This retard doesn't gamble.
Printable View
This retard doesn't gamble.
.
this is what faves did ats in the first 2 weeks for the last 5 years per the link ignoring pushes:
2024________ 14-17
2023_________11-19
2022_________16-16
2021_________11-21
2020_________16-16
faves didn't have a single winning year ats in the first 2 weeks out of the last 15 years__________and maybe beyond that____________the link was moving too slow for me to wanna go further than that
summation - faves ats went 68-89 in the last 5 years_________they won just a little over 43%
this comes close to matching the % I got for the last 500 games of the first 2 weeks of many seasons
https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nf...season/?y=2024
.
Regnis, this is for you, buddy. And any idiots who don't think I could handle a radio show.
First, a quick summary. If you are wondering how the mix-and-match transferring affected college football, and the shortening of the games, and the brandy-new coaches proliferating at the Sun Belt/MAC/Conference USA level, well, the last three days, Unders are 54-37. The highest profile games, Texas/Ohio State and LSU/Clemson, were studies in how NFL first round QBs can get stuck in quicksand running college offenses in the first games of the season.
If you do not know what you are looking at, you will be lost this season. This is a completely different distribution of power ratings and personnel than anyone has ever seen, only you won't be able to see it clearly until the season is at least two-thirds done, at which point it'll be too late because a third of the skill position players will be looking to transfer and will cease putting themselves at risk during games.
Brave New World.
Regnis, I have not bet any futures yet, but I have one I will PM you in the next 48 hours. It's off-the-wall, but radical times call for radical investments.
It was never my objective to see if you can handle a radio show. My objective was to expose your opinion to a mass audience that EV cannot be measured in any way, shape or form in sports betting. I was after touching off a public debate on the issue to see where pros stood on this issue. I already know of some pros who adhere to measuring EV in sports betting, Unabated for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmIt was never my objective to see if you can handle a radio show. My objective was to expose your opinion to a mass audience that EV cannot be measured in any way, shape or form in sports betting. I was after touching off a public debate on the issue to see where pros stood on this issue. I already know of some pros who adhere to measuring EV in sports betting, Unabated for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
LOL. I'm sorry, Mr. Crimm. Please specifically locate (1) where I said EV "cannot be measured in any way, shape, or form in sports betting" and (2) why I should care where "pros" stand on the matter.
The problem, as I said to Munchkin, is that you (as a generic know-it-all APs) think that labeling a permeable, real-world situation with tags from a (for the most part) impermeable formal probability world makes sense. It does not. If you sub in "my opinion of what I think the EV is" for "THE EV," then you are not calculating "THE EV." You are expressing your opinion.
And as we all know, everyone has an opinion.
This stuff gets old. Talk to some probability professors. Even Shackleford will find it necessary to agree with me.
You have changed your view on this subject considerably.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmIt was never my objective to see if you can handle a radio show. My objective was to expose your opinion to a mass audience that EV cannot be measured in any way, shape or form in sports betting. I was after touching off a public debate on the issue to see where pros stood on this issue. I already know of some pros who adhere to measuring EV in sports betting, Unabated for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
LOL. I'm sorry, Mr. Crimm. Please specifically locate (1) where I said EV "cannot be measured in any way, shape, or form in sports betting" and (2) why I should care where "pros" stand on the matter.
The problem, as I said to Munchkin, is that you (as a generic know-it-all APs) think that labeling a permeable, real-world situation with tags from a (for the most part) impermeable formal probability world makes sense. It does not. If you sub in "my opinion of what I think the EV is" for "THE EV," then you are not calculating "THE EV." You are expressing your opinion.
And as we all know, everyone has an opinion.
This stuff gets old. Talk to some probability professors. Even Shackleford will find it necessary to agree with me.
So the only point here is that you don't understand sharper gamblers all understand that "the opinion of EV ..." is implied with the usage of EV when it comes to sports betting. Like EVERYONE ELSE who is sharp knows that and doesn't think it is worth mentioning. It is implied because it is literally that apparent.
So where does that leave you?
You have to judge whose opinion it is. This is why we use the word sharps to discuss ourselves. We understand your whole point and have since the beginning. So then it just becomes an exercise in evaluating the person who gives something an EV value. Thats literally it.
You're just not a math/numbers guy so it makes you incomfortable when people have a numbers based approach to betting outside of how many "units". So you mocked it. You want to tout your depth and knowledge of football which is probably 2nd to no one on this forum. In a different time and place you could probably be an originator and crush but not anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionYou have changed your view on this subject considerably.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
LOL. I'm sorry, Mr. Crimm. Please specifically locate (1) where I said EV "cannot be measured in any way, shape, or form in sports betting" and (2) why I should care where "pros" stand on the matter.
The problem, as I said to Munchkin, is that you (as a generic know-it-all APs) think that labeling a permeable, real-world situation with tags from a (for the most part) impermeable formal probability world makes sense. It does not. If you sub in "my opinion of what I think the EV is" for "THE EV," then you are not calculating "THE EV." You are expressing your opinion.
And as we all know, everyone has an opinion.
This stuff gets old. Talk to some probability professors. Even Shackleford will find it necessary to agree with me.
So the only point here is that you don't understand sharper gamblers all understand that "the opinion of EV ..." is implied with the usage of EV when it comes to sports betting. Like EVERYONE ELSE who is sharp knows that and doesn't think it is worth mentioning. It is implied because it is literally that apparent.
So where does that leave you?
You have to judge whose opinion it is. This is why we use the word sharps to discuss ourselves. We understand your whole point and have since the beginning. So then it just becomes an exercise in evaluating the person who gives something an EV value. Thats literally it.
You're just not a math/numbers guy so it makes you incomfortable when people have a numbers based approach to betting outside of how many "units". So you mocked it. You want to tout your depth and knowledge of football which is probably 2nd to no one on this forum. In a different time and place you could probably be an originator and crush but not anymore.
Good to know you are a sharp. Pays the bills. Probably gets you on Carson, along with Uri Geller.
The original use of the term EV, which is still in use in a tight manner by Bob Dancer, and a somewhat looser but identifiable way by Munchkin, is that it served as a mathematical term, a predictor sans subjectivity.
As soon as you begin inserting opinions into a math term, it becomes an excuse to aggrandize yourself, as if you know what you're doing when you do not.
Nobody in the real world cares what sad labels alleged APs slap on themselves to make themselves feel like they have control of situations when they have no clue what they're doing. It's all just Fred Flintstone triggering (B-B-Bet-Bet-Bet!) to think EV should be a personal opinion, and (of course) your personal opinion is best.
It's self-aggrandizing bullshit with no utility to doing it. If 100 different "APs" are presented with a situation and come up with a hundred different EV's, well, it's not a math term in that given situation, now is it? And yet, in video poker, or actual poker, or slot play, it is. It's sad, pitiful really, to distort a definition to make you feel as if you have some expertise in something of which you are more or less ignorant.
I love the fact that freshman probability class and a handful of gambling jargon makes one a "sharp."
More power to you...and Uri Geller.
I'm talking about a specific subset of APs which you weirdly know little about. That is the world of solid winning professional cash sports bettors. (as opposed to touts) They talk about it in the same way I do. And they think exactly like the way I am describing. Everyone who is sharp gets your point and doesn't find it worth discussing. I've said this before - but the only question they'd ask is "how are you determing EV?".Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionYou have changed your view on this subject considerably.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
So the only point here is that you don't understand sharper gamblers all understand that "the opinion of EV ..." is implied with the usage of EV when it comes to sports betting. Like EVERYONE ELSE who is sharp knows that and doesn't think it is worth mentioning. It is implied because it is literally that apparent.
So where does that leave you?
You have to judge whose opinion it is. This is why we use the word sharps to discuss ourselves. We understand your whole point and have since the beginning. So then it just becomes an exercise in evaluating the person who gives something an EV value. Thats literally it.
You're just not a math/numbers guy so it makes you incomfortable when people have a numbers based approach to betting outside of how many "units". So you mocked it. You want to tout your depth and knowledge of football which is probably 2nd to no one on this forum. In a different time and place you could probably be an originator and crush but not anymore.
