Professional Sportsbetting

Printable View

Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

08-24-2023, 07:00 PM
Rob.Singer

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Well, good to know I don't analyze statistics. LOL. Mickey, you are parading your ignorance. Not the first time. You know absolutely nothing about me, and you refuse to take what I say at face value.

I have reported here, many times, that Mr. Walters assembled roundtables of experts and tried to extract "power ratings" from each of them. Why power ratings? Well, the answer is obvious. God almighty, mickey, have some brains. Seriously, if I die tomorrow, I would feel badly that you didn't actually learn anything from me. He also tried to keep the experts separate from each other. Gee, I wonder why.

I'm pretty sure I posted on here that one of my first conversations with one of Mr. Walters' lap dogs had to do with him wanting to buy my power ratings or pay me to formalize everything I do into power ratings. We had a conversation. I think I shocked the dude. He assumed, because I was 40-something at the time, that I had been doing this for fewer years than he had. He was way wrong.

As I was saying, it's good I don't analyze statistics. Now if mickey actually asked anyone who knew me or worked with me if I analyzed statistics, well, it would be a pretty funny discussion. I used to be able to do a parlor trick. Sunday LA Times -- all the college stats in column form listed game by game. Give me roughly two hours with it. I would then hand the paper over and, with no notes, tell people to quiz me. Not rain man stuff, but relatively precise ballpark accuracy (as within 10-15 yards each category of stat for every team).

I can't do that anymore, but I'm not exactly stat-averse.

Account, there is an established sports betting world that is many times larger than all the alleged AP bullshit historically combined. More people, more history, more expertise, and actual fact-based histories. Real people, not anonymous whack jobs alleging they know this and that without "reading carefully and thoroughly."

I was offered a small spot in a movie last night. No kidding. I was modest and said they didn't have to do that; I was just glad to help. But account, tell you what, if you want me to take a spot in a gangster-related film, I'll do so just for you. Right now, I'm just a consultant, but if you want me to pop up in the movie, so be it.

We can start a separate thread. My role would be shot in LV because the middle third of the film takes place in LV. Let me know if you want me to accept the role. I await your expert decision.

And account, for the gazillionth time, being monitored is not a "tournament." It's your actual plays for a season. Those McCusker Report pages in the Retro Road Trip thread are not a "tournament." They are annual results for top public handicappers published in book form.

Mickey, here's another great idea. Before declaring things about me sans evidence, why don't you track down people who worked with me? Ask them and report here. Not that hard. Freshman journalism stuff. Honestly, if you sit down with the Wise Guys, or Fezzik for that matter, or possibly Anthony Curtis (I assume he knows me), or Marc Lawrence, or Phil Steele, and say that "Bob Dietz doesn't use statistics," you'll be laughed out of Dodge.

You just can't make this shit up. LOL! Fucking Ditz! He went on and on about how you can't get anywhere using statistics. Told us we're dumasses if we try. I already knew Walters was using computer programs but waited until the book came out to confirm it because I knew the move ditz would pull "You don't know jackshit!"

So when I post up what Walters does, here comes ditz with the "I use statistics all the time, don't you know that? I can quote stats off the top of my head" routine. LOL! Fricking dunce. To late, ditz. You already made your bed when you said stats are worthless. So quit lying about it.

And stop with the nonsense of your pea brain beating Walter's computers. You're embarrassing yourself.

Oh, and tracking people down to ask about you? I tracked down Bob Dancer and Richard Munchkin. They said they don't think you are qualified for a podcast on gambling.

So better try your luck in the movies. You got no shot in sports betting.

Mickey, you're lying though your teeth, and what's worse, you know it, or you would have plucked direct quotes demonstrating me saying that I "don't use statistics." Go ahead and shop every blessed one of my 6000 posts. You won't even find anything close.

Cumulative statistics are of limited value in college football due to the disparities of the teams and the limited schedules. Everyone knows that. They are, however, still required knowledge. Used incorrectly, they can be self-sabotaging. But that's why they pay me the big money.

By the way, Dancer and Munchkin (and the LVA in general) are not exactly ground zero for sports betting expertise. I love Dancer and Munchkin. I will shoot them an email and quote you. We'll see what Munch has to say. I suggest you do the same.

Rock bottom.

No wonder your w......oh nevermind. You'll just jump in your spaceship and land over at Dan's again, while he's wearing headphones designed to drown out the red noise.
08-24-2023, 08:48 PM
mickeycrimm

GWAE had on at least a couple dozen noted sports bettors over the years. Ditz didn't make the cut. I gave him a good endorsement but he couldn't make it past the vetting process. That made me look like shit.

Go ahead and contact GWAE, Ditz. But remember, I already know what they said. They said they would not have you on. That says it all.
08-24-2023, 09:08 PM
redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

GWAE had on at least a couple dozen noted sports bettors over the years. Ditz didn't make the cut. I gave him a good endorsement but he couldn't make it past the vetting process. That made me look like shit.

Go ahead and contact GWAE, Ditz. But remember, I already know what they said. They said they would not have you on. That says it all.

LOL. Yeah, that makes sense, mickey. I made the Billy Walters cut but not GWAE. I guess the guy who was the "Tipsters or Gypsters" college football profit #1 three out of the final five years couldn't make the cut.

Still waiting on those direct quotes regarding my use of stats. Don't be shy. One would think, with 8000 of my posts, you'd find one decent quote. Maybe not. Good luck with that.

You do seem to have an aversion to actually quoting people. All paraphrasing and taking mickey's word for it. Good gig if people actually buy it. You should run for Prez.
08-24-2023, 09:26 PM
AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

GWAE had on at least a couple dozen noted sports bettors over the years. Ditz didn't make the cut. I gave him a good endorsement but he couldn't make it past the vetting process. That made me look like shit.

Go ahead and contact GWAE, Ditz. But remember, I already know what they said. They said they would not have you on. That says it all.

LOL. Yeah, that makes sense, mickey. I made the Billy Walters cut but not GWAE. I guess the guy who was the "Tipsters or Gypsters" college football profit #1 three out of the final five years couldn't make the cut.

Still waiting on those direct quotes regarding my use of stats. Don't be shy. One would think, with 8000 of my posts, you'd find one decent quote. Maybe not. Good luck with that.

You do seem to have an aversion to actually quoting people. All paraphrasing and taking mickey's word for it. Good gig if people actually buy it. You should run for Prez.

I can ask Anthony Curtis whatever. I don't really know what question I should ask.
08-25-2023, 01:27 AM
accountinquestion

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

GWAE had on at least a couple dozen noted sports bettors over the years. Ditz didn't make the cut. I gave him a good endorsement but he couldn't make it past the vetting process. That made me look like shit.

Go ahead and contact GWAE, Ditz. But remember, I already know what they said. They said they would not have you on. That says it all.

LOL. Yeah, that makes sense, mickey. I made the Billy Walters cut but not GWAE. I guess the guy who was the "Tipsters or Gypsters" college football profit #1 three out of the final five years couldn't make the cut.

Still waiting on those direct quotes regarding my use of stats. Don't be shy. One would think, with 8000 of my posts, you'd find one decent quote. Maybe not. Good luck with that.

You do seem to have an aversion to actually quoting people. All paraphrasing and taking mickey's word for it. Good gig if people actually buy it. You should run for Prez.

Where does Stanford recommend ivermectin? Seems a fair question given your demands of others.
08-25-2023, 03:15 AM
tableplay

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Go ahead and contact GWAE, Ditz. But remember, I already know what they said. They said they would not have you on. That says it all.

Mickey, it looks like Richard has a new podcast with a loose format which he hosts by himself. So far he has made 6 episodes. Here's the first one. Please disregard this post if you were already aware of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBsfIwrq3tA
08-25-2023, 04:59 PM
AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by tableplay

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Go ahead and contact GWAE, Ditz. But remember, I already know what they said. They said they would not have you on. That says it all.

Mickey, it looks like Richard has a new podcast with a loose format which he hosts by himself. So far he has made 6 episodes. Here's the first one. Please disregard this post if you were already aware of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBsfIwrq3tA

An interview would be meaningless as far as getting to the bottom of anything.
Those podcasts are not dedicated to getting to the bottom of things. They are not meant to ask hardball questions, out B.S. or do any significant research on someone's claims.
08-25-2023, 08:28 PM
tableplay

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by tableplay

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Go ahead and contact GWAE, Ditz. But remember, I already know what they said. They said they would not have you on. That says it all.

Mickey, it looks like Richard has a new podcast with a loose format which he hosts by himself. So far he has made 6 episodes. Here's the first one. Please disregard this post if you were already aware of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBsfIwrq3tA

An interview would be meaningless as far as getting to the bottom of anything.
Those podcasts are not dedicated to getting to the bottom of things. They are not meant to ask hardball questions, out B.S. or do any significant research on someone's claims.

Yes that's right. The purpose of my post was to inform Mickey that Richard has a new podcast. As a former top guest of Richard's and Bob's defunct GWAE, I thought it would of interest to Mickey.
08-27-2023, 05:08 AM
AxelWolf

I'm interested in any and all legitimate(backed up with statistics/math) +EV Sports Betting situations. Mainly for bonus churning. Perhaps some handicapped situations actually seem logical.

HalfSmoke perhaps a revising of Away Dogs.
08-27-2023, 12:52 PM
Half Smoke

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

I'm interested in any and all legitimate(backed up with statistics/math) +EV Sports Betting situations. Mainly for bonus churning. Perhaps some handicapped situations actually seem logical.

HalfSmoke perhaps a revising of Away Dogs.

I thought maybe you missed this post so I linked it - the one at 11:57

this is the best I've ever come up with by far - almost 400 games were tracked

still, I can't be 100% sure it's not just an anomaly - you never can with sports betting -

I'm not going to post these games - they're easy to find at covers.com and lots of other places - not much work at all to find them -

https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...299#post159299

.
08-27-2023, 01:48 PM
Half Smoke

.

Dan was fabulous last year with his NFL picks going 54-32-2 +25.89 units

that's the best I've ever seen anyone do with that many picks - he did way, way better than the top guy at the WOV contest

if I was a betting man - which I'm not anymore - I would be willing to bet that he'll be profitable on the upcoming season

.
08-27-2023, 03:54 PM
mickeycrimm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tableplay

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Go ahead and contact GWAE, Ditz. But remember, I already know what they said. They said they would not have you on. That says it all.

Mickey, it looks like Richard has a new podcast with a loose format which he hosts by himself. So far he has made 6 episodes. Here's the first one. Please disregard this post if you were already aware of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBsfIwrq3tA

Thanks, Tableplay. I'll give them a listen.
08-27-2023, 04:12 PM
mickeycrimm

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

I have reported here, many times, that Mr. Walters assembled roundtables of experts and tried to extract "power ratings" from each of them. Why power ratings? Well, the answer is obvious. God almighty, mickey, have some brains. Seriously, if I die tomorrow, I would feel badly that you didn't actually learn anything from me. He also tried to keep the experts separate from each other. Gee, I wonder why.

Walter's separated the experts from each other by sitting them down at a round table? A stroke of genius! You're right, ditz. I haven't been using my brain. I should've thought of sitting them down at a roundtable to hide them for each other. You sure are smart, ditz.
08-27-2023, 10:53 PM
AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

I have reported here, many times, that Mr. Walters assembled roundtables of experts and tried to extract "power ratings" from each of them. Why power ratings? Well, the answer is obvious. God almighty, mickey, have some brains. Seriously, if I die tomorrow, I would feel badly that you didn't actually learn anything from me. He also tried to keep the experts separate from each other. Gee, I wonder why.

Walter's separated the experts from each other by sitting them down at a round table? A stroke of genius! You're right, ditz. I haven't been using my brain. I should've thought of sitting them down at a roundtable to hide them for each other. You sure are smart, ditz.

Can someone explain a sports power rating, how it's determined, and how that equates to profitability? Elo I understand, well I understand that a 2100 Elo will mop the floor with an 1800 Elo religiously.
08-28-2023, 04:15 AM
Half Smoke

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Good stuff, good stuff.

What about pre-season, any stats on pre-season?

but I found a different one that has 2 years of data

underdogs went 52-44 - 54% wins - a bet on all of these pre-season dogs would have realized a r.o.i. of 3.36%

this year I tracked pre-season dogs as going 27-21

I think it's a pretty fair statement to make that as far as the pre-season goes - the betting public really doesn't have a clue

I don't even think they know what % of the game the teams will play their starters - and as far as predicting the performance of the 2nd string - no chance at all to do that effectively - forget about it

and that is obviously not the case for later during the season

there were some amusing results:

week 1 Carolina was favored by 3 points over the Jets - they lost 27-0

the 49ers were favored by 4 over the Raiders - they lost 34-7

in week 2 the Texans were favored by 2 over the Marlins - they lost 28-3__________________(-:\

.
08-28-2023, 05:11 AM
AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Good stuff, good stuff.

What about pre-season, any stats on pre-season?

but I found a different one that has 2 years of data

underdogs went 52-44 - 54% wins - a bet on all of these pre-season dogs would have realized a r.o.i. of 3.36%

this year I tracked pre-season dogs as going 27-21

there were some amusing results:

week 1 Carolina was favored by 3 points over the Jets - they lost 27-0

the 49ers were favored by 4 over the Raiders - they lost 34-7

in week 2 the Texans were favored by 2 over the Marlins - they lost 28-3__________________(-:\

.

I was thinking about doing that method for preseason *facepalm

I loaded up some sports accounts for 110%-150%+ bonuses(+ because they give you some other crap too) I just needed to get some action in. I said fuck it and just bet a bunch of overs for a few hundred each(I'm limited on pre-season games at one place) I think I went 1 and 7 or something like that, one returned my money for some reason LOL. I got it all back and then some on MMA. I enjoyed that because my wife enjoys watching MMA UFC and even some Boxing. She will watch football with some interest but doesn't enjoy watching an entire game. She did get into XFL a little.

I then just took all the NFL dogs and a few overs. I haven't checked to see my results yet. I'm waiting for them to up my limits and decide what I want to do. I might try to get some B&M arbs off with bigger bets and lock up some profits. I just suck at looking for and finding that stuff. I do know someone who is very good at that.
08-28-2023, 05:17 AM
AxelWolf

P.S. I broke down and got ESPN+ With the Disney + and Hulu package. I got sick of dealing with crackstream and buffstream to watch certain things not on cable.
08-28-2023, 05:20 AM
Half Smoke

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

but I found a different one that has 2 years of data

underdogs went 52-44 - 54% wins - a bet on all of these pre-season dogs would have realized a r.o.i. of 3.36%

this year I tracked pre-season dogs as going 27-21

there were some amusing results:

week 1 Carolina was favored by 3 points over the Jets - they lost 27-0

the 49ers were favored by 4 over the Raiders - they lost 34-7

in week 2 the Texans were favored by 2 over the Marlins - they lost 28-3__________________(-:\

.

I was thinking about doing that method for preseason *facepalm

I loaded up some sports accounts for 110%-150%+ bonuses(+ because they give you some other crap too) I just needed to get some action in. I said fuck it and just bet a bunch of overs for a few hundred each(I'm limited on pre-season games at one place) I think I went 1 and 7 or something like that, one returned my money for some reason LOL. I got it all back and then some on MMA. I enjoyed that because my wife enjoys watching MMA UFC and even some Boxing. She will watch football with some interest but doesn't enjoy watching an entire game. She did get into XFL a little.

I then just took all the NFL dogs and a few overs. I haven't checked to see my results yet. I'm waiting for them to up my limits and decide what I want to do. I might try to get some B&M arbs off with bigger bets and lock up some profits. I just suck at looking for and finding that stuff. I do know someone who is very good at that.

still a chance for the first 2 weeks betting on the dogs thing - if it crashes it will be the first time in 11 years - iirc one year was a push - which means losing the vig

from my post last year:

"the faves did not have a winning record in even one single first 2 week period over the last 10 years

the faves won 140 games and the dogs won 183 games ats - pushes were not considered

in the first 2 weeks of the last 10 years the underdogs won 56.6% of the games ats which translates into a r.o.i. of about 8% for anyone who bet on all of the underdogs during that period"
08-28-2023, 05:32 AM
AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

this year I tracked pre-season dogs as going 27-21

there were some amusing results:

week 1 Carolina was favored by 3 points over the Jets - they lost 27-0

the 49ers were favored by 4 over the Raiders - they lost 34-7

in week 2 the Texans were favored by 2 over the Marlins - they lost 28-3__________________(-:\

.

I was thinking about doing that method for preseason *facepalm

I loaded up some sports accounts for 110%-150%+ bonuses(+ because they give you some other crap too) I just needed to get some action in. I said fuck it and just bet a bunch of overs for a few hundred each(I'm limited on pre-season games at one place) I think I went 1 and 7 or something like that, one returned my money for some reason LOL. I got it all back and then some on MMA. I enjoyed that because my wife enjoys watching MMA UFC and even some Boxing. She will watch football with some interest but doesn't enjoy watching an entire game. She did get into XFL a little.

I then just took all the NFL dogs and a few overs. I haven't checked to see my results yet. I'm waiting for them to up my limits and decide what I want to do. I might try to get some B&M arbs off with bigger bets and lock up some profits. I just suck at looking for and finding that stuff. I do know someone who is very good at that.

still a chance for the first 2 weeks betting on the dogs thing - if it crashes it will be the first time in 11 years - iirc one year was a push - which means losing the vig

from my post last year:

"the faves did not have a winning record in even one single first 2 week period over the last 10 years

the faves won 140 games and the dogs won 183 games ats - pushes were not considered

in the first 2 weeks of the last 10 years the underdogs won 56.6% of the games ats which translates into a r.o.i. of about 8% for anyone who bet on all of the underdogs during that period"

Facepalm, I didn't realize pre-season dogs were so strong. It's probably been noted(by you?) but I forgot.

A push is good for me since it counts as action, I believe. I need to find out for sure that will come in handy in certain sports I believe, not really something I thought about until someone recently mentioned it.
08-31-2023, 05:08 AM
mickeycrimm

redietz,

Colorado +20.5 against TCU this saturday

Who do you like?
08-31-2023, 06:47 AM
redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

redietz,

Colorado +20.5 against TCU this saturday

Who do you like?

Impossible to play. TCU was stripped on offense and was likely overrated last year. This year's QB, however, was originally supposed to start all games until dinged, when Duggan, the previous two-year starter, regained his job. Colorado is completely revamped in terms of personnel, which is a plus (I guess), but really -- importing SWAC players is more mirage than boon. The TCU defense should shut them down, which leads to trying to anticipate when the substitutes come in...for both teams. There is a (strong) possibility TCU blasts their first three opponents by pinball scores. In fact, there is a chance they rampage through everybody until the @Texas Tech.

The great unknown is the rule changes, which -- due to the clock running -- are allegedly going to hack six to seven plays apiece off each team. Number one -- that's a lot of missing plays. Two -- those are formal estimates. My own reviewing of the process opening week strongly suggests more plays will be missing than formally projected.

So with all of these monster lines this week -- very, very tough to figure the effects of surgically removing all of these plays. I have my own suspicions about which brackets of spreads will be affected the most, but no sense sharing them with someone (and a general VCT audience) that's been demonstrating such little professional respect.

What tells you all you need to know about this VCT crew is that I win an NFL contest versus 1300 other people, which frankly nobody on here did last year, and which nobody here likely did ever, and I did not get a single kudo, which is unbelievable. I made many positive statements regarding Rob and Todd's handicapping last year. I win a contest versus 1300 people, and not one positive comment regarding it. Just nonsense about "tournaments mean nothing." It's pretty funny to have a bunch of anonymous bullshitters playing at being "APs," and somebody does the nigh impossible and gets zero acknowledgement. Very funny and so apropos VCT.

Hint: if you're not up on the rule changes and effects, take the college season off, because you do not know what you are doing.

Summary -- and the reason I share this is I'm not betting the game -- if you put a gun to my head, I take TCU. I think Colorado's offensive line is probably overmatched. They are going to have a hard time. The key question will be an inexperienced TCU offensive line against a jumbled together front seven on defense for Colorado. Unknown what that will look like. Always hard to lay 20 opening week with a brand new offensive line. Some pundits are famously predicting TCU to hang a "half a hundred" on Colorado. Personally, I think it more likely that they shut Colorado down and have the QB running for his life all day, but if TCU goes bang-bang-bang first three or four possessions, yeah, the game could get out of hand and pinball-ish.

I have to make forced choice decisions on this game for the Northbet contest anyway, so people will see who I took after the fact. Likely TCU, even though they are not nearly as good as last year's squad, which was not as good as they appeared. And I'm a TCU proponent, as they are the team I had at 100-1 when Cam Newton versus Oregon screwed their undefeated TCU asses out of a playoff game many moons ago.

I will probably be doing a podcast summarizing a game or two each week, sometimes before the game, sometimes regarding games after they've been played. It's more of a coaches' perspective than a handicapping show. Check YouTube in October to see if anything pops. Whether I do it depends partly on the SAG strike, as people who are off have downtime, which I will beg, hire, and steal to do the proposed show since I have never done my own podcast.

Have a good season. And yes, Rob, that includes you. I always root for the player.
08-31-2023, 07:34 AM
Treeshade

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

redietz,

Colorado +20.5 against TCU this saturday

Who do you like?

Impossible to play. TCU was stripped on offense and was likely overrated last year. This year's QB, however, was originally supposed to start all games until dinged, when Duggan, the previous two-year starter, regained his job. Colorado is completely revamped in terms of personnel, which is a plus (I guess), but really -- importing SWAC players is more mirage than boon. The TCU defense should shut them down, which leads to trying to anticipate when the substitutes come in...for both teams. There is a (strong) possibility TCU blasts their first three opponents by pinball scores. In fact, there is a chance they rampage through everybody until the @Texas Tech.

The great unknown is the rule changes, which -- due to the clock running -- are allegedly going to hack six to seven plays apiece off each team. Number one -- that's a lot of missing plays. Two -- those are formal estimates. My own reviewing of the process opening week strongly suggests more plays will be missing than formally projected.

So with all of these monster lines this week -- very, very tough to figure the effects of surgically removing all of these plays. I have my own suspicions about which brackets of spreads will be affected the most, but no sense sharing them with someone (and a general VCT audience) that's been demonstrating such little professional respect.

What tells you all you need to know about this VCT crew is that I win an NFL contest versus 1300 other people, which frankly nobody on here did last year, and which nobody here likely did ever, and I did not get a single kudo, which is unbelievable. I made many positive statements regarding Rob and Todd's handicapping last year. I win a contest versus 1300 people, and not one positive comment regarding it. Just nonsense about "tournaments mean nothing." It's pretty funny to have a bunch of anonymous bullshitters playing at being "APs," and somebody does the nigh impossible and gets zero acknowledgement. Very funny and so apropos VCT.

Hint: if you're not up on the rule changes and effects, take the college season off, because you do not know what you are doing.

Summary -- and the reason I share this is I'm not betting the game -- if you put a gun to my head, I take TCU. I think Colorado's offensive line is probably overmatched. They are going to have a hard time. The key question will be an inexperienced TCU offensive line against a jumbled together front seven on defense for Colorado. Unknown what that will look like. Always hard to lay 20 opening week with a brand new offensive line. Some pundits are famously predicting TCU to hang a "half a hundred" on Colorado. Personally, I think it more likely that they shut Colorado down and have the QB running for his life all day, but if TCU goes bang-bang-bang first three or four possessions, yeah, the game could get out of hand and pinball-ish.

I have to make forced choice decisions on this game for the Northbet contest anyway, so people will see who I took after the fact. Likely TCU, even though they are not nearly as good as last year's squad, which was not as good as they appeared. And I'm a TCU proponent, as they are the team I had at 100-1 when Cam Newton versus Oregon screwed their undefeated TCU asses out of a playoff game many moons ago.

I will probably be doing a podcast summarizing a game or two each week, sometimes before the game, sometimes regarding games after they've been played. It's more of a coaches' perspective than a handicapping show. Check YouTube in October to see if anything pops. Whether I do it depends partly on the SAG strike, as people who are off have downtime, which I will beg, hire, and steal to do the proposed show since I have never done my own podcast.

Have a good season. And yes, Rob, that includes you. I always root for the player.

Did Jerry Sandusky teach you ball ? Not balls like the young dick and balls he liked football ?
08-31-2023, 08:57 AM
regnis

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

redietz,

Colorado +20.5 against TCU this saturday

Who do you like?

Impossible to play. TCU was stripped on offense and was likely overrated last year. This year's QB, however, was originally supposed to start all games until dinged, when Duggan, the previous two-year starter, regained his job. Colorado is completely revamped in terms of personnel, which is a plus (I guess), but really -- importing SWAC players is more mirage than boon. The TCU defense should shut them down, which leads to trying to anticipate when the substitutes come in...for both teams. There is a (strong) possibility TCU blasts their first three opponents by pinball scores. In fact, there is a chance they rampage through everybody until the @Texas Tech.

The great unknown is the rule changes, which -- due to the clock running -- are allegedly going to hack six to seven plays apiece off each team. Number one -- that's a lot of missing plays. Two -- those are formal estimates. My own reviewing of the process opening week strongly suggests more plays will be missing than formally projected.

So with all of these monster lines this week -- very, very tough to figure the effects of surgically removing all of these plays. I have my own suspicions about which brackets of spreads will be affected the most, but no sense sharing them with someone (and a general VCT audience) that's been demonstrating such little professional respect.

What tells you all you need to know about this VCT crew is that I win an NFL contest versus 1300 other people, which frankly nobody on here did last year, and which nobody here likely did ever, and I did not get a single kudo, which is unbelievable. I made many positive statements regarding Rob and Todd's handicapping last year. I win a contest versus 1300 people, and not one positive comment regarding it. Just nonsense about "tournaments mean nothing." It's pretty funny to have a bunch of anonymous bullshitters playing at being "APs," and somebody does the nigh impossible and gets zero acknowledgement. Very funny and so apropos VCT.

Hint: if you're not up on the rule changes and effects, take the college season off, because you do not know what you are doing.

Summary -- and the reason I share this is I'm not betting the game -- if you put a gun to my head, I take TCU. I think Colorado's offensive line is probably overmatched. They are going to have a hard time. The key question will be an inexperienced TCU offensive line against a jumbled together front seven on defense for Colorado. Unknown what that will look like. Always hard to lay 20 opening week with a brand new offensive line. Some pundits are famously predicting TCU to hang a "half a hundred" on Colorado. Personally, I think it more likely that they shut Colorado down and have the QB running for his life all day, but if TCU goes bang-bang-bang first three or four possessions, yeah, the game could get out of hand and pinball-ish.

I have to make forced choice decisions on this game for the Northbet contest anyway, so people will see who I took after the fact. Likely TCU, even though they are not nearly as good as last year's squad, which was not as good as they appeared. And I'm a TCU proponent, as they are the team I had at 100-1 when Cam Newton versus Oregon screwed their undefeated TCU asses out of a playoff game many moons ago.

I will probably be doing a podcast summarizing a game or two each week, sometimes before the game, sometimes regarding games after they've been played. It's more of a coaches' perspective than a handicapping show. Check YouTube in October to see if anything pops. Whether I do it depends partly on the SAG strike, as people who are off have downtime, which I will beg, hire, and steal to do the proposed show since I have never done my own podcast.

Have a good season. And yes, Rob, that includes you. I always root for the player.

Redietz-I was actually going to PM you to get your thoughts on the fewer plays and the inability to constantly have the clock stop in that last couple of minutes when attempting to catch up. I assume the bookmakers have adjusted the totals accordingly and one shouldn't rush to bet the unders. Have they??

P.S.--Opening day at Kentucky Downs. Wish me luck. I know I can never duplicate that one year but there are always possibilities for big scores there.
08-31-2023, 10:47 AM
redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by regnis

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

redietz,

Colorado +20.5 against TCU this saturday

Who do you like?

Impossible to play. TCU was stripped on offense and was likely overrated last year. This year's QB, however, was originally supposed to start all games until dinged, when Duggan, the previous two-year starter, regained his job. Colorado is completely revamped in terms of personnel, which is a plus (I guess), but really -- importing SWAC players is more mirage than boon. The TCU defense should shut them down, which leads to trying to anticipate when the substitutes come in...for both teams. There is a (strong) possibility TCU blasts their first three opponents by pinball scores. In fact, there is a chance they rampage through everybody until the @Texas Tech.

The great unknown is the rule changes, which -- due to the clock running -- are allegedly going to hack six to seven plays apiece off each team. Number one -- that's a lot of missing plays. Two -- those are formal estimates. My own reviewing of the process opening week strongly suggests more plays will be missing than formally projected.

So with all of these monster lines this week -- very, very tough to figure the effects of surgically removing all of these plays. I have my own suspicions about which brackets of spreads will be affected the most, but no sense sharing them with someone (and a general VCT audience) that's been demonstrating such little professional respect.

What tells you all you need to know about this VCT crew is that I win an NFL contest versus 1300 other people, which frankly nobody on here did last year, and which nobody here likely did ever, and I did not get a single kudo, which is unbelievable. I made many positive statements regarding Rob and Todd's handicapping last year. I win a contest versus 1300 people, and not one positive comment regarding it. Just nonsense about "tournaments mean nothing." It's pretty funny to have a bunch of anonymous bullshitters playing at being "APs," and somebody does the nigh impossible and gets zero acknowledgement. Very funny and so apropos VCT.

Hint: if you're not up on the rule changes and effects, take the college season off, because you do not know what you are doing.

Summary -- and the reason I share this is I'm not betting the game -- if you put a gun to my head, I take TCU. I think Colorado's offensive line is probably overmatched. They are going to have a hard time. The key question will be an inexperienced TCU offensive line against a jumbled together front seven on defense for Colorado. Unknown what that will look like. Always hard to lay 20 opening week with a brand new offensive line. Some pundits are famously predicting TCU to hang a "half a hundred" on Colorado. Personally, I think it more likely that they shut Colorado down and have the QB running for his life all day, but if TCU goes bang-bang-bang first three or four possessions, yeah, the game could get out of hand and pinball-ish.

I have to make forced choice decisions on this game for the Northbet contest anyway, so people will see who I took after the fact. Likely TCU, even though they are not nearly as good as last year's squad, which was not as good as they appeared. And I'm a TCU proponent, as they are the team I had at 100-1 when Cam Newton versus Oregon screwed their undefeated TCU asses out of a playoff game many moons ago.

I will probably be doing a podcast summarizing a game or two each week, sometimes before the game, sometimes regarding games after they've been played. It's more of a coaches' perspective than a handicapping show. Check YouTube in October to see if anything pops. Whether I do it depends partly on the SAG strike, as people who are off have downtime, which I will beg, hire, and steal to do the proposed show since I have never done my own podcast.

Have a good season. And yes, Rob, that includes you. I always root for the player.

Redietz-I was actually going to PM you to get your thoughts on the fewer plays and the inability to constantly have the clock stop in that last couple of minutes when attempting to catch up. I assume the bookmakers have adjusted the totals accordingly and one shouldn't rush to bet the unders. Have they??

P.S.--Opening day at Kentucky Downs. Wish me luck. I know I can never duplicate that one year but there are always possibilities for big scores there.

Good luck at Kentucky Downs, regnis. God, you killed it that season. Unbelievable.

The totals are all adjusted fully, in my opinion, but the adjustments also take into account some statistical realities from last season that create interesting wrinkles. If I get a chance, I'll PM you tonight regarding the stat consequences I see regarding 2022 numbers. People really need to have their heads on straight to understand the potential ramifications.

People did not rush to bet Unders. In fact, some of the Week One games had their totals bet Up because, frankly, the numbers were so damned low given the matchups (like UMass versus NMState, bet Up at least two full points from opening).

Will PM tonight or early tomorrow with my statistical thoughts.
08-31-2023, 05:11 PM
mickeycrimm

redietz, is the rules committee off on this estimate:

The NCAA Football Rules Committee projects that the new rule will trim seven or eight plays from the average of about 180 per game in 2022. An eight-play reduction over a 12-game season would save 96 potential injury exposures per team, and there would be over 100 fewer exposures for teams that advance to the playoff.
08-31-2023, 07:25 PM
redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

redietz, is the rules committee off on this estimate:

The NCAA Football Rules Committee projects that the new rule will trim seven or eight plays from the average of about 180 per game in 2022. An eight-play reduction over a 12-game season would save 96 potential injury exposures per team, and there would be over 100 fewer exposures for teams that advance to the playoff.

Some broadcasts have already examined the likely plays per game, and their estimates do not match the committee's estimates. I suggest you ask CBSSN and Fox. They've already discussed number of plays on air.
09-01-2023, 12:39 PM
mickeycrimm

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

What tells you all you need to know about this VCT crew is that I win an NFL contest versus 1300 other people, which frankly nobody on here did last year, and which nobody here likely did ever, and I did not get a single kudo, which is unbelievable. I made many positive statements regarding Rob and Todd's handicapping last year. I win a contest versus 1300 people, and not one positive comment regarding it. Just nonsense about "tournaments mean nothing." It's pretty funny to have a bunch of anonymous bullshitters playing at being "APs," and somebody does the nigh impossible and gets zero acknowledgement. Very funny and so apropos VCT.

Your reputation is you are an insufferable prick. Who in the hell wants to show some respect to an insufferable prick? Here you are demanding respect while dishing out a ton of disrespect at the same time. Every post you make you are belittling and berating someone.

Here's the scoop, ditz. AP's have more gambling knowledge than you sports bettors. We can run circles around your ignorant asses. You obviously have an inferiority complex about it so you lash out at us.

I got the Walters book. In the 80's he was using a computer program designed by Michael Kent that picked 60% winners against the spread. No handicappers involved. Just that fucking computer program. Do you know any handicappers that can do 60%? The Computer Group were not handicappers, neither was Walters. They were just betting what the computer told them to bet. That's what an AP would do. Rather than use that computer, a pencil and paper handicapper like you would rather beat your head against the wall trying to get 55% winners.

Respect is as respect gets. You want some respect? Then show some respect.
09-01-2023, 01:13 PM
redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

What tells you all you need to know about this VCT crew is that I win an NFL contest versus 1300 other people, which frankly nobody on here did last year, and which nobody here likely did ever, and I did not get a single kudo, which is unbelievable. I made many positive statements regarding Rob and Todd's handicapping last year. I win a contest versus 1300 people, and not one positive comment regarding it. Just nonsense about "tournaments mean nothing." It's pretty funny to have a bunch of anonymous bullshitters playing at being "APs," and somebody does the nigh impossible and gets zero acknowledgement. Very funny and so apropos VCT.

Your reputation is you are an insufferable prick. Who in the hell wants to show some respect to an insufferable prick? Here you are demanding respect while dishing out a ton of disrespect at the same time. Every post you make you are belittling and berating someone.

Here's the scoop, ditz. AP's have more gambling knowledge than you sports bettors. We can run circles around your ignorant asses. You obviously have an inferiority complex about it so you lash out at us.

I got the Walters book. In the 80's he was using a computer program designed by Michael Kent that picked 60% winners against the spread. No handicappers involved. Just that fucking computer program. Do you know any handicappers that can do 60%? The Computer Group were not handicappers, neither was Walters. They were just betting what the computer told them to bet. That's what an AP would do. Rather than use that computer, a pencil and paper handicapper like you would rather beat your head against the wall trying to get 55% winners.

Respect is as respect gets. You want some respect? Then show some respect.

LOL. You are so utterly out of your depth. And you are surprisingly dishonest.

I've already been asked to helm a book club discussion of the book, mickey. You're invited to join us. Last Friday of October or November here in Johnson City. Have not pinned down the month, but likely October. Let me know if you want to make a guest appearance. I have some air miles, but I don't want to blow too many hauling your ass from Montana to here, so let me know. I'll see how bad they'd dent me. Might be filmed. I'll let you know that, too. Lighting in the venue isn't the best, so may save the filming for another time.

And you are getting increasingly dishonest. Do I know any handicappers that can do 60%? Again -- LOL. For how long, mickey? For as long as the Computer Group did it? Well, yes I do know a few blokes who pulled that off for specific sports for, what was it, two and half years? You forget, man, I was there when Walters and The Computer Group were doing this. While they were having a helluva two-and-a-half-year run, so was I. Not as good as theirs, but pretty damned good. We were clearly overlapping mightily in college football. And yes, my years were published in "Tipsters or Gypsters?"

You are so dishonest. Do I know any handicappers that hit 60%? First of all, you have only Mr. Walters' word that it was 60% and for how long in that book. He wasn't exactly monitored by outside parties. But, truth to tell, I believe they did manage that...for between two and three years.

And then what, mickey? Why do you think he began recruiting handicappers? Why would a whiz bang 60% computer program user transition to hiring roundtables of handicappers?

Let me know what the AA air miles are to get here. Hell, I'll check it myself. Probably too brutal, but I'll check.
09-01-2023, 04:31 PM
mickeycrimm

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

LOL. You are so utterly out of your depth. And you are surprisingly dishonest.

I've already been asked to helm a book club discussion of the book, mickey. You're invited to join us. Last Friday of October or November here in Johnson City. Have not pinned down the month, but likely October. Let me know if you want to make a guest appearance. I have some air miles, but I don't want to blow too many hauling your ass from Montana to here, so let me know. I'll see how bad they'd dent me. Might be filmed. I'll let you know that, too. Lighting in the venue isn't the best, so may save the filming for another time.

And you are getting increasingly dishonest. Do I know any handicappers that can do 60%? Again -- LOL. For how long, mickey? For as long as the Computer Group did it? Well, yes I do know a few blokes who pulled that off for specific sports for, what was it, two and half years? You forget, man, I was there when Walters and The Computer Group were doing this. While they were having a helluva two-and-a-half-year run, so was I. Not as good as theirs, but pretty damned good. We were clearly overlapping mightily in college football. And yes, my years were published in "Tipsters or Gypsters?"

You are so dishonest. Do I know any handicappers that hit 60%? First of all, you have only Mr. Walters' word that it was 60% and for how long in that book. He wasn't exactly monitored by outside parties. But, truth to tell, I believe they did manage that...for between two and three years.

And then what, mickey? Why do you think he began recruiting handicappers? Why would a whiz bang 60% computer program user transition to hiring roundtables of handicappers?

Let me know what the AA air miles are to get here. Hell, I'll check it myself. Probably too brutal, but I'll check.

LOL! I would insult your intelligence but it's obvious you don't have any at all. And you are a born liar.

If I wanted to go to Johnson Shitty I would take a private jet. But do you really think I would voluntarily put myself in the presence of someone that threatened to kill me? If you do you are stupider that I thought. Like mega stupid.

Quit telling lies and over rating your handicapping skills. No one believes you. Your embarrassing yourself. AP's can run circles around you.

Walters has one of your characteristics, dropping names. I'm only a third of the way thru it but he's dropping a lot of names. So on what page will I find his take on that great sports handicapper, Bob Dietz? Hurry and tell me the page and I'll skip ahead to it.
09-01-2023, 07:52 PM
redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

LOL. You are so utterly out of your depth. And you are surprisingly dishonest.

I've already been asked to helm a book club discussion of the book, mickey. You're invited to join us. Last Friday of October or November here in Johnson City. Have not pinned down the month, but likely October. Let me know if you want to make a guest appearance. I have some air miles, but I don't want to blow too many hauling your ass from Montana to here, so let me know. I'll see how bad they'd dent me. Might be filmed. I'll let you know that, too. Lighting in the venue isn't the best, so may save the filming for another time.

And you are getting increasingly dishonest. Do I know any handicappers that can do 60%? Again -- LOL. For how long, mickey? For as long as the Computer Group did it? Well, yes I do know a few blokes who pulled that off for specific sports for, what was it, two and half years? You forget, man, I was there when Walters and The Computer Group were doing this. While they were having a helluva two-and-a-half-year run, so was I. Not as good as theirs, but pretty damned good. We were clearly overlapping mightily in college football. And yes, my years were published in "Tipsters or Gypsters?"

You are so dishonest. Do I know any handicappers that hit 60%? First of all, you have only Mr. Walters' word that it was 60% and for how long in that book. He wasn't exactly monitored by outside parties. But, truth to tell, I believe they did manage that...for between two and three years.

And then what, mickey? Why do you think he began recruiting handicappers? Why would a whiz bang 60% computer program user transition to hiring roundtables of handicappers?

Let me know what the AA air miles are to get here. Hell, I'll check it myself. Probably too brutal, but I'll check.

LOL! I would insult your intelligence but it's obvious you don't have any at all. And you are a born liar.

If I wanted to go to Johnson Shitty I would take a private jet. But do you really think I would voluntarily put myself in the presence of someone that threatened to kill me? If you do you are stupider that I thought. Like mega stupid.

Quit telling lies and over rating your handicapping skills. No one believes you. Your embarrassing yourself. AP's can run circles around you.

Walters has one of your characteristics, dropping names. I'm only a third of the way thru it but he's dropping a lot of names. So on what page will I find his take on that great sports handicapper, Bob Dietz? Hurry and tell me the page and I'll skip ahead to it.

Great news. Although it's too many miles for me to get you directly to TRI from Billings, I can get you to Atlanta or Charlotte. The flights I can afford miles-wise go through Seattle. Now if you have the funds to fly directly to TRI, please do. My miles are limited, so I'd appreciate that. But if you are short on funds to help you expose me as overrated and lacking in gambling knowledge, don't worry. I will use my air miles to help you out.

If you can handle renting a car for a couple of days, it's a short trip up to Johnson City from ATL or CLT. Or I can have a friend of mine drive to Atlanta or Charlotte to bring you to JC.

I'll pin down the date of the book club meeting and post it here. I'm looking forward to you telling the folks I don't know what I'm talking about. It should be pretty entertaining for all concerned.

Now don't punk out on me, mickey. The likely date is October 27, but that hasn't been finalized. I was looking at flying you in on Wednesday and out Saturday. The meeting will be in the big lounge room in back of the Italian Pub. It has tables and a stage and plenty of seating.

You'll probably like JC -- it's a throwback conservative town, probably 85% Republican. Nice scenery. It's a test market for restaurants, so we have way more fast food and casual dining places than you would expect in a city of 70,000. And the way it's laid out, it feels like a city half its size.

Looking forward to your AP critiques of my book club commentary! I'm just the facilitator and Q&A guy. Others will hold forth with their opinions and research. I'm sure your expertise will be appreciated!
09-01-2023, 08:34 PM
tableplay

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

I got the Walters book. In the 80's he was using a computer program designed by Michael Kent that picked 60% winners against the spread. No handicappers involved. Just that fucking computer program.

Same deal with Bill Benter. He became a billionaire using statistical models to predict horse racing outcomes.
09-01-2023, 08:36 PM
accountinquestion

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

What tells you all you need to know about this VCT crew is that I win an NFL contest versus 1300 other people, which frankly nobody on here did last year, and which nobody here likely did ever, and I did not get a single kudo, which is unbelievable. I made many positive statements regarding Rob and Todd's handicapping last year. I win a contest versus 1300 people, and not one positive comment regarding it. Just nonsense about "tournaments mean nothing." It's pretty funny to have a bunch of anonymous bullshitters playing at being "APs," and somebody does the nigh impossible and gets zero acknowledgement. Very funny and so apropos VCT.

Your reputation is you are an insufferable prick. Who in the hell wants to show some respect to an insufferable prick? Here you are demanding respect while dishing out a ton of disrespect at the same time. Every post you make you are belittling and berating someone.

Here's the scoop, ditz. AP's have more gambling knowledge than you sports bettors. We can run circles around your ignorant asses. You obviously have an inferiority complex about it so you lash out at us.

I got the Walters book. In the 80's he was using a computer program designed by Michael Kent that picked 60% winners against the spread. No handicappers involved. Just that fucking computer program. Do you know any handicappers that can do 60%? The Computer Group were not handicappers, neither was Walters. They were just betting what the computer told them to bet. That's what an AP would do. Rather than use that computer, a pencil and paper handicapper like you would rather beat your head against the wall trying to get 55% winners.

Respect is as respect gets. You want some respect? Then show some respect.

He is completely deluded at his relevance. He seems particularly bitter about this lack of kudos. Did he change the day he didn't receive the kudos for the tournament? Wow. poor fella really upset. He really wants acknowledgment. Too funny. The rest of the guys don't give a shit and the real APs almost never brag.

The thing he doesn't get is people here just don't care. No one probably even spends time on fantasy leagues just because the hourly and they get enough gambling.

1 in 1300 but if redietz is as good as he says then 1 in 600. Who the fuck here cares about a 1 in 600 longshot. Redietz doesn't get anything.

If only there was beatingsportscoinflippingcontestgreatestever.com Wait.. now maybe that is a new business idea.
09-01-2023, 08:47 PM
mickeycrimm

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

LOL. You are so utterly out of your depth. And you are surprisingly dishonest.

I've already been asked to helm a book club discussion of the book, mickey. You're invited to join us. Last Friday of October or November here in Johnson City. Have not pinned down the month, but likely October. Let me know if you want to make a guest appearance. I have some air miles, but I don't want to blow too many hauling your ass from Montana to here, so let me know. I'll see how bad they'd dent me. Might be filmed. I'll let you know that, too. Lighting in the venue isn't the best, so may save the filming for another time.

And you are getting increasingly dishonest. Do I know any handicappers that can do 60%? Again -- LOL. For how long, mickey? For as long as the Computer Group did it? Well, yes I do know a few blokes who pulled that off for specific sports for, what was it, two and half years? You forget, man, I was there when Walters and The Computer Group were doing this. While they were having a helluva two-and-a-half-year run, so was I. Not as good as theirs, but pretty damned good. We were clearly overlapping mightily in college football. And yes, my years were published in "Tipsters or Gypsters?"

You are so dishonest. Do I know any handicappers that hit 60%? First of all, you have only Mr. Walters' word that it was 60% and for how long in that book. He wasn't exactly monitored by outside parties. But, truth to tell, I believe they did manage that...for between two and three years.

And then what, mickey? Why do you think he began recruiting handicappers? Why would a whiz bang 60% computer program user transition to hiring roundtables of handicappers?

Let me know what the AA air miles are to get here. Hell, I'll check it myself. Probably too brutal, but I'll check.

LOL! I would insult your intelligence but it's obvious you don't have any at all. And you are a born liar.

If I wanted to go to Johnson Shitty I would take a private jet. But do you really think I would voluntarily put myself in the presence of someone that threatened to kill me? If you do you are stupider that I thought. Like mega stupid.

Quit telling lies and over rating your handicapping skills. No one believes you. Your embarrassing yourself. AP's can run circles around you.

Walters has one of your characteristics, dropping names. I'm only a third of the way thru it but he's dropping a lot of names. So on what page will I find his take on that great sports handicapper, Bob Dietz? Hurry and tell me the page and I'll skip ahead to it.

Great news. Although it's too many miles for me to get you directly to TRI from Billings, I can get you to Atlanta or Charlotte. The flights I can afford miles-wise go through Seattle. Now if you have the funds to fly directly to TRI, please do. My miles are limited, so I'd appreciate that. But if you are short on funds to help you expose me as overrated and lacking in gambling knowledge, don't worry. I will use my air miles to help you out.

If you can handle renting a car for a couple of days, it's a short trip up to Johnson City from ATL or CLT. Or I can have a friend of mine drive to Atlanta or Charlotte to bring you to JC.

I'll pin down the date of the book club meeting and post it here. I'm looking forward to you telling the folks I don't know what I'm talking about. It should be pretty entertaining for all concerned.

Now don't punk out on me, mickey. The likely date is October 27, but that hasn't been finalized. I was looking at flying you in on Wednesday and out Saturday. The meeting will be in the big lounge room in back of the Italian Pub. It has tables and a stage and plenty of seating.

You'll probably like JC -- it's a throwback conservative town, probably 85% Republican. Nice scenery. It's a test market for restaurants, so we have way more fast food and casual dining places than you would expect in a city of 70,000. And the way it's laid out, it feels like a city half its size.

Looking forward to your AP critiques of my book club commentary! I'm just the facilitator and Q&A guy. Others will hold forth with their opinions and research. I'm sure your expertise will be appreciated!

I'll charter a private jet. I normally charge 30K for a public appearance fee. But since you have threatened the lives of myself and others and have shown spurts of irrational behavior in the past I will require a top notch security detail to and from Johnson Shitty. So a $75,000 public appearance fee will suffice. Let me know when you have the money escrowed with Druff.
09-01-2023, 08:50 PM
accountinquestion

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Summary -- and the reason I share this is I'm not betting the game -- if you put a gun to my head, I take TCU. I think Colorado's offensive line is probably overmatched. They are going to have a hard time. The key question will be an inexperienced TCU offensive line against a jumbled together front seven on defense for Colorado. Unknown what that will look like. Always hard to lay 20 opening week with a brand new offensive line. Some pundits are famously predicting TCU to hang a "half a hundred" on Colorado. Personally, I think it more likely that they shut Colorado down and have the QB running for his life all day, but if TCU goes bang-bang-bang first three or four possessions, yeah, the game could get out of hand and pinball-ish.

See how Redietz looks at the betting aspect shows you he isn't a serious bettor. "If you put a gun to my head". He should be giving spreads. Which side you bet depend on the line. That concept is out of his world.

I believe the guy is a true expert at college football (or nfl.) and he might even be good at picking sides against a spread. He does not however seem to have any clue about cash money betting.

He'll take TCU !!! TCU is like a 15 to 1 favorite. LMAO. GEE REDIETZ GENIUS PICK.

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP. WOW.

YOU PEOPLE WOW
09-01-2023, 09:03 PM
accountinquestion

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz;162290
[quote

And you are getting increasingly dishonest. Do I know any handicappers that can do 60%? Again -- LOL. For how long, mickey? For as long as the Computer Group did it? Well, yes I do know a few blokes who pulled that off for specific sports for, what was it, two and half years? You forget, man, I was there when Walters and The Computer Group were doing this. While they were having a helluva two-and-a-half-year run, so was I. Not as good as theirs, but pretty damned good. We were clearly overlapping mightily in college football. And yes, my years were published in "Tipsters or Gypsters?"

He never considers the fact that the lines were softer/weaker back then. These concepts go straight over Redietz's head. 60% then is not the 60% of today. No way but Redietz doesn't understand that. He attributes it to variance. And clearly variance matters. doh.

Quote:

You are so dishonest. Do I know any handicappers that hit 60%? First of all, you have only Mr. Walters' word that it was 60% and for how long in that book. He wasn't exactly monitored by outside parties. But, truth to tell, I believe they did manage that...for between two and three years.

So you know that you overlapped with Walters? How would you know that? because there are literally 2 sides and you'd overlap 50% flipping coins? LMAO He wasn't monitored but you knew his bets. I mean sure it is possible. It isn't much of a whopper but makes me go hmmm. You were his beard and placing your own bets? How'd you know what he bet?

P.S. where does Stanford recommend Ivertmectin. This is Kewl's surfboard bro.
09-02-2023, 06:20 AM
Half Smoke

.

I just took another look at Shack's tracking of NFL betting - see link
and he tracked over 3,000 games
he shows all way winning 53.10% with a postive r.o.i. of 1.36%
and all home winning just 46.90% with a negative r.o.i. of 10.28%

that's a really huge difference - kinna astonishing that a bettor would prolly likely win doing nothing other than betting all away - although a very small amount -

if this continues to hold up it means that the home teams are way, way over bet - and that does seem to make sense - ploppies believing that the home advantage is greater than it actually is

.
https://wizardofodds.com/games/sports-betting/nfl/
09-02-2023, 09:46 AM
mickeycrimm

Billy Walters gave some key stats in his book.

How often does the favorite win by the exact number of points it was favored:

1 = 3%
2 = 3%
3 = 8%
4 = 3%
5 = 3%
6 = 5%
7 = 6%
8 = 3%
9 = 2%
10 = 4%
11 = 2%
12= 2%
13 = 2%
14 = 5%
15 = 2%
16 = 3%
17 = 3%
18 = 3%
09-02-2023, 11:12 AM
Half Smoke

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

.
he shows all away winning 53.10% with a postive r.o.i. of 1.36%
and all home winning just 46.90% with a negative r.o.i. of 10.28%

kinna astonishing that a bettor would prolly likely win doing nothing other than betting all away

too late to edit
the post as stated was inaccurate
should have included "against the spread"
I hate when I make errors like that - but I do

.
09-02-2023, 01:36 PM
Rob.Singer

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

redietz,

Colorado +20.5 against TCU this saturday

Who do you like?

Impossible to play. TCU was stripped on offense and was likely overrated last year. This year's QB, however, was originally supposed to start all games until dinged, when Duggan, the previous two-year starter, regained his job. Colorado is completely revamped in terms of personnel, which is a plus (I guess), but really -- importing SWAC players is more mirage than boon. The TCU defense should shut them down, which leads to trying to anticipate when the substitutes come in...for both teams. There is a (strong) possibility TCU blasts their first three opponents by pinball scores. In fact, there is a chance they rampage through everybody until the @Texas Tech.

The great unknown is the rule changes, which -- due to the clock running -- are allegedly going to hack six to seven plays apiece off each team. Number one -- that's a lot of missing plays. Two -- those are formal estimates. My own reviewing of the process opening week strongly suggests more plays will be missing than formally projected.

So with all of these monster lines this week -- very, very tough to figure the effects of surgically removing all of these plays. I have my own suspicions about which brackets of spreads will be affected the most, but no sense sharing them with someone (and a general VCT audience) that's been demonstrating such little professional respect.

What tells you all you need to know about this VCT crew is that I win an NFL contest versus 1300 other people, which frankly nobody on here did last year, and which nobody here likely did ever, and I did not get a single kudo, which is unbelievable. I made many positive statements regarding Rob and Todd's handicapping last year. I win a contest versus 1300 people, and not one positive comment regarding it. Just nonsense about "tournaments mean nothing." It's pretty funny to have a bunch of anonymous bullshitters playing at being "APs," and somebody does the nigh impossible and gets zero acknowledgement. Very funny and so apropos VCT.

Hint: if you're not up on the rule changes and effects, take the college season off, because you do not know what you are doing.

Summary -- and the reason I share this is I'm not betting the game -- if you put a gun to my head, I take TCU. I think Colorado's offensive line is probably overmatched. They are going to have a hard time. The key question will be an inexperienced TCU offensive line against a jumbled together front seven on defense for Colorado. Unknown what that will look like. Always hard to lay 20 opening week with a brand new offensive line. Some pundits are famously predicting TCU to hang a "half a hundred" on Colorado. Personally, I think it more likely that they shut Colorado down and have the QB running for his life all day, but if TCU goes bang-bang-bang first three or four possessions, yeah, the game could get out of hand and pinball-ish.

I have to make forced choice decisions on this game for the Northbet contest anyway, so people will see who I took after the fact. Likely TCU, even though they are not nearly as good as last year's squad, which was not as good as they appeared. And I'm a TCU proponent, as they are the team I had at 100-1 when Cam Newton versus Oregon screwed their undefeated TCU asses out of a playoff game many moons ago.

I will probably be doing a podcast summarizing a game or two each week, sometimes before the game, sometimes regarding games after they've been played. It's more of a coaches' perspective than a handicapping show. Check YouTube in October to see if anything pops. Whether I do it depends partly on the SAG strike, as people who are off have downtime, which I will beg, hire, and steal to do the proposed show since I have never done my own podcast.

Have a good season. And yes, Rob, that includes you. I always root for the player.

Based on what I saw today, your analysis on the Colorado-TCU game was MILES away from what went down. Never bet against the coaching ability of Prime Time.

(The lowly GT guy had this one right.)
09-03-2023, 06:58 AM
redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

redietz,

Colorado +20.5 against TCU this saturday

Who do you like?

Impossible to play. TCU was stripped on offense and was likely overrated last year. This year's QB, however, was originally supposed to start all games until dinged, when Duggan, the previous two-year starter, regained his job. Colorado is completely revamped in terms of personnel, which is a plus (I guess), but really -- importing SWAC players is more mirage than boon. The TCU defense should shut them down, which leads to trying to anticipate when the substitutes come in...for both teams. There is a (strong) possibility TCU blasts their first three opponents by pinball scores. In fact, there is a chance they rampage through everybody until the @Texas Tech.

The great unknown is the rule changes, which -- due to the clock running -- are allegedly going to hack six to seven plays apiece off each team. Number one -- that's a lot of missing plays. Two -- those are formal estimates. My own reviewing of the process opening week strongly suggests more plays will be missing than formally projected.

So with all of these monster lines this week -- very, very tough to figure the effects of surgically removing all of these plays. I have my own suspicions about which brackets of spreads will be affected the most, but no sense sharing them with someone (and a general VCT audience) that's been demonstrating such little professional respect.

What tells you all you need to know about this VCT crew is that I win an NFL contest versus 1300 other people, which frankly nobody on here did last year, and which nobody here likely did ever, and I did not get a single kudo, which is unbelievable. I made many positive statements regarding Rob and Todd's handicapping last year. I win a contest versus 1300 people, and not one positive comment regarding it. Just nonsense about "tournaments mean nothing." It's pretty funny to have a bunch of anonymous bullshitters playing at being "APs," and somebody does the nigh impossible and gets zero acknowledgement. Very funny and so apropos VCT.

Hint: if you're not up on the rule changes and effects, take the college season off, because you do not know what you are doing.

Summary -- and the reason I share this is I'm not betting the game -- if you put a gun to my head, I take TCU. I think Colorado's offensive line is probably overmatched. They are going to have a hard time. The key question will be an inexperienced TCU offensive line against a jumbled together front seven on defense for Colorado. Unknown what that will look like. Always hard to lay 20 opening week with a brand new offensive line. Some pundits are famously predicting TCU to hang a "half a hundred" on Colorado. Personally, I think it more likely that they shut Colorado down and have the QB running for his life all day, but if TCU goes bang-bang-bang first three or four possessions, yeah, the game could get out of hand and pinball-ish.

I have to make forced choice decisions on this game for the Northbet contest anyway, so people will see who I took after the fact. Likely TCU, even though they are not nearly as good as last year's squad, which was not as good as they appeared. And I'm a TCU proponent, as they are the team I had at 100-1 when Cam Newton versus Oregon screwed their undefeated TCU asses out of a playoff game many moons ago.

I will probably be doing a podcast summarizing a game or two each week, sometimes before the game, sometimes regarding games after they've been played. It's more of a coaches' perspective than a handicapping show. Check YouTube in October to see if anything pops. Whether I do it depends partly on the SAG strike, as people who are off have downtime, which I will beg, hire, and steal to do the proposed show since I have never done my own podcast.

Have a good season. And yes, Rob, that includes you. I always root for the player.

Based on what I saw today, your analysis on the Colorado-TCU game was MILES away from what went down. Never bet against the coaching ability of Prime Time.

(The lowly GT guy had this one right.)

But don't ask me how I actually did betting, Rob. LOL.

I had seen Sanders play three or four games over his QB career. He was FABULOUS yesterday. Spectacular. He was damned near perfect, and they won by three. Too many safeties trying to play linebacker and too many linebackers trying to play safety on TCU. Football coaches will know what I mean.

I even like the way Sanders takes sacks. He makes quick decisions to get the hell down and not make a hero play, and he is aware when they are about to get to him every time.

Best game of the day. Best game I've seen in a while. Wyoming beating Texas Tech in the nightcap was something special, too. Did not think they could play from two scores down, but they did. Tremendous coaching.

I lost a miracle game yesterday. Had Army teased. I have not seen a service academy flat-out blow a game like that in decades. Cost me a lot of cash. I had Army -1 1/2 teased to Open and they were up 13-3 with ULM at their own 40 with five minutes left. Brutal loss. May make my all-time top 10 loss list.

BetOnline does a little promo ATS contest opening week. Not much money involved, but they pay the top 500 something out of what I assume are 10K or more entrants. I'm sitting tied for 51st after Day One. You have to force-choice all games and totals the rest of the schedule. I cannot believe I picked Under 40 for NW/Rutgers. I can still change it, but man, I have a hard time seeing these teams scoring against each other. But 40 in a college game? How many 40s do you ever see?
09-03-2023, 01:50 PM
AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Impossible to play. TCU was stripped on offense and was likely overrated last year. This year's QB, however, was originally supposed to start all games until dinged, when Duggan, the previous two-year starter, regained his job. Colorado is completely revamped in terms of personnel, which is a plus (I guess), but really -- importing SWAC players is more mirage than boon. The TCU defense should shut them down, which leads to trying to anticipate when the substitutes come in...for both teams. There is a (strong) possibility TCU blasts their first three opponents by pinball scores. In fact, there is a chance they rampage through everybody until the @Texas Tech.

The great unknown is the rule changes, which -- due to the clock running -- are allegedly going to hack six to seven plays apiece off each team. Number one -- that's a lot of missing plays. Two -- those are formal estimates. My own reviewing of the process opening week strongly suggests more plays will be missing than formally projected.

So with all of these monster lines this week -- very, very tough to figure the effects of surgically removing all of these plays. I have my own suspicions about which brackets of spreads will be affected the most, but no sense sharing them with someone (and a general VCT audience) that's been demonstrating such little professional respect.

What tells you all you need to know about this VCT crew is that I win an NFL contest versus 1300 other people, which frankly nobody on here did last year, and which nobody here likely did ever, and I did not get a single kudo, which is unbelievable. I made many positive statements regarding Rob and Todd's handicapping last year. I win a contest versus 1300 people, and not one positive comment regarding it. Just nonsense about "tournaments mean nothing." It's pretty funny to have a bunch of anonymous bullshitters playing at being "APs," and somebody does the nigh impossible and gets zero acknowledgement. Very funny and so apropos VCT.

Hint: if you're not up on the rule changes and effects, take the college season off, because you do not know what you are doing.

Summary -- and the reason I share this is I'm not betting the game -- if you put a gun to my head, I take TCU. I think Colorado's offensive line is probably overmatched. They are going to have a hard time. The key question will be an inexperienced TCU offensive line against a jumbled together front seven on defense for Colorado. Unknown what that will look like. Always hard to lay 20 opening week with a brand new offensive line. Some pundits are famously predicting TCU to hang a "half a hundred" on Colorado. Personally, I think it more likely that they shut Colorado down and have the QB running for his life all day, but if TCU goes bang-bang-bang first three or four possessions, yeah, the game could get out of hand and pinball-ish.

I have to make forced choice decisions on this game for the Northbet contest anyway, so people will see who I took after the fact. Likely TCU, even though they are not nearly as good as last year's squad, which was not as good as they appeared. And I'm a TCU proponent, as they are the team I had at 100-1 when Cam Newton versus Oregon screwed their undefeated TCU asses out of a playoff game many moons ago.

I will probably be doing a podcast summarizing a game or two each week, sometimes before the game, sometimes regarding games after they've been played. It's more of a coaches' perspective than a handicapping show. Check YouTube in October to see if anything pops. Whether I do it depends partly on the SAG strike, as people who are off have downtime, which I will beg, hire, and steal to do the proposed show since I have never done my own podcast.

Have a good season. And yes, Rob, that includes you. I always root for the player.

Based on what I saw today, your analysis on the Colorado-TCU game was MILES away from what went down. Never bet against the coaching ability of Prime Time.

(The lowly GT guy had this one right.)

But don't ask me how I actually did betting, Rob. LOL.

I had seen Sanders play three or four games over his QB career. He was FABULOUS yesterday. Spectacular. He was damned near perfect, and they won by three. Too many safeties trying to play linebacker and too many linebackers trying to play safety on TCU. Football coaches will know what I mean.

I even like the way Sanders takes sacks. He makes quick decisions to get the hell down and not make a hero play, and he is aware when they are about to get to him every time.

Best game of the day. Best game I've seen in a while. Wyoming beating Texas Tech in the nightcap was something special, too. Did not think they could play from two scores down, but they did. Tremendous coaching.

I lost a miracle game yesterday. Had Army teased. I have not seen a service academy flat-out blow a game like that in decades. Cost me a lot of cash. I had Army -1 1/2 teased to Open and they were up 13-3 with ULM at their own 40 with five minutes left. Brutal loss. May make my all-time top 10 loss list.

BetOnline does a little promo ATS contest opening week. Not much money involved, but they pay the top 500 something out of what I assume are 10K or more entrants. I'm sitting tied for 51st after Day One. You have to force-choice all games and totals the rest of the schedule. I cannot believe I picked Under 40 for NW/Rutgers. I can still change it, but man, I have a hard time seeing these teams scoring against each other. But 40 in a college game? How many 40s do you ever see?

Did you load up on this promotion?

Don’t forget, you can still pump up your bankroll for the start of the College Football season, and add up to $1,000 of house money.

Enter promo code BLITZ23
09-03-2023, 02:08 PM
redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Based on what I saw today, your analysis on the Colorado-TCU game was MILES away from what went down. Never bet against the coaching ability of Prime Time.

(The lowly GT guy had this one right.)

But don't ask me how I actually did betting, Rob. LOL.

I had seen Sanders play three or four games over his QB career. He was FABULOUS yesterday. Spectacular. He was damned near perfect, and they won by three. Too many safeties trying to play linebacker and too many linebackers trying to play safety on TCU. Football coaches will know what I mean.

I even like the way Sanders takes sacks. He makes quick decisions to get the hell down and not make a hero play, and he is aware when they are about to get to him every time.

Best game of the day. Best game I've seen in a while. Wyoming beating Texas Tech in the nightcap was something special, too. Did not think they could play from two scores down, but they did. Tremendous coaching.

I lost a miracle game yesterday. Had Army teased. I have not seen a service academy flat-out blow a game like that in decades. Cost me a lot of cash. I had Army -1 1/2 teased to Open and they were up 13-3 with ULM at their own 40 with five minutes left. Brutal loss. May make my all-time top 10 loss list.

BetOnline does a little promo ATS contest opening week. Not much money involved, but they pay the top 500 something out of what I assume are 10K or more entrants. I'm sitting tied for 51st after Day One. You have to force-choice all games and totals the rest of the schedule. I cannot believe I picked Under 40 for NW/Rutgers. I can still change it, but man, I have a hard time seeing these teams scoring against each other. But 40 in a college game? How many 40s do you ever see?

Did you load up on this promotion?

Don’t forget, you can still pump up your bankroll for the start of the College Football season, and add up to $1,000 of house money.

Enter promo code BLITZ23

Thanks, Axel. I saw the promotion. In fact, I have the schedule/promotion brochure right here. They're doing a free Mega-Contest. I think it's five NFL games per week ATS. You can't beat free. Looks decent. They pay a hundred spots and first is 10K. If you go 5-0 in a given week, you split $8300 with whoever else went 5-0. Unfortunately, that weekly prize split will be about twenty bucks.

As long as it doesn't interfere with your serious processes, I guess it's fine to waste the five minutes a week to do it.
09-03-2023, 04:47 PM
AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

But don't ask me how I actually did betting, Rob. LOL.

I had seen Sanders play three or four games over his QB career. He was FABULOUS yesterday. Spectacular. He was damned near perfect, and they won by three. Too many safeties trying to play linebacker and too many linebackers trying to play safety on TCU. Football coaches will know what I mean.

I even like the way Sanders takes sacks. He makes quick decisions to get the hell down and not make a hero play, and he is aware when they are about to get to him every time.

Best game of the day. Best game I've seen in a while. Wyoming beating Texas Tech in the nightcap was something special, too. Did not think they could play from two scores down, but they did. Tremendous coaching.

I lost a miracle game yesterday. Had Army teased. I have not seen a service academy flat-out blow a game like that in decades. Cost me a lot of cash. I had Army -1 1/2 teased to Open and they were up 13-3 with ULM at their own 40 with five minutes left. Brutal loss. May make my all-time top 10 loss list.

BetOnline does a little promo ATS contest opening week. Not much money involved, but they pay the top 500 something out of what I assume are 10K or more entrants. I'm sitting tied for 51st after Day One. You have to force-choice all games and totals the rest of the schedule. I cannot believe I picked Under 40 for NW/Rutgers. I can still change it, but man, I have a hard time seeing these teams scoring against each other. But 40 in a college game? How many 40s do you ever see?

Did you load up on this promotion?

Don’t forget, you can still pump up your bankroll for the start of the College Football season, and add up to $1,000 of house money.

Enter promo code BLITZ23

Thanks, Axel. I saw the promotion. In fact, I have the schedule/promotion brochure right here. They're doing a free Mega-Contest. I think it's five NFL games per week ATS. You can't beat free. Looks decent. They pay a hundred spots and first is 10K. If you go 5-0 in a given week, you split $8300 with whoever else went 5-0. Unfortunately, that weekly prize split will be about twenty bucks.

As long as it doesn't interfere with your serious processes, I guess it's fine to waste the five minutes a week to do it.

I don't know why it would interfere. If you have the ability to beat college football it's a free 1k doing the bonus. If one has the time, is into sports betting, and can simply break even, they can make a shiton. Seriously, what's the total EV of that contest? I can't imagine it's worth 1k in value.

I don't even understand why someone with the ability to beat college football would mess around with low -EV tournaments. Perhaps for fun, I get that, but I certainly wouldn't give up thousands in EV just for fun if it's related to something I do anyway. That's like saying there's a 2 to 1 blackjack promo going on where I can bet $500 2 on spot. Or I can go play a blackjack tournament with an EV of $300 and one choses that.
09-03-2023, 05:37 PM
AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

.

I just took another look at Shack's tracking of NFL betting - see link
and he tracked over 3,000 games
he shows all way winning 53.10% with a postive r.o.i. of 1.36%
and all home winning just 46.90% with a negative r.o.i. of 10.28%

that's a really huge difference - kinna astonishing that a bettor would prolly likely win doing nothing other than betting all away - although a very small amount -

if this continues to hold up it means that the home teams are way, way over bet - and that does seem to make sense - ploppies believing that the home advantage is greater than it actually is

.
https://wizardofodds.com/games/sports-betting/nfl/

Interesting. I assume this is based on -110 and the points. Where are the lines calculated at?
Is this based off the closing line?
09-03-2023, 06:52 PM
redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Did you load up on this promotion?

Don’t forget, you can still pump up your bankroll for the start of the College Football season, and add up to $1,000 of house money.

Enter promo code BLITZ23

Thanks, Axel. I saw the promotion. In fact, I have the schedule/promotion brochure right here. They're doing a free Mega-Contest. I think it's five NFL games per week ATS. You can't beat free. Looks decent. They pay a hundred spots and first is 10K. If you go 5-0 in a given week, you split $8300 with whoever else went 5-0. Unfortunately, that weekly prize split will be about twenty bucks.

As long as it doesn't interfere with your serious processes, I guess it's fine to waste the five minutes a week to do it.

I don't know why it would interfere. If you have the ability to beat college football it's a free 1k doing the bonus. If one has the time, is into sports betting, and can simply break even, they can make a shiton. Seriously, what's the total EV of that contest? I can't imagine it's worth 1k in value.

I don't even understand why someone with the ability to beat college football would mess around with low -EV tournaments. Perhaps for fun, I get that, but I certainly wouldn't give up thousands in EV just for fun if it's related to something I do anyway. That's like saying there's a 2 to 1 blackjack promo going on where I can bet $500 2 on spot. Or I can go play a blackjack tournament with an EV of $300 and one choses that.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Nothing wrong with picking up the bonus. It's not a "shit-ton" unless you're using multiple names and family members and all that, and frankly -- if an offshore discovers you're doing that -- they will just keep your money and thumb their nose at you. So I don't do any of that multiple nonsense.

You have odd sensibilities and interpretations of things. The reason I say "if it doesn't bother your processes" is because if you are a serious NFL handicapper and bettor (I really don't consider myself to be), then any distraction is a bad one. And contests can create bad habits. For example, an obvious one, most NFL ATS contests want you to pick five games a week ATS. That's a stupid arbitrary figure that has no bearing on the real gambling world. It can be a distraction to look at a schedule and in the back of your mind try to find five games. It's silly. And contests sometimes have deadlines that are not kickoff deadlines, so that's another distraction. If you are betting serious money, you don't need the distraction of small (or large) contests.

I would refer you to Fezzik about contest versus real world issues. Ask him if he was a "Groupie."

This bonus whoring stuff, nothing wrong with it, but sports books are within their rights to shut you down. And offshores, if you read the fine print, will keep your money on top of that if you pull stunts.

Nothing wrong with picking up $500 here and $3500 there (I'm doing it this season at two places), but it's not a "shit ton."
09-03-2023, 08:49 PM
AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Thanks, Axel. I saw the promotion. In fact, I have the schedule/promotion brochure right here. They're doing a free Mega-Contest. I think it's five NFL games per week ATS. You can't beat free. Looks decent. They pay a hundred spots and first is 10K. If you go 5-0 in a given week, you split $8300 with whoever else went 5-0. Unfortunately, that weekly prize split will be about twenty bucks.

As long as it doesn't interfere with your serious processes, I guess it's fine to waste the five minutes a week to do it.

I don't know why it would interfere. If you have the ability to beat college football it's a free 1k doing the bonus. If one has the time, is into sports betting, and can simply break even, they can make a shiton. Seriously, what's the total EV of that contest? I can't imagine it's worth 1k in value.

I don't even understand why someone with the ability to beat college football would mess around with low -EV tournaments. Perhaps for fun, I get that, but I certainly wouldn't give up thousands in EV just for fun if it's related to something I do anyway. That's like saying there's a 2 to 1 blackjack promo going on where I can bet $500 2 on spot. Or I can go play a blackjack tournament with an EV of $300 and one choses that.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Nothing wrong with picking up the bonus. It's not a "shit-ton" unless you're using multiple names and family members and all that, and frankly -- if an offshore discovers you're doing that -- they will just keep your money and thumb their nose at you. So I don't do any of that multiple nonsense.

You have odd sensibilities and interpretations of things. The reason I say "if it doesn't bother your processes" is because if you are a serious NFL handicapper and bettor (I really don't consider myself to be), then any distraction is a bad one. And contests can create bad habits. For example, an obvious one, most NFL ATS contests want you to pick five games a week ATS. That's a stupid arbitrary figure that has no bearing on the real gambling world. It can be a distraction to look at a schedule and in the back of your mind try to find five games. It's silly. And contests sometimes have deadlines that are not kickoff deadlines, so that's another distraction. If you are betting serious money, you don't need the distraction of small (or large) contests.

I would refer you to Fezzik about contest versus real world issues. Ask him if he was a "Groupie."

This bonus whoring stuff, nothing wrong with it, but sports books are within their rights to shut you down. And offshores, if you read the fine print, will keep your money on top of that if you pull stunts.

Nothing wrong with picking up $500 here and $3500 there (I'm doing it this season at two places), but it's not a "shit ton."

I don't disagree when you said multi-accounting can lead to bad things.
If done correctly you should not get caught.

Regardless, even without using OPA, I maintain that if one has the time, is into sports betting, and can simply break even, they can make a shiton.

They will offer cash bonuses(meaning no betting restrictions) of 50% for 10's thousands at one place alone. IIRC 1k max bets and a 12x roll.
Others offer thousands in 100% bonuses semi-frequently and there are multiple different places online. That's just the offshore places.

It's certainly possible someone who wins consistently will get cut off and possibly get their accounts shut down. However, there are plenty of ways to mask that.

Even just using bonus boosts and various small promotions for smaller bets on regulated books one could make 10's of thousands a year, just messing around. Obviously, you have to be in a state that has regulated sports betting.
09-04-2023, 02:23 AM
Half Smoke

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

.

I just took another look at Shack's tracking of NFL betting - see link
and he tracked over 3,000 games
he shows all way winning 53.10% with a postive r.o.i. of 1.36%
and all home winning just 46.90% with a negative r.o.i. of 10.28%

that's a really huge difference - kinna astonishing that a bettor would prolly likely win doing nothing other than betting all away - although a very small amount -

if this continues to hold up it means that the home teams are way, way over bet - and that does seem to make sense - ploppies believing that the home advantage is greater than it actually is

.
https://wizardofodds.com/games/sports-betting/nfl/

Interesting. I assume this is based on -110 and the points. Where are the lines calculated at?
Is this based off the closing line?

yes, it is based on -110 and the points

as far as where and how he got that line - you would have to PM him to get the answer to that

I am assuming it's a fair line - when I do stuff like this I use the line quoted by covers.com after the game is over which is I believe the most common line - I like covers.com - think they're the best at this kinna stuff

if you go to this link for the lines and click on "line history" they will show you the lines of 4 different books and you can choose the best one for your bet

https://www.covers.com/sports/nfl/matchups

.
09-04-2023, 07:47 AM
accountinquestion

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Nothing wrong with picking up the bonus. It's not a "shit-ton" unless you're using multiple names and family members and all that, and frankly -- if an offshore discovers you're doing that -- they will just keep your money and thumb their nose at you. So I don't do any of that multiple nonsense.

You have odd sensibilities and interpretations of things. The reason I say "if it doesn't bother your processes" is because if you are a serious NFL handicapper and bettor (I really don't consider myself to be), then any distraction is a bad one. And contests can create bad habits. For example, an obvious one, most NFL ATS contests want you to pick five games a week ATS. That's a stupid arbitrary figure that has no bearing on the real gambling world. It can be a distraction to look at a schedule and in the back of your mind try to find five games. It's silly. And contests sometimes have deadlines that are not kickoff deadlines, so that's another distraction. If you are betting serious money, you don't need the distraction of small (or large) contests.

I would refer you to Fezzik about contest versus real world issues. Ask him if he was a "Groupie."

This bonus whoring stuff, nothing wrong with it, but sports books are within their rights to shut you down. And offshores, if you read the fine print, will keep your money on top of that if you pull stunts.

Nothing wrong with picking up $500 here and $3500 there (I'm doing it this season at two places), but it's not a "shit ton."

I wonder if you had this same view of beards back when you were hanging out with all these gangsters and billy waters? You realize it is logically the same thing but one is for live sports betting and one is for online?

To me it reads like an admission you're not smart enough to not be caught. It is smart to realize that and not go lose your $$$. Kudos.

But most importantly I wanted to point out something here. Redietz complains about it taking up too much mental time to pick specifically 5 games. If he understood EV he could apply it here to make a simple criteria and not fret over the 5. But EV is a concept he ridicules even though he admits to not being a "serious NFL bettor".

He also seems to be admitting contests are not for serious bettors and an amateur thing. (which incidentally is the field he is playing against that he so readily brags about)

So tell us why it would be acceptable morally and ethically for Billy Waters to use a beard but if APs bet under other accounts it is all at once some great immoral unethical thing? Please tell us. Not another <crickets> moment I hope.

All in all this post shows a decent amount of progress for Redietz. Keep it up.
09-04-2023, 08:51 AM
redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Nothing wrong with picking up the bonus. It's not a "shit-ton" unless you're using multiple names and family members and all that, and frankly -- if an offshore discovers you're doing that -- they will just keep your money and thumb their nose at you. So I don't do any of that multiple nonsense.

You have odd sensibilities and interpretations of things. The reason I say "if it doesn't bother your processes" is because if you are a serious NFL handicapper and bettor (I really don't consider myself to be), then any distraction is a bad one. And contests can create bad habits. For example, an obvious one, most NFL ATS contests want you to pick five games a week ATS. That's a stupid arbitrary figure that has no bearing on the real gambling world. It can be a distraction to look at a schedule and in the back of your mind try to find five games. It's silly. And contests sometimes have deadlines that are not kickoff deadlines, so that's another distraction. If you are betting serious money, you don't need the distraction of small (or large) contests.

I would refer you to Fezzik about contest versus real world issues. Ask him if he was a "Groupie."

This bonus whoring stuff, nothing wrong with it, but sports books are within their rights to shut you down. And offshores, if you read the fine print, will keep your money on top of that if you pull stunts.

Nothing wrong with picking up $500 here and $3500 there (I'm doing it this season at two places), but it's not a "shit ton."

I wonder if you had this same view of beards back when you were hanging out with all these gangsters and billy waters? You realize it is logically the same thing but one is for live sports betting and one is for online?

To me it reads like an admission you're not smart enough to not be caught. It is smart to realize that and not go lose your $$$. Kudos.

But most importantly I wanted to point out something here. Redietz complains about it taking up too much mental time to pick specifically 5 games. If he understood EV he could apply it here to make a simple criteria and not fret over the 5. But EV is a concept he ridicules even though he admits to not being a "serious NFL bettor".

He also seems to be admitting contests are not for serious bettors and an amateur thing. (which incidentally is the field he is playing against that he so readily brags about)

So tell us why it would be acceptable morally and ethically for Billy Waters to use a beard but if APs bet under other accounts it is all at once some great immoral unethical thing? Please tell us. Not another <crickets> moment I hope.

All in all this post shows a decent amount of progress for Redietz. Keep it up.

Well, one thing about account -- it ain't hard to point out when he doesn't know what he's talking about. Per usual.

First of all, the use of beards in Las Vegas was only recently made formally "not acceptable." So the bulk of Mr. Walters' wagering using beards was done long before there were any formal casino and Gaming Commission rules against it.

Second, and more important, use of beards for the purposes of accruing bonuses deprives the people in whose names you are operating of the full value of the bonuses that are rightfully theirs. So you are sponging off other people and infringing on their ability to financially benefit from what is their right. If you are simply collecting bonuses for them and giving them those bonuses, then I salute you. I like Robin Hoods.

Third, employing beards, and paying those beards to make wagers for you that you have arrived at via your own skills or expertise, benefits the beards because it pays them (in Mr. Walters' case, pays them well). They would also not have access to the plays they are making except for the fact that they are beards. Mr. Walters is actually benefitting them in multiple ways. He isn't infringing on their ability to make money, and he isn't siphoning off any bonuses.

Fourth, for most of the time Mr. Walters was operating, the beards did not have to identify themselves to the sports books. It's not like they needed to give them players' cards most of the time. Technically, much of the time they were operating anonymously. Now I say "anonymously" because the ticket writers and managers knew who they were and who they were working for, but they didn't have to show ID or anything like that each time they wagered. Many of the runners wore enormous fanny pack type things and were visibly carrying.

Use of beards, in summary, for betting for Mr. Walters, benefitted the beards.

Use of beards for bonus whoring, as suggested by Axel and other alleged "APs," benefits the alleged "APs." In my opinion, it's both sleazy and exploitative, since the beards could make more money without the "APs."

The amazing thing to me is that account knows absolutely nothing about sports betting, the history of sports betting, beards, runners, or in general what he's talking about. But he seems intent on spreading his ignorance at every opportunity.

Anybody in sports betting knew everything I just wrote and knew it off the top of their heads. I can't seriously take time to address every idiot comment account makes. It's a waste of time.

I would love to know if he actually believes he knows what he's talking about.

To get a sense of what being a runner for Mr. Walters was about, I suggest a really bad (but gestalt-accurate) movie called The Runner, starring Courtney Cox and John Goodman. Goodman makes a fine Billy Walters. The movie's not Academy Award material, but it does give the sense of what kinds of pressures professional bettors in LV find themselves immersed in. I was there 100 days a year for more than 20 years, surrounded by and part of this.
09-04-2023, 10:07 AM
accountinquestion

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Nothing wrong with picking up the bonus. It's not a "shit-ton" unless you're using multiple names and family members and all that, and frankly -- if an offshore discovers you're doing that -- they will just keep your money and thumb their nose at you. So I don't do any of that multiple nonsense.

You have odd sensibilities and interpretations of things. The reason I say "if it doesn't bother your processes" is because if you are a serious NFL handicapper and bettor (I really don't consider myself to be), then any distraction is a bad one. And contests can create bad habits. For example, an obvious one, most NFL ATS contests want you to pick five games a week ATS. That's a stupid arbitrary figure that has no bearing on the real gambling world. It can be a distraction to look at a schedule and in the back of your mind try to find five games. It's silly. And contests sometimes have deadlines that are not kickoff deadlines, so that's another distraction. If you are betting serious money, you don't need the distraction of small (or large) contests.

I would refer you to Fezzik about contest versus real world issues. Ask him if he was a "Groupie."

This bonus whoring stuff, nothing wrong with it, but sports books are within their rights to shut you down. And offshores, if you read the fine print, will keep your money on top of that if you pull stunts.

Nothing wrong with picking up $500 here and $3500 there (I'm doing it this season at two places), but it's not a "shit ton."

I wonder if you had this same view of beards back when you were hanging out with all these gangsters and billy waters? You realize it is logically the same thing but one is for live sports betting and one is for online?

To me it reads like an admission you're not smart enough to not be caught. It is smart to realize that and not go lose your $$$. Kudos.

But most importantly I wanted to point out something here. Redietz complains about it taking up too much mental time to pick specifically 5 games. If he understood EV he could apply it here to make a simple criteria and not fret over the 5. But EV is a concept he ridicules even though he admits to not being a "serious NFL bettor".

He also seems to be admitting contests are not for serious bettors and an amateur thing. (which incidentally is the field he is playing against that he so readily brags about)

So tell us why it would be acceptable morally and ethically for Billy Waters to use a beard but if APs bet under other accounts it is all at once some great immoral unethical thing? Please tell us. Not another <crickets> moment I hope.

All in all this post shows a decent amount of progress for Redietz. Keep it up.

Well, one thing about account -- it ain't hard to point out when he doesn't know what he's talking about. Per usual.

First of all, the use of beards in Las Vegas was only recently made formally "not acceptable." So the bulk of Mr. Walters' wagering using beards was done long before there were any formal casino and Gaming Commission rules against it.

Second, and more important, use of beards for the purposes of accruing bonuses deprives the people in whose names you are operating of the full value of the bonuses that are rightfully theirs. So you are sponging off other people and infringing on their ability to financially benefit from what is their right. If you are simply collecting bonuses for them and giving them those bonuses, then I salute you. I like Robin Hoods.

Third, employing beards, and paying those beards to make wagers for you that you have arrived at via your own skills or expertise, benefits the beards because it pays them (in Mr. Walters' case, pays them well). They would also not have access to the plays they are making except for the fact that they are beards. Mr. Walters is actually benefitting them in multiple ways. He isn't infringing on their ability to make money, and he isn't siphoning off any bonuses.

Fourth, for most of the time Mr. Walters was operating, the beards did not have to identify themselves to the sports books. It's not like they needed to give them players' cards most of the time. Technically, much of the time they were operating anonymously. Now I say "anonymously" because the ticket writers and managers knew who they were and who they were working for, but they didn't have to show ID or anything like that each time they wagered. Many of the runners wore enormous fanny pack type things and were visibly carrying.

Use of beards, in summary, for betting for Mr. Walters, benefitted the beards.

Use of beards for bonus whoring, as suggested by Axel and other alleged "APs," benefits the alleged "APs." In my opinion, it's both sleazy and exploitative, since the beards could make more money without the "APs."

The amazing thing to me is that account knows absolutely nothing about sports betting, the history of sports betting, beards, runners, or in general what he's talking about. But he seems intent on spreading his ignorance at every opportunity.

Anybody in sports betting knew everything I just wrote and knew it off the top of their heads. I can't seriously take time to address every idiot comment account makes. It's a waste of time.

I would love to know if he actually believes he knows what he's talking about.

To get a sense of what being a runner for Mr. Walters was about, I suggest a really bad (but gestalt-accurate) movie called The Runner, starring Courtney Cox and John Goodman. Goodman makes a fine Billy Walters. The movie's not Academy Award material, but it does give the sense of what kinds of pressures professional bettors in LV find themselves immersed in. I was there 100 days a year for more than 20 years, surrounded by and part of this.

It is great how you can't point out what I am wrong about but you can proclaim how I don't know what i'm talking about.

The only thing that I don't really know is whether beards were limited back then.

The fact of the matter is beards were often used to circumvent betting limits imposed by the book. Now with computers it is done via a different mechanism.

Funny how Redietz now claims it isn't acceptable. Mr I knew gangsters scared of breaking a few rules. lmao. No wonder he thinks gangsters are cool. Clownworld.

No one is being deprives of bonuses if they're never using them. EVEN then it in no way implies they aren't paid. doh. Yet somehow Redietz knows they're not paid while knowing very little about that hustle.

Somehow old school beards were all legitimate because "they were carrying"..<scratches head> wait WHAT?!? clowny clown clown.

I believe I know what I'm talking about, yes. You never ever demonstrate otherwise outside of the chest-beating proclamations of an incredibly insecure person

The weirdest low to middling IQ thing that Rediests insists on stating is how everyone who beards for bettors online would somehow find their way to being a profitable sports bettor. It is such a stupid-ass thing to say. Dumb as fuck. Literally.

Not only that I have heard of a bettor who is a very serious guy talk about how he does it. It isn't near as different from Redietz discussed. This guy is a additional layer of middleman in the scheme but it is the same ol same ol. He gets bettors by going around home games in LV and elsewhere. Hammers books. Basically operates both sides. This person has survived LV for 10+ years. I don't personally like the man but I have no doubt he is isn't very successful at what he does. I've only played with him in HL rooms in LV though. No chance Redietz and his low limit NL tournament bullshit would ever meet people like that in the wild (so to speak). Living on old memories that might very well be kewl style. Thats his style. lololol
09-04-2023, 11:50 AM
redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

I wonder if you had this same view of beards back when you were hanging out with all these gangsters and billy waters? You realize it is logically the same thing but one is for live sports betting and one is for online?

To me it reads like an admission you're not smart enough to not be caught. It is smart to realize that and not go lose your $$$. Kudos.

But most importantly I wanted to point out something here. Redietz complains about it taking up too much mental time to pick specifically 5 games. If he understood EV he could apply it here to make a simple criteria and not fret over the 5. But EV is a concept he ridicules even though he admits to not being a "serious NFL bettor".

He also seems to be admitting contests are not for serious bettors and an amateur thing. (which incidentally is the field he is playing against that he so readily brags about)

So tell us why it would be acceptable morally and ethically for Billy Waters to use a beard but if APs bet under other accounts it is all at once some great immoral unethical thing? Please tell us. Not another <crickets> moment I hope.

All in all this post shows a decent amount of progress for Redietz. Keep it up.

Well, one thing about account -- it ain't hard to point out when he doesn't know what he's talking about. Per usual.

First of all, the use of beards in Las Vegas was only recently made formally "not acceptable." So the bulk of Mr. Walters' wagering using beards was done long before there were any formal casino and Gaming Commission rules against it.

Second, and more important, use of beards for the purposes of accruing bonuses deprives the people in whose names you are operating of the full value of the bonuses that are rightfully theirs. So you are sponging off other people and infringing on their ability to financially benefit from what is their right. If you are simply collecting bonuses for them and giving them those bonuses, then I salute you. I like Robin Hoods.

Third, employing beards, and paying those beards to make wagers for you that you have arrived at via your own skills or expertise, benefits the beards because it pays them (in Mr. Walters' case, pays them well). They would also not have access to the plays they are making except for the fact that they are beards. Mr. Walters is actually benefitting them in multiple ways. He isn't infringing on their ability to make money, and he isn't siphoning off any bonuses.

Fourth, for most of the time Mr. Walters was operating, the beards did not have to identify themselves to the sports books. It's not like they needed to give them players' cards most of the time. Technically, much of the time they were operating anonymously. Now I say "anonymously" because the ticket writers and managers knew who they were and who they were working for, but they didn't have to show ID or anything like that each time they wagered. Many of the runners wore enormous fanny pack type things and were visibly carrying.

Use of beards, in summary, for betting for Mr. Walters, benefitted the beards.

Use of beards for bonus whoring, as suggested by Axel and other alleged "APs," benefits the alleged "APs." In my opinion, it's both sleazy and exploitative, since the beards could make more money without the "APs."

The amazing thing to me is that account knows absolutely nothing about sports betting, the history of sports betting, beards, runners, or in general what he's talking about. But he seems intent on spreading his ignorance at every opportunity.

Anybody in sports betting knew everything I just wrote and knew it off the top of their heads. I can't seriously take time to address every idiot comment account makes. It's a waste of time.

I would love to know if he actually believes he knows what he's talking about.

To get a sense of what being a runner for Mr. Walters was about, I suggest a really bad (but gestalt-accurate) movie called The Runner, starring Courtney Cox and John Goodman. Goodman makes a fine Billy Walters. The movie's not Academy Award material, but it does give the sense of what kinds of pressures professional bettors in LV find themselves immersed in. I was there 100 days a year for more than 20 years, surrounded by and part of this.

It is great how you can't point out what I am wrong about but you can proclaim how I don't know what i'm talking about.

The only thing that I don't really know is whether beards were limited back then.

The fact of the matter is beards were often used to circumvent betting limits imposed by the book. Now with computers it is done via a different mechanism.

Funny how Redietz now claims it isn't acceptable. Mr I knew gangsters scared of breaking a few rules. lmao. No wonder he thinks gangsters are cool. Clownworld.

No one is being deprives of bonuses if they're never using them. EVEN then it in no way implies they aren't paid. doh. Yet somehow Redietz knows they're not paid while knowing very little about that hustle.

Somehow old school beards were all legitimate because "they were carrying"..<scratches head> wait WHAT?!? clowny clown clown.

I believe I know what I'm talking about, yes. You never ever demonstrate otherwise outside of the chest-beating proclamations of an incredibly insecure person

The weirdest low to middling IQ thing that Rediests insists on stating is how everyone who beards for bettors online would somehow find their way to being a profitable sports bettor. It is such a stupid-ass thing to say. Dumb as fuck. Literally.

Not only that I have heard of a bettor who is a very serious guy talk about how he does it. It isn't near as different from Redietz discussed. This guy is a additional layer of middleman in the scheme but it is the same ol same ol. He gets bettors by going around home games in LV and elsewhere. Hammers books. Basically operates both sides. This person has survived LV for 10+ years. I don't personally like the man but I have no doubt he is isn't very successful at what he does. I've only played with him in HL rooms in LV though. No chance Redietz and his low limit NL tournament bullshit would ever meet people like that in the wild (so to speak). Living on old memories that might very well be kewl style. Thats his style. lololol

"No one is being deprived of bonuses if they're never using them."

What sleazy scamming nonsense. Has it ever occurred to you to explain to them how to do it? What are they -- deaf, dumb, and blind?

Like nobody wants free money. Or is smart enough to do grade school betting to process the bonuses.

All hail the "APs." They're just taking money nobody else wants or is smart enough to roll over.

Disturbing sleazy nonsense.
09-04-2023, 12:49 PM
accountinquestion

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Well, one thing about account -- it ain't hard to point out when he doesn't know what he's talking about. Per usual.

First of all, the use of beards in Las Vegas was only recently made formally "not acceptable." So the bulk of Mr. Walters' wagering using beards was done long before there were any formal casino and Gaming Commission rules against it.

Second, and more important, use of beards for the purposes of accruing bonuses deprives the people in whose names you are operating of the full value of the bonuses that are rightfully theirs. So you are sponging off other people and infringing on their ability to financially benefit from what is their right. If you are simply collecting bonuses for them and giving them those bonuses, then I salute you. I like Robin Hoods.

Third, employing beards, and paying those beards to make wagers for you that you have arrived at via your own skills or expertise, benefits the beards because it pays them (in Mr. Walters' case, pays them well). They would also not have access to the plays they are making except for the fact that they are beards. Mr. Walters is actually benefitting them in multiple ways. He isn't infringing on their ability to make money, and he isn't siphoning off any bonuses.

Fourth, for most of the time Mr. Walters was operating, the beards did not have to identify themselves to the sports books. It's not like they needed to give them players' cards most of the time. Technically, much of the time they were operating anonymously. Now I say "anonymously" because the ticket writers and managers knew who they were and who they were working for, but they didn't have to show ID or anything like that each time they wagered. Many of the runners wore enormous fanny pack type things and were visibly carrying.

Use of beards, in summary, for betting for Mr. Walters, benefitted the beards.

Use of beards for bonus whoring, as suggested by Axel and other alleged "APs," benefits the alleged "APs." In my opinion, it's both sleazy and exploitative, since the beards could make more money without the "APs."

The amazing thing to me is that account knows absolutely nothing about sports betting, the history of sports betting, beards, runners, or in general what he's talking about. But he seems intent on spreading his ignorance at every opportunity.

Anybody in sports betting knew everything I just wrote and knew it off the top of their heads. I can't seriously take time to address every idiot comment account makes. It's a waste of time.

I would love to know if he actually believes he knows what he's talking about.

To get a sense of what being a runner for Mr. Walters was about, I suggest a really bad (but gestalt-accurate) movie called The Runner, starring Courtney Cox and John Goodman. Goodman makes a fine Billy Walters. The movie's not Academy Award material, but it does give the sense of what kinds of pressures professional bettors in LV find themselves immersed in. I was there 100 days a year for more than 20 years, surrounded by and part of this.

It is great how you can't point out what I am wrong about but you can proclaim how I don't know what i'm talking about.

The only thing that I don't really know is whether beards were limited back then.

The fact of the matter is beards were often used to circumvent betting limits imposed by the book. Now with computers it is done via a different mechanism.

Funny how Redietz now claims it isn't acceptable. Mr I knew gangsters scared of breaking a few rules. lmao. No wonder he thinks gangsters are cool. Clownworld.

No one is being deprives of bonuses if they're never using them. EVEN then it in no way implies they aren't paid. doh. Yet somehow Redietz knows they're not paid while knowing very little about that hustle.

Somehow old school beards were all legitimate because "they were carrying"..<scratches head> wait WHAT?!? clowny clown clown.

I believe I know what I'm talking about, yes. You never ever demonstrate otherwise outside of the chest-beating proclamations of an incredibly insecure person

The weirdest low to middling IQ thing that Rediests insists on stating is how everyone who beards for bettors online would somehow find their way to being a profitable sports bettor. It is such a stupid-ass thing to say. Dumb as fuck. Literally.

Not only that I have heard of a bettor who is a very serious guy talk about how he does it. It isn't near as different from Redietz discussed. This guy is a additional layer of middleman in the scheme but it is the same ol same ol. He gets bettors by going around home games in LV and elsewhere. Hammers books. Basically operates both sides. This person has survived LV for 10+ years. I don't personally like the man but I have no doubt he is isn't very successful at what he does. I've only played with him in HL rooms in LV though. No chance Redietz and his low limit NL tournament bullshit would ever meet people like that in the wild (so to speak). Living on old memories that might very well be kewl style. Thats his style. lololol

"No one is being deprived of bonuses if they're never using them."

What sleazy scamming nonsense. Has it ever occurred to you to explain to them how to do it? What are they -- deaf, dumb, and blind?

Like nobody wants free money. Or is smart enough to do grade school betting to process the bonuses.

All hail the "APs." They're just taking money nobody else wants or is smart enough to roll over.

Disturbing sleazy nonsense.

"Sleazy". I'd love to aee you try to explain how people investing in you vs teaching them is morally different. You've clearly never tried to teach non-gamblers gambling. You seem to not even consider the time involved for likely failure. There is also little incentive. Goddam you're one insecure dumbass.

What if they have no interest in learning like the vast majority of people?. Man you are stupid. Literally a moron.

I see why you can't pay 500 Tax bill. Too busy teaching people how to handicap and win $$.

"Scammer" lolol projection.
09-04-2023, 09:24 PM
AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Nothing wrong with picking up the bonus. It's not a "shit-ton" unless you're using multiple names and family members and all that, and frankly -- if an offshore discovers you're doing that -- they will just keep your money and thumb their nose at you. So I don't do any of that multiple nonsense.

You have odd sensibilities and interpretations of things. The reason I say "if it doesn't bother your processes" is because if you are a serious NFL handicapper and bettor (I really don't consider myself to be), then any distraction is a bad one. And contests can create bad habits. For example, an obvious one, most NFL ATS contests want you to pick five games a week ATS. That's a stupid arbitrary figure that has no bearing on the real gambling world. It can be a distraction to look at a schedule and in the back of your mind try to find five games. It's silly. And contests sometimes have deadlines that are not kickoff deadlines, so that's another distraction. If you are betting serious money, you don't need the distraction of small (or large) contests.

I would refer you to Fezzik about contest versus real world issues. Ask him if he was a "Groupie."

This bonus whoring stuff, nothing wrong with it, but sports books are within their rights to shut you down. And offshores, if you read the fine print, will keep your money on top of that if you pull stunts.

Nothing wrong with picking up $500 here and $3500 there (I'm doing it this season at two places), but it's not a "shit ton."

I wonder if you had this same view of beards back when you were hanging out with all these gangsters and billy waters? You realize it is logically the same thing but one is for live sports betting and one is for online?

To me it reads like an admission you're not smart enough to not be caught. It is smart to realize that and not go lose your $$$. Kudos.

But most importantly I wanted to point out something here. Redietz complains about it taking up too much mental time to pick specifically 5 games. If he understood EV he could apply it here to make a simple criteria and not fret over the 5. But EV is a concept he ridicules even though he admits to not being a "serious NFL bettor".

He also seems to be admitting contests are not for serious bettors and an amateur thing. (which incidentally is the field he is playing against that he so readily brags about)

So tell us why it would be acceptable morally and ethically for Billy Waters to use a beard but if APs bet under other accounts it is all at once some great immoral unethical thing? Please tell us. Not another <crickets> moment I hope.

All in all this post shows a decent amount of progress for Redietz. Keep it up.

First of all, the use of beards in Las Vegas was only recently made formally "not acceptable." So the bulk of Mr. Walters' wagering using beards was done long before there were any formal casino and Gaming Commission rules against it.

I'm certainly no expert but I don't believe this is accurate. From my understanding, it was illegal going back to at least the early 90's. Walters was using runners up until 2007 give or take 5 years?

Either way, I'm surprised you didn't mention this, but I believe there are various ways to legally incorporate as a business and or have people on a percentage, thus making sports bet running legal. He was probably set up as a sports business before he even considered the legalities of runners.
09-05-2023, 08:04 AM
smurgerburger

Believe it or not there are people in this world who have neither the funds nor the inclination to spend thousands of dollars on longshot parlays.
09-05-2023, 08:21 AM
AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

Believe it or not there are people in this world who have neither the funds nor the inclination to spend thousands of dollars on longshot parlays.

You don't need longshot parlays to get some good value out of bonuses. But yeah, some people don't like any risk.
Even if you tell them that they could lock up money hedging off they just aren't interested.
09-05-2023, 08:36 AM
mcap

Came across an interesting line that’s a preview to an article Per Jack Andrews of Unabated about pick ‘em contests: “the biggest misnomer in these contests is they are a test of your handicapping ability. They’re not.”

Cue the condescending post from red man.
09-05-2023, 08:39 AM
smurgerburger

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcap

Came across an interesting line that’s a preview to an article Per Jack Andrews of Unabated about pick ‘em contests: “the biggest misnomer in these contests is they are a test of your handicapping ability. They’re not.”

Cue the condescending post from red man.

Ouch, that should have come with a trigger warning.
09-05-2023, 09:13 AM
Gottlob1

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcap

Came across an interesting line that’s a preview to an article Per Jack Andrews of Unabated about pick ‘em contests: “the biggest misnomer in these contests is they are a test of your handicapping ability. They’re not.”

Cue the condescending post from red man.

Gamblers, whichever, and as a whole, are sleazy. They constantly "shit" on each other, and themselves. Just look at the thus forums. Even the passive aggressive stuff at the Wizard's. A "contest of contests" (in each other's head), with nothing to truly build on. Ha.
09-05-2023, 09:24 AM
MisterV

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gottlob1

Gamblers, whichever, and as a whole, are sleazy. They constantly "shit" on each other, and themselves. Just look at the thus forums. Even the passive aggressive stuff at the Wizard's. A "contest of contests" (in each other's head), with nothing to truly build on. Ha.

The characteristics you describe are commonly found across social media, not just related to gambling.

The anonymity and freedom from repercussions allows us to shed civility for aggression.

It's in our nature, eh?
09-05-2023, 09:48 AM
Don Perignom

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Even if you tell them that they could lock up money hedging off they just aren't interested.

All the motivated people are friends or relatives of Dietz.
09-05-2023, 10:03 AM
redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

I wonder if you had this same view of beards back when you were hanging out with all these gangsters and billy waters? You realize it is logically the same thing but one is for live sports betting and one is for online?

To me it reads like an admission you're not smart enough to not be caught. It is smart to realize that and not go lose your $$$. Kudos.

But most importantly I wanted to point out something here. Redietz complains about it taking up too much mental time to pick specifically 5 games. If he understood EV he could apply it here to make a simple criteria and not fret over the 5. But EV is a concept he ridicules even though he admits to not being a "serious NFL bettor".

He also seems to be admitting contests are not for serious bettors and an amateur thing. (which incidentally is the field he is playing against that he so readily brags about)

So tell us why it would be acceptable morally and ethically for Billy Waters to use a beard but if APs bet under other accounts it is all at once some great immoral unethical thing? Please tell us. Not another <crickets> moment I hope.

All in all this post shows a decent amount of progress for Redietz. Keep it up.

First of all, the use of beards in Las Vegas was only recently made formally "not acceptable." So the bulk of Mr. Walters' wagering using beards was done long before there were any formal casino and Gaming Commission rules against it.

I'm certainly no expert but I don't believe this is accurate. From my understanding, it was illegal going back to at least the early 90's. Walters was using runners up until 2007 give or take 5 years?

Either way, I'm surprised you didn't mention this, but I believe there are various ways to legally incorporate as a business and or have people on a percentage, thus making sports bet running legal. He was probably set up as a sports business before he even considered the legalities of runners.

First of all, not the early 90's. Second, "legality" is a stretch of a term. When dealing with the Gaming Commission and casinos, there are regulations and then there are laws. There are (at least) three different levels of what the casinos try to sell as "legalities," but I defer to regnis and those better schooled in the continuum of policies, regulations, and legalities. A casino can have a policy that shuts you down. They can waive that policy whenever they like. They can have Commission-backed regulations that render what you do "illegal," but they can look the other way if they choose, with the usual "what the Commission doesn't know doesn't count, and since we own the Commission...." And then there are laws, which, given Las Vegas' split jurisdictions, create further complications if the jurisdictions don't feel like agreeing.

To put things in a "legal" context, there were people in the Black Book who had access to certain casinos in the 90's. Maybe they still do. I don't know because I'm not there. But I can vouch for the 90's. Not only that, a certain casino had nice convenient places for them to stay within walking distance.

Frankly, Axelwolf, I'm surprised you don't know this. Stunned is a better word.

The LLCs are recent (and have mostly failed miserably), so no -- the LLCs being legal do not overlap most of Mr. Walters' use of runners. Most runners were paid cash wages. Substantial cash wages. The LLCs are about a decade old.

To say Mr. Walters "used runners" is a bit of an oversimplification. With Mr. Walters, because of his net worth and influence, you never really know where Mr. Walters ends and the sports books begin. There isn't necessarily a clear delineation. Mr. Walters is a very smart man. Reminds me of J.R. Ewing.

Axelwolf, really, if you don't know this stuff off the top of your head, you are sadly underinformed.
09-05-2023, 10:20 AM
accountinquestion

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcap

Came across an interesting line that’s a preview to an article Per Jack Andrews of Unabated about pick ‘em contests: “the biggest misnomer in these contests is they are a test of your handicapping ability. They’re not.”

Cue the condescending post from red man.

The interesting thing to me is so lets say you just use some methodical approach where you pick off the best perceived value but your method is shared by others. Wouldn't that mean your picks likely overlap the picks of others?

You don't want to split first place 10 ways or what have you. It seems like it might be similar to these draftkings contests. blackjack tournaments are not analogous because you choose the wager size which would not be the typical sports pick'em contest.

Curious if anyone knows any resources that could be useful. No blogs by busters, please. It is one of those niche things with such little money my interest was never piqued.
09-05-2023, 10:24 AM
accountinquestion

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

I can vouch for the 90's. ...

Mr. Walters is a very smart man. Reminds me of J.R. Ewing.

Axelwolf, really, if you don't know this stuff off the top of your head, you are sadly underinformed.

Bro! Both J. R. Ewing and Magnum P.I. are BOTH from the 80s not the 90s.
09-05-2023, 10:28 AM
MaxPen

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

First of all, the use of beards in Las Vegas was only recently made formally "not acceptable." So the bulk of Mr. Walters' wagering using beards was done long before there were any formal casino and Gaming Commission rules against it.

I'm certainly no expert but I don't believe this is accurate. From my understanding, it was illegal going back to at least the early 90's. Walters was using runners up until 2007 give or take 5 years?

Either way, I'm surprised you didn't mention this, but I believe there are various ways to legally incorporate as a business and or have people on a percentage, thus making sports bet running legal. He was probably set up as a sports business before he even considered the legalities of runners.

First of all, not the early 90's. Second, "legality" is a stretch of a term. When dealing with the Gaming Commission and casinos, there are regulations and then there are laws. There are (at least) three different levels of what the casinos try to sell as "legalities," but I defer to regnis and those better schooled in the continuum of policies, regulations, and legalities. A casino can have a policy that shuts you down. They can waive that policy whenever they like. They can have Commission-backed regulations that render what you do "illegal," but they can look the other way if they choose, with the usual "what the Commission doesn't know doesn't count, and since we own the Commission...." And then there are laws, which, given Las Vegas' split jurisdictions, create further complications if the jurisdictions don't feel like agreeing.

To put things in a "legal" context, there were people in the Black Book who had access to certain casinos in the 90's. Maybe they still do. I don't know because I'm not there. But I can vouch for the 90's. Not only that, a certain casino had nice convenient places for them to stay within walking distance.

Frankly, Axelwolf, I'm surprised you don't know this. Stunned is a better word.

The LLCs are recent (and have mostly failed miserably), so no -- the LLCs being legal do not overlap most of Mr. Walters' use of runners. Most runners were paid cash wages. Substantial cash wages. The LLCs are about a decade old.

To say Mr. Walters "used runners" is a bit of an oversimplification. With Mr. Walters, because of his net worth and influence, you never really know where Mr. Walters ends and the sports books begin. There isn't necessarily a clear delineation. Mr. Walters is a very smart man. Reminds me of J.R. Ewing.

Axelwolf, really, if you don't know this stuff off the top of your head, you are sadly underinformed.

If all you get for knowing any of this stuff is living in a shack in bumfuck Tennessee with an unpaid tax bill I will pass.....RIP:)
09-05-2023, 11:02 AM
Gottlob1

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterV

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gottlob1

Gamblers, whichever, and as a whole, are sleazy. They constantly "shit" on each other, and themselves. Just look at the thus forums. Even the passive aggressive stuff at the Wizard's. A "contest of contests" (in each other's head), with nothing to truly build on. Ha.

The characteristics you describe are commonly found across social media, not just related to gambling.

The anonymity and freedom from repercussions allows us to shed civility for aggression.

It's in our nature, eh?

At least with social media, people tend to know each other, to begin, can get something out of it, and, maybe, not so much about shoptalk. Here it amounts to a bunch of retards, conspiracy theorists, and doomsdayers, spouting gratuitous insults instead of support their own, for the most part, outrageous gambling claims. Certainly, no objective independent evidence. It's all anecdotal, hearsay, and innuendo. Most gamblers don't even (otherwise) admit to what they do, let alone have it put in their obituaries.
09-05-2023, 05:32 PM
AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

First of all, the use of beards in Las Vegas was only recently made formally "not acceptable." So the bulk of Mr. Walters' wagering using beards was done long before there were any formal casino and Gaming Commission rules against it.

I'm certainly no expert but I don't believe this is accurate. From my understanding, it was illegal going back to at least the early 90's. Walters was using runners up until 2007 give or take 5 years?

Either way, I'm surprised you didn't mention this, but I believe there are various ways to legally incorporate as a business and or have people on a percentage, thus making sports bet running legal. He was probably set up as a sports business before he even considered the legalities of runners.

