Professional Sportsbetting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

A solo interview with them will be as meaningless as Mike's last interview with Rob. Mike was too quick to just get the interview going with no real investigation or preparation. I asked him to wait, but he didn't want to. I was quite peeved off since I facilitated it, but whatever. I would've surprised Rob with a double-up bugged machine and had him do it, or guide someone through it. I had a lead on someone who possibly owned some. Theres other things I would've done as well. I wouldn't have played softball. Mike was never going to play hard ball he just wanted content.

---

I don't want to hijack mickey's thread about sports betting and redietz on GWAE, which I look forward to, so I will make this one post about the topic above. I think you are not giving your friend Shackleford enough credit concerning the Rob Singer interview. Had Mike done what you suggest, it would have scared Rob off and the interview wouldn't have gone far. Mike lobbed softball questions, as you put it, to make Rob feel at ease and not like he was being attacked or challenged. Then Mike asked the question that everyone asks and should ask: Did Rob have any proof to this double up bug claim.

Singer gave his standard answer about having throw away tax information and when Mike pressed him further, Rob said he had purchased a Newell RV with the money, which isn't and never was the least bit believable. Realizing the interview didn't go well, it was like 2 days later that Singer posted pictures of an RV from the dealership that he didn't own, completely exposing himself.

I was on speaking terms with Mike at that time, and I congratulated him via PM on exposing Rob. Mike said something like he knew Rob would take the bait and do something along the lines that he did. Honestly, I don't know whether Mike really planned that out in advance, or it just fell into place and worked out, but either way, Rob ended up exposing himself. And I give Shackleford credit for that. Nothing Rob said or excuses he came up with mattered after that.

---

Scared him off? I said, surprise him with it. He wouldn't have known until after some questions. It was a terrible interview if the goal was finding the truth either way. and Mikes goal for the interview wasn't about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Kew, the fact that you're still bringing your same lies up tells me you still haven't convinced yourself I didn't do exactly as I said. You give yourself and your envy away every time you feel the need to hi-jack nearly every thread with your obsession over me. From deep inside your twisted mind, that meat I pack really must make you masturbate every day.

You keep trying to concoct this story about my being forced by Mike into saying what I did with the money won. I did buy the Newell with some of it, but he also was aware I could have bought that thing without DU money. So it was no big deal to Shack--he was just interested if it was as life-changing as it would be for most of his watchers. And we did talk about the IRS filings prior to the interview. He understood I no longer had them and why; there's zero reason to keep them beyond what the law stipulates. Anyone would understand that but you--you want the world to think I needed to keep them for some kind of proof which was never an important issue with me, and I'd never produce them anyway because I have someone called a WIFE involved--because there's not a lot in real life that you DO understand. These stupid things you say and have to keep saying, and act like they're real just because you say them, are why people laugh at you.

Axel--Mike never asked me to appear in-person, but if he did I would certainly have. If there were a machine available I would have easily been able to replicate the play--handpay winner or not. As you remember, it was me who detailed the correct sequence and identified the version in Wired as wrong, which prompted several people here to contact them and ask about why they weren't truthful about it. I believe their answer had to do with not wanting to publicly get the correct sequence out there or they had an agreement with IGT or law enforcement or attorneys or something. Either way, there's no one alive who knows the play as I do, and if anyone ever wants me to prove the play to them and I'm still able to do so, just ask.

Oh---I imagine you'll need a machine and the right software pack to install. Maybe someone with a home machine could work it because as you all know and contrary to more lies kew needs everyone to believe, I HAVE NO HOME MACHINE, NO EXERCISE EQUIPMENT, AND NO BASEMENT.

---

I haven't any doubt you would've done the interview in person. I stopped seeking out a machine with the bug and wanting to be involved when Mike told me the interview was happening soon. There wasn't enough time for a proper interview if the goal was to get to the bottom of things. The interview didn't tell us anything more or less than had already been talked about. The interview was probably a win for you, all things considered.

Bills in Maryland, West Virginia Would Lead To Audits Of Betting Handicappers.


https://sportshandle.com/maryland-we...capper-audits/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Bills in Maryland, West Virginia Would Lead To Audits Of Betting Handicappers.


https://sportshandle.com/maryland-we...capper-audits/

---

Thanks for posting this.

This would be great!!

Back in 1984, in my bio in Who's Who in Sports Betting, this is what I proposed, except by the feds. This has been my position forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

From adversaries to Mickey becoming Redietz' publicity and appearance agent, perhaps we can all find a way to get along here, after all. JK

---

Rediettz and I don't really have a disagreement. I'm not schooled enough on sports betting to have an educated opinion on whether or not "advantage players betting off-market lines and odds" and "taking advantage of weak numbers" can be done profitably.

