That shows you're worried.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Enjoy the response!
That shows you're worried.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Enjoy the response!
That's about what I thought...a big old nothing-burger.
I'm pretty sure Super AP heavyweight James Bigjohn also made an appearance.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmWhen GF first started they sent invitations to everyone who is anyone in gambling. Some big names signed up and posted in the Introductions section but didn't stick around.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJIt is not just "big names" or known players that were fake or phony, but they lifted entire threads from other forums to make it look like that discussion with all legit and credible members took place on their forum when it didn't and not one of the people involved in the discussion were even members there.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
I don't know exactly what you would call that but it is some kind of theft and fraud.
When you build a forum on the back of that kind of thing, you end up with what they have now...Singer, Mdog a guy calling himself a punk in punkcity and other known trolls dominating and pushing trolling and hate to limits not seen before.
Henry Tamburin, Frank Scoblete, Mike Caro, Tom McEvoy, John Growchowski, Steve Bourie, Linda Johnson, Richard Marcus, Dan Paymar....
LOL! AssclownQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJIt is really sad that this is what Mickey Crimm has become.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Would they be willing to also show your win/loss record with them? If you are one of their suckers I've no doubt you have that many comp dollars.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJIt is really sad that this is what Mickey Crimm has become.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Mickey's looking to bet me regarding how many Loyalty Dollars I have at Northbet. But he won't.
Source?Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbAs I said, those were all bullshit accounts and not those real people.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmWhen GF first started they sent invitations to everyone who is anyone in gambling. Some big names signed up and posted in the Introductions section but didn't stick around.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Henry Tamburin, Frank Scoblete, Mike Caro, Tom McEvoy, John Growchowski, Steve Bourie, Linda Johnson, Richard Marcus, Dan Paymar....
At least I have alcoholism as an excuse for believing KJ actually tried to hack Rob's account.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzDecades of alcoholism has its price.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJIt is really sad that this is what Mickey Crimm has become.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Of course, my working out for 50 years has had its price, too. Not sure how much cartilage is left in these knees. But better my knees go to hell than my mind and my integrity.
Ditz, your sober ass has no excuse for believing Singer was really trying to convince people that Druff posted in his account.
Inspector Clouseau
Hey!!! STRAWMAN!!!! Still can't help yourself about making shit up to fuel a false narrative, can you KJocchio?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJYeah, I don't want to and am not going to go THERE redietz. I still applaud and admire mickey Crimm for overcoming his drinking and wish him good health going forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzDecades of alcoholism has its price.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
But I will say this: Several years ago, what has it been 3-4 now, When Ron Singer stole the double up bug claim, Mickey Crimm told us all that he believed Ron, because of some private information that Ron had about the sequence. That surprised some of us, to the point that Mickey has been angry and unable to let go ever since and there has been bad blood. But when mickey came out in support of Ron playing the DU bug, in his opinion, he basically told us it only pertained to this specific claim.
Now years later mickey supports everything Singer says and is the first to run to Ron's defense. Mickey Crimm has full blown joined the Troll Patrol, people like Ron Singer, coach belly, Blackhole, and a few others, as well as newer members MadDog, and this punk-person at GF's, that he railed against. I really find that sad. I don't find it comical, or entertaining, or any of that. I just find it sad.
Ditz, how much of a retainer do you think a lawyer will charge Druff to take the case? Oh, that's right, YOU are going to pay the retainer.
And besides, haven't you been listening to your butt buddy, KJoccio? He claims Rob is broke. Do you believe that too? You wouldn't try to sue someone that is broke would you? Yes, maybe you are that dense. Don't forget the retainer. LOL!
Mickey is always trying to start shit these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
No, I don't think Ron is broke. I think he has a nice retirement with good social security income from both him and his wife working a full life. And there is nothing wrong with that, but there is something telling about it.
It means Rob worked all his life.
He didn't play his singer progression system fulltime from 2000- 20004 like he claims.
He didn't play the double up bug from 2004-2009 like he claims.
He didn't play all the VP he claimed from 2009 until whenever, hitting all these magical jackpots that he has posted.
He worked! THAT is how you end up with high social security amounts.
And his wife had to work a full life because he lost a lot of money gambling.
What I have said is Ron's retirement plan was and is to mooch off his kids, which he is doing!
With good social security for both him and his wife, they could probably afford to live somewhere on their own, even with evictions and bankruptcies on their record. But it would cut into Rob's gambling money. And as you well know, mickey crimm, THAT is the difference between a real winning AP type player and a degenerate gambler. The degenerate gambler need a constant flow of money from somewhere because his gambling does not provide money, it costs money. That is Ron.
As far as being broke, I have no idea how much money Rob Singer has. Bank account balances aren't public record. I do know every one of the sites that tells you a persons wealth, list Rob as the under 50K category which is the lowest level, which of course conflicts with all his claims.
Of course Ron will tell you he has suitcases full of money buried all over the yard that no one knows about, like a gangster. Is that realistic or just more Singer bullshit? Let's just see if mickey will answer honestly or ignore the question. :rolleyes:
He also will tell you he bought houses for his kids with cash, implying that he showed up at closing with a suitcase full of money. That is not the way you pay for a property with cash. I know because I have paid "cash" for 2 different properties. Paying cash means money is transferred from your account to the realtors or seller's account. That means the money is IN YOUR ACCOUNT. There are no suitcase full of cash transactions anymore.
He also will tell you he spent 1.5 million on an RV when there was never any RV. Everyone knows that. Again, you don't buy a 1.5 million dollar RV with suitcases full of money. That would involve wire transfers from accounts.
Ron's claims are all mafia nonsense from the 70's. And that is what Ron's stories always are, a fantasy type thing from decades ago or movies he saw decades ago. They just aren't reality and mickey, YOU damn well know that. You just now chose to be Rob's new wingman. The modern day Alan Mendelson. For some odd reason, you think that is comical.
Mickey crimm, I did look at GF today for a laugh and did see this post. My brother is out and I have no idea if he will respond or not. I no longer have a desire to post there but I will respond here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickey Crimm, post: 157447, member: 440
My brother came to live with me in 2014 after graduating college in Florida. he wanted to learn about card counting, which I tried to discourage, but eventually taught him what I know. I posted about this at the time at WoV.
When I had my second heart surgery in 2017, my brother was my "heart coach" for recovery purposes. I shared some of that experience on this forum.
At Gambling Forums, I posted several threads about my brothers experiences in his first couple years as a card counter, including a year we were partners. This was 2016. They are in the blackjack section at GF.
So my brother is not something new all of the sudden. And he is not something we have been sitting on for 9 years since 2014, waiting for a sock puppet opportunity.
What is somewhat new is his interest and limited posting on forums. That started a year ago, when he read something from Singer at GF and felt like responding. Our other roommate also very occasionally posts. You can spot his posts because he flies off the handle getting angry very quickly. For most of the last year, I just sort of laughed it off, thinking it was kind of funny there were 3 of us posting and no one seemed to spot the differences.
A couple months ago, I mentioned that there were 3 of us posting. I had thought about asking my brother to create his own account, but such an account would have immediately been flagged at GF and here as a sock puppet because of same wifi, and even computer in the living room, although I also post from my phone.
I even brought it to the attention of the administrator at Gf before anyone else did. I asked for guidance as to whether my brother should create his own account and the administrator said no, confirming that such an account would be flagged. You can read some of that discussion in the suggestions/comments section at GF.
I haven't discussed the same issue with Dan Druff, as it is less an issue here, because my brother rarely posts here. He likes to troll Singer at GF. But I think it has been brought to Druffs attention here as well. If he would like to weigh in with guidance of what to do, I am listening.
What I do find interesting though is while our situation is somewhat unusual, is it really? What if a husband and wife were both gamblers, whether AP's or not. Let's take Jean Scott and her husband, who I understand are retired, or Bob Dancer and his ex wife, or what if Mrs Shackleford was interested in gambling and wanted to participate. Should the second member of a household be penalized because there is already someone in the household on a forum? I don't know the answer. I guess that is up to each forum owner/administrator.
Now my brother most definitely isn't interested in being part of a forum to discuss his experiences. After my Mdawg situation of being doxed, he thinks I an an idiot for continuing to post on forums. Like wise, I think he wastes a million hours a year playing video games online he is a big gamer! Such is life.
I’m so tired of you Also taking shots at legit HOF APs like Mickey. The guy has forgot more plays then you even know. He lives the life while you Just post fairytales online.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJMickey is always trying to start shit these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
No, I don't think Ron is broke. I think he has a nice retirement with good social security income from both him and his wife working a full life. And there is nothing wrong with that, but there is something telling about it.
It means Rob worked all his life.
He didn't play his singer progression system fulltime from 2000- 20004 like he claims.
He didn't play the double up bug from 2004-2009 like he claims.
He didn't play all the VP he claimed from 2009 until whenever, hitting all these magical jackpots that he has posted.
He worked! THAT is how you end up with high social security amounts.
And his wife had to work a full life because he lost a lot of money gambling.
What I have said is Ron's retirement plan was and is to mooch off his kids, which he is doing!
With good social security for both him and his wife, they could probably afford to live somewhere on their own, even with evictions and bankruptcies on their record. But it would cut into Rob's gambling money. And as you well know, mickey crimm, THAT is the difference between a real winning AP type player and a degenerate gambler. The degenerate gambler need a constant flow of money from somewhere because his gambling does not provide money, it costs money. That is Ron.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeedvalueI’m so tired of you Also taking shots at legit HOF APs like Mickey. The guy has forgot more plays then you even know. He lives the life while you Just post fairytales online.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJMickey is always trying to start shit these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
No, I don't think Ron is broke. I think he has a nice retirement with good social security income from both him and his wife working a full life. And there is nothing wrong with that, but there is something telling about it.
It means Rob worked all his life.
He didn't play his singer progression system fulltime from 2000- 20004 like he claims.
He didn't play the double up bug from 2004-2009 like he claims.
He didn't play all the VP he claimed from 2009 until whenever, hitting all these magical jackpots that he has posted.
He worked! THAT is how you end up with high social security amounts.
And his wife had to work a full life because he lost a lot of money gambling.
What I have said is Ron's retirement plan was and is to mooch off his kids, which he is doing!
With good social security for both him and his wife, they could probably afford to live somewhere on their own, even with evictions and bankruptcies on their record. But it would cut into Rob's gambling money. And as you well know, mickey crimm, THAT is the difference between a real winning AP type player and a degenerate gambler. The degenerate gambler need a constant flow of money from somewhere because his gambling does not provide money, it costs money. That is Ron.
Rob also made more then you in his previous job. He was more successful at his craft then you will ever be at yours. It took me all but 15 min to verify that online. So it seems your just a jealous gay man. Jelly of successful people. Get a life
First, I don't give a shit what you think, or say. You are here to troll. Everyone knows it.
Second, I have never taken shots at mickeycrimm as far as his AP play. I have the utmost respect and always have for mickey, and really any real player that makes a living through advantage play. I will fight mickey back on some of his trolling, which he has admitted that he engages in.
Third, I don't give a flying fuck what Rob may have done working in some other field, for some other person company or government. This is a gambling forum! And the only thing I have ever challenged are Rob's gambling related claims.
So just fuck off, asshole.
You highlight real insinuating I’m not ? I got 600k in a bag currently sitting in a hotel room at a gambling destination that I’m sure Dan can verify that says otherwise you fraud. I’m here to call you out. Think I don’t know you ? Lol what I open book you are. You doxed your entire life and family online for years idiotQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
So let’s talk about robs gambling career. Do you have any idea how much money rob needed to play the levels of Vp he did for all those years ? You can’t be this stupid to believe the guy was unsuccessful.Quote:
Originally Posted by SeedvalueYou highlight real insinuating I’m not ? I got 600k in a bag currently sitting in a hotel room at a gambling destination that I’m sure Dan can verify that says otherwise you fraud. I’m here to call you out. Think I don’t know you ? Lol what I open book you are. You doxed your entire life and family online for years idiotQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
You never had the roll to play one tenth the volume he did at those stakes. This includes the late Alan M. Both of those men were and are more successful then you will ever be.
You are so full of shit and hate, it really isn't worth continuing to discuss anything with you.
The man that posts as Rob Singer and the late Alan Mendelson, were/are both life-long losing gamblers. One (Alan) was somewhat honest about that, the other has lied making up claim after claim, every single one completely debunked.
I am an AP, low to mid level as it is, using the elementary technique of card counting (mostly), and have made a decent living for 13 years now in Vegas, supported myself for 20 years. So any money that I have made....any money is more than Rob or Alan have made. That is just fact.
People have doxxed me. Been able to find where and who I am and even come to my building. And yet these same people, contradictory will say he isn't a blackjack player and doesn't live in Vegas, after they have PROVEN I AM and DO . You haters are just loony tunes. Apparently, there is no lie or level you won't sink to.
And I love the people claiming my brother is now made up. He is on the fucking deed and listed as co-owner of the place we live. The very information people have looked up. How is a sock puppet or imaginary person on the deed and government documents of ownership. You need to be a real person with real ID for that to occur. I am not happy that this info came to be. It literally cost me 25-30k last year in reduced play. But what the fuck!?
I mean what the fuck! when does the craziness stop? :mad:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeedvalueSo let’s talk about robs gambling career. Do you have any idea how much money rob needed to play the levels of Vp he did for all those years ? You can’t be this stupid to believe the guy was unsuccessful.Quote:
Originally Posted by SeedvalueYou highlight real insinuating I’m not ? I got 600k in a bag currently sitting in a hotel room at a gambling destination that I’m sure Dan can verify that says otherwise you fraud. I’m here to call you out. Think I don’t know you ? Lol what I open book you are. You doxed your entire life and family online for years idiotQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
You never had the roll to play one tenth the volume he did at those stakes. This includes the late Alan M. Both of those men were and are more successful then you will ever be.
Seed, here's the issue I have with your arguments.
About 35 years ago, a reporter for the Pottsville Republican (which has a Pulitzer under its belt) interviewed me prior to the NFL playoffs, as papers occasionally have done. I had a bang-up year in the Wise Guys Contest and overall, winning 60-some percent of my games. And I was on a really good multi-year streak, as tallied in "Tipsters or Gypsters?" which was published in Las Vegas. Anyway, the reporter asked me how successful I had been, and I answered I had won 60% ATS for that year and x% for three years and y% for five years and finished first in the Wise Guys and second in Bally's College Contest and all this. Later in the interview, he came back and asked me the same question, and I expanded on the answer. And then at the conclusion of the interview, he asked me the same question again, and the light bulb finally went on. He wanted me to answer how much income I had, which I declined to do.
My point is that when you use the word "successful," Seed, you and that reporter are talking about income or wealth or something that is not the general definition of "successful." If you're a whiz-bang AP and you consider yourself "successful" because you have x number of dollars, then any Chinese billionaire's son who plops themselves in Las Vegas next week and makes more money than you is "more successful" than you by your definition. I find this absurd.
Before you go on some rant than records and expertise don't translate into real "success," bear in mind I recently finished living in the same multi-million-dollar house as a dude who pumped through a million playing blackjack in 24 hours or something like that. I was basically doing the Magnum P.I. thing on Higgins' estate. Now this guy listened to me and worked with me, and I worked with him. So does where I lived or what I drove (occasionally a Lambo) mean I am "successful?" Or does doing that stuff for a few years not count? My girlfriend and I were staying in the master bedroom, by the way, so no, we were not in the servants' quarters.
Your definition of "success" is messed up, Seed. I've worked with presidents of companies, CFO's, a vice-president of Boeing, and Billy Walters. Success is being able to do what you want to be able to do, at a high level, and have other "successful" people recognize and respect you. It ain't exclusively or even primarily about money.
I think this is what has Singer and many haters on tilt when it comes to gambling. They are "successful" in life but have failed miserably gambling. They can't take it. It's beyond them that they aren't gambling savants or don't have specific kinds of discipline. In Rob's heyday, he had all kinds of behavioral problems in Las Vegas. He doesn't even remember that he shared those problems with people.
I read Smart Money years ago. Billy Walters used statisticians that ran simulations on matchups all week long before gametime. The only way you can do that is with statistics. Statistics is math. Walters was betting according to the math.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by SeedvalueSo let’s talk about robs gambling career. Do you have any idea how much money rob needed to play the levels of Vp he did for all those years ? You can’t be this stupid to believe the guy was unsuccessful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedvalue
You never had the roll to play one tenth the volume he did at those stakes. This includes the late Alan M. Both of those men were and are more successful then you will ever be.
Seed, here's the issue I have with your arguments.
About 35 years ago, a reporter for the Pottsville Republican (which has a Pulitzer under its belt) interviewed me prior to the NFL playoffs, as papers occasionally have done. I had a bang-up year in the Wise Guys Contest and overall, winning 60-some percent of my games. And I was on a really good multi-year streak, as tallied in "Tipsters or Gypsters?" which was published in Las Vegas. Anyway, the reporter asked me how successful I had been, and I answered I had won 60% ATS for that year and x% for three years and y% for five years and finished first in the Wise Guys and second in Bally's College Contest and all this. Later in the interview, he came back and asked me the same question, and I expanded on the answer. And then at the conclusion of the interview, he asked me the same question again, and the light bulb finally went on. He wanted me to answer how much income I had, which I declined to do.
My point is that when you use the word "successful," Seed, you and that reporter are talking about income or wealth or something that is not the general definition of "successful." If you're a whiz-bang AP and you consider yourself "successful" because you have x number of dollars, then any Chinese billionaire's son who plops themselves in Las Vegas next week and makes more money than you is "more successful" than you by your definition. I find this absurd.
Before you go on some rant than records and expertise don't translate into real "success," bear in mind I recently finished living in the same multi-million-dollar house as a dude who pumped through a million playing blackjack in 24 hours or something like that. I was basically doing the Magnum P.I. thing on Higgins' estate. Now this guy listened to me and worked with me, and I worked with him. So does where I lived or what I drove (occasionally a Lambo) mean I am "successful?" Or does doing that stuff for a few years not count? My girlfriend and I were staying in the master bedroom, by the way, so no, we were not in the servants' quarters.
Your definition of "success" is messed up, Seed. I've worked with presidents of companies, CFO's, a vice-president of Boeing, and Billy Walters. Success is being able to do what you want to be able to do, at a high level, and have other "successful" people recognize and respect you. It ain't exclusively or even primarily about money.
Magnum, Higgins requests your presence in the 301 thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by SeedvalueSo let’s talk about robs gambling career. Do you have any idea how much money rob needed to play the levels of Vp he did for all those years ? You can’t be this stupid to believe the guy was unsuccessful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedvalue
You never had the roll to play one tenth the volume he did at those stakes. This includes the late Alan M. Both of those men were and are more successful then you will ever be.
Seed, here's the issue I have with your arguments.
About 35 years ago, a reporter for the Pottsville Republican (which has a Pulitzer under its belt) interviewed me prior to the NFL playoffs, as papers occasionally have done. I had a bang-up year in the Wise Guys Contest and overall, winning 60-some percent of my games. And I was on a really good multi-year streak, as tallied in "Tipsters or Gypsters?" which was published in Las Vegas. Anyway, the reporter asked me how successful I had been, and I answered I had won 60% ATS for that year and x% for three years and y% for five years and finished first in the Wise Guys and second in Bally's College Contest and all this. Later in the interview, he came back and asked me the same question, and I expanded on the answer. And then at the conclusion of the interview, he asked me the same question again, and the light bulb finally went on. He wanted me to answer how much income I had, which I declined to do.
My point is that when you use the word "successful," Seed, you and that reporter are talking about income or wealth or something that is not the general definition of "successful." If you're a whiz-bang AP and you consider yourself "successful" because you have x number of dollars, then any Chinese billionaire's son who plops themselves in Las Vegas next week and makes more money than you is "more successful" than you by your definition. I find this absurd.
Before you go on some rant than records and expertise don't translate into real "success," bear in mind I recently finished living in the same multi-million-dollar house as a dude who pumped through a million playing blackjack in 24 hours or something like that. I was basically doing the Magnum P.I. thing on Higgins' estate. Now this guy listened to me and worked with me, and I worked with him. So does where I lived or what I drove (occasionally a Lambo) mean I am "successful?" Or does doing that stuff for a few years not count? My girlfriend and I were staying in the master bedroom, by the way, so no, we were not in the servants' quarters.
Your definition of "success" is messed up, Seed. I've worked with presidents of companies, CFO's, a vice-president of Boeing, and Billy Walters. Success is being able to do what you want to be able to do, at a high level, and have other "successful" people recognize and respect you. It ain't exclusively or even primarily about money.
I think this is what has Singer and many haters on tilt when it comes to gambling. They are "successful" in life but have failed miserably gambling. They can't take it. It's beyond them that they aren't gambling savants or don't have specific kinds of discipline. And they make up all of these dumbass stories in an attempt to get gambling credibility and respect.
After that Mr. T has is hoping to get just a minute of your time for an opportunity.
Rob is only trailing Crimm by 117 posts. No sweat for the #1 All-Time forum troll/legend....... In before Crimm bitches that it's not a competition. Lighten up Mickey :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerThat shows you're worried.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Enjoy the response!
Mickey, you know as much about Billy Walters as I do about banging Elizabeth Hurley.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmI read Smart Money years ago. Billy Walters used statisticians that ran simulations on matchups all week long before gametime. The only way you can do that is with statistics. Statistics is math. Walters was betting according to the math.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by Seedvalue
Seed, here's the issue I have with your arguments.
About 35 years ago, a reporter for the Pottsville Republican (which has a Pulitzer under its belt) interviewed me prior to the NFL playoffs, as papers occasionally have done. I had a bang-up year in the Wise Guys Contest and overall, winning 60-some percent of my games. And I was on a really good multi-year streak, as tallied in "Tipsters or Gypsters?" which was published in Las Vegas. Anyway, the reporter asked me how successful I had been, and I answered I had won 60% ATS for that year and x% for three years and y% for five years and finished first in the Wise Guys and second in Bally's College Contest and all this. Later in the interview, he came back and asked me the same question, and I expanded on the answer. And then at the conclusion of the interview, he asked me the same question again, and the light bulb finally went on. He wanted me to answer how much income I had, which I declined to do.
My point is that when you use the word "successful," Seed, you and that reporter are talking about income or wealth or something that is not the general definition of "successful." If you're a whiz-bang AP and you consider yourself "successful" because you have x number of dollars, then any Chinese billionaire's son who plops themselves in Las Vegas next week and makes more money than you is "more successful" than you by your definition. I find this absurd.
Before you go on some rant than records and expertise don't translate into real "success," bear in mind I recently finished living in the same multi-million-dollar house as a dude who pumped through a million playing blackjack in 24 hours or something like that. I was basically doing the Magnum P.I. thing on Higgins' estate. Now this guy listened to me and worked with me, and I worked with him. So does where I lived or what I drove (occasionally a Lambo) mean I am "successful?" Or does doing that stuff for a few years not count? My girlfriend and I were staying in the master bedroom, by the way, so no, we were not in the servants' quarters.
Your definition of "success" is messed up, Seed. I've worked with presidents of companies, CFO's, a vice-president of Boeing, and Billy Walters. Success is being able to do what you want to be able to do, at a high level, and have other "successful" people recognize and respect you. It ain't exclusively or even primarily about money.
With all due respect, you are out of your depth, as in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.
The truly frightening thing is that you are arguably the best forums have to offer regarding gambling expertise (that's a sideways compliment). And you have no real idea what you don't know or how inappropriate some of your conclusions/reasoning are. The degree of naivete and sheer lack of reasoning on these boards is unbelievable.
So to sum up:
-EV isn't real
-the amount of money you have won is not a measure of gambling success
-free contests that cost and pay nothing are all that matters
Some of us could care less about fame/recognition in regards to gambling knowledge. I speak for myself and a couple of others who know a hell of a lot more then publicized on these forums. I'm here for a laugh or two or three !Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzMickey, you know as much about Billy Walters as I do about banging Elizabeth Hurley.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmI read Smart Money years ago. Billy Walters used statisticians that ran simulations on matchups all week long before gametime. The only way you can do that is with statistics. Statistics is math. Walters was betting according to the math.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
With all due respect, you are out of your depth, as in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.
The truly frightening thing is that you are arguably the best forums have to offer regarding gambling expertise (that's a sideways compliment). And you have no real idea what you don't know or how inappropriate some of your conclusions/reasoning are. The degree of naivete and sheer lack of reasoning on these boards is unbelievable.
Ditz, you know as much about gambling theory as I know about banging Jennifer Aniston. I'm flabbergasted that someone that represents himself as some kind of expert can't grasp the simple concept of EXPECTED VALUE.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
You've totally destroyed any reputation that you thought you had.
The Fauci defense, "Senator Paul, you don't know what you are talking about" IS NOT GOING TO WORK FOR YOU. You can't hide behind that.
Plain and simple, you don't know jackshit about legitimate gambling strategy. The more you open your mouth about it the more you prove just how stupid you are. Your lack of intelligence on gambling theory is appalling. It's evident now that you are a quack when it comes to any kind of gambling strategy.
It's clear now why Billy Walters ran you off.
I guess that what Red is trying to wrap his head around is that "a man shouldn't be captive to what frees him".
---> Blue Demon vs. the Satanic Power.Quote:
A man shouldn't be captive to what frees him.
https://anagram-solver.net/a%20man%2...m?partial=true
I mean, a truly dangerous man is neither a robot, as a slave to expected value, nor, a worshipper of God. Each will forsake a man where it matters most.
Billy Walters here, using coach belly's account. Coach and I are great friends, like brothers, we go way back. We even had an act that we toured around the comedy clubs back in the mid-to-late 80's...Billy & Belly...kind of a Martin & Lewis thing. Anybody remember seeing us?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Coach is a great guy...I really mean that, like really really great, and so smart and funny.
Anyway, just want to say that I have no idea who this diet guy is, I don't know him, never heard of him, never hired him.
I also want to say that mickey is right, and knows his shit.
And from now on, I'm not going to announce myself when I post on belly's account, I'm just gonna post and you won't know whether it's him or me. This way if either of us gets caught writing something stupid, or lying, we can just say it was the other guy. That should work, over and over again.
I just want to confirm that I am not belly, I'm Billy, a real person totally separate from belly, and not a sock-puppet pretending to be somebody else, while posting on my like-a-brother's account.
Thanks.
wow Billy F'in Waters in the house.
Redietz not responding - too busy driving the lambo of the man he made successful.
This is why this forum is such a fucking cesspool; are we really reduced to discussing whether or not EV exists?
Time and time again, you guys continue to demonstrate why (most) Forums suffer from a lack of meaningful moderation. It's because you can't actually have substantive discussions about gambling topics as all of you seem to find this back and forth trolling significantly more entertaining.
Anyway, before any money talk comes my way---I ain't got much money. Don't really want it, either. Shit, I make as much from writing as I do gambling, most years.
That out of the way, Red, EV is an abbreviation for, "Expected Value." Do you rely upon EV when betting sports? Yes, you do. You might not choose to call it that, but you do. You don't have to have a precise probability that you ascribe to an event to believe that you have +EV on that event; the concept of EV is not that strict. Most of us machine guys couldn't even put an EV, to the tenth decimal place or whatever, on a particular play. We just know the expected outcome is more than 100% of the total amount we are betting.
If you have a spread that is -2.5 -110, and you bet that spread, are you betting it because you think the probability of the team winning by three, or more, is precisely 50%?
(.5 * -110) + (.5 * 100) = -5
Of course not. If 50%, then you would have an expected loss of $5, hence the assumed vig of 4.5454545~% on those sorts of bets.
Okay, so what is the breakeven probability?
((1-x) * -110) + (.x * 100) = 0
x = 0.52380952381
((1-0.52380952381) * -110) + (0.52380952381 * 100) = 0
In effect, you would need the probability of the team to win by three, or more, to be 52.380952381% in order to overcome the -110 juice.
Does that mean you have to put a number on it like, "I think this team is 54.757341765823417% to win by three, or more?"
No, you don't. You could take something extremely simple like a machine where I know I can only win on the following spin--do I know my exact EV all the time? Probably not. I know my exact EV almost 0% of the time, but I know it's positive.
---> List of incidents that have been considered great blunders.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
https://anagram-solver.net/%20Rediet...0?partial=true
Anyway, with the two additional posts, Red's death anagram with gematria goes,
--->Quote:
It's shut down, Redietz, 4t post seven thous4nd, eight hundred eighty-one, for t4x ev4sion.
Here's Where the Story Ends (Tin Tin Out song).
Stephenson House (University of Toronto).
https://anagram-solver.net/It%27s%20....?partial=true
Strikingly, even closer to (my) home than the previous second output line. And, another place on Charles Street. Ha.
Quote:
Stephenson House was a community involvement residence at Victoria University in the University of Toronto. Located at 63-65 Charles Street West, the house hosted ten undergraduate students per year until 2010, when it became offices and storage space for the HR department and physical plant staff of Victoria University. As a student residence, Stephenson House was self-governed and self-regulating, with the aim of creating a living environment that supports and encourages a sense of ownership, involvement, and responsibility, both at home and in the greater community. The building has historical value as the last remaining house of the many 19th century Victorian homes on Charles Street.
I don't know that Red will post, again, but, as Mcap always points out about me, it's getting weirder, and weirder. Like how far can people fall, but still cling to the horseshit.
Why do you keep participating at a cesspool??Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146
Are you monitoring and reporting us?
You guys are all so good-natured and fun to be around; how could I ever resist stopping by, from time to time?Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
No, I am neither monitoring nor reporting you. Who would I ever report anyone here to and for what? LOL
Everyone who claims to be a professional gambler on here understands EV exists in all gambling outside of Redietz. Redietz claims it can't exist in sports betting because it can't be mathematically defined. Everyone laughs at him. There is no debate. Redietz just catches so much shit because he is so arrogant while also being so wrong. EV is not really the topic of discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146
I also want to be clear that I would not term myself a, "Professional gambler," but recreational AP. Maybe I'm somewhere between the two, idk. I wouldn't exactly call myself a, "Professional," writer, either, though I guess I am to the extent that it's my most guaranteed source of income. I feel like my calling myself a professional is a disservice to other writers who are, you know, good.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Thats fine but you likely understand EV. I'm not currently a professional gambler either but I probably know as much as many professional gamblers. I am far from an expert in any 1 area. I just find the stuff interesting and fun to mess with. Problem with gambling is scaling up. In business scaling up does not have near the issues typically. Easier to not be a professional gambler.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146I also want to be clear that I would not term myself a, "Professional gambler," but recreational AP. Maybe I'm somewhere between the two, idk. I wouldn't exactly call myself a, "Professional," writer, either, though I guess I am to the extent that it's my most guaranteed source of income. I feel like my calling myself a professional is a disservice to other writers who are, you know, good.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
This means for getting into bigger and better games as a poker player you have to go around kissing ass acting like you like folks.
Blackjack you scale up they will counter-measure you.
In slots you want to scale up you need to find bigger plays which aren't very common. (Lots of moving around or hiring scouts)
Sports betting you end up needing beards if you are proficient at all.
It is a lot of work.
Anyway, point is that being a professional gambler is harder than business IMO. It is just far more fun and romantic but to scale it becomes a significant effort. If you are trying to be serious let your hourly lead you and nothing more. I've never been serious enough to pay attention to the hourly. I just sorta fell into what I wanted to do. Not the right approach to maximize money.
---> Speedway - Spin-out - Cryptologic.Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
https://anagram-solver.net/Why%20do%...l?partial=true
Quote:
Cryptology is the study of codes (secret systems of words or numbers): "She is an expert in computer security and cryptology." Cryptology specialists decode and analyze intelligence.
---> Ⱥnonymous (internet group).Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
https://anagram-solver.net/%20Are%20...s?partial=true
TheGrimReaper
TheGrimReaper is invisible
Gold
TheGrimReaper's Avatar
Join Date
Sep 2022
Posts
169 --------> 169*1 ---> 1961
That's true.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionThats fine but you likely understand EV. I'm not currently a professional gambler either but I probably know as much as many professional gamblers. I am far from an expert in any 1 area. I just find the stuff interesting and fun to mess with. Problem with gambling is scaling up. In business scaling up does not have near the issues typically. Easier to not be a professional gambler.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146I also want to be clear that I would not term myself a, "Professional gambler," but recreational AP. Maybe I'm somewhere between the two, idk. I wouldn't exactly call myself a, "Professional," writer, either, though I guess I am to the extent that it's my most guaranteed source of income. I feel like my calling myself a professional is a disservice to other writers who are, you know, good.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
This means for getting into bigger and better games as a poker player you have to go around kissing ass acting like you like folks.
Blackjack you scale up they will counter-measure you.
In slots you want to scale up you need to find bigger plays which aren't very common. (Lots of moving around or hiring scouts)
Sports betting you end up needing beards if you are proficient at all.
It is a lot of work.
Anyway, point is that being a professional gambler is harder than business IMO. It is just far more fun and romantic but to scale it becomes a significant effort. If you are trying to be serious let your hourly lead you and nothing more. I've never been serious enough to pay attention to the hourly. I just sorta fell into what I wanted to do. Not the right approach to maximize money.
My approach is to focus on getting a reasonable hourly with minimum hassle and competition. You'd be surprised as to the number of things I have been approached on, but I genuinely have little interest in working with anyone I have not already worked with regardless of the amount of money involved. Money really doesn't move me very much and it's almost more important not to have things go south on something major and have to defend myself publicly on that---especially in today's social media climate.
With that, there's a certain risk in jumping every time a few grand is dangled in front of me. Would a few grand be good with relatively little effort? Sometimes, but I don't really care. There's too much unforeseen shit that can happen on the backend of that money that isn't worth the hassle or people thinking you're beholden to them beyond pre-defined specific tasks.
So, I try to just be content with whatever I have and whatever I can make. Besides, if I'm ever in a serious pinch, then there's really no hard limit on how much writing I can do. I'm also aware of a few casinos where the camping might still be decent, but I'd sooner get a traditional job as camp any one place or area and spend 12+ hours a day in casinos.
I don't even think it's more fun, if you want to know the truth. At least, all the time spent grinding in traditional casinos is not fun at all, in my opinion. I do like figuring out machines that I don't already know, but the actual gambling part I could take it or leave it.
It depends on the job. I suspect in the long run I'd find it more fun going to a casino every day than commuting to a job every day at the typical 9-5 times. (Getting up early, be presentable, fight traffic there, fight traffic back). That stuff drags me down. I remember walking into an office down a hallway. Each office 2 desks. Over and over. That is basically what you're set to do until you retire which is basically preparing for the end. It is the realization of all that shit while sitting there that just drags me the fuck down while questioning my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146
Now in a casino you have similar issues.. what am I doing with my life.. this fucking nasty air.. but.. you do it on your own.
I have to agree with you on figuring out machines. I get a lot of enjoyment out of that. I can't say I really nailed down any numbers or was particularly successful in clocking them but I got a pretty good feel. Had a great casino to do it in but too many hustlers walking just not worth the hourly. If I lived close by for the friday/saturday night thing then maybe.
I think this is spot on Mission. Redietz is old school. I don't think he thinks in terms of EV or probably more accurately calls it EV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146
At the end of the movie Casino, after the car bombing, Ace, who was playing Lefty Rosenthal, says something like, "in the end, I went back to picking winners. I could always pick winners". So he doesn't say it, maybe didn't even know it, but whatever it is he was doing to pick his teams was plus EV. He didn't throw a dart at a dart board, whatever methology he was using was +EV. I think redietz is along that same line.
Also, I want to yet again address the redietz tax thing that some of you are harping on. Redietz addressed it at GF addressing Ron. I don't know why he didn't address it here, where even more are harping on it. I am not going to repeat it. That is up to him to do. He has a reason. Sounds a little goofy to me, but if that is how he does it fine.
But you guys harping that a guy currently a month behind on a property tax bill is proof that Redietz isn't who he claims are trolling. You are making shit up that you don't know because you don't like someone, or think he is "condescending". Just stop. It is just dishonest. No other word for it.
And the funny part, a guy, who claims to have earned 300+ k a year from his job, until he quit to play video poker, where he won half a million playing a progression wagering system, 3 million playing the double up bug (a claim he stole), and has hit various other million dollar jackpots, also had a property tax bill that he didn't pay of 11k, that went to court and finally he had to pay, along with evictions, bankruptcy and other legal judgements. THAT people is a pattern of years conflicting with these claims and yet no one says anything. That is just funny to you because it is Ron Singer.
If we are challenging claims, do it with real legitimate concerns, not because you don't like someone. And don't give someone a pass because you think he is funny. That is what I have always done. The few people I have challenged, it isn't because I didn't like them. I didn't know them (especially at the beginning). I challenge claims that defied math and the way things work.
It is clear as day that he is condescending. Why don't you just stop? I am condescending too but not when I am blatantly wrong about something. So funny how you jump to defend him. You're bringing up the tax situation repeatedly. Not other people. Gotta manufacture drama though. Your compulsion.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJI think this is spot on Mission. Redietz is old school. I don't think he thinks in terms of EV or probably more accurately calls it EV.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146
At the end of the movie Casino, after the car bombing, Ace, who was playing Lefty Rosenthal, says something like, "in the end, I went back to picking winners. I could always pick winners". So he doesn't say it, maybe didn't even know it, but whatever it is he was doing to pick his teams was plus EV. He didn't throw a dart at a dart board, whatever methology he was using was +EV. I think redietz is along that same line.
Also, I want to yet again address the redietz tax thing that some of you are harping on. Redietz addressed it at GF addressing Ron. I don't know why he didn't address it here, where even more are harping on it. I am not going to repeat it. That is up to him to do. He has a reason. Sounds a little goofy to me, but if that is how he does it fine.
But you guys harping that a guy currently a month behind on a property tax bill is proof that Redietz isn't who he claims are trolling. You are making shit up that you don't know because you don't like someone, or think he is "condescending". Just stop. It is just dishonest. No other word for it.
And the funny part, a guy, who claims to have earned 300+ k a year from his job, until he quit to play video poker, where he won half a million playing a progression wagering system, 3 million playing the double up bug (a claim he stole), and has hit various other million dollar jackpots, also had a property tax bill that he didn't pay of 11k, that went to court and finally he had to pay, along with evictions, bankruptcy and other legal judgements. THAT people is a pattern of years conflicting with these claims and yet no one says anything. That is just funny to you because it is Ron Singer.
If we are challenging claims, do it with real legitimate concerns, not because you don't like someone. And don't give someone a pass because you think he is funny. That is what I have always done. The few people I have challenged, it isn't because I didn't like them. I didn't know them (especially at the beginning). I challenge claims that defied math and the way things work.
Likewise your obsession with Singer is nothing anyone else shares. Get a clue.
BTW since Redietz took the cowards way and responded else, would you be so kinda to post a link here? While I care, I don't care enough to search for this posting.
He is condescending. So what? Mickey crimm is condescending. James Grosjean is condescending (big time). Axelwolf at times is condescending. Monet is condescending. JBJB is condescending (especially towards card counters).Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
You don't try to discredit someone simply because you find them condescending or dislike them for some other reason. It has been happening to me for a long time and it is not right. It is dishonest. That is why I am defending redietz.
No, redietz is old school when it comes to defining terms.
"EV" is a mathematical term. It is rooted in and applied to mathematical formulas.
Now I am actually interested in Mission's response to the following, as he is a language precisionist.
There is no point in applying "EV" to what amounts to an opinion. Doing that assigns an inappropriate implication of mathematical exactitude. For all of the situations where folks use the term "EV" for sports betting, one could just as easily and more technically accurately say "my subjective opinion" or "my opinion."
Rather than "the EV of this is +10%" for sports-based comments, it is more appropriate to say, "I think I have a 10% edge" or "my subjective estimation is that I have a 10% edge." You are stating an opinion for anything associated with sports betting, not a mathematical circumscribed reality.
So the question then becomes, why do people prefer to use the term "EV?" Well, let's go to the usual suspects, and Mission can chime in here, please.
1) It provides a jargon veneer, an implication that one knows what one is talking about as part of a niche crowd. Expertise jargon, in other words, that people take some solace in or wear like a medal.
2) It provides, verbally, an illusion of control and precise definition that, in reality, does not exist. You can say your opinion is that you have a 10% edge until the cows come home. That doesn't mean you have a 10% edge. Using the term "EV," however, implies that you do (in reality) have that 10% edge. It's a kind of verbal bluster, a pseudo-math veneer.
3) I have all the hubris in the world, but folks using the term "EV" for sports are off the hubris charts. They are defining their opinions, which undoubtedly in most sports cases are inferior to mine (a little self-hubris thrown in there) as having much more crystalline math-ness to them than they actually have. They are pretending and arguing that their opinions are some kind of math.
And let me add here that trends history or any kind of history do not provide sufficient rationale to treat opinions as math. So you can't go around saying this-and-that happened x number of times, therefore I have a certain "EV" edge.
Now I do think Mission will agree with me on the following: If you prefer to believe something in the world of gambling, check yourself and work to not believe it. I bring this into the picture because everyone undoubtedly would prefer to believe that one's opinion has the cachet of mathematical certainty. So instead of "my opinion," everyone would rather "the EV."
Basically, it's why use an inappropriate and technically inaccurate term to give gravitas to what amounts to your subjective opinions?
Nothing like jumping the tracks all the way to trying to discredit either of the above, let alone by evil tactics. Not even a matter of discrediting either, because neither has, ever, provided even the simplest proof of any significant thus income. Given how easy that may be, offset by the endless goddamn gambling essays to nowhere, day in and out for the last couple of decades, then discrediting someone above remains in the realm of Tasha's similarly daily shit about Guns and Roses. Regardless, the pattern has only been to conclusively show the persons, one by one, to be worthless sacks of lying shit, aka non-starters. The only evidence of any thus thing around here was my quote of a casino executive, who noted that vulturing slots was strictly a low-income lifestyle. You guys can talk till blue in the face, but, it is what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJHe is condescending. So what? Mickey crimm is condescending. James Grosjean is condescending (big time). Axelwolf at times is condescending. Monet is condescending. JBJB is condescending (especially towards card counters).Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
You don't try to discredit someone simply because you find them condescending or dislike them for some other reason. It has been happening to me for a long time and it is not right. It is dishonest. That is why I am defending redietz.
Now it's old hit-and-run Red. Lol. Ha.
People understand the caveats of using EV.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
EV is not a term of expertise or whatever the fuck. To the contrary it is used in all forms of gambling. It is a generic term. You have it backwards you buffoon dipshit.
Maybe it'd be easier for you if you just replace preface EV with subjective if the concept bothers you so much. No one else has these difficulties. It is your insistence in assuming everyone implies they know the exact EV of every bet. That is on you, doofus.
The phrase "expected value" is not even semantically interchangeable with the phrase "my opinion".
If you really wanted to go this road would have to say something like "my opinion about the average value" which in its ungainliness and pointlessness would reveal how stupid this crusade is.
Is Grosjean posting here? No. Micky at least has proven to know what he is talking about. While I disagree on a lot of things with him he is always spot on with his gambling.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJHe is condescending. So what? Mickey crimm is condescending. James Grosjean is condescending (big time). Axelwolf at times is condescending. Monet is condescending. JBJB is condescending (especially towards card counters).Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
You don't try to discredit someone simply because you find them condescending or dislike them for some other reason. It has been happening to me for a long time and it is not right. It is dishonest. That is why I am defending redietz.
I suspect you're just not sharp enough to get this. Be condescending all you want but either be correct or have a point that is at least partially worth defending.
Redietz has none of those. Whatever. Arguing with you about this is a waste beyond the average waste of time.
Red, you really do make it hard to defend you. :D
You are wrong on the subject of EV. Just as you are wrong on the subject of anonymity for Advantage Players, especially at the professional level.
But go ahead, make your argument.
Well, here's Red's excuse, from GF's, about his taxes.
Quite a routine, Red. A subjectively "great" bit of EV, for you. Just wait for the penalties to mount until everyone gets a good look. Ha.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
See, I think that "APs" are the ones who have it backwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
First, if "EV" is such a generic word, committing to nothing mathematical, why use it at all? It still boils down to opinion regarding something. Dressing up opinions with the phrase "EV" has no value. Everyone has his own subjective estimation of personal "EV" for every situation, just as everyone has the proverbial asshole. So what's the value? You have a pseudo-mathematical language security blanket to justify this or that going forward?
Second, the population of folks who go around trying to solve machines or blackjack, and who think using the phrase "EV" is worthwhile in sports because they use the phrase for machine play or blackjack, is swamped and hugely outnumbered by the population of people trying to beat sports. The vast majority of people trying to beat sports are not going to go around declaring "EV" for a game of opinion. They WILL use ROI and historical data to frame past results, but they are not going to pretend they are dealing with coin flips and march out "EV" and mathematical pseudo-certainty as a way to estimate results going forward.
Assigning "EV" to sports betting is, from the origin point, kind of silly, as spreads are designed to balance wagering. They do not originate so as to accurately predict outcomes. Wagering can come from any direction, from any person or cartel, for any reason. Money is just money. It doesn't have to be rational, sophisticated, or even attempting to be right. Spreads are designed to balance money, so they also don't have to be rational or attempting to be right as long as they come close to balancing the books. Coin flips are always coin flips. Sports spreads can vary wildly depending on which son of a Chinese billionaire decides to dabble in what sport any given month. Sports spreads are not coin flips, and going forward you can't treat them like coin flips, so why adopt math terms for something that is not anchored in math?
I think EV is a mathematical term, but I don't think it is one that requires absolute precision in order to be applied.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
The biggest example I could think of, for the purposes of advantage play, where a precise EV would be known is something like a video poker progressive. You could clearly point to it and say, my EV on each bet is 101.546328%, or whatever the case.
EV is not meant to imply that one is stating an absolute fact, rather than an opinion, unless the EV is accompanied by a number. A really simple example in slots vulturing would be a game such as Golden Egypt where I might find a situation in which both of the first two reels are going to be wild on the next spin---there is no possible outcome that could result in a failure to profit on that spin. I would say, "My EV is WAY more than 100% on this one," but I wouldn't know the exact EV because I don't know the probabilities of all possible symbols on the other three reels, which means that I can't assign an outcome probability to 4OaK and 5OaK (everything would be at least a 3OaK, unless they Free Games symbol landed in one of the positions on reel three, but even then, all applicable lines would count as two Pharaoh guys, which pays).
People can just as easily say of a situation, "My opinion is +EV," or, " I don't think there's any way that is positive."
In the context of sports, you could say, "I think my EV is about 110%, and it would mean the same thing," or, "I think I have a 10% edge."
My inclination is to think that Expected Value started as a term that applied to percentages that were precisely known and then just started getting used as a more general catch-all term.
1.) If you think so, that's fine. It's a term that people familiar with gambling would know and understand and anyone not can look up.*
Yes, I agree that the strict mathematical definition of, "Expected Value," requires that all probabilities be known. In its use as an investment term, that's not really the case as there is some guesswork involved. I guess you could think of slot AP's, and the like, using it more in the investment-term sense that does not require strict mathematical precision, if you wanted.
2.) If you think it implies that, then that is fine. Most people would not make a statement, "I have a 10% edge," as a matter of fact, without actually knowing that. They would say, "I think my edge is about 10%."
3.) In any case, if you don't win 52-whatever percentage of bets you make on -110 lines, then you will have lost, lifetime, betting into -110 lines. In order to bet sports positively on that line, then you must believe that the probability of covering is greater than that.
I often preface, "I think the EV is about..." with, "In my opinion." If someone just looked at a machine and said, "I have a 10% edge here," I'd ask how they could possibly know that.
A communist that stiffs the town on his taxes? That's some ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrimReaper
Do the civil servants and teachers wait until October 2023 to get paid for 2022,
or does the town bond out their operating expenses, so everyone ends up paying more
to cover for the deadbeats?
No wonder he ducked mickey's repeated questions about paying his SSI.
It's the red flag that tewlj claimed doesn't exist. Tip of the iceberg stuff.
This year I'm doing something I've never done before. I'm tracking wager against earn on a monthly basis. I want to see what it looks like over a one year period. I want to see how much wager I run in a year and how much I make from it.
The reason is because, as Mission says, on most stuff we don't know the exact advantage we have, we just know we have an edge. And there is a lot of difference in the size of the advantage from play to play.
But I think pros in other areas like BJ, Sportsbetting, Poker, don't realize just how big the edges are that machine pros work.
And also how little effort is put into it.
In the month of January my total wager was $46,463
My win in January was $10,870. This is actually a little less than my average win for a month, at least for the past few years.
So my ROI was 123.4%. Do I think that much ROI is extroardinary? No. I think it's in range of the overall edge.
I hit 3 W-2G's for $4800. Did I get lucky? Not really. One was a 102 for 1 payoff, one was a 148 for 1 payoff, and one was a 182 for 1 payoff. That's not really big payoffs.
I've played the game the W2'G's came off of a gillion times. I have an entry point in an accumulator game and I'm playing to get to free spin mode. There's a ton of variance. I might not get jackshit, or I might get a 10 for 1 payoff or 40 for 1 but the big payoffs do come in on this game. You have to continually rinse and repeat to suck the money out of it. I don't remember exactly but I think my biggest payoff was around 350 for 1 on this game.
I don't think I ran extremely lucky in January. For the amount of wager I think I ran pretty good but nothing extraordinary.
Another thing is this stuff in not really a grind to me. I don't work it that hard. I'm not on the casino floor more than a few hours a day.
There are slot AP's that make a lot more than me and more power to them. I'm happy with what I do and the pace I work it. Don't care to get involved in anything else.
I hang out in spots where the other AP's aren't. And I do a lot of cruising the scenic byways, national parks, state parks, historical districts, etc.
Should be fun tracking the wager against the earn this year to get an idea of the overall edge.
So you're averaging about $130K a year whereas Acuntinquestion has to take out markers. Apparently getting a near perfect score on his SAT doesn't carry over to gambling prowess. LMFAO:Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
Shots Fired!Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
The return fire will probably be something along the lines that I was wedgied, made fun of and beaten up in high school even though I wasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by monetQuote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
Shots Fired!Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Oh, I neglected to mention that there's virtually no one here, let alone at any time in the over past ten years since the forum got going. However, a come-lately relatively very small bunch of disgruntled so-called AP's, from the WoV, joined the forum, and, then, wrote that the so-called AP's remaining there were full of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrimReaper
Years ago, Mickey wrote that what he [supposedly] does can't be done, anywhere else, [if, ever,] or in Nevada. The constant storyteller guy, who was never able to sell any of it for anything, although he tried to sucker people into a wager about his being able to make $500 a day, from 8 am, to midnight, if not sooner, but, went on to joke about having an accomplice thus set-up the machines before playing them, as if such were needed whether he were legit. Interestingly, now he claims that it takes him only a few hours a day, or whenever he plays. And, he seems to have forgotten the days that it didn't. (I thought that he slowed down because of health problems, a few years ago. Regardless, I let it to him to fish out his posts about what he made in which years. Not my job to discredit him, let alone a bunch of internet stories to a few strangers who on par believe everything overly stupid.)
Now he spouts off about tracking every dollar in and out, for a year, even though he, supposedly, already knows his supposed average win each month, and, I guess, the coin-in, too. Obviously, it's all just more fucked-up story telling from the guy who couldn't sell any of it, let alone because no one gives a shit, let alone about expected value however defined. Just a bit of shit in an essentially shitty book he stumbled across, but just couldn't get out of his drunken head. To go through all of that, but, still never really or actually prove anything.
Funny odd, too, how all the supposedly half-way normal or reputable thus millionaires living the high life in Las Vegas never seem to find their way to any of the thus forums. Instead, we are always left with the increasingly boring antics of the likes of Monet & Tablepooey, let alone AiQ, and, Tasha & MrV. The true trolls, the ones supposedly with so much money, etc, going for them, as if they cared, that they just can't find something better to do somewhere else with someone else. Gay and other health issues, Penn. State quackery, going from the obviously functionally illiterate, to a bunch of expensive words that just could never mean something side by side. Chronic family, and other, issues that can't be laid to rest. Yet among all the supposed thus millionaires, there was not a one to really or actually prove out any of it. No one smart enough, lazy enough, crazy enough, sick enough, bored enough. But, the same old responses of, well, the other guy must be jealous of it, must have lost, a troll, and, so on. The other guy is too anonymous, or, not anonymous enough. And on, and on. Mendelson and every one else just plain gave up on Crimm, in Montana, in terms of helping him to properly prove himself. Just to much crazy shit in every way possible.
So, yeah, sure, old Mickey on oxygen in a scooter hit the big jackpots, but, doesn't care to do anything else. Even so, who's to know but the other ten or so jackass strangers on the internet? They won't even be writing it on his tombstone. "Here lies Mickey Crimm, the guy who traveled from one shithole casino to the other, but, only after he "picked himself up" from a another lifetime of riding the rails drunk.
No wonder. But, what the heck to expect for a self-reflective (hardcore internal narrative) armchair asshole like the rest of you? I mean, only a tree makes a noise in the forest with no one around. When people do it, it's "just plain weird", except, I guess, for the resultant anagrams with gematria.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplayThe return fire will probably be something along the lines that I was wedgied, made fun of and beaten up in high school even though I wasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by monetShots Fired!Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplaySo, you're averaging about $130K a year whereas Acuntinquestion has to take out markers. Apparently getting a near perfect score on his SAT doesn't carry over to gambling prowess. LMFAO:
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
IN a games like video poker and keno it's easy to figure expected value. Keno is the easiest to figure because the probabilities are fixed.
The equation is probability times payoff. Two-spot is easy example
total combinations 80 X 79/2 X 1 = 3,160
combinations that make the two spot 20 X 19/2 X 1 = 190
3160/190 = 16.63158
If the two-spot pays 12 for 1:
15/16.63158 = 90.19%
So the EV for the player is 90.19%
The EV for the house is 109.81%
Keno is easy to figure because it's easy to calculate the probabilites against the payoffs. With the typical slot machine the public generally doesn't know exactly what the payback is. Except we know what the parameters are, somewhere between 75% and 100%.
But every line pay that can be hit has a definite probability. Mixed Bars might be 1 in 20, Single Bars 1 in 50, etc. The public generally doesn't know those probabilities but there is a definite EV there.
It's the same with sportsbetting. Against a -110 line you have to win 52.4% to break even. So if you are looking to turn a profit then you must limit your bets to only those side you think have a greater than 52.4% chance of covering.
Probability theory definitely comes into play here. You think it's probable that team A has a greater than 52.4% chance of covering. Exactly what that probability is....is hard to quantify. But it's definitely there. Expected Value is definitely there.
2 hours before game time the line is sitting on 7. But an hour before game the Salt Lake City wood choppers show up and hammer the favorite as they always do. The line moves to 7.5, then 8, then 8.5. It reaches 9 about 20 minutes before game.
I go up and take the dog +9. On a typical game I might not know exactly what the EV is but I know it's a hell of a lot better than the EV of those that took the dog at +7.
I did quite well with this method when I was there. And it don't matter what the hell redietz thinks about it.
Mickey, I too am big on keeping track of my expected value for each session and as a running total throughout the year. I then know exactly where I am vs expectation at any given time. Fairly easy to do in blackjack with the help of simulation, using an average EV per round played. There are many benefits to me doing this, but mainly I just like to know where I am at. My brother does not follow my example on this. Sometimes when we are discussing things and I ask how he is doing, he will say I am up $32k. When I ask vs what expectation, he says something like "don't know, don't care". I just feel like a player playing seriously should know how he is doing in regard to expectation.
Now there are exceptions. I was reading an account of 'someone's' baccarat play on another forum. Here are the last 3 days:
Day 7 play.
Baccarat.
Actually, really nice work. Way to go! no really big bets needed, either.
+22000
Day 8 play.
Baccarat.
I got creamed one session. But then I won more than I had lost in a re-match.
+6800
On one of the recent sessions, I was down...mmm, about -75K. I rallied, quickly at first, then gradually, to end the session at +55K. Easier somehow to do when you have to! And that entire 130K came from just...20K.
Get creamded....just win more in a 'rematch'. Down 55k, just win 130k to finish ahead 65k. Just win baby! Like that is the way real play works. :rolleyes:
However, I must say I do like the congratulatory note to oneself of "really nice work, way to go!". Reminds me of the stars and stickers my kindergarten teacher used to stick on our assignments. I keep fairly simple records of my play, but I think I will start adding little congratulatory remarks to myself. ;)
On a serious note, I don't think it is a coincidence that certain players (plural), who many of us have a hard time believing never speak of EV. I don't think they even understand EV. I remember one guy that used to post here and occasionally returns used to mock my discussions of EV, referring to it as "fantasy buck", saying things like do you pay for food with "fantasy bucks"? With all the nonsense, it is comments like this that you know who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't (Rob). :rolleyes:
Does Casino Verite allow an evaluation of Scarne's (or Moses' derivative system) counting system (https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...l=1#post153696) to see if it gets above the 1.5% player edge threshold ? I'm guessing no counting system does. I'm also guessing that someone would have code their own program to make that evaluation which of course wouldn't be worth it.
Not to my knowledge unless things have changed. But I would check with Norm Wattenberger. Norm is very good and fast with customer support and questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
What is the significants of a 1.5% player edge?
---> Beginnings: Geomancy, Builders' Rites and Electional Astrology in the European Tradition.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrimReaper
https://anagram-solver.net/%20Justab...g?partial=true
With 6's for the three f's, again. Anyway, the poor boy just can't get the shit out of his head. Over and over with different numerals. Anybody have their slide rule out? Even super-blowhard KJ, trying to hitch his cart to MC's, could only put up "someone else's" figures. Ha.
Yeah, old Mickey went on bit about his challenge, at https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...24500+midnight . Back, then, the self-proclaimed all-time great slot pro went by the handle, SlobDinger, after he was initially banned here. At least I never ran back to old Druff, Druff to beg to be reinstated. Now I wonder about how many times he similarly begged the head clown of Vegas. Oh, I came across a post of Mickey's about my simply telling a new guy what I thought about gambling, at https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...ll=1#post56273 . Druff, Druff used to ban me a lot, in the early days, over dumb shit like that. And, Crimm calling me a troll, which ties in with the anagram with gematria about the internet group called Anonymous. https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...ll=1#post77796 . Used to piss him off a lot, until he put me on ignore. Most of us have appeared in his signature line at one time or another. One time, I put his in mine, about get the motherfucker troll on. Druff, Druff deleted it, again without warning. Now Crimm making out that lots make a lot more money than him.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Okay, to finish off the Redietz stuff. I experimented a bit with his number of posts. The anagram-with-gematria solver settled in on 7,885 , with things steadily thus progressing from 7,863 , when I first ran it on his "passing". Approaching some sort of super-strange limit, say, the "Redietz parapsychological factor", RPF ("rip off") for short, with each and all of the digits included. Gosh, now I recall Redietz' supposed history with debunking thus stuff in the real world.
--->Quote:
It's shut down, Redietz, 4t post seven thous4nd, eight hundred eighty-five, for t4x ev4sion.
Ten Nine Eight Seven Six Five Four Three Two One.
Here's Where the Story Ends (Tin Tin Out song).
President of the University of Tennessee.
https://anagram-solver.net/It%27s%20....?partial=true
Which lets me to wonder what happened to the two missing posts, from old Red, from Tennesse. Something to ponder until my return.
Double P.S.S. 7885 = 19*(6-1)*1*83 ---> 1961, and the 183rd day of non-leap years, as July 2. As well, there's, the 7,885th prime, 80,599 = (-10,000 + 90,000 + 600 - 1) ---> 1961. Go figure.
TheGrimReaper
TheGrimReaper is invisible
Gold
TheGrimReaper's Avatar
Join Date
Sep 2022
Posts
173
Thanks. There's no significance to that edge other than I don't recall a counting system that can break that threshold. I don't own Casino Verite software, I was just curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJNot to my knowledge unless things have changed. But I would check with Norm Wattenberger. Norm is very good and fast with customer support and questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
What is the significants of a 1.5% player edge?
Here is the way I think about it. If you read books from back in the 80's or for those that played that time, the general consensus was that a player could get somewhere between a 1-2% advantage using card counting. And that is the time that different counts mattered somewhat. A stronger count, especially with a decent single or double deck game could make a difference and push a player toward the 1.5-2% range.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
But those days of those games are gone. Scarne died in 1985, so whatever he was doing or players like him with regards to more complicated type counts was for the games of 1980. It just doesn't translate to 2020's. That is what I have tried to tell Moses and people that want to still push those ideas like Jstat.
There were 2 big changes that changed everything. First, was going to the 6 and 8 deck shoe games. This means the count frequencies for any count higher than TC +1 or so is pretty drastically reduced. If a player puts his max bet out at lets say a TC of +4, he is going to see less than half those opportunities as what he used to.
The second big change was the dealer hit soft 17. On paper it looks like this adds about .2% to the house edge and that seems manageable. But the effect on a card counter is much worse because it slides all of the true count frequencies just a bit further. So lets say with a house edge of .45, a player had an even game just below the TC of +1 and a +EV game just above +1. The "extra house edge" slides those numbers further away, so now the break even point is above +1 and the +EV point at about +1.5. Everything slides away from you just a bit. So the point you are break even is fewer counts than before, the point you are +EV is further away and fewer frequencies than before. The point in which you were at a 1% advantage, further away and fewer times you will see that count. Everything slides about half a true count away and you sill see fewer of those counts. :(
The effect of this is with a play all approach it is very difficult to get a 1% advantage, much less anything over that. I mean if you use a huge spread, 1-50, or 1-100, maybe, but good luck lasting more than a few minutes playing that way.
But there is something players can do to offset those negative changes and that is to exit at least some of the negative counts, the worst of them. This changes the true count frequencies back towards the player because he isn't playing the worst of the counts. This can push you back towards 1% total advantage, even over with an aggressive bet spread and ramp. BUT most players don't like to play this way, exiting games and moving around. And of course, you can't do it everywhere.
Thank you. A rough way to make an easy living as they say. I agree that Wonging out of negative counts is a great way to go and used to do it many years ago before I discovered machine play - I've been a machine player for quite some time and have no regrets. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the current machine play climate will last indefinitely. It seems like it will, since not only traditional companies but new upstart companies keep pumping out persistent state machines as I type this. It would have been fun to see what the edge is on a ratio system (versus modern counting systems - with both applied to the single deck, stay on soft 17 games) like the Scarne or Moses derivative, but since no one has already done an analysis, it will remain a mystery as it has only entertainment value from a historical perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJHere is the way I think about it. If you read books from back in the 80's or for those that played that time, the general consensus was that a player could get somewhere between a 1-2% advantage using card counting. And that is the time that different counts mattered somewhat. A stronger count, especially with a decent single or double deck game could make a difference and push a player toward the 1.5-2% range.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
But those days of those games are gone. Scarne died in 1985, so whatever he was doing or players like him with regards to more complicated type counts was for the games of 1980. It just doesn't translate to 2020's. That is what I have tried to tell Moses and people that want to still push those ideas like Jstat.
There were 2 big changes that changed everything. First, was going to the 6 and 8 deck shoe games. This means the count frequencies for any count higher than TC +1 or so is pretty drastically reduced. If a player puts his max bet out at lets say a TC of +4, he is going to see less than half those opportunities as what he used to.
The second big change was the dealer hit soft 17. On paper it looks like this adds about .2% to the house edge and that seems manageable. But the effect on a card counter is much worse because it slides all of the true count frequencies just a bit further. So lets say with a house edge of .45, a player had an even game just below the TC of +1 and a +EV game just above +1. The "extra house edge" slides those numbers further away, so now the break even point is above +1 and the +EV point at about +1.5. Everything slides away from you just a bit. So the point you are break even is fewer counts than before, the point you are +EV is further away and fewer frequencies than before. The point in which you were at a 1% advantage, further away and fewer times you will see that count. Everything slides about half a true count away and you sill see fewer of those counts. :(
The effect of this is with a play all approach it is very difficult to get a 1% advantage, much less anything over that. I mean if you use a huge spread, 1-50, or 1-100, maybe, but good luck lasting more than a few minutes playing that way.
But there is something players can do to offset those negative changes and that is to exit at least some of the negative counts, the worst of them. This changes the true count frequencies back towards the player because he isn't playing the worst of the counts. This can push you back towards 1% total advantage, even over with an aggressive bet spread and ramp. BUT most players don't like to play this way, exiting games and moving around. And of course, you can't do it everywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by SeedvalueSo let’s talk about robs gambling career. Do you have any idea how much money rob needed to play the levels of Vp he did for all those years ? You can’t be this stupid to believe the guy was unsuccessful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedvalue
You never had the roll to play one tenth the volume he did at those stakes. This includes the late Alan M. Both of those men were and are more successful then you will ever be.
Seed, here's the issue I have with your arguments.
About 35 years ago, a reporter for the Pottsville Republican (which has a Pulitzer under its belt) interviewed me prior to the NFL playoffs, as papers occasionally have done. I had a bang-up year in the Wise Guys Contest and overall, winning 60-some percent of my games. And I was on a really good multi-year streak, as tallied in "Tipsters or Gypsters?" which was published in Las Vegas. Anyway, the reporter asked me how successful I had been, and I answered I had won 60% ATS for that year and x% for three years and y% for five years and finished first in the Wise Guys and second in Bally's College Contest and all this. Later in the interview, he came back and asked me the same question, and I expanded on the answer. And then at the conclusion of the interview, he asked me the same question again, and the light bulb finally went on. He wanted me to answer how much income I had, which I declined to do.
My point is that when you use the word "successful," Seed, you and that reporter are talking about income or wealth or something that is not the general definition of "successful." If you're a whiz-bang AP and you consider yourself "successful" because you have x number of dollars, then any Chinese billionaire's son who plops themselves in Las Vegas next week and makes more money than you is "more successful" than you by your definition. I find this absurd.
Before you go on some rant than records and expertise don't translate into real "success," bear in mind I recently finished living in the same multi-million-dollar house as a dude who pumped through a million playing blackjack in 24 hours or something like that. I was basically doing the Magnum P.I. thing on Higgins' estate. Now this guy listened to me and worked with me, and I worked with him. So does where I lived or what I drove (occasionally a Lambo) mean I am "successful?" Or does doing that stuff for a few years not count? My girlfriend and I were staying in the master bedroom, by the way, so no, we were not in the servants' quarters.
Your definition of "success" is messed up, Seed. I've worked with presidents of companies, CFO's, a vice-president of Boeing, and Billy Walters. Success is being able to do what you want to be able to do, at a high level, and have other "successful" people recognize and respect you. It ain't exclusively or even primarily about money.
I think this is what has Singer and many haters on tilt when it comes to gambling. They are "successful" in life but have failed miserably gambling. They can't take it. It's beyond them that they aren't gambling savants or don't have specific kinds of discipline. In Rob's heyday, he had all kinds of behavioral problems in Las Vegas. He doesn't even remember that he shared those problems with people.
You worked for people you perceive are important so what. You know some connected guys so what. True success is helping others obtain their dream. I’ve don’t that many times over and continue to do it. Money is just a way to keep score.
Pottsville is a shit hole, and so is Grantvile. That shitty restaurant you told me some months back to visit and ask about you was terrible. They also didn’t know you. I just so happen to be coming through that area and decided to ask about you. Now we find out you cant even pay property tax ? So I guess everything you are writing is indeed False. Much like Gunplay Kew the great gay Gatsby.
Listen I don’t care really that you guys post all these fairytales on these forums. It’s entertainment for you I guess. Keep at it just know you guys don’t really fool anyone. No one believes your tall tales.
Just because you regurgitate everything you read that someone else wrote doesn’t make you real. Successful gamblers don’t spend all this time writing essays on basically anonymous messages boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJHere is the way I think about it. If you read books from back in the 80's or for those that played that time, the general consensus was that a player could get somewhere between a 1-2% advantage using card counting. And that is the time that different counts mattered somewhat. A stronger count, especially with a decent single or double deck game could make a difference and push a player toward the 1.5-2% range.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
But those days of those games are gone. Scarne died in 1985, so whatever he was doing or players like him with regards to more complicated type counts was for the games of 1980. It just doesn't translate to 2020's. That is what I have tried to tell Moses and people that want to still push those ideas like Jstat.
There were 2 big changes that changed everything. First, was going to the 6 and 8 deck shoe games. This means the count frequencies for any count higher than TC +1 or so is pretty drastically reduced. If a player puts his max bet out at lets say a TC of +4, he is going to see less than half those opportunities as what he used to.
The second big change was the dealer hit soft 17. On paper it looks like this adds about .2% to the house edge and that seems manageable. But the effect on a card counter is much worse because it slides all of the true count frequencies just a bit further. So lets say with a house edge of .45, a player had an even game just below the TC of +1 and a +EV game just above +1. The "extra house edge" slides those numbers further away, so now the break even point is above +1 and the +EV point at about +1.5. Everything slides away from you just a bit. So the point you are break even is fewer counts than before, the point you are +EV is further away and fewer frequencies than before. The point in which you were at a 1% advantage, further away and fewer times you will see that count. Everything slides about half a true count away and you sill see fewer of those counts. :(
The effect of this is with a play all approach it is very difficult to get a 1% advantage, much less anything over that. I mean if you use a huge spread, 1-50, or 1-100, maybe, but good luck lasting more than a few minutes playing that way.
But there is something players can do to offset those negative changes and that is to exit at least some of the negative counts, the worst of them. This changes the true count frequencies back towards the player because he isn't playing the worst of the counts. This can push you back towards 1% total advantage, even over with an aggressive bet spread and ramp. BUT most players don't like to play this way, exiting games and moving around. And of course, you can't do it everywhere.
You haters that claim I regurgitate or plagiarize... show me where? I have said this every time one of you assholes says this and no one has been able to do so....NOT ONCE. Not that there couldn't be a discussion about how dealer hit soft 17 changed the game for card counters, but I have never seen it so show me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedvalue
And the same with tracking two tables. I have never seen a discussion of tracking a second table while playing at a different table, except for those conversations I am involved in. NOT ONCE. Not in any book. Not on any website.
So prove this accusation or just shut the fuck up, asshole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJMaxPen leaving had nothing to do with Singer, nor did it have anything to do with Mickeycrimm. He had another concern, that anyone that knows the situation understands. If it wasn't for that, he would still be here giving both Singer and Mickeycrimm shit. It was only 6 months ago, that Maxpen wasted almost half a day down at South Point just to prove that Singer would reneg and wouldn't show to a meetup that Singer proposed. What you think MaxPen has some kind of epiphany all of the sudden? :rolleyes: There was simply another situation, unrelated to Singer or Crimm, that Maxpen rightfully determined wasn't risk/benefit wise to continue here at this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mission146
I have no problem with you Mission, always liked you, but you are barking bullshit now. I am not the white knight of gambling. Never claimed to be. I don't go searching out people to expose as frauds or scammers, so I am not going to go searching on youtube or someplace that I don't participate. But if I am on a gambling forum and someone makes claims that can't be, mathematically or defying the way things work, I am going to say so. That is my right Mission. Who the fuck are you to tell me what should or shouldn't be important to me?
Edit - add on: Oh, and if you think I give a shit about my "stock", honestly Mission, you are dumber than ***** (I was going to take a shot at someone but she really don't deserve that so I have refrained....sort of :rolleyes:). I stopped caring about my "stock" way back on Norm's blackjack forum when I called out the leading poster (by volume) about a claim that was just bullshit, raising the ire of the forum owner, Norm. And that very person later admitted I was right.
I just don't care about my "stock". I am not selling anything. If people think down on me because I call out some clown making claims that can't be, that is on them, not me. As an experience player and AP, I have that right if that is what I want to do.
Why don’t you post what happened to max. Explain why he’s MIA even in Vegas. Bet you won’t
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJYou haters that claim I regurgitate or plagiarize... show me where? I have said this every time one of you assholes says this and no one has been able to do so....NOT ONCE. Not that there couldn't be a discussion about how dealer hit soft 17 changed the game for card counters, but I have never seen it so show me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedvalue
And the same with tracking two tables. I have never seen a discussion of tracking a second table while playing at a different table, except for those conversations I am involved in. NOT ONCE. Not in any book. Not on any website.
So prove this accusation or just shut the fuck up, asshole.
You don’t make jack shit buddy. Trust me I know exactly what you do. You made enough enemies in Vegas that the information flows like water about you, and baby bro.
Because tracking a second table is worth literally zero and can’t be done efficiently while playing. It’s a waste of time and effort. Fancy play syndrome at it’s finest. In your case fancy play fantasy, because you never even attempted to do such things. More liesQuote:
Originally Posted by SeedvalueQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJYou haters that claim I regurgitate or plagiarize... show me where? I have said this every time one of you assholes says this and no one has been able to do so....NOT ONCE. Not that there couldn't be a discussion about how dealer hit soft 17 changed the game for card counters, but I have never seen it so show me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedvalue
And the same with tracking two tables. I have never seen a discussion of tracking a second table while playing at a different table, except for those conversations I am involved in. NOT ONCE. Not in any book. Not on any website.
So prove this accusation or just shut the fuck up, asshole.
You don’t make jack shit buddy. Trust me I know exactly what you do. You made enough enemies in Vegas that the information flows like water about you, and baby bro.
Another lie. BUT, go for it! :rolleyes: It is comical to read the shit you come up with about me and others because you are so obsessed and filled with hate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedvalue
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJAnother lie. BUT, go for it! :rolleyes: It is comical to read the shit you come up with about me and others because you are so obsessed and filled with hate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedvalue
Hate ? Lol how many people have you helped build 6 and 7 figure bankrolls ? Once again I’m willing to bet this as well loser.
I hate you because of the lies you spread and the shit you talk.
I will send you some chocolate dicks in a box on your birthday. Don’t fuck them all at once and split that ass wide open like your bro does. Fake ass lierQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJAnother lie. BUT, go for it! :rolleyes: It is comical to read the shit you come up with about me and others because you are so obsessed and filled with hate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedvalue
I have no idea what you know or do as far as AP, but this proves you know nothing about card counting. Tracking a second table or multiple tables, means you will positive counts and in particular max bet counts and opportunities twice as much (or more) in the same time period. Anyone who can't figure that out is just not very smart. It is a simple concept. Why do you think all many successful teams used "spotters" to track multiple tables, calling in the big player or better, when they identified a good positive count?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedvalue
Tracking a second table while playing one is the exact same concept, it is just the player doing so (when the opportunity is there) is playing both roles, spotter and big player.
But I am not going to argue with someone who is either an idiot or playing an idiot.
case in point. You don't know shit and are just full of nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedvalue
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJI have no idea what you know or do as far as AP, but this proves you know nothing about card counting. Tracking a second table or multiple tables, means you will positive counts and in particular max bet counts and opportunities twice as much (or more) in the same time period. Anyone who can't figure that out is just not very smart. It is a simple concept. Why do you think all many successful teams used "spotters" to track multiple tables, calling in the big player or better, when they identified a good positive count?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedvalue
Tracking a second table while playing one is the exact same concept, it is just the player doing so (when the opportunity is there) is playing both roles, spotter and big player.
But I am not going to argue with someone who is either an idiot or playing an idiot.
Here we go again with your bull shit.
Teams using spotters to identify good spots is utilized effectively.
You counting a second table 20 ft away while playing is not.
You don’t do this it’s a lie.
Bet me on anything you feel confident in. At this point I would take action that I could literally beat you at anything. That’s how fake you are to me gunz.
The silly thing about all of this is mcap uses the same tampon for a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcap
I'm sorry you got all offended by a simple question Mickey.