First of all, not the early 90's. Second, "legality" is a stretch of a term. When dealing with the Gaming Commission and casinos, there are regulations and then there are laws. There are (at least) three different levels of what the casinos try to sell as "legalities," but I defer to regnis and those better schooled in the continuum of policies, regulations, and legalities. A casino can have a policy that shuts you down. They can waive that policy whenever they like. They can have Commission-backed regulations that render what you do "illegal," but they can look the other way if they choose, with the usual "what the Commission doesn't know doesn't count, and since we own the Commission...." And then there are laws, which, given Las Vegas' split jurisdictions, create further complications if the jurisdictions don't feel like agreeing.

To put things in a "legal" context, there were people in the Black Book who had access to certain casinos in the 90's. Maybe they still do. I don't know because I'm not there. But I can vouch for the 90's. Not only that, a certain casino had nice convenient places for them to stay within walking distance.

Frankly, Axelwolf, I'm surprised you don't know this. Stunned is a better word.

The LLCs are recent (and have mostly failed miserably), so no -- the LLCs being legal do not overlap most of Mr. Walters' use of runners. Most runners were paid cash wages. Substantial cash wages. The LLCs are about a decade old.

To say Mr. Walters "used runners" is a bit of an oversimplification. With Mr. Walters, because of his net worth and influence, you never really know where Mr. Walters ends and the sports books begin. There isn't necessarily a clear delineation. Mr. Walters is a very smart man. Reminds me of J.R. Ewing.

Axelwolf, really, if you don't know this stuff off the top of your head, you are sadly underinformed.

First off, I was not even old enough to gamble in part of the 90's. When I started gambling for a living, I quickly learned a fair amount, some firsthand having to deal with NGC, the police, and attorneys multiple times in a short period of time. I absolutely know there's a big difference between casino rules and actual laws.

Obviously, different states have different laws. I'm talking about Nevada. I just want to be clear Are you saying that it wasn't illegal to use or be a runner in the 90's? I do not know for certain, I only know what I believe to be the case.

2nd question. Prior to. let's say 2007. Are you claiming prior to Walters didn't have something like an LCC or business model set in place that could've circumvented possible laws regarding running? If so, I'll have to disagree with that. I don't have time to research now but I'm certain I can find something on the subject.
09-05-2023, 09:41 PM
AxelWolf

Related to Billy Walters.... "armed with records detailing how the gambling operation was set up legitimately through a limited liability corporation. The move surprised and impressed authorities, as did the fact that a former Vegas detective was overseeing the group's security arm. "They had one of the biggest law firms in the city set up their entire corporation and their books," says Brian Rutledge, Clark County's chief deputy district attorney. "It was scrupulously set up to be in compliance with all the gaming regulations. They were better set up legally than your average business, let's put it that way."

https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/st...versial-bettor
09-05-2023, 09:41 PM
AxelWolf

--------
09-06-2023, 12:39 AM
accountinquestion

Quote:

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

--------

give me a b?
yes 1 b
give me a l?
yes 2 l's
give me a t?
yes 1 t

b-ll---t

hmmm

give me a d?
bzzzt

oh well I give up.

The best thing about Redietz is this condescension he insists on while simultaneously being relatively clueless about the subject. I have to wonder how this guy is in real life. He seems completely insufferable on this forum. It is near impossible for him to be like this in real life.

I'm not even sure why he posts on here and he doesn't seem to have a positive time. I guess he gets his name out there?

Hasn't he had a camera crew following him around for a few years now?

Where's the beef?
09-06-2023, 04:18 PM
mickeycrimm

When a beard gets backed off they are shit out of luck but Mr. Walters just goes and finds another beard.
09-06-2023, 06:18 PM
accountinquestion

Redietz is off cricket farming it appears.
09-06-2023, 06:52 PM
AxelWolf

So far I have 4,000 down on the first week using Halfsmokes all dog's first 2 weeks of the NFL season method. I'm using all 100% bonuses(that's my average 50% - 150%) I ran out of funds with bonuses on my offshore accounts due to some larger hedge bets I have been making in B&M Casinos. I have good reasons to hedge.

I'll probably jam some more money in with bonuses and toss it at the method above. I don't want to go balls to the wall slamming this big with bonuses, because bonuses come with wagering requirements. In order to maximize the value you need to find value bets and that's time-consuming. There's value regardless doing it half-assed, however, I feel guilty giving up so much value doing it that way. It just doesn't make sense to get $200-$400 in value on something that has $1,000-$2,000 in value.
09-06-2023, 07:04 PM
AxelWolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

When a beard gets backed off they are shit out of luck but Mr. Walters just goes and finds another beard.

I have been offered to run for bigger sports bettors, but it's really not worthwhile IMO. I have "ran" but, I had action so that's not the same. I have had people place bets for me on Super Bowl props for years.
09-07-2023, 03:04 AM
Half Smoke

.

from the article_____________it ain't easy________________52.4% ats winners will about break you even - (NFL)

"For context, among the 385 so-called experts tracked by Pickwatch last season, only 34 were correct on better than 52 percent of their against-the-spread recommendations picking all the games last season."

I guess they woulda done better on their best bets__________I dunno__________I would bet that way less than half showed a profit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...t-bets-week-1/
09-07-2023, 05:59 AM
redietz

Of course I'm referring to Las Vegas and Nevada.

Policies can be lifted for whomever a casino wants.
Regulations can be avoided for whomever a casino wants, unless leaked by an employee playing hall monitor, in which case the employee had best seek employment out of state.
Laws can be local as opposed to state, in which case Las Vegas has split jurisdictions, so one jurisdiction could play/leverage the other.

Do I believe MDawg won 50 out of 52 baccarat sessions? Well, no I don't. But one reason I don't hassle MDawg about his photos of chips or tales of cashing this and that is because if MDawg plays at the reported levels, which seems pretty certain, then whatever you quote as "policies" or "regulations" can and will be circumvented. If MDawg requested someone do something that isn't SOP, I'm sure casinos would bend over backwards to, as Jean-Luc Picard says, "make it so."

I have a hard time buying that "APs" operate in Las Vegas for decades and don't absolutely know these things.

I was challenged by some VCT idiots on a "policies" issue a few years back when I reported that I was paid for a large sports book futures win in "checks." By "checks" I was referring to chips, which management refers to as "checks" on many occasions. People on this board, who should know better, claimed it wasn't "policy" or "regulation" and one maroon couldn't fathom that chips were referred to as "checks." So I emailed Jimmy Vacarro out at South Point, and he was gracious enough to explain some "policies" in an email response, which I shared here.

Some folks who declare they know what they are talking about regarding sports here -- do not have any blessed clue about much of anything.
09-07-2023, 07:42 AM
accountinquestion

lol calling chips checks. I have heard that but don't think it is an American thing. Curious how many managers actually call chips checks. All it does is serve to create a nice layer of confusion. Not everyone is Redietz looking to impress people with nonsense.

It is a solid point to make that casinos can and do circumvent regulations/policies/laws for big whales.
09-07-2023, 08:35 AM
Gottlob1

Quote:

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Not everyone is a boor like me looking to frame every thing in terms of my own limited experience. I'm not just another guy over there, oh, no.

Quote:

The terms “Chips” and “Cheques” are both referring to a small round clay disc. The term “Chip” is used when that clay disc has no monetary value. For example, if you are at a friend’s poker night and everyone is just playing for fun, then those discs that you are using would be referred to as “Chips” because you are never going to exchange them for cash.

https://www.vegas-aces.com/faq/cheques-vs-chips/

Quote:

Casino checks are used as actual currency in the casino (just like a paper check or e-check is worth cash). A chip is a no-value instrument, such as tournament or roulette chips. Checks are used in poker cash games, but chips are used in poker tournaments.

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threa...3%A8que.77673/

Quote:

Casino tokens (also known as casino or gaming chips, checks, cheques or poker chips) are small discs used in terms of currency in casinos. Colored metal, injection-molded plastic or compression molded clay tokens of various denominations are used primarily in table games, as opposed to metal token coins, used primarily in slot machines. Casino tokens are also widely used as play money in casual or tournament games.

Some casinos also use rectangular gaming plaques for high-stakes table games ($25,000 and above). Plaques differ from chips in that they are larger, usually rectangular in shape and contain serial numbers.

Quote:

There seem to be as many explanations about the difference as there are explainers. But the best description we've seen goes as follows.

The difference between a casino cheque and a chip is that the "cheque" has a monetary value, while the "chip" doesn't. For example, when you sit down at a blackjack table and give the dealer $100 in cash, he reaches into his rack and hands you 20 red cheques -- a straight exchange of money for little round disks worth the same number of dollars.

An example of chips, meanwhile, is the colored "wheel chip" at roulette. If you take one of these white, brown, gray, yellow, or blue chips to the cashier's cage, you can't cash them. The value of wheel chips is determined at the table when they're bought. A white chip might be worth $1 today and $100 tomorrow.

"Tokens" are another wrinkle on casino currency. Tokens are generally used in slot machines, although some are used at blackjack tables to pay off uneven bets.

In addition to having specific dimensions, the name of the casino, the monetary value, and the manufacturer's name or logo must all be visible on the cheque. The differing denominations must be differentiated in design in such a manner as to be discernible by the eye in the sky. Baccarat cheques must have a different diameter than those for other casino games, and the same holds true for any chips issued by the sports book.

Similar requirements are in place for tokens, although these are to denote denomination, right down to the number of serrations on the edge. Even their metallic composition is mandated by statute. Now that the vast majority of casinos have gone to cashless slot machines, tokens are largely an anachronism, of more value to collectors than players.

Casino cheques, by contrast, are manufactured from a compound that includes sand, chalk, even the kind of clay you put in your cat's litter box. The inserts around the edge are either manually or mechanically inserted, then baked at 300 degrees. A century after clay-based cheques became standard casino equipment, in the 1980s, ceramic chips were introduced. These had the advantage that the name of the casino, the denomination, and the manufacturer's logo could be printed across the entire chip, not just in the inlaid sections.

The newest wrinkle in cheque manufacturing is the embedding of radio-frequency-identification (RFID) tags. Wynn Las Vegas was the first casino to employ RFID chips, in 2005.

Not only does this enable the house to monitor the movement of cheques across the casino floor, it can remotely deactivate the RFID tag, rendering the cheques non-negotiable: Bellagio used the latter technique to foil a chip scam after a helmeted gunman had robbed the casino floor of $1.5 million worth of cheques. (To be extra careful, Bellagio retired the chips in use on the floor and replaced them with a "secondary set" -- a duplicate but distinct backup set that always exists for use in such scenarios.)

RFID chips are less costly than you might expect, averaging around $2.50 apiece to make, compared to around $1.50 to make a non-RFID cheque.

Using RFID cheques, the casino can determine how much you buy in for and where you play it off, and use that information to keep you in the game longer with well-timed drinks and services catered to your activity. If you're playing with high-denomination cheques, it's almost guaranteed that the casino knows what you're up to.

https://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/faq-gambling-cheques/

Well, without knowing the nuances, and history, of thus terms, one can't begin to properly, or fully, appreciate a discussion about them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

It is a solid point to make that casinos can and do circumvent regulations/policies/laws for big whales.

What a fucking loudmouth. The only rule that matters is that "the house always wins", in whichever ways you, nay the idiot without an iq, might want to count.
09-07-2023, 09:09 AM
accountinquestion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gottlob1

Quote:

Casino checks are used as actual currency in the casino (just like a paper check or e-check is worth cash). A chip is a no-value instrument, such as tournament or roulette chips. Checks are used in poker cash games, but chips are used in poker tournaments.

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threa...3%A8que.77673/

Quote:

Casino tokens (also known as casino or gaming chips, checks, cheques or poker chips) are small discs used in terms of currency in casinos. Colored metal, injection-molded plastic or compression molded clay tokens of various denominations are used primarily in table games, as opposed to metal token coins, used primarily in slot machines. Casino tokens are also widely used as play money in casual or tournament games.

Some casinos also use rectangular gaming plaques for high-stakes table games ($25,000 and above). Plaques differ from chips in that they are larger, usually rectangular in shape and contain serial numbers.

Quote:

There seem to be as many explanations about the difference as there are explainers. But the best description we've seen goes as follows.

The difference between a casino cheque and a chip is that the "cheque" has a monetary value, while the "chip" doesn't. For example, when you sit down at a blackjack table and give the dealer $100 in cash, he reaches into his rack and hands you 20 red cheques -- a straight exchange of money for little round disks worth the same number of dollars.

An example of chips, meanwhile, is the colored "wheel chip" at roulette. If you take one of these white, brown, gray, yellow, or blue chips to the cashier's cage, you can't cash them. The value of wheel chips is determined at the table when they're bought. A white chip might be worth $1 today and $100 tomorrow.

"Tokens" are another wrinkle on casino currency. Tokens are generally used in slot machines, although some are used at blackjack tables to pay off uneven bets.

In addition to having specific dimensions, the name of the casino, the monetary value, and the manufacturer's name or logo must all be visible on the cheque. The differing denominations must be differentiated in design in such a manner as to be discernible by the eye in the sky. Baccarat cheques must have a different diameter than those for other casino games, and the same holds true for any chips issued by the sports book.

Similar requirements are in place for tokens, although these are to denote denomination, right down to the number of serrations on the edge. Even their metallic composition is mandated by statute. Now that the vast majority of casinos have gone to cashless slot machines, tokens are largely an anachronism, of more value to collectors than players.

Casino cheques, by contrast, are manufactured from a compound that includes sand, chalk, even the kind of clay you put in your cat's litter box. The inserts around the edge are either manually or mechanically inserted, then baked at 300 degrees. A century after clay-based cheques became standard casino equipment, in the 1980s, ceramic chips were introduced. These had the advantage that the name of the casino, the denomination, and the manufacturer's logo could be printed across the entire chip, not just in the inlaid sections.

The newest wrinkle in cheque manufacturing is the embedding of radio-frequency-identification (RFID) tags. Wynn Las Vegas was the first casino to employ RFID chips, in 2005.

Not only does this enable the house to monitor the movement of cheques across the casino floor, it can remotely deactivate the RFID tag, rendering the cheques non-negotiable: Bellagio used the latter technique to foil a chip scam after a helmeted gunman had robbed the casino floor of $1.5 million worth of cheques. (To be extra careful, Bellagio retired the chips in use on the floor and replaced them with a "secondary set" -- a duplicate but distinct backup set that always exists for use in such scenarios.)

RFID chips are less costly than you might expect, averaging around $2.50 apiece to make, compared to around $1.50 to make a non-RFID cheque.

Using RFID cheques, the casino can determine how much you buy in for and where you play it off, and use that information to keep you in the game longer with well-timed drinks and services catered to your activity. If you're playing with high-denomination cheques, it's almost guaranteed that the casino knows what you're up to.

https://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/faq-gambling-cheques/

Well, without knowing the nuances, and history, of thus terms, one can't begin to properly, or fully, appreciate a discussion about them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

It is a solid point to make that casinos can and do circumvent regulations/policies/laws for big whales.

What a fucking loudmouth. The only rule that matters is that "the house always wins", in whichever ways you, nay the idiot without an iq, might want to count.

Bill, I understand you have spent much of your time not locked up in a mental institution but being around casinos a large portion of my life I can tell you they do not use the word "cheques" with any regularity. Nor do they call cash chips cheques and save "chips" for tournament/free bets chips. Great you googled up something and are now an expert on the history even though reality is different.

Why do you even post on gambling forums?

Perhaps some people in management use cheques to reference chips.. perhaps. The history has nothing to do with it and I knew enough that I would have spelled it as cheque at least but that isn't even relevant. It is just Redietz showing his insecurity trying to one-up everyone in a comical way.

It is just ludicrous Redietz is using that as a point to demonstrate how knowledgeable he is.

If you want me to go easy on Redietz I can. Just give me the word and I'll lay off him a bit although I still want to know where Stanford recommends Ivermectin. ;)
09-07-2023, 09:16 AM
jbjb

"Cheque change $200"
09-07-2023, 10:07 AM
mickeycrimm

Quote:

Originally Posted by redietz

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Nothing wrong with picking up the bonus. It's not a "shit-ton" unless you're using multiple names and family members and all that, and frankly -- if an offshore discovers you're doing that -- they will just keep your money and thumb their nose at you. So I don't do any of that multiple nonsense.

I surprised, no actually stunned, that you don't know how to pull it off. How long did you say you've been betting sports?

Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:24 AM.