Redietz' opinion is it can't be done profitably. That's his opinion and that's fine. But should we just take his word for it or further investigate? I think we should further investigate. We need more information and opinions than just redietz.

So far I've found Frank B and Spanky who say it's not just possible but they've been doing it for years.

So the score so far is....

Other Sports Bettors 2
Redietz 1

Now I'm investigating other professional sports bettors like Krakomberger, Denkelson, Fortuna, and anyone else I can find.

---

Don't misquote me or misrepresent my position. And don't go around plucking folks from the ether, because, well, what else are they going to say?

1) I didn't say it cannot be done (or else I would not constantly be mentioning Larry Fletcher). I said the idea that there is this population of "APs" who are able to win continually across all sports using simple arbitrage shopping, a couple of programs, and following alleged "soft numbers" is a myth.

2) I have said the logistics of it (the need to have roughly 50K parked in a dozen shops to make real money) makes it impractical for 99% of the population.

3) I have said there is nothing wrong with table scraps bettors trying to exploit the most vulnerable arbitrage opportunities (props), but that what you are grinding out is lunch money while still having to park considerable assets. And since the most end-of-bell-curve lines are in "boutique" books, money parked in these is vulnerable. And offshores can, if they choose, define you as "professional" and limit your opportunities both in terms of how much you can bet and whether they decide to pay you. Unless you're talking Super Bowl, most props (and even SB props) can have limits in the $300 to 1K range. There are many things one can do in life to make lunch money -- I do not recommend squinting at 3000 props every two hours for the SB as being one of them. I say that as someone who has done it more than once.

I also want to mention why I can see how people got sucked into thinking this kind of "APing" could accomplish something. Line moves during the worst of Covid were severe, books had a problem dealing with Covid casualties, and arbitrage was easier to find. But that was an 18-month anomaly. It is gone. On top of this, the new legal sports books offered some hefty bonuses. So between bonus whoring (not that there's anything wrong with it) and Covid casualties, low end sports bettors got a brief taste of the champagne life. Bonus whoring doesn't last forever (unless you're Axelwolf, evidently), and Covid line moves are extinct.

The problem with asking people if they win arbitraging and using simple programs is that nobody is motivated to say no. Not the guys betting 2K with Youtube channels. Not the blog writers who claim to be APs. Not the bookmakers who love it when people plop cash in accounts and take their shots.

Who is going to publicly argue that there is no significant population of "APs" consistently beating the books and ahead lifetime? Me.

I'm going to try to schedule brief meet-and-greats with some of the great classic old school Las Vegas bookmakers this year. I'll try to see what they say both on and off the record regarding the argument that "APs" are claiming to beat the books with a couple of programs and college intro math.

Define, "Significant population."

I'd almost certainly agree with that position, and with your caveats, you no longer seem to be arguing that the methods being proposed are categorically impossible. Perhaps you were never arguing that in the first place, but as with Mickey, that was the implication I read into what you were saying.

Yeah, kick ass bonuses, for sure. Don't bet sports otherwise. Never would claim to make significant money. Low-hanging fruit, good times.

Can't really comment on people who use sports betting as their main source of AP. I don't even know 2% of what I would need to know to even offer an opinion.

I can comment on bonuses, though. This analysis I did of a DraftKings promotion:

https://wizardofodds.com/online-gamb...-nfl-promotion

Kicked fucking ass, brev.

Oh, I should also mention that frequent promotions, such as boosts, can be used in conjunction with betting the opposite on a different site to create can't lose scenarios. Alternatively, it can also be used to create arbitrage opportunities, even if you can't create an, "Impossible not to profit," scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Meanwhile, the handicappers who have documented records stretching back decades

---

Documented records of what? Winning via just handicapping? Please show me someone who can show decades of legitimate documented records beating sports via only handicapping. (something like what DanDruff does, gives his picks and the line beforehand)

I believe I asked this question before and crickets.

---

I'm precise with my language. I don't say people beat "sports." I argue against that (the plural, that is). I argue that individuals and teams have beaten their specialty for years. For example, roughly 90% of my volume is college football.

The Wise Guys Contest, for one. Two games a week, every week of every football season, for 30 years. And these were lines from a particular point in time, so shopping not included. Therefore, a 54% in the contest was more like a real-life 56% with shopping.

"Tipsters of Gypsters?" by Mike McCusker, published in Las Vegas from the 70's through the early 90's. McCusker's published multi-year records on the back pages of his publication. And any records published by McCusker were understatements, as he locked people into particular lines on Friday or Saturday mornings, taking shopping out of the equation (which, these days, is semi-nuts). So a 54% with McCusker was more like a 56% real-life record.

Axelwolf, not everyone considers you the brains of Las Vegas or is interested in answering your questions. FYI. If you really wanted your questions answered, you'd do the research to drop me an email or call me. I've put my address on this site often enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Define, "Significant population."

I'd almost certainly agree with that position, and with your caveats, you no longer seem to be arguing that the methods being proposed are categorically impossible. Perhaps you were never arguing that in the first place, but as with Mickey, that was the implication I read into what you were saying.

Yeah, kick ass bonuses, for sure. Don't bet sports otherwise. Never would claim to make significant money. Low-hanging fruit, good times.

Can't really comment on people who use sports betting as their main source of AP. I don't even know 2% of what I would need to know to even offer an opinion.

I can comment on bonuses, though. This analysis I did of a DraftKings promotion:

https://wizardofodds.com/online-gamb...-nfl-promotion

Kicked fucking ass, brev.

---

Mission, what makes you think you're an expert? Hanging at WoV? C'mon, man. The bonus stuff is minor. I haven't even used any of these bonus opportunities. I'm saving them for a rainy day. If I miss the best of the advantages, so be it. You can't sustain anything doing this stuff.

It's not like I haven't used family and friends to assemble entries in the old Barbary Coast contest or anything. So I'm not unfamiliar with the sports equivalent of "multi-carding." But being all thrilled with assembling family and friends to bonus whore is gimmickry. It doesn't sustain anything. You're going opportunity to opportunity, hoping you don't get shut down or that "boosts" continue. Everything you do is dependent on the largesse of the books above and beyond standard betting. As something that represents 5% or 10% of what you do, great. But don't sell it as something that can expand and fill the other 90% or 95%.

And here's what I predicted five years ago. I said as machine gambling dried up, as video poker became impossible, as ID tech eliminated card counting, you'd get all these "APs" claiming they could beat sports. Sports betting was expanding; "APing" was dying. You were going to get all manner of "APs" coming out of the woodwork with how they could make a lifetime profit betting sports.

And I was correct.

I never claimed to be a sports betting expert; in fact, my post says, in part:

Quote:

---

Can't really comment on people who use sports betting as their main source of AP. I don't even know 2% of what I would need to know to even offer an opinion.

---

So, if that looks like someone claiming to be an expert, you either need to see your optometrist and inquire about thicker lenses, or fuck off, your choice.

Anyway, if you consider an advantage with that promotion of over 24% (underdogs) of all monies bet over the course of a five season sample with people being allowed to bet as much as $250, per game, or sometimes more as, "Minor," then you're one hell of a sports bettor...which we already knew. For us mere plebeians, most of us would consider a positive expectation of more than $60 on a $250 bet that takes five seconds to make as pretty goddamn good.

I never claimed it was sustainable as it's only sustainable for as long as they offer the promotion---which I recall being three or four weeks. That said, should they offer the same promotion again, then people should jump all over it. Especially those people who wouldn't see a 24%+ advantage as trivial. The page is also useful in that it can serve as a guide for those wanting to analyze similar promotions, for either NFL or other sports.

This promotion had nothing to do with bonus whoring. I suppose many might have bonus whored with it, but I don't know if it was offered to totally new players or what the bet limits may have been, if it were. The analysis was written with the simple assumption of betting underdogs on your one account under the promotion's terms.

Anyway, I didn't sell it as any such thing. The analysis I wrote stipulated that the promotion would certainly not last forever, though I did conjure up an alternative to the promotion that they might do after they were satisfied that they had sufficiently gotten their asses kicked on the promotion they were offering at the time.

I have made a lifetime profit betting sports, but I make no claims that it is any kind of income replacement money. As you as much as said, it's very difficult to be an AP and do all one thing or all the other thing right now, with probably only a few exceptions that would only apply to folks with extremely deep bankrolls to begin with. In the meantime, most of us proletariats are happy to take an edge where we can get an edge.

If that's not you, then fine, but don't ever fucking put words in my mouth again.

Based on what Spanky, who is an expert, is saying, it is much easier and more profitable to go about predicting the direction (and magnitude to some extent) of line movement (when the line is first set) versus the prediction of what the line should be itself. That's it in a nutshell if I understand Spanky correctly.

In the poker world there is some distinction between tournament players and cash game players. The guys at the very pinnacle of the cash game world always make more than tournament players. I don't follow so much but it used to be believed that one's EV (ooooh look at what I did) on a tournament is not higher than a buyin. I have no idea as it is very dependent on many things but the idea is that there just isn't that much money in tournaments. Especially given tax implications.

However the cool thing about these tournaments is that people can go around saying they've won $50 million playing poker! Ha! These people are clearly more successful than I ever was but the whole thing is a bit of a joke in some ways. What do these records really tell us without the buyins? What would they tell us if we had the buyins included? Well whatever ! Who cares! The records are there!

The other thing is Redietz keeps making fun of the guy who bet 2000 as if the guy was saying "Hey look at me make this $2k bet". The whole point of that video was to show people get limited which Redietz denied. Redietz seemed to ignore that aspect and then fixated on the amount of the bet. He then uses it to ridicule the person who has clearly been limited by a book. I hate to admit it but I am SO confused right now.

How does redietz see the world? If you ridicule someone for making a $2000 bet then what is the buyin for these contests he references? $10k minimum I would think.

Ahh well a few of many questions I have. It would be nice to see Redietz give his thoughts but as I've noticed he seems to be a bit too busy respond when the answers are desired the most. I'm sure when we hear him on GWAE here soon things will be clarified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

In the poker world there is some distinction between tournament players and cash game players. The guys at the very pinnacle of the cash game world always make more than tournament players. I don't follow so much but it used to be believed that one's EV (ooooh look at what I did) on a tournament is not higher than a buyin. I have no idea as it is very dependent on many things but the idea is that there just isn't that much money in tournaments. Especially given tax implications.

However the cool thing about these tournaments is that people can go around saying they've won $50 million playing poker! Ha! These people are clearly more successful than I ever was but the whole thing is a bit of a joke in some ways. What do these records really tell us without the buyins? What would they tell us if we had the buyins included? Well whatever ! Who cares! The records are there!

The other thing is Redietz keeps making fun of the guy who bet 2000 as if the guy was saying "Hey look at me make this $2k bet". The whole point of that video was to show people get limited which Redietz denied. Redietz seemed to ignore that aspect and then fixated on the amount of the bet. He then uses it to ridicule the person who has clearly been limited by a book. I hate to admit it but I am SO confused right now.

How does redietz see the world? If you ridicule someone for making a $2000 bet then what is the buyin for these contests he references? $10k minimum I would think.

Ahh well a few of many questions I have. It would be nice to see Redietz give his thoughts but as I've noticed he seems to be a bit too busy respond when the answers are desired the most. I'm sure when we hear him on GWAE here soon things will be clarified.

---

I'm not ridiculing someone for making a 2K bet. I'm ridiculing the idea of people assigning gravitas or expertise or experience to someone BECAUSE they are making 2K bets. Or because they are "limited."

Account, if you bothered to read what I posted, I said I tried to bet a $250 future at Hard Rock and was limited to $10. So, by your reasoning, I must (1) be making fun of myself because I admit to making a $250 wager and (2) I must also be a helluva bettor, striking fear into the hearts of mortal books.

No, that wasn't the case. They didn't know me from Adam. The reality was books limit people all the time for myriad reasons. If you don't understand that, you should just stand on the sidelines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

In the poker world there is some distinction between tournament players and cash game players. The guys at the very pinnacle of the cash game world always make more than tournament players. I don't follow so much but it used to be believed that one's EV (ooooh look at what I did) on a tournament is not higher than a buyin. I have no idea as it is very dependent on many things but the idea is that there just isn't that much money in tournaments. Especially given tax implications.

However the cool thing about these tournaments is that people can go around saying they've won $50 million playing poker! Ha! These people are clearly more successful than I ever was but the whole thing is a bit of a joke in some ways. What do these records really tell us without the buyins? What would they tell us if we had the buyins included? Well whatever ! Who cares! The records are there!

The other thing is Redietz keeps making fun of the guy who bet 2000 as if the guy was saying "Hey look at me make this $2k bet". The whole point of that video was to show people get limited which Redietz denied. Redietz seemed to ignore that aspect and then fixated on the amount of the bet. He then uses it to ridicule the person who has clearly been limited by a book. I hate to admit it but I am SO confused right now.

How does redietz see the world? If you ridicule someone for making a $2000 bet then what is the buyin for these contests he references? $10k minimum I would think.

Ahh well a few of many questions I have. It would be nice to see Redietz give his thoughts but as I've noticed he seems to be a bit too busy respond when the answers are desired the most. I'm sure when we hear him on GWAE here soon things will be clarified.

---

Even more relevantly with poker tournaments, and to a lesser extent, cash games---how much of a percentage of yourself did you sell to others? How much of a percentage in others did you buy?

In theory, we could all sit at a table, nine seats, buy in for $100,000 apiece (except I don't have 100k) and agree to play until one person gets it all. Superficially, one person profits $800,000, but if everyone agrees that the winner is just going to give $90,000 of it back to each person who loses (in advance), then they have only won $80,000 and the others at the table only lost $10,000 each.

Looks very exciting to the viewers, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

In the poker world there is some distinction between tournament players and cash game players. The guys at the very pinnacle of the cash game world always make more than tournament players. I don't follow so much but it used to be believed that one's EV (ooooh look at what I did) on a tournament is not higher than a buyin. I have no idea as it is very dependent on many things but the idea is that there just isn't that much money in tournaments. Especially given tax implications.

However the cool thing about these tournaments is that people can go around saying they've won $50 million playing poker! Ha! These people are clearly more successful than I ever was but the whole thing is a bit of a joke in some ways. What do these records really tell us without the buyins? What would they tell us if we had the buyins included? Well whatever ! Who cares! The records are there!

The other thing is Redietz keeps making fun of the guy who bet 2000 as if the guy was saying "Hey look at me make this $2k bet". The whole point of that video was to show people get limited which Redietz denied. Redietz seemed to ignore that aspect and then fixated on the amount of the bet. He then uses it to ridicule the person who has clearly been limited by a book. I hate to admit it but I am SO confused right now.

How does redietz see the world? If you ridicule someone for making a $2000 bet then what is the buyin for these contests he references? $10k minimum I would think.

Ahh well a few of many questions I have. It would be nice to see Redietz give his thoughts but as I've noticed he seems to be a bit too busy respond when the answers are desired the most. I'm sure when we hear him on GWAE here soon things will be clarified.

---

I'm not ridiculing someone for making a 2K bet. I'm ridiculing the idea of people assigning gravitas or expertise or experience to someone BECAUSE they are making 2K bets. Or because they are "limited."

Account, if you bothered to read what I posted, I said I tried to bet a $250 future at Hard Rock and was limited to $10. So, by your reasoning, I must (1) be making fun of myself because I admit to making a $250 wager and (2) I must also be a helluva bettor, striking fear into the hearts of mortal books.

No, that wasn't the case. They didn't know me from Adam. The reality was books limit people all the time for myriad reasons. If you don't understand that, you should just stand on the sidelines.

---

I will stand on the sidelines as I don't even bet sports outside of recently doing promo stuff for friends of a friend type deal.

If you were limited to $10 on a bet where they didn't know you - then no my reasoning would not be that they limited you. You stated as much.

The fact that you don't think limiting is a common thing blows me away. This is like an episode of Quantum Leap.

So when will we know when you're going to be on GWAE?

Maybe you didn't mock the guy for making a 2k bet but I don't think anyone here is assigning him "gravitas" because he is making the 2k bet either. You're the only one fixating on the 2k aspect of it.

Someone making a 2k bet, in isolation, only proves to me that they have access to $2,000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mission146

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

In the poker world there is some distinction between tournament players and cash game players. The guys at the very pinnacle of the cash game world always make more than tournament players. I don't follow so much but it used to be believed that one's EV (ooooh look at what I did) on a tournament is not higher than a buyin. I have no idea as it is very dependent on many things but the idea is that there just isn't that much money in tournaments. Especially given tax implications.

However the cool thing about these tournaments is that people can go around saying they've won $50 million playing poker! Ha! These people are clearly more successful than I ever was but the whole thing is a bit of a joke in some ways. What do these records really tell us without the buyins? What would they tell us if we had the buyins included? Well whatever ! Who cares! The records are there!

The other thing is Redietz keeps making fun of the guy who bet 2000 as if the guy was saying "Hey look at me make this $2k bet". The whole point of that video was to show people get limited which Redietz denied. Redietz seemed to ignore that aspect and then fixated on the amount of the bet. He then uses it to ridicule the person who has clearly been limited by a book. I hate to admit it but I am SO confused right now.

How does redietz see the world? If you ridicule someone for making a $2000 bet then what is the buyin for these contests he references? $10k minimum I would think.

Ahh well a few of many questions I have. It would be nice to see Redietz give his thoughts but as I've noticed he seems to be a bit too busy respond when the answers are desired the most. I'm sure when we hear him on GWAE here soon things will be clarified.

---

Even more relevantly with poker tournaments, and to a lesser extent, cash games---how much of a percentage of yourself did you sell to others? How much of a percentage in others did you buy?

In theory, we could all sit at a table, nine seats, buy in for $100,000 apiece (except I don't have 100k) and agree to play until one person gets it all. Superficially, one person profits $800,000, but if everyone agrees that the winner is just going to give $90,000 of it back to each person who loses (in advance), then they have only won $80,000 and the others at the table only lost $10,000 each.

Looks very exciting to the viewers, though.

---

In the very early days of online poker there was a forum + play money site. They just gave away free play money chips for their tourneys and then went around saying how everyone wins using their system. Good stuff.

Contests are a manufactured for amusement and entertainment foremost. I know guys whose biggest dream is literally to "win a bracelet". This person is a loser in every aspect of life so they glom on to that possibility. Literally their hope in life. I talk about it with other gamblers and they crack on it much like myself.

That is because this person is actually a pretty big losing gambler but hendonmob and a bracelet will help this person feel legitimate in the eyes of the math naive and as many of us know - there are lots of these types out there. Sometimes the math naive are even in charge of making policy / rule decisions :)

When I put up the GWAE interview of Spanky, redietz mockingly wrote:

"Nothing like hearing from a 'well-known sports bettor on GWAE'....Mickey there is an entire world you know absolutely nothing about. Do you really think any sports book manager is concerned with anything or anybody on GWAE?....People at GWAE are a step above civilians but they are not top tier." And in another post he called Spanky "an anonymous cute nickname."

But little did redietz know. Read between the lines. Redietz had no clue who Spanky was. WTF?

Spanky is just one of the most famous sports bettors out there....and ditz never heard of him. WTF?

Redietz, what did you tell me? There's a whole world out there I know nothing about? Well guess what, buttfuck. There's a whole world out there YOU know nothing about.

And you wrote: "Is there any sports book manager that is afraid of anybody on GWAE?" You bet your ass there is. Spanky is well documented being banned out of virtually every book in the world. Redietz didn't know that when he made those comments. Because he never heard of one of the most famous sports bettors in the country. WTF?

How would someone who claims to be a highly skilled professional handicapper for decades not know of Spanky?

Ditz really needs to get down off his high horse. He's making a fool of himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

When I put up the GWAE interview of Spanky, redietz mockingly wrote:

"Nothing like hearing from a 'well-known sports bettor on GWAE'....Mickey there is an entire world you know absolutely nothing about. Do you really think any sports book manager is concerned with anything or anybody on GWAE?....People at GWAE are a step above civilians but they are not top tier." And in another post he called Spanky "an anonymous cute nickname."

But little did redietz know. Read between the lines. Redietz had no clue who Spanky was. WTF?

Spanky is just one of the most famous sports bettors out there....and ditz never heard of him. WTF?

Redietz, what did you tell me? There's a whole world out there I know nothing about? Well guess what, buttfuck. There's a whole world out there YOU know nothing about.

And you wrote: "Is there any sports book manager that is afraid of anybody on GWAE?" You bet your ass there is. Spanky is well documented being banned out of virtually every book in the world. Redietz didn't know that when he made those comments. Because he never heard of one of the most famous sports bettors in the country. WTF?

How would someone who claims to be a highly skilled professional handicapper for decades not know of Spanky?

Ditz really needs to get down off his high horse. He's making a fool of himself.

---

If he wasn't on such a high-horse he'd get a lot more respect. I'd enjoy his old school stories and such. I don't even care if they're not true. The problem is he has no clue how much the world has changed and goes out of his way to mock things he clearly know very little about.

How can you be so great and successful and so knowledgeable about an area but then literally checked out for decades ? Yet still be condescending to those who have a fairly strong clue about what is going on !?!

Fantastic stuff.

How does this happen? How can you be so obsessed with sports-betting to the extent it appears to be your sole identity yet you are incredibly clueless about all manner of modern cash sports betting? It is legitimately more bizarre than Kewl being a card-counter in LV for 10+ years. How can it even be true? At least Kewl isn't constantly mocking other credible counters.

Well whatever - hope to hear Redietz on GWAE where he can talk about the old days. Stuff like that is great. Just like I love to hear Mickey talk about his old days and various AP angles that no longer exist. Redietz should seriously stay away from interacting people over contemporary betting stuff as he does himself no favors. Even to someone who has no clue what is going on - they will read this and decide .. Redietz or this whole board full of people who seem to have a strong clue what

In short. Redietz - stick with the historical info and stories and avoid trying to lecture people on things you know very very little about these days. You just do yourself a repeated disservice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

In the poker world there is some distinction between tournament players and cash game players. The guys at the very pinnacle of the cash game world always make more than tournament players. I don't follow so much but it used to be believed that one's EV (ooooh look at what I did) on a tournament is not higher than a buyin. I have no idea as it is very dependent on many things but the idea is that there just isn't that much money in tournaments. Especially given tax implications.

However the cool thing about these tournaments is that people can go around saying they've won $50 million playing poker! Ha! These people are clearly more successful than I ever was but the whole thing is a bit of a joke in some ways. What do these records really tell us without the buyins? What would they tell us if we had the buyins included? Well whatever ! Who cares! The records are there!

The other thing is Redietz keeps making fun of the guy who bet 2000 as if the guy was saying "Hey look at me make this $2k bet". The whole point of that video was to show people get limited which Redietz denied. Redietz seemed to ignore that aspect and then fixated on the amount of the bet. He then uses it to ridicule the person who has clearly been limited by a book. I hate to admit it but I am SO confused right now.

How does redietz see the world? If you ridicule someone for making a $2000 bet then what is the buyin for these contests he references? $10k minimum I would think.

Ahh well a few of many questions I have. It would be nice to see Redietz give his thoughts but as I've noticed he seems to be a bit too busy respond when the answers are desired the most. I'm sure when we hear him on GWAE here soon things will be clarified.

---

I'm not ridiculing someone for making a 2K bet. I'm ridiculing the idea of people assigning gravitas or expertise or experience to someone BECAUSE they are making 2K bets. Or because they are "limited."

Account, if you bothered to read what I posted, I said I tried to bet a $250 future at Hard Rock and was limited to $10. So, by your reasoning, I must (1) be making fun of myself because I admit to making a $250 wager and (2) I must also be a helluva bettor, striking fear into the hearts of mortal books.

No, that wasn't the case. They didn't know me from Adam. The reality was books limit people all the time for myriad reasons. If you don't understand that, you should just stand on the sidelines.

---

I will stand on the sidelines as I don't even bet sports outside of recently doing promo stuff for friends of a friend type deal.

If you were limited to $10 on a bet where they didn't know you - then no my reasoning would not be that they limited you. You stated as much.

The fact that you don't think limiting is a common thing blows me away. This is like an episode of Quantum Leap.

So when will we know when you're going to be on GWAE?

Maybe you didn't mock the guy for making a 2k bet but I don't think anyone here is assigning him "gravitas" because he is making the 2k bet either. You're the only one fixating on the 2k aspect of it.

---

Is there a reading comprehension issue? I just said "the reality was books limit people all the time for myriad reasons." You quoted me.

How does that translate into "The fact you don't think limiting is a common thing blows me away?"

Account, is it the use of the word "myriad?" What has you confused here?

You do realize CET had been using a sports betting limit formula based on a combination of tier card status and tier game status? So technically, everyone who bet at CET was being "limited" in the precise meaning in some way vis-a-vis almost all other CET bettors?

I have tried to stay out of the jist of this "fight", because sports betting is not my field. I do a small amount for entertainment. But I have seen Red, multiple times now, talk about AP's who claim significant winning via sports betting. Who are we talking about here?

Most AP's making a living, that I am aware of have their hand in numerous, some many different things to make their money and a living. Even lowly old me, who is considered a one-trick pony in the AP community, have done a number of different things.

So on this forum, we have a number of members that publicly make some sports picks, starting with Dan Druff, but also Monet, Dannyj, I don't know, maybe one or two other. I don't think any of these people have claimed to be making a living via their sports betting picks or play have they? Druff obviously does other things including poker. Monet once disputed when I even called him and AP or playing with an advantage. :confused:

We have had people like Axelwolf, and maybe there are others in this boat that have casually mentioned some sports betting play based on math type stuff, including bonuses available. But Axelwolf isn't claiming that is how he makes a living. He is a perfect example of a well rounded AP. He probably has a hand in many different things every year and over the years.

So who are these AP's that claim they make a living or even significant money using math as +EV that Red is so wound up about? Is it another forum, like LVA that I don't read?

Mickey is pulling up names of I guess known sportsbetters, (unknown to me). Do they call themselves AP's?

I am just not sure what this arguement is really about?

In this day and age, with all the online sportsbook and even some brick and mortar sportsbook offering all these bonuses, a player certainly could be +EV and make money just by playing the boneses. Even I do a little bit of that. Not enough to make me anywhere close to a winner.

I can think of one AP, or guy that labeled himself an AP from these forums, passed away in the last year, that claimed he made a living from blackjack play and sports betting. I challenged his blackjack claim part but no one said anything about his sports betting part, including redietz who was on at least 3 forums with the guys for several years.

So who the freak are we talking about here that has redietz so riled that he is repeatedly mocking AP's that claim to be winning sport better for a living or at significant levels?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Redietz, I have a response from Bob Dancer. I had sent him what you wrote about appearing on GWAE. I didn't change a word. I copied and pasted it. He's concerned about whether you intend to trash sports bettors who have previously appeared on the show. If you don't intend to do that then he will clear it with Richard.

If it's a go then I'll put you in email contact with Bob. I've been on the show 3 times so I know the drill. He will ask you for a list of things to talk about, and he may have some suggestions of his own, so he can formulate the questions. When the list of topics is agreed upon they will do the interview.

I also told him you appear to be a world class handicapper with a rich history in sportsbetting. So do us all a favor and don't trash us lowlife VCT AP's either.

---

It would be a go with the caveat that I would like to do "in studio" in Las Vegas in person. That way I get to meet the principals involved. I prefer doing these things in person when possible.

I have to get to LV a couple of times in the next four months or so anyway because I'm likely going to do a tour guide thing for a documentary filmmaker who is strictly an East Coast mob expert, but who is unfamiliar with details of Las Vegas. So hopefully I can dovetail the two. If not, I'll do the tour-guide thing later. I'd be doing Mafia Tour 101 while my better half could give the graduate course.

