23-2016, 05:45 PM
  5. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-16-2013, 08:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •