Professional Sportsbetting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Here's an actual "professional sports betting" report. I was eliminated from a "Survivor" contest at one offshore yesterday. Started with 500+; seven people are left. I wound up tying for eighth. I hated using Washington, but they were my biggest remaining favorite, so I swallowed my personal distaste and got myself eliminated by using them.

One interesting aspect is that the people who survived all had Washington available to them but refused to use them. Kudos to them. I absolutely despised going against an NFL team that had been hammered 49-17 or whatever the previous week, but I swallowed my personal opinion and did it anyway and got myself eliminated. First place is 15K.

The other interesting aspect was that this particular game was an example of a technical piece of advice from the Walters book that, if you read carefully, is one of the couple of useful tidbits that Walters (to my mind, surprisingly) mentioned. I didn't expect Walters to formally spell it out, but he did. You just have to read the charts carefully to see it. Again, it's not some big secret to actual sports gamblers, but it is not really well known to the public. Walters formalizes it in a way that's probably overly precise, but I actually agree with his ballparking number adjustment in a general sense. I was surprised he stepped out and put the generous number he did on it, but I would not have been more than half a point different had I been forced to opine.

Bottom line: I lost, and deservedly so. The people who advanced showed some balls and deserved to advance.

---

Another thing Redietz does. He ever says one thing useful outside of NFL nerd opinions.

This is more of the same. Goes to so much effort to not say anything useful but a veiled brag.

We get it Redietz, you need validation. Pathetic. Pat yourself on the back some more while everyone else realizes how clueless you are in general.

---

You know, I tested you guys recently. I reported an offshore that gave 100% free play on losses for every Monday Night game, capped at $200. It sits right there in the "Talk About Your Free Play" thread. Post #35.

The only response was semi-comedic by Dom.

I guess $200 in free play for every Monday Night loss just wasn't good enough for the VCT "APs" to appreciate. Nobody said thanks. Nobody said, "Which offshore?"

LOL. So the test worked. Either everybody here is too wealthy to bother with free money every Monday night or they have their own bizarro agendas or they don't really read.

I guess a poll is in order. Is $200 in free play for every Monday Night loser not "useful?" Account says it's not. He's the "AP." He's the expert.

---

I must have missed that, I would have probably participated assuming it was at a place where I didn't already have a bonus going. I tend to stay away from stacking bonuses.

I would assume there was some type of rollover required and other terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Another thing Redietz does. He ever says one thing useful outside of NFL nerd opinions.

This is more of the same. Goes to so much effort to not say anything useful but a veiled brag.

We get it Redietz, you need validation. Pathetic. Pat yourself on the back some more while everyone else realizes how clueless you are in general.

---

You know, I tested you guys recently. I reported an offshore that gave 100% free play on losses for every Monday Night game, capped at $200. It sits right there in the "Talk About Your Free Play" thread. Post #35.

The only response was semi-comedic by Dom.

I guess $200 in free play for every Monday Night loss just wasn't good enough for the VCT "APs" to appreciate. Nobody said thanks. Nobody said, "Which offshore?"

LOL. So the test worked. Either everybody here is too wealthy to bother with free money every Monday night or they have their own bizarro agendas or they don't really read.

I guess a poll is in order. Is $200 in free play for every Monday Night loser not "useful?" Account says it's not. He's the "AP." He's the expert.

---

I must have missed that, I would have probably participated assuming it was at a place where I didn't already have a bonus going. I tend to stay away from stacking bonuses.

I would assume there was some type of rollover required and other terms.

---

No wonder I missed it you posted it in Tasha's thread, I tend to stay away from some of her threads or don't check them often. I really didn't want to hear about her $5 free play. You didn't say where it was or give any details. If it's Bovada, I can't play there.

Well, as I said, not everyone likes to bet sports, but everyone likes to bet free play. I didn't announce the site because (1) I had mentioned it previously, as Dom noted and (2) I wanted to see if anyone would actually ask what it was. I figured you already likely knew.

The whole kewlJ schtick is old. Unless you're rotating a bevy of friends and family as beards, you're not going to be able to do what kewlJ suggests -- namely get a mega-bonus, play the minimum to roll it over, withdraw it all, then do the same thing the next sport 60-90 days later at the same site. If you do that, the site will stick a label on you. In fact, the site may even allow you to redeposit just so they CAN claim the money they previously gave you as bonuses. Good luck going to Costa Rica to argue with them. I think a movie was based on that -- Runner, Runner, with Affleck and Timberlake. Has a 7% critics' score on Rotten Tomatoes.

What annoys me is that I gave kewlJ some formal advice (I think in a PM) as to how he should/could camouflage a little and slow play the rollover specifically so he would NOT be penalized and at risk of being labeled. Instead he wanted/needed the money back in his two or three month span, so was looking to withdraw all of it immediately after he hit the rollover requirement. That suggested a couple of things. First, it suggested that all of this bonus whoring cheerleading was based on short-term thinking that's not necessarily the best strategy. Second, his need for immediate withdrawal at least suggested that he was using other people's money or, conversely, that he has a very limited bankroll.

I actually gave this kid some good advice, with nothing to gain for me other than that offshores will read this and hate me (using my real name) for giving good advice. Instead, kewlJ ignored my advice and posts the bullshit he did here regarding me. LOL. What a little prick.

Now, Axelwolf, you do a lot of bonus whoring. Honestly, who do you think knows what they're talking about regarding this, me or your fellow "AP," the inimitable kewlJ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Well, as I said, not everyone likes to bet sports, but everyone likes to bet free play. I didn't announce the site because (1) I had mentioned it previously, as Dom noted and (2) I wanted to see if anyone would actually ask what it was. I figured you already likely knew.

The whole kewlJ schtick is old. Unless you're rotating a bevy of friends and family as beards, you're not going to be able to do what kewlJ suggests -- namely get a mega-bonus, play the minimum to roll it over, withdraw it all, then do the same thing the next sport 60-90 days later at the same site. If you do that, the site will stick a label on you. In fact, the site may even allow you to redeposit just so they CAN claim the money they previously gave you as bonuses. Good luck going to Costa Rica to argue with them. I think a movie was based on that -- Runner, Runner, with Affleck and Timberlake. Has a 7% critics' score on Rotten Tomatoes.

What annoys me is that I gave kewlJ some formal advice (I think in a PM) as to how he should/could camouflage a little and slow play the rollover specifically so he would NOT be penalized and at risk of being labeled. Instead he wanted/needed the money back in his two or three month span, so was looking to withdraw all of it immediately after he hit the rollover requirement. That suggested a couple of things. First, it suggested that all of this bonus whoring cheerleading was based on short-term thinking that's not necessarily the best strategy. Second, his need for immediate withdrawal at least suggested that he was using other people's money or, conversely, that he has a very limited bankroll.

I actually gave this kid some good advice, with nothing to gain for me other than that offshores will read this and hate me (using my real name) for giving good advice. Instead, kewlJ ignored my advice and posts the bullshit he did here regarding me. LOL. What a little prick.

Now, Axelwolf, you do a lot of bonus whoring. Honestly, who do you think knows what they're talking about regarding this, me or your fellow "AP," the inimitable kewlJ?

---

When you were first learning sportsbetting who was it that told you that you are an idiot? That they know everything and you don't know anything? That you're a stupid idiot for even trying. Who was that guy? Do you remember him fondly?

You get a big kick out of running down those who are trying to learn something. You must have learned it from someone else. How many mistakes did you make when you were first getting started? A hundred? A thousand? Did you learn anything from it? And who was the guy standing there calling you a stupid ass when you got things wrong.

Dude, there was a time you couldn't pick your own mother out of nine chinamen. How did it feel? Who was the guy laughing his ass off at you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Well, as I said, not everyone likes to bet sports, but everyone likes to bet free play. I didn't announce the site because (1) I had mentioned it previously, as Dom noted and (2) I wanted to see if anyone would actually ask what it was. I figured you already likely knew.

The whole kewlJ schtick is old. Unless you're rotating a bevy of friends and family as beards, you're not going to be able to do what kewlJ suggests -- namely get a mega-bonus, play the minimum to roll it over, withdraw it all, then do the same thing the next sport 60-90 days later at the same site. If you do that, the site will stick a label on you. In fact, the site may even allow you to redeposit just so they CAN claim the money they previously gave you as bonuses. Good luck going to Costa Rica to argue with them. I think a movie was based on that -- Runner, Runner, with Affleck and Timberlake. Has a 7% critics' score on Rotten Tomatoes.

What annoys me is that I gave kewlJ some formal advice (I think in a PM) as to how he should/could camouflage a little and slow play the rollover specifically so he would NOT be penalized and at risk of being labeled. Instead he wanted/needed the money back in his two or three month span, so was looking to withdraw all of it immediately after he hit the rollover requirement. That suggested a couple of things. First, it suggested that all of this bonus whoring cheerleading was based on short-term thinking that's not necessarily the best strategy. Second, his need for immediate withdrawal at least suggested that he was using other people's money or, conversely, that he has a very limited bankroll.

I actually gave this kid some good advice, with nothing to gain for me other than that offshores will read this and hate me (using my real name) for giving good advice. Instead, kewlJ ignored my advice and posts the bullshit he did here regarding me. LOL. What a little prick.

Now, Axelwolf, you do a lot of bonus whoring. Honestly, who do you think knows what they're talking about regarding this, me or your fellow "AP," the inimitable kewlJ?

---

When you were first learning sportsbetting who was it that told you that you are an idiot? That they know everything and you don't know anything? That you're a stupid idiot for even trying. Who was that guy? Do you remember him fondly?

You get a big kick out of running down those who are trying to learn something. You must have learned it from someone else. How many mistakes did you make when you were first getting started? A hundred? A thousand? Did you learn anything from it? And who was the guy standing there calling you a stupid ass when you got things wrong.

Dude, there was a time you couldn't pick your own mother out of nine chinamen. How did it feel? Who was the guy laughing his ass off at you?

---

It isn't so much he gets a kick out of "running down" - it is that it is required for him to maintain his image in his own mind.

Dude takes Ivermectin every day thinking Stanford told people "gold standard" not even knowing he had it totally wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVp6EZYunBI

Of the many new sign-ups in the last 48 hours, two are SteveIsMe and JasmineIsMe.

Good Lord.

Occasionally, the ten seconds you take doing some free promo pays off. One of the offshores offers a prize for picking the exact score of Thursday and Monday night games. I picked up $1,666 (along with two other guys) for hitting the Thursday night 31-13 game on the button.

Never look a gift horse in the mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I picked up $1,666 (along with two other guys) for hitting the Thursday night 31-13 game on the button.

---

Very nice! They could have rounded up to 1667 :(.

I split a contest win with the cents portion calculated at 33 and a third. They rounded up to 35 cents :cool:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElisSmith

Hey guys, just browsing and sports betting gut me interested. Any tips for newbies? Sites to play on or any tips on how to play? I've been a slots a roulette type of gal and I want to explore other games.:)

---

Give up some of that pussy and I'll let you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElisSmith

Hey guys, just browsing and sports betting gut me interested. Any tips for newbies? Sites to play on or any tips on how to play? I've been a slots a roulette type of gal and I want to explore other games.:)

---

Give up some of that pussy and I'll let you know.

---

Lmao

Back in the 90's all the video poker writers used the term "expected return." I suppose it was sometime around 2000 that one of the groups asserted that "expected value" was a better term to use. Everyone switched to using "EV." I don't know if EV was used by writers on other forms of gambling. It may have been video poker writers that started using it first but I don't know for sure.

"EV" is a probability term. There are other terms that mean the same thing, like expected loss or expected win. So one does not need to use the term EV to be talking about EV.

Did Walter's use the term "EV" in his book? I haven't found an example yet of him using that exact term. But I found one example where he is definitely discussing EV, but just not using the exact term. This excerpt comes from the section called Parlays & Teasers:

"In a straight bet laying $110 to win $100, the expected loss is 4.6%. Under the current rules in which a tie is a non-bet, a two-team parlay has an expected loss of 9.8 percent-more than twice the expected loss of a straight bet laying $110/$100. A three-team parlay has an expected loss of 12.4 percent, almost three times the expected loss of a straight bet."

Telling us what the Expected Loss is....is telling us what the Expected Value is.

Actually, it's not. And it's especially not when ghost writers or co-writers are doing the writing as opposed to Walters himself.

And if you had read real carefully, you'd have realized that Walters had ghost writers (note the term is plural). A different writer tackled the second how-to chapter as opposed to most of the rest of the book.

Expected Loss is not identical to Expected Value. Use of the phrase "Expected Loss" explicitly brings the non-mathematical context of opinion into play. If nothing else, it implies, very strongly, opinion. It almost screams "I think that" Expected Loss is this or that. What it implies is one of the following phrases, "MY expected loss," YOUR expected loss," or "HISTORICALLY, the expected loss." None of these is a pure math calculation. They are all historical terms.

Expected Value is much more of a math term. It implies accurate, precise calculation.

Good try, though, mickey. Let me know when you find Walters using the term "Expected Value" in the book.

Nah.

In addition, to think that Walters didn't use the term "Expected Value" by accident is just silly. He's known every gambling term in the universe, as Kirk said to Picard, since most of you were in diapers. He had co-writers, editors, and a slew of gamblers reading his drafts before publication.

Obviously, he chose to not put "Expected Value" in the book. To think he somehow meant to do so is a really sick "AP" self-infatuation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Expected Loss is not identical to Expected Value. Use of the phrase "Expected Loss" explicitly brings the non-mathematical context of opinion into play. If nothing else, it implies, very strongly, opinion. It almost screams "I think that" Expected Loss is this or that. What it implies is one of the following phrases, "MY expected loss," YOUR expected loss," or "HISTORICALLY, the expected loss." None of these is a pure math calculation. They are all historical terms.

---

What?! How preposterous. Expected value has nothing to do with opinion. It is strictly about math. Positive expected value is expected win and negative expected value is an expected loss.

Mickey laid out the math, that it costs 110% to wager and win 100%. That is the math of it. Opinion at no time enters into that equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Well, as I said, not everyone likes to bet sports, but everyone likes to bet free play. I didn't announce the site because (1) I had mentioned it previously, as Dom noted and (2) I wanted to see if anyone would actually ask what it was. I figured you already likely knew.

The whole kewlJ schtick is old. Unless you're rotating a bevy of friends and family as beards, you're not going to be able to do what kewlJ suggests -- namely get a mega-bonus, play the minimum to roll it over, withdraw it all, then do the same thing the next sport 60-90 days later at the same site. If you do that, the site will stick a label on you. In fact, the site may even allow you to redeposit just so they CAN claim the money they previously gave you as bonuses. Good luck going to Costa Rica to argue with them. I think a movie was based on that -- Runner, Runner, with Affleck and Timberlake. Has a 7% critics' score on Rotten Tomatoes.

What annoys me is that I gave kewlJ some formal advice (I think in a PM) as to how he should/could camouflage a little and slow play the rollover specifically so he would NOT be penalized and at risk of being labeled. Instead he wanted/needed the money back in his two or three month span, so was looking to withdraw all of it immediately after he hit the rollover requirement. That suggested a couple of things. First, it suggested that all of this bonus whoring cheerleading was based on short-term thinking that's not necessarily the best strategy. Second, his need for immediate withdrawal at least suggested that he was using other people's money or, conversely, that he has a very limited bankroll.

I actually gave this kid some good advice, with nothing to gain for me other than that offshores will read this and hate me (using my real name) for giving good advice. Instead, kewlJ ignored my advice and posts the bullshit he did here regarding me. LOL. What a little prick.

Now, Axelwolf, you do a lot of bonus whoring. Honestly, who do you think knows what they're talking about regarding this, me or your fellow "AP," the inimitable kewlJ?

---

I had really high hopes for Runner Runner.
Same with Two for the Money.
They both start off pretty good but end up falling flat.
The Runner (1999) is better but still not good enough.
Tough to find a really good Sports Betting movie.
I'm thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

In addition, to think that Walters didn't use the term "Expected Value" by accident is just silly. He's known every gambling term in the universe, as Kirk said to Picard, since most of you were in diapers. He had co-writers, editors, and a slew of gamblers reading his drafts before publication.

Obviously, he chose to not put "Expected Value" in the book. To think he somehow meant to do so is a really sick "AP" self-infatuation.

---

I personally hate the terms AP or EV.
I still scoff when people use them in any form.

Arguing with redietz:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I actually gave this kid some good advice, with nothing to gain for me other than that offshores will read this and hate me (using my real name) for giving good advice. Instead, kewlJ ignored my advice and posts the bullshit he did here regarding me. LOL. What a little prick.

---

That's excellent advice to post anonymously. You can't say I never learn anything here.

So the use of "expected loss" must have been due to his ghost writers, but the non-use of "expected value" must have been due to Walters himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

In addition, to think that Walters didn't use the term "Expected Value" by accident is just silly. He's known every gambling term in the universe, as Kirk said to Picard, since most of you were in diapers. He had co-writers, editors, and a slew of gamblers reading his drafts before publication.

Obviously, he chose to not put "Expected Value" in the book. To think he somehow meant to do so is a really sick "AP" self-infatuation.

---

First he has multiple ghostwriters. Oh wait he sits around wringing his hands on whether to use EV or a total synonym.

Oops someone else just made thus point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

So the use of "expected loss" must have been due to his ghost writers, but the non-use of "expected value" must have been due to Walters himself.

---

There is no reference to "Expected Value" in the book. Zero. There are plenty of uses of the word "value," but no use of "expected value."

You can make up whatever you like (as "APs," many of you do anything to find excuses to think you have an edge). But if Walters had wanted "Expected Value" in the book, it would be in the book. "Expected Loss" is not synonymous with "Expected Value." Of course -- LOL -- the "APs" like the idea of a phrase that has a positive prediction for their activities. There is also, if you read the book, no reference to "Expected Wins" or "Expected Profit."

But I mean, really, have any of you even read the book? Because if you haven't, why would you even comment?

Is it because -- cough, cough -- you're "APs?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

So the use of "expected loss" must have been due to his ghost writers, but the non-use of "expected value" must have been due to Walters himself.

---

There is no reference to "Expected Value" in the book. Zero. There are plenty of uses of the word "value," but no use of "expected value."

You can make up whatever you like (as "APs," many of you do anything to find excuses to think you have an edge). But if Walters had wanted "Expected Value" in the book, it would be in the book. "Expected Loss" is not synonymous with "Expected Value." Of course -- LOL -- the "APs" like the idea of a phrase that has a positive prediction for their activities. There is also, if you read the book, no reference to "Expected Wins" or "Expected Profit."

But I mean, really, have any of you even read the book? Because if you haven't, why would you even comment?

Is it because -- cough, cough -- you're "APs?"

---

I was responding to a poor argument rather than to the book that inspired it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

So the use of "expected loss" must have been due to his ghost writers, but the non-use of "expected value" must have been due to Walters himself.

---

There is no reference to "Expected Value" in the book. Zero. There are plenty of uses of the word "value," but no use of "expected value."

You can make up whatever you like (as "APs," many of you do anything to find excuses to think you have an edge). But if Walters had wanted "Expected Value" in the book, it would be in the book. "Expected Loss" is not synonymous with "Expected Value." Of course -- LOL -- the "APs" like the idea of a phrase that has a positive prediction for their activities. There is also, if you read the book, no reference to "Expected Wins" or "Expected Profit."

But I mean, really, have any of you even read the book? Because if you haven't, why would you even comment?

Is it because -- cough, cough -- you're "APs?"

---

I don't need to have read the book, nor even be an expert in sports betting to know what expected value is in terms of gambling. It is based on the mathematics, not opinion. Red, seriously, you have started to go in some odd directions in your attempt to convince everyone you are an expert in the field of sports betting. Your comments on expected value over the last 6 months or so, the oddest. Just bizarre.

Advantage players don't "think" they have an edge. They have an edge. If they don't, the many that make a living wouldn't be able to pay the rent or buy food. And those that don't play for a living or have other income source, they would know very quickly as well. AP's are not like your ploppies that after years of losing and replenishing funds, claim "yeah I am about even", when they KNOW they are far in the red. For AP's it is about the money, whether professional or recreational. So just give that idea up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

I had really high hopes for Runner Runner.
Same with Two for the Money.
They both start off pretty good but end up falling flat.
The Runner (1999) is better but still not good enough.
Tough to find a really good Sports Betting movie.
I'm thinking.

---

I am planning to watch these, although it will be difficult to get a hold of Smart Money (1996).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uoEhTD-ZZM
https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/531192/smart-money

The term Expected Value is a mathematical term. It is the weighted average of the products of the probability of each respective outcome of an event multiplied by the outcomes' cost/profit (as the case may be). It pre-dates modern sportsbetting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Actually, it's not. And it's especially not when ghost writers or co-writers are doing the writing as opposed to Walters himself.

And if you had read real carefully, you'd have realized that Walters had ghost writers (note the term is plural). A different writer tackled the second how-to chapter as opposed to most of the rest of the book.

Expected Loss is not identical to Expected Value. Use of the phrase "Expected Loss" explicitly brings the non-mathematical context of opinion into play. If nothing else, it implies, very strongly, opinion. It almost screams "I think that" Expected Loss is this or that. What it implies is one of the following phrases, "MY expected loss," YOUR expected loss," or "HISTORICALLY, the expected loss." None of these is a pure math calculation. They are all historical terms.

Expected Value is much more of a math term. It implies accurate, precise calculation.

Good try, though, mickey. Let me know when you find Walters using the term "Expected Value" in the book.

---

Question: What is the "value" of 9/6 Jacks video poker?
Answer: 99.54%

Question: What is the "expected value" of 9/6 Jacks video poker?
Answer: 99.54%

Question: If it's 99.54% would that mean the expected loss is .46%?
Answer: Yes, the expected loss is .46%. This is a very precise calculation.

Question: Do you assign EV values to plays where you don't know the exact precise calculation?

Answer: Yes, I do it all the time. On an advantage slot play I might calculate an expected value of 120%. But I could be off 4 or 5 points either way, but more likely just a point or two either way.

It starts with the fact that the payback percentage (expected value) of the overall game is proprietary information and not known by the general public on most slots. So a series of educated guesses are made. IGT, for example generally has 7 different chips for the casino to choose from that normally range between 85% and 97%.

Properties like CZR can be as low as 85 to 87%. A midrange casino can be 89% to 91%. Casinos with above average payback can be 93%.

Since I don't know the exact overall payback I estimate a 90% overall return which is about average payback. Then I ensure that my entry point into the game calculates to at least a 10% edge/value to cover my ass in case the game is just 85% overall. So that I know I have an expected value of at least 105%.

Billy Walters assigns 1-star, 2-stars, 3-stars to value his plays. A 3-star play has much high EV than a 1-star play, consequently he bets more.

Interesting video. And the term EV was used by a professional bettor:

https://youtu.be/LD2UBr_hFdE

Here's an exacta for you. The person who co-hosted the Walters book discussion with me (and who ran a high stakes sports betting syndicate in LV) is in the free BetOnline offshore contests. Mark this down, because you may never see this combo again.

My co-host is in 90th place out of 20,000+ picking five NFL ATS each week. Last night -- a horrible loser on a breakaway run with a minute left from midfield. But still, 90th out of 20,000; not bad. This same person is one of 225 people (out of 22,000) left in the Survivor contest. Not sure what the odds are against a person being in the top 1/2 of a percent in one and the top 1% in the other (these being non-random events), but worth saluting.

May never happen again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Here's an exacta for you. The person who co-hosted the Walters book discussion with me (and who ran a high stakes sports betting syndicate in LV) is in the free BetOnline offshore contests. Mark this down, because you may never see this combo again.

My co-host is in 90th place out of 20,000+ picking five NFL ATS each week. Last night -- a horrible loser on a breakaway run with a minute left from midfield. But still, 90th out of 20,000; not bad. This same person is one of 225 people (out of 22,000) left in the Survivor contest. Not sure what the odds are against a person being in the top 1/2 of a percent in one and the top 1% in the other (these being non-random events), but worth saluting.

May never happen again.

---

If he was at a public presentation in Johnson City why are you covering up his name? Or is your friend fictitious?

Another qeustion: Why aren't you in those contests?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Here's an exacta for you. The person who co-hosted the Walters book discussion with me (and who ran a high stakes sports betting syndicate in LV) is in the free BetOnline offshore contests. Mark this down, because you may never see this combo again.

My co-host is in 90th place out of 20,000+ picking five NFL ATS each week. Last night -- a horrible loser on a breakaway run with a minute left from midfield. But still, 90th out of 20,000; not bad. This same person is one of 225 people (out of 22,000) left in the Survivor contest. Not sure what the odds are against a person being in the top 1/2 of a percent in one and the top 1% in the other (these being non-random events), but worth saluting.

May never happen again.

---

Is this friend of yours related in anyway to FraudJ's associates that are pulled from the tunnel when needing some cover? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Here's an exacta for you. The person who co-hosted the Walters book discussion with me (and who ran a high stakes sports betting syndicate in LV) is in the free BetOnline offshore contests. Mark this down, because you may never see this combo again.

My co-host is in 90th place out of 20,000+ picking five NFL ATS each week. Last night -- a horrible loser on a breakaway run with a minute left from midfield. But still, 90th out of 20,000; not bad. This same person is one of 225 people (out of 22,000) left in the Survivor contest. Not sure what the odds are against a person being in the top 1/2 of a percent in one and the top 1% in the other (these being non-random events), but worth saluting.

May never happen again.

---

If he was at a public presentation in Johnson City why are you covering up his name? Or is your friend fictitious?

Another qeustion: Why aren't you in those contests?

---

I am. I'm not much of an NFL bettor, and I would certainly never try to play five sides a week, but the contests are free, so what the hell. I was eliminated from the Survivor last week (damn those Commanders vs. NYG), and I'm in roughly 1800th place in the Mega-Contest. I'm in 1838th to be exact, out of 20,000.

You can follow my contest results at GamblingForums, if you're so inclined. I post results about every other week.

The bright spot thus far is I'm in third in the NorthBet Pick the Pros (out of about 500). No spreads in that contest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

So the use of "expected loss" must have been due to his ghost writers, but the non-use of "expected value" must have been due to Walters himself.

---

There is no reference to "Expected Value" in the book. Zero. There are plenty of uses of the word "value," but no use of "expected value."

You can make up whatever you like (as "APs," many of you do anything to find excuses to think you have an edge). But if Walters had wanted "Expected Value" in the book, it would be in the book. "Expected Loss" is not synonymous with "Expected Value." Of course -- LOL -- the "APs" like the idea of a phrase that has a positive prediction for their activities. There is also, if you read the book, no reference to "Expected Wins" or "Expected Profit."

But I mean, really, have any of you even read the book? Because if you haven't, why would you even comment?

Is it because -- cough, cough -- you're "APs?"

---

I don't need to have read the book, nor even be an expert in sports betting to know what expected value is in terms of gambling. It is based on the mathematics, not opinion. Red, seriously, you have started to go in some odd directions in your attempt to convince everyone you are an expert in the field of sports betting. Your comments on expected value over the last 6 months or so, the oddest. Just bizarre.

Advantage players don't "think" they have an edge. They have an edge. If they don't, the many that make a living wouldn't be able to pay the rent or buy food. And those that don't play for a living or have other income source, they would know very quickly as well. AP's are not like your ploppies that after years of losing and replenishing funds, claim "yeah I am about even", when they KNOW they are far in the red. For AP's it is about the money, whether professional or recreational. So just give that idea up.

---

Bottom line: using the term "EV" in sports betting is flat-out wrong. You are using the math of random events to try to estimate future results or profit/loss for non-random events. If you think results are random when you apply a spread, you are simply incorrect in a fundamental sense. And you don't understand how spreads and totals are assigned to games.

Why do you insist on trying to use the math of random events for non-random events?

For example, there is no way that NFL totals this season are yielding random results. The idea is simply silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Here's an exacta for you. The person who co-hosted the Walters book discussion with me (and who ran a high stakes sports betting syndicate in LV) is in the free BetOnline offshore contests. Mark this down, because you may never see this combo again.

My co-host is in 90th place out of 20,000+ picking five NFL ATS each week. Last night -- a horrible loser on a breakaway run with a minute left from midfield. But still, 90th out of 20,000; not bad. This same person is one of 225 people (out of 22,000) left in the Survivor contest. Not sure what the odds are against a person being in the top 1/2 of a percent in one and the top 1% in the other (these being non-random events), but worth saluting.

May never happen again.

---

If he was at a public presentation in Johnson City why are you covering up his name? Or is your friend fictitious?

Another qeustion: Why aren't you in those contests?

---

I listed the guy who runs the book club previously. Seems to me all you have to do to establish who is real is call him or email him. I know, novel concept. Here you go, mickey.


https://play.google.com/store/info/n...i?id=11mwdzxc8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

There is no reference to "Expected Value" in the book. Zero. There are plenty of uses of the word "value," but no use of "expected value."

You can make up whatever you like (as "APs," many of you do anything to find excuses to think you have an edge). But if Walters had wanted "Expected Value" in the book, it would be in the book. "Expected Loss" is not synonymous with "Expected Value." Of course -- LOL -- the "APs" like the idea of a phrase that has a positive prediction for their activities. There is also, if you read the book, no reference to "Expected Wins" or "Expected Profit."

But I mean, really, have any of you even read the book? Because if you haven't, why would you even comment?

Is it because -- cough, cough -- you're "APs?"

---

I don't need to have read the book, nor even be an expert in sports betting to know what expected value is in terms of gambling. It is based on the mathematics, not opinion. Red, seriously, you have started to go in some odd directions in your attempt to convince everyone you are an expert in the field of sports betting. Your comments on expected value over the last 6 months or so, the oddest. Just bizarre.

Advantage players don't "think" they have an edge. They have an edge. If they don't, the many that make a living wouldn't be able to pay the rent or buy food. And those that don't play for a living or have other income source, they would know very quickly as well. AP's are not like your ploppies that after years of losing and replenishing funds, claim "yeah I am about even", when they KNOW they are far in the red. For AP's it is about the money, whether professional or recreational. So just give that idea up.

---

Bottom line: using the term "EV" in sports betting is flat-out wrong. You are using the math of random events to try to estimate future results or profit/loss for non-random events. If you think results are random when you apply a spread, you are simply incorrect in a fundamental sense. And you don't understand how spreads and totals are assigned to games.

Why do you insist on trying to use the math of random events for non-random events?

For example, there is no way that NFL totals this season are yielding random results. The idea is simply silly.

---

You have no credibility when it comes to math. You've proven you don't know anything about the math. According to you it's about opinion not math. So any statements by you concerning math and probability are not credible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Here's an exacta for you. The person who co-hosted the Walters book discussion with me (and who ran a high stakes sports betting syndicate in LV) is in the free BetOnline offshore contests. Mark this down, because you may never see this combo again.

My co-host is in 90th place out of 20,000+ picking five NFL ATS each week. Last night -- a horrible loser on a breakaway run with a minute left from midfield. But still, 90th out of 20,000; not bad. This same person is one of 225 people (out of 22,000) left in the Survivor contest. Not sure what the odds are against a person being in the top 1/2 of a percent in one and the top 1% in the other (these being non-random events), but worth saluting.

May never happen again.

---

If he was at a public presentation in Johnson City why are you covering up his name? Or is your friend fictitious?

Another qeustion: Why aren't you in those contests?

---

I listed the guy who runs the book club previously. Seems to me all you have to do to establish who is real is call him or email him. I know, novel concept. Here you go, mickey.


https://play.google.com/store/info/n...i?id=11mwdzxc8

---

Give me his email address and phone number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

If he was at a public presentation in Johnson City why are you covering up his name? Or is your friend fictitious?

Another qeustion: Why aren't you in those contests?

---

I listed the guy who runs the book club previously. Seems to me all you have to do to establish who is real is call him or email him. I know, novel concept. Here you go, mickey.


https://play.google.com/store/info/n...i?id=11mwdzxc8

---

Give me his email address and phone number.

---

Email me your questions, or email me your email, and I will pass them along to him. He retired a few years back, so I don't think he currently maintains a "public" email. I'm not going to just give out another's person's email address without consulting him. If you want, I'll ask him if it's okay if I provide it, but you'll have to give a reason that I can pass along as to why you want it.

My email: Integritysports@aol.com.

Feel free to email your email address.

A phone number or two on the internet ...

Kenneth J Mijeski, (423) 596-9134, Johnson City

ClustrMaps
https://clustrmaps.com › US Persons › M
Mar 5, 2022 — Kenneth J Mijeski Phone Numbers. (423) 596-9134 Cellphone by New Cingular Wireless Pcs, LLC, two persons associated; (423) 926-9318 Landline ...

https://www.google.com/search?q=phon...hrome&ie=UTF-8


Out of hellry, I might call that number.

Some 79-year-old guy into Latin American politics. Ha.


1Hit1der 1Hit1der is online now
Bronze
Join Date
Nov 2023
Posts
2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I don't need to have read the book, nor even be an expert in sports betting to know what expected value is in terms of gambling. It is based on the mathematics, not opinion. Red, seriously, you have started to go in some odd directions in your attempt to convince everyone you are an expert in the field of sports betting. Your comments on expected value over the last 6 months or so, the oddest. Just bizarre.

Advantage players don't "think" they have an edge. They have an edge. If they don't, the many that make a living wouldn't be able to pay the rent or buy food. And those that don't play for a living or have other income source, they would know very quickly as well. AP's are not like your ploppies that after years of losing and replenishing funds, claim "yeah I am about even", when they KNOW they are far in the red. For AP's it is about the money, whether professional or recreational. So just give that idea up.

---

Bottom line: using the term "EV" in sports betting is flat-out wrong. You are using the math of random events to try to estimate future results or profit/loss for non-random events. If you think results are random when you apply a spread, you are simply incorrect in a fundamental sense. And you don't understand how spreads and totals are assigned to games.

Why do you insist on trying to use the math of random events for non-random events?

For example, there is no way that NFL totals this season are yielding random results. The idea is simply silly.

---

You have no credibility when it comes to math. You've proven you don't know anything about the math. According to you it's about opinion not math. So any statements by you concerning math and probability are not credible.

---

LOL. I know absolutely nothing (ignore that 740 on the old math part of the SATs). The fact that I know nothing, but I know that it's inappropriate to use equations for random events on non-random events, frames you pretty badly, mickey.

But feel free -- anytime -- to explain why you insist on using random probability equations to predict non-random events.

Hmmmm, I wonder what Shack got on the math portion of the old SATs. You should ask him sometime. He's Mensa, after all. One of the people I consult fairly frequently got a perfect math SAT. If I bog down, I ask him. Or I ask a professor (Scott Beck) who taught social science probability. Or I ask the guy a hundred yards down the road, teaches all manner of college math. But I digress....

I understand you have no formal math training, mickey. Here's a hint -- don't hold it against people when they do have formal training and math degrees and all that. It makes you look like a poser.

More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. Unreal.

C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.

'Nuff said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Here's an exacta for you. The person who co-hosted the Walters book discussion with me (and who ran a high stakes sports betting syndicate in LV) is in the free BetOnline offshore contests. Mark this down, because you may never see this combo again.

My co-host is in 90th place out of 20,000+ picking five NFL ATS each week. Last night -- a horrible loser on a breakaway run with a minute left from midfield. But still, 90th out of 20,000; not bad. This same person is one of 225 people (out of 22,000) left in the Survivor contest. Not sure what the odds are against a person being in the top 1/2 of a percent in one and the top 1% in the other (these being non-random events), but worth saluting.

May never happen again.

---

If he was at a public presentation in Johnson City why are you covering up his name? Or is your friend fictitious?

Another qeustion: Why aren't you in those contests?

---

I listed the guy who runs the book club previously. Seems to me all you have to do to establish who is real is call him or email him. I know, novel concept. Here you go, mickey.


https://play.google.com/store/info/n...i?id=11mwdzxc8

---

First, redietz tells me to email or call the guy in his statement above. The first thing I notice is there's no email address or phone number. This is a classic Bob Dietz tactic. He probably thought I would just blow it off. So when I ask for the guy's email and phone number redietz goes to stuttering "but, but, but, he doesn't have a public email, and, and, and, I can't give out his private email without his permission, I'll, I'll, I'll ask him for permission, but, but, but, you have to give me a reason.

What a piece of work you are, Dietz. You told me to email him knowing full well I wouldn't be able to find an email address.

Okay, so here's the reason you can give him: VCT is launching an investigation into the claims of one Bob Dietz about a book club meeting which we so far can't find any evidence ever happened, a purported press release announcing the event that can't be found in any media, whether or not the press was at the meeting, and what are the names of those news outlets, how many people were in attendance, and can you name the people in attendance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. Unreal.

C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.

'Nuff said.

---

Explain how winning 8 games out of 12 is not 2 games over .500....lol

I can't wait for this...RIP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

Explain how winning 8 games out of 12 is not 2 games over .500....lol

---

Exactly!! If 6-6 is .500 (and it is) then 8-4 would be 2 games above .500. 2 games better than .500

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. Unreal.

C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.

'Nuff said.

---

You have confused me with KJ on the 8/4. But please explain to us just how many game above or below .500 an 8 and 4 record is.

duplicate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. Unreal.

C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.

'Nuff said.

---

Ditz, you really stepped in the shit with this one. 740 SAT? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. Unreal.

C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.

'Nuff said.

---

Ditz, you really stepped in the shit with this one. 740 SAT? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA!!!!!!!!!

---

He left out the decimal :D

*74.0

I think they give you that many points for including your name on the test.....RIP

I'll ask here since I'm not interrupting anything important.

I notice some of the state-legal online sportsbooks send escalating reload offers. If you ignore them, they double the offer, and then sometimes double it again.

I've got one book that appears to be losing interest in me. I'm now approaching a month since the last offer which I would be willing to accept if currently available. Is it a good idea to beg the support desk for a bonus? I haven't shown any value to them as a customer. I've played only on bonuses with some cover action but not a lot. None at all within the last several months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

Explain how winning 8 games out of 12 is not 2 games over .500

---

A record of 8-4 is considered to be 4 games over .500.

The calculation for this is simple subtraction. For example, a team at 29–19 is "10 games over five hundred", as they could lose their next 10 games and still have a .500 record, while a team at 12–17 would be "five games under five hundred", as the quickest they could reach .500 would be by winning their next five games. "Above" and "below" can be substituted for "over" and "under", respectively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

A record of 8-4 is considered to be 4 games over .500.

The calculation for this is simple subtraction. For example, a team at 29–19 is "10 games over five hundred", as they could lose their next 10 games and still have a .500 record, while a team at 12–17 would be "five games under five hundred", as the quickest they could reach .500 would be by winning their next five games. "Above" and "below" can be substituted for "over" and "under", respectively.

---

It doesn't really matter. This discussion came about when I posted my betting results back in September after 2 weeks of NFL, 3 weeks of college. I posted that I was 56-31. So there was no confusion as to what the numbers actually were. Redietz just chose to make a big deal out terminology.

(finished below .500 not that it matters)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

I notice some of the state-legal online sportsbooks send escalating reload offers.

---

Ok, since I am not an expert, nor claim to be, what exactly is "a state legal online sportsbooks"? Does that exclude the offshore books, but includes the US land casino online books and the fanduel and draftking?

(BTW, neither fanduel and draftking is available in Nevada). As unusual the casino industry has it locked down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Ok, since I am not an expert, nor claim to be, what exactly is "a state legal online sportsbooks"?

---

Sorry yes. I meant the on-shores that are legal in some states but not others. Fanduel, Draftkings, BetMGM, Caesars, ESPNbet, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

Explain how winning 8 games out of 12 is not 2 games over .500

---

A record of 8-4 is considered to be 4 games over .500.

The calculation for this is simple subtraction. For example, a team at 29–19 is "10 games over five hundred", as they could lose their next 10 games and still have a .500 record, while a team at 12–17 would be "five games under five hundred", as the quickest they could reach .500 would be by winning their next five games. "Above" and "below" can be substituted for "over" and "under", respectively.

---

You must have gotten 74.0 on your SAT too...:D

Why are you concerned with future games? Where is it implied that there are future games?

We are still waiting for Red's explanation.

You have one problem to solve. You have 12 games each with a value of 83 1/3 each. Do the math. How many games are you above 500 which is half of 1,000 if you have eight wins? I can't make the question any easier than this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

You have one problem to solve.

---

The term is an idiom.

It's an expression used for sports, not applicable to the slide rule club.

Wins and losses in sports exist as whole numbers.

Games over or under .500 are expressed as whole numbers.

The problem with your explanation, is that it can only be applied for half the season, namely instances when a team has played an even number of games.

Try your math for 13 games, how many wins must a team have to be at .500?

How many games over .500 is a 9-4 record?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

We are still waiting for Red's explanation.

---

Maybe he'll explain it as it relates to sports betting, where (putting any vig aside) a .500 record represents "even".

If you are even-money betting one unit per game, how many units are you "up" if your record is 8-4?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

You have one problem to solve.

---

The term is an idiom.

It's an expression used for sports, not applicable to the slide rule club.

Wins and losses in sports exist as whole numbers.

Games over or under .500 are expressed as whole numbers.

The problem with your explanation, is that it can only be applied for half the season, namely instances when a team has played an even number of games.

Try your math for 13 games, how many wins must a team have to be at .500?

How many games over .500 is a 9-4 record?

---

All I was doing was giving you an explanation that a 3rd grader could not screw up understanding how 2 games above a .500 record is a correct description of an 8-4 record out of a 12 game series.

It would not be normal for someone to express a 9-4 record as 2 1/2 games over .500. but it would not be mathematically incorrect.

I'm not even into sports. But didn't football always have an even number of games in a season up until recently when they went to 17 games? Not that that has any relevance here either. But I'm just asking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

We are still waiting for Red's explanation.

---

Maybe he'll explain it as it relates to sports betting, where (putting any vig aside) a .500 record represents "even".

If you are even-money betting one unit per game, how many units are you "up" if your record is 8-4?

---

Now you're just reaching :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

If you are even-money betting one unit per game, how many units are you "up" if your record is 8-4?

---

Red was wrong to pin this 8-4 thing on me. I have never thought about this problem before. It's one of those mathematical oddities. With 8-4 record you would be 4 units up but had you lost two more games you would be even.

An 82-80 team appears to be two games above .500 but had they lost just one more game they would be .500.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

didn't football always have an even number of games in a season up until recently when they went to 17 games?

---

No

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

I'm not even into sports.

---

Oh really? Do tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

didn't football always have an even number of games in a season up until recently when they went to 17 games?

---

No

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

I'm not even into sports.

---

Oh really? Do tell.

---

There's really nothing to tell. The only team sport I enjoy watching is hockey. Therefore I don't know rules or details about them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

It's one of those mathematical oddities. With 8-4 record you would be 4 units up but had you lost two more games you would be even.

An 82-80 team appears to be two games above .500 but had they lost just one more game they would be .500.

---

Looking at things in a relative, opposed to an absolute, way, is how the two-dice, two-envelope, and other thus paradoxes get going. We intuitively end up with abandoning one, or the other, way, and, so, never with the complete resolution of either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1Hit1der

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

It's one of those mathematical oddities. With 8-4 record you would be 4 units up but had you lost two more games you would be even.

An 82-80 team appears to be two games above .500 but had they lost just one more game they would be .500.

---

Looking at things in a relative, opposed to an absolute, way, is how the two-dice, two-envelope, and other thus paradoxes get going. We intuitively end up with abandoning one, or the other, way, and, so, never with the complete resolution of either.

---

Yeah, a lot of times in comes down to what question are you asking. Which of the below statements are true?

An 8-4 team is 2 games above .500.

An 8-4 team would need to lose 4 straight games to be at .500.

The answer is both statements are true.

In his book, Billy Walters has a system for calculating the strength of his plays. It is a "star system" but really just another way of calculating EV. He has a chart called "The Relative Value Of Each Point, NFL." You'll find the chart below. This is the chart that shows the chances of exactly hitting the spread. which we've had on here earlier. His "star system" looks like this. The higher the percentage the more he bets.:

5.5% = .5 star
7% = 1 star
9% = 1.5 stars
11% = 2 stars
13% = 2.5 stars
15% = 3 stars

So if Walters had a power ratings differential of 2.5 and the line is -4 he has a 1.5 star bet. This is how he calculates it. There are two pertinent numbers between his power ratings differential, 2.5, and the -4 line, the numbers 3 and 4. If his team loses by 3 he wins the bet. If his team loses by 4 he pushes the bet.

So from the chart he takes the 8% that the 3 is worth and adds half the value of the 4, 1.5% to it. So at 9.5% its a 1.5 star bet.

Looks like calculating EV to me.

After his two master class chapters Walters has a chapter called War Stories. For the 2009 super bowl he had a ratings differential of 2.5 points in favor of Pittsburgh over Arizona. The line was Pittsburgh -6.5. For betting purposes it's huge. He has the numbers 3, 4, 5, and 6 covered. 8% for the 3, 3% for the 4, 3% for the 5, and 5% for the 6. It's 19%, a very big 3 star play.

He bets 850K on Arizona +4 at halftime and 1.5 million on Arizona +6.5 for the game.

I'm sure some of you remember this play. With 18 seconds left in the half the score is Pittsburgh 10, Arizona 7. Arizona has the ball on the Pittsburgh 1 yard line ready to score. So Billy has the first half locked up....except....

Kurt Warner threw an interception to James Harrison in the end zone who went 100 yards to score for Pittsburgh.

A quote from Billy "As the record-setting one-hundred-yard interception return for a touchdown unfolded on the TV screen in our Las Vegas home, Susan and I could not believe that a 243 pound linebacker was traversing the entire length of the field with my pretty money in his arms."

Pittsburgh won the game 28-24 so Billy won the game bet.

Here's a video of that play:


https://youtu.be/w7IB9Rk2ro0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Good try, though, mickey. Let me know when you find Walters using the term "Expected Value" in the book.

---

Let me know when you find Walters using the term "Opinion" in the book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Good try, though, mickey. Let me know when you find Walters using the term "Expected Value" in the book.

---

Let me know when you find Walters using the term "Opinion" in the book.

---

There might be some handicappers who don't want to use the term EV when it comes to handicapping, but the term EV can absolutely be used properly when talking about Professional Sportsbetting.

I guess we need a new term for handicappers EEV.

So I have deposited money back into 2 of the 4 sportsbooks I used earlier this fall accepting their new bonus offers. BTW, I never let them run dry as redietz claims.

Total I deposited 10k to get bonus amounts of $7500 with a 9x rollover. (8 at one, 10 at the other)

Redietz advised me against this, saying they will shut me down and take the money after my first go round at bonus whoring earlier this football season. We will see.

I just thought of something about these betting syndicates using other people's accounts (pay per head) to bet and then sharing the profit. Do they work rollover money in those accounts? It seems to me that might be their modus operandi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

So I have deposited money back into 2 of the 4 sportsbooks I used earlier this fall accepting their new bonus offers. BTW, I never let them run dry as redietz claims.

Total I deposited 10k to get bonus amounts of $7500 with a 9x rollover. (8 at one, 10 at the other)

Redietz advised me against this, saying they will shut me down and take the money after my first go round at bonus whoring earlier this football season. We will see.

---

Actually, what I said was that after half a dozen go-rounds, they will begin to shut you down. And if you think you are flying under any radar, you are crazy. Unless, of course, you are using multiple accounts, in which case if they catch you, they have the option of freezing or claiming your funds.

You never said, in any post I read, that you intended to keep 10% or 20% or more in any accounts, which is what I usually recommend. You presented your withdrawals as total, against which I recommend.

So, basically, you wound up doing a version of what I recommended, but decided I was "wrong."

LOL.

I think "AP" is short for "Addicted 'Perfessional.'"

I'll be in LV the third week in December. If anyone wants to debate "EV" on camera, email me. If anyone wants to preserve their precious anonymity (gag me with a spoon), we can do audio only.

Unabated has a pretty good clinic on football handicapping contests. You'll learn a hell of a lot more from them than you will off small timer, Bob Dietz. Unabated puts the information right on to your computer screen in your house. Unlike Deitz, who insists you travel a thousand miles to get an answer from him that may or may not be accurate.

https://unabated.com/articles/season...-contests-2023

Here's Krakomberger on A Numbers Game podcast. At the 37:00 mark Krak talks about all the bonus money to be had in New Jersey when the books first opened up. "When they first started in Jersey it was bombs over Tokyo. It was unbelievable how many people were out there collecting some sick sick bonus money."

And he said "Look at Randy and the whole crew. They moved to Colorado based on Colorado getting sports betting. That's how juicy the bonuses were....they were giving away five figure bonuses. It was real money, not free bets, five figure bonuses they were giving away."

Randy is a friend of mine going back to the 90's. Axel is friends with him too. Randy told me two years ago he was going to Colorado to work the sports betting bonuses.

Krak revealed that the books hired casino hosts to come in and gin up business. And those hosts gave away the farm.

Krak says it's over with now. But I think the point that redietz doesn't get is it doesn't matter that it's going to end. AP's going in know it's going to end. The objective is to grab as much money as you can before it ends then move on to something else.

What idiot would say "Well, that's a 200K play but if I pound it they could ban me....so I'm not going to do it?"

I'll give you a case in point of a play I knew going in wouldn't last more than a few weeks. It was 1999, Harvey's Lake Tahoe. I caught a Harvey's ad in the local newspaper that they would be having a double royal promotion starting June 1 and lasting until August 31. All royals would pay double. The ads were in the paper everyday.

I knew frickin' well the promo wouldn't last but I went and grabbed as much money as I could. All the hustlers fell out for it. Everyone pounding away all day. I hit two royals on $1 Deuces Deluxe, a 100.32% game.

It got squashed after 10 days. Everyone of us knew it wouldn't last but we went in and grabbed as much as we could before it got shut down. And yes, there were those that didn't hit any royals but Harvey's got their asses handed to them.

I cringe every time I see redietz say "IT WON'T LAST!!!"

37:00 mark

https://youtu.be/J1lCoe7jY8M

I'm not redietz and I don't usually do this, and here's a good reason for kew--who's head I'm in 25/7 366--to cheer for NE.

The Steelers are a 6 pt. fav tomorrow over the pathetic Patriots. There's zero doubt Pittsburgh won't cover especially at home, and I put $1k on them to do just that. Mac Jones is a losing bust, their team is completely demoralized, and Bellichick has been unmasked in recent years as owing most of his fame to Brady.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

I'm not redietz and I don't usually do this, and here's a good reason for kew--who's head I'm in 25/7 366--to cheer for NE.

The Steelers are a 6 pt. fav tomorrow over the pathetic Patriots. There's zero doubt Pittsburgh won't cover especially at home, and I put $1k on them to do just that. Mac Jones is a losing bust, their team is completely demoralized, and Bellichick has been unmasked in recent years as owing most of his fame to Brady.

---

I have to put some rollover in any way so I'm going to bet big on this. It better win, or I'm going to hold you personally responsible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

I'm not redietz and I don't usually do this, and here's a good reason for kew--who's head I'm in 25/7 366--to cheer for NE.

The Steelers are a 6 pt. fav tomorrow over the pathetic Patriots. There's zero doubt Pittsburgh won't cover especially at home, and I put $1k on them to do just that. Mac Jones is a losing bust, their team is completely demoralized, and Bellichick has been unmasked in recent years as owing most of his fame to Brady.

---

I have to put some rollover in any way so I'm going to bet big on this. It better win, or I'm going to hold you personally responsible.

---

Axelwolf, I hope you are playing with Rob. This is a horrible game. Pittsburgh's playing a backup quarterback and the Patriots are just bad. Bad game. Somebody has to win I guess, but this isn't a game I would run towards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Here's Krakomberger on A Numbers Game podcast. At the 37:00 mark Krak talks about all the bonus money to be had in New Jersey when the books first opened up. "When they first started in Jersey it was bombs over Tokyo. It was unbelievable how many people were out there collecting some sick sick bonus money."

And he said "Look at Randy and the whole crew. They moved to Colorado based on Colorado getting sports betting. That's how juicy the bonuses were....they were giving away five figure bonuses. It was real money, not free bets, five figure bonuses they were giving away."

Randy is a friend of mine going back to the 90's. Axel is friends with him too. Randy told me two years ago he was going to Colorado to work the sports betting bonuses.

Krak revealed that the books hired casino hosts to come in and gin up business. And those hosts gave away the farm.

Krak says it's over with now. But I think the point that redietz doesn't get is it doesn't matter that it's going to end. AP's going in know it's going to end. The objective is to grab as much money as you can before it ends then move on to something else.

What idiot would say "Well, that's a 200K play but if I pound it they could ban me....so I'm not going to do it?"

I'll give you a case in point of a play I knew going in wouldn't last more than a few weeks. It was 1999, Harvey's Lake Tahoe. I caught a Harvey's ad in the local newspaper that they would be having a double royal promotion starting June 1 and lasting until August 31. All royals would pay double. The ads were in the paper everyday.

I knew frickin' well the promo wouldn't last but I went and grabbed as much money as I could. All the hustlers fell out for it. Everyone pounding away all day. I hit two royals on $1 Deuces Deluxe, a 100.32% game.

It got squashed after 10 days. Everyone of us knew it wouldn't last but we went in and grabbed as much as we could before it got shut down. And yes, there were those that didn't hit any royals but Harvey's got their asses handed to them.

I cringe every time I see redietz say "IT WON'T LAST!!!"

37:00 mark

https://youtu.be/J1lCoe7jY8M

---

Randy is not stranger to picking up free play as well..

Remember tho the free play and bonus APs make nothing lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

So I have deposited money back into 2 of the 4 sportsbooks I used earlier this fall accepting their new bonus offers. BTW, I never let them run dry as redietz claims.

Total I deposited 10k to get bonus amounts of $7500 with a 9x rollover. (8 at one, 10 at the other)

Redietz advised me against this, saying they will shut me down and take the money after my first go round at bonus whoring earlier this football season. We will see.

---

Actually, what I said was that after half a dozen go-rounds, they will begin to shut you down. And if you think you are flying under any radar, you are crazy. Unless, of course, you are using multiple accounts, in which case if they catch you, they have the option of freezing or claiming your funds.

You never said, in any post I read, that you intended to keep 10% or 20% or more in any accounts, which is what I usually recommend. You presented your withdrawals as total, against which I recommend.

So, basically, you wound up doing a version of what I recommended, but decided I was "wrong."

LOL.

I think "AP" is short for "Addicted 'Perfessional.'"

I'll be in LV the third week in December. If anyone wants to debate "EV" on camera, email me. If anyone wants to preserve their precious anonymity (gag me with a spoon), we can do audio only.

---

You can bet online and live across multiple states utilizing kiosk when appropriate. Multiple accounts are not a problem to the people in the know. The problem is moving large sums of money around online. Red is completely out of his element. He really doesn’t have a clue how to even go about it. So he talks down on the play. Standard for guys like him

A few years ago there was a play online that was worth 20k per account the first go with a reload worth the Same if you lost enough. The rollover was minimal, and was so Easy to clear. We utilized two completely different casinos live dealers to clear the bonus.

Yeah, that's how I want to be remembered -- as the guy with multiple accounts in the know. That's a real skill.

Glad to know Seed can also read minds vis-a-vis who knows what about moving money. Another useful skill. Everyone needs to know how to move large amounts of money around online. Until somebody reads this and forces Todd to allow access to all accounts or Todd is an accessory. Last I checked, Todd was living in the U.S.

Seed, you find where I recommended that Italian restaurant in Grantville yet?

I mean, WTF, anonymous yahoo announces he can move around large sums of money without being detected. Makes you wonder why anyone would post here at all, given that Seed has just given probable cause for a warrant to X-ray everyone posting at VCT.

Carry on. And oh yeah, prostitution is illegal in Las Vegas. In case anyone didn't know. Another legal tidbit.

Have a good weekend. if I were pissed off, I'd go report Seed's posts to the IRS, FBI, and Homeland. But I'm a mellow soul. No one has to concern themselves. LOL.

I was on a play once running cards in the North east after I found glitch in how certain bets were being rated. Each card cost me around $50 to build. The return was $9800 in free play per month each card. The play was so good I felt a need to do it myself and run everything I had. After playing this machine for 5 days in a row I got a visit from surveillance. He told me in so many words that my efforts were for not. I got up and left the casino down $1500 for my trouble. Fast forward three months and not only did every card get the offer I suspected the play was still working lol. Only after week 5 of pickups did everything come To a halt.

I eventually found the same play again in Minnesota. This time we took our time, and got three full months before the plug was pulled. The casino never figured it out they just removed the machine to replace it with something new.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Yeah, that's how I want to be remembered -- as the guy with multiple accounts in the know. That's a real skill.

Glad to know Seed can also read minds vis-a-vis who knows what about moving money. Another useful skill. Everyone needs to know how to move large amounts of money around online. Until somebody reads this and forces Todd to allow access to all accounts or Todd is an accessory. Last I checked, Todd was living in the U.S.

Seed, you find where I recommended that Italian restaurant in Grantville yet?

I mean, WTF, anonymous yahoo announces he can move around large sums of money without being detected. Makes you wonder why anyone would post here at all, given that Seed has just given probable cause for a warrant to X-ray everyone posting at VCT.

Carry on. And oh yeah, prostitution is illegal in Las Vegas. In case anyone didn't know. Another legal tidbit.

Have a good weekend. if I were pissed off, I'd go report Seed's posts to the IRS, FBI, and Homeland. But I'm a mellow soul. No one has to concern themselves. LOL.

---

What are you blabbing about lol

Moving money around meaning if you and a partner are in on a play you better be tight because they could run off with your cash. You also need certified funds to take advantage of the big host offers dumbo. Your bank would shut you down long before anyone if the funds are not seasoned, and legit.

Your post just reveals how broke you must be. Anyone betting significant sums online understands what I’m saying lol