I'm not going to badmouth the LVA crew. They have some legitimacy. Fezzik is, arguably, the best NFL contest player ever, but the whole contest thing underscores that, as in poker, there are contest guys and betting guys.

---

red, I just thought of something. You may not be able to do "in studio." My last interview they were both in their own homes, Bob in Vegas and Richard in California. It was a teleconference. Bob looked like he had just got out of bed. He was in his pajamas.

---

Thanks. I'll contact them. I'm not big on Zoom. I mean, look at Rob's Shackleford interview. Rob looked as if he was broadcasting out of a closet. Why do they teleconference if it's just an audio podcast? Mainly, I'd rather fly to LV than have to clean up my workspace to look like a CNN talking head. I guess I could hang some blow-up dolls from the ceiling in the background just for ambience. Plus I might be able to have the documentary guy film the interview if it's in LV. Not sure he's taking a professional camera or not. I guess I'll find out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I'm not ridiculing someone for making a 2K bet. I'm ridiculing the idea of people assigning gravitas or expertise or experience to someone BECAUSE they are making 2K bets. Or because they are "limited."

Account, if you bothered to read what I posted, I said I tried to bet a $250 future at Hard Rock and was limited to $10. So, by your reasoning, I must (1) be making fun of myself because I admit to making a $250 wager and (2) I must also be a helluva bettor, striking fear into the hearts of mortal books.

No, that wasn't the case. They didn't know me from Adam. The reality was books limit people all the time for myriad reasons. If you don't understand that, you should just stand on the sidelines.

---

I will stand on the sidelines as I don't even bet sports outside of recently doing promo stuff for friends of a friend type deal.

If you were limited to $10 on a bet where they didn't know you - then no my reasoning would not be that they limited you. You stated as much.

The fact that you don't think limiting is a common thing blows me away. This is like an episode of Quantum Leap.

So when will we know when you're going to be on GWAE?

Maybe you didn't mock the guy for making a 2k bet but I don't think anyone here is assigning him "gravitas" because he is making the 2k bet either. You're the only one fixating on the 2k aspect of it.

---

Is there a reading comprehension issue? I just said "the reality was books limit people all the time for myriad reasons." You quoted me.

How does that translate into "The fact you don't think limiting is a common thing blows me away?"

Account, is it the use of the word "myriad?" What has you confused here?

You do realize CET had been using a sports betting limit formula based on a combination of tier card status and tier game status? So technically, everyone who bet at CET was being "limited" in the precise meaning in some way vis-a-vis almost all other CET bettors?

---

I am talking about being limited for being a winning bettor. That was the sole context. When one is a client at a book and your max bet has been lowered then you are limited and it isn't for some random reason. It is because he book decided you're too sharp and they want to minimize the action they take from you.

If some random bet has a lower max then that is not YOU who was limited. Likewise I asked around and no one has ever heard of betting limits being raised with your player's card tier. It actually makes some sense so I wouldn't be surprised if this didn't happen somewhere at some point.

.... buuuuut .... Anyone here willing to back up Redietz's claim about CET? In his world when you stop gambling for a year and your card tier goes down - then the casino no longer wants to book your larger bets? Under what set of rules does the world need to operate for this to be true!??!?!

Regardless, when we APs refer to someone being limited it means that the max bet size has been lowered on their account. Nothing more. I should not be surprised that this needs clarification in regards to Redietz.

Redietz, if you were limited on a bet and they have no clue who you are then it was not *you* who was limited. I didn't feel a need to clarify this. It is however you who wants to change around the meaning of limited in this context. You also have some pointless semantic argument about EV in regards to sports. You also want to mock people who refer to others as sharp bettors. You also mock people using the phrase "weak lines".

Not a good look to anyone who has a partial clue. Seriously. If you want more respect you should just stop arguing with people and stick with telling stories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

If he wasn't on such a high-horse he'd get a lot more respect. .

---

You have mentioned this multiple times now. "Condescending, high horse, talks down to". Some really great AP's that I have run into on various forums seem to talk down to people at times, including my one real offline AP "friend" that I associate with. On the forums he has been on, he frequently talks down to people and other AP's, including me, many times. You have to separate that out.

I don't know maybe that 'chip on the shoulder' type thing is part of the fabric that makes up a good AP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I have tried to stay out of the jist of this "fight", because sports betting is not my field. I do a small amount for entertainment. But I have seen Red, multiple times now, talk about AP's who claim significant winning via sports betting. Who are we talking about here?

Most AP's making a living, that I am aware of have their hand in numerous, some many different things to make their money and a living. Even lowly old me, who is considered a one-trick pony in the AP community, have done a number of different things.

So on this forum, we have a number of members that publicly make some sports picks, starting with Dan Druff, but also Monet, Dannyj, I don't know, maybe one or two