Good to know you are a sharp. Pays the bills. Probably gets you on Carson, along with Uri Geller.
The original use of the term EV, which is still in use in a tight manner by Bob Dancer, and a somewhat looser but identifiable way by Munchkin, is that it served as a mathematical term, a predictor sans subjectivity.
As soon as you begin inserting opinions into a math term, it becomes an excuse to aggrandize yourself, as if you know what you're doing when you do not.
Nobody in the real world cares what sad labels alleged APs slap on themselves to make themselves feel like they have control of situations when they have no clue what they're doing. It's all just Fred Flintstone triggering (B-B-Bet-Bet-Bet!) to think EV should be a personal opinion, and (of course) your personal opinion is best.
It's self-aggrandizing bullshit with no utility to doing it. If 100 different "APs" are presented with a situation and come up with a hundred different EV's, well, it's not a math term in that given situation, now is it? And yet, in video poker, or actual poker, or slot play, it is. It's sad, pitiful really, to distort a definition to make you feel as if you have some expertise in something of which you are more or less ignorant.
I love the fact that freshman probability class and a handful of gambling jargon makes one a "sharp."
More power to you...and Uri Geller.
The fact is that you don't get the point that pro sports bettors/pro gamblers understand that sports EV is not a specific mathematical function and is objective and therefore an opinion. They all get that, brother. All of them. So who are you arguing with? It isnt' just me who uses EV all over the place when talking about betting sports and understand the limits of the term. I suspect it is because you haven't been around them much. You hang out impressing people who are clueless in Johnson City.
Anyway, good luck Redietz. Always glad to see you post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionI'm talking about a specific subset of APs which you weirdly know little about. That is the world of solid winning professional cash sports bettors. (as opposed to touts) They talk about it in the same way I do. And they think exactly like the way I am describing. Everyone who is sharp gets your point and doesn't find it worth discussing. I've said this before - but the only question they'd ask is "how are you determing EV?".Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Good to know you are a sharp. Pays the bills. Probably gets you on Carson, along with Uri Geller.
The original use of the term EV, which is still in use in a tight manner by Bob Dancer, and a somewhat looser but identifiable way by Munchkin, is that it served as a mathematical term, a predictor sans subjectivity.
As soon as you begin inserting opinions into a math term, it becomes an excuse to aggrandize yourself, as if you know what you're doing when you do not.
Nobody in the real world cares what sad labels alleged APs slap on themselves to make themselves feel like they have control of situations when they have no clue what they're doing. It's all just Fred Flintstone triggering (B-B-Bet-Bet-Bet!) to think EV should be a personal opinion, and (of course) your personal opinion is best.
It's self-aggrandizing bullshit with no utility to doing it. If 100 different "APs" are presented with a situation and come up with a hundred different EV's, well, it's not a math term in that given situation, now is it? And yet, in video poker, or actual poker, or slot play, it is. It's sad, pitiful really, to distort a definition to make you feel as if you have some expertise in something of which you are more or less ignorant.
I love the fact that freshman probability class and a handful of gambling jargon makes one a "sharp."
More power to you...and Uri Geller.
The fact is that you don't get the point that pro sports bettors/pro gamblers understand that sports EV is not a specific mathematical function and is objective and therefore an opinion. They all get that, brother. All of them. So who are you arguing with? It isnt' just me who uses EV all over the place when talking about betting sports and understand the limits of the term. I suspect it is because you haven't been around them much. You hang out impressing people who are clueless in Johnson City.
Anyway, good luck Redietz. Always glad to see you post.
You conflated "objective" with "subjective" in your post. LOL. Which is exactly my point. You probably proofread your writing about as often as you proofread your thinking.
Nobody who actually is part of real, honest-to-goodness, working-with-Billy-Walters, long-term-winning sports betting should be using "EV" as a substitute for "my opinion of the 'EV' is." Why would you do that? Well, probably to (1) pat yourself on the back for using jargon, (2) give yourself a sense of intellectual security blanket-ism that doesn't exist, (3) pretend that you know what you're doing in some precise way, when you don't.
When Bob Dancer talked about "EV" in video poker, he was being precise in a way that is not applicable to sports gambling AT ALL. When Munchkin and other blackjack luminaries discuss "EV" playing blackjack, they are talking about closed mathematical systems yielding the same estimates no matter who is doing the calculating.
When your folks estimate "EV" for sports betting, you will get a hundred different estimates done by a hundred different people. That is not "EV." That is subjective opinion, which is not precise enough to be worth slapping some label on as if it's more than an opinion. If you want to aggrandize opinions with math labels, be my guest.
But do not expect anybody who actually bets sports for decades to buy your jargon, your hyping of personal opinions, or your love of pretending you know what you're doing.
You're actually whiffing on the whole point. Are you one of those poker players who pretends they are "positive EV" because they know jargon, everybody uses the jargon, and nobody actually keeps score of the wins/losses?
I mean - LOL -- think about it. You have a population of pseudo-sports bettors flexing their subjective interpretations of "EV." It's comical. How many do you think are ahead lifetime? Probably about the same percentage of tournament poker players who are ahead lifetime. As Daniel Negreanu says, about as many as birds with teeth.
All the jargon, and clubbishness, and rolling "the EV is" off your tongue is no substitute for documented ATS win/loss records. Without actual records, it's just people talking. And mostly bullshitting.
Billy Walters measured EV with statistics. No opinions. He used plain statistical models. Deetz is a quack. Which his last post clearly shows. Arguing with a quack is an exercise in futility.
.
the poster Soopoo at Wov gets +EV (not an opinion, definitely +EV) by using bonuses, and boosts from the various books he uses - sometimes betting opposite sides of the same game on 2 different books
he's been doing this for years
he admits he couldn't gain an edge without all the extras
of course, they limit the size of his bets - they need to be smallish, although that might mean different things at different books - but they're not gonna let anybody make serious bucks doing this
still, pretty interesting that he's been able to to do this for so long - others might be interested in doing the same thing for fun
I wonder what the books get out of this__? - basically nothing - why do they still send him offers like this__? - idk - maybe they think he will eventually get frustrated and plunge - but I don't think so - he's very disciplined
here is what he posted today:
"But now on to what I really do. LOTS of these type offers pouring in. Using bonuses/boosts/etc…. Got Cowboys +700, Eagles -410. Got Barkley over 89.5 at +134, Barkley under 95.5 at -113. Guaranteed small win with chance for a middle winning both. Had a NRFI +118, YRFI -115. That’s a free latte for me. Freebet turned into $40 cash.
I am limited of course on these offers to now often quite low amounts. But it’s fun, and free $$ is well, free $$!"
.
He was right that I conflated subjective and objective lol. He stillQuote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Understood my point. Dietz claims ev in betting is purely subjective when it can be mostly objective. Even Wikipedia disagrees with him. So do most winning sports bettors.
Redietz is kinda stupid too. He then later says ats is all that counts but whose fucking spread are you beating? That's why he mocks weak vs strong lines because he doesn't understand enough to differentiate. ATS records don't measure much without specifically saying the source of the spread and determining how solid of a prediction it is.
We should let him go off and be a big shot amongst Tennessee hillbillies at his local book club.
The NFL season begins tonight, meaning the 1st Two week underdog play brought to us by Half Smoke is here. Just a reminder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionHe was right that I conflated subjective and objective lol. He stillQuote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Understood my point. Dietz claims ev in betting is purely subjective when it can be mostly objective. Even Wikipedia disagrees with him. So do most winning sports bettors.
Redietz is kinda stupid too. He then later says ats is all that counts but whose fucking spread are you beating? That's why he mocks weak vs strong lines because he doesn't understand enough to differentiate. ATS records don't measure much without specifically saying the source of the spread and determining how solid of a prediction it is.
We should let him go off and be a big shot amongst Tennessee hillbillies at his local book club.
This is classic. I couldn't do better than this if I were writing an anti-AP screed.
I love weak versus strong lines. Resonates with the heyday of Rob's posting when he preached weak versus strong players.
Let me guess. Weak lines are the ones you beat. Strong lines are the ones you do not beat. Oh, wait, wait, weak lines are early-week lines with no money anchoring them. Strong lines are lines when all of the sharps have launched their money, but before the squares have bet, or maybe I have that backwards. LOL. Or maybe strong lines are late in the week when everyone has launched the money, including the Asian high roller who decided to bet all dog nicknames this week. He'd be a square, unless you like dogs, or unless he wins, in which case he's a sharp, until next week.
The post above is so classic I will be printing and distributing copies at the next pre-book club lunch with academics, which is tomorrow.
Account, you are going to have a following. Thanks for the post. If you decide to include your real name and email, I'm sure some of the lunch folk would enjoy thanking you. You can post your email here or PM me.
Ok, so now we have something we can question you about at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionHe was right that I conflated subjective and objective lol. He stillQuote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Understood my point. Dietz claims ev in betting is purely subjective when it can be mostly objective. Even Wikipedia disagrees with him. So do most winning sports bettors.
Redietz is kinda stupid too. He then later says ats is all that counts but whose fucking spread are you beating? That's why he mocks weak vs strong lines because he doesn't understand enough to differentiate. ATS records don't measure much without specifically saying the source of the spread and determining how solid of a prediction it is.
We should let him go off and be a big shot amongst Tennessee hillbillies at his local book club.
This is classic. I couldn't do better than this if I were writing an anti-AP screed.
I love weak versus strong lines. Resonates with the heyday of Rob's posting when he preached weak versus strong players.
Let me guess. Weak lines are the ones you beat. Strong lines are the ones you do not beat. Oh, wait, wait, weak lines are early-week lines with no money anchoring them. Strong lines are lines when all of the sharps have launched their money, but before the squares have bet, or maybe I have that backwards. LOL. Or maybe strong lines are late in the week when everyone has launched the money, including the Asian high roller who decided to bet all dog nicknames this week. He'd be a square, unless you like dogs, or unless he wins, in which case he's a sharp, until next week.
The post above is so classic I will be printing and distributing copies at the next pre-book club lunch with academics, which is tomorrow.
Account, you are going to have a following. Thanks for the post. If you decide to include your real name and email, I'm sure some of the lunch folk would enjoy thanking you. You can post your email here or PM me.
It really shouldn't be that hard of a concept but I will explain.
Yes there is clearly randomness in a sports game.
In a different universe you could have the players play this game a million times over with every thing else being more or less the same.
The results will have an average.
If the line is strong - The line will be really close to what this theoretical line is. If it is strong enough and the vig is big enough then it simply is not possible to beat.
The line that is literally impossible to determine just like EV - HOWEVER we know this line exists. (Or at least we should - unless yer dum but I'm talking to marginally sharp peopel I'm hoping)
A weak line is the opposite of strong lines.
I'm sure you can try and gizmo talk about all early and closing lines and all that but yes closing lines will definitely be stronger. I mean that's not a given but in general it should be.
This stuff is obvious to most sharp bettors. Just like the idea that EV is not and never is precise and is dependent on who is giving their opinion of EV. But when they're talking among themselves and not having to spell out everything - they leave off the "opinion" disclaimer. But then again, that is sharp bettors talking amongst their peers and not a tout asking for $.
REDIETZ- EVERYONE ELSE IN THE FUCKING ROOM UNDERSTANDS THIS EXCEPT YOU !
I'm happy for you to show this post to people. Please do. You're far too much of a creep to give you my real name. Perhaps if you were a profesional gambler and not a tout then it'd be different. You seem fairly honest in lots of ways but also fairly creepy in others. But I can assure you - I have nothing to be embarassed about outside of misuing objective and subjective once. LOL
I mean, I'd much rather make that mistake than be the combination of pompous and wrong that you are.
I'd pay everyone in his book club $20 if they'd read the last 3 posts between us 2. LOL
Anyway, keep being you, Redietz.
Quick question for our resident sports betting "expert", Bob Dietz : do you think this 1st 2 weeks NFL play, backed by 15 years of data (still somewhat small sample size) is + EV? (According to whatever strange definition you come up with for +EV)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Oh, obviously...in a different universe...do tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
I'll tell you what's obvious...you're a looney.
https://youtu.be/yqKFPWC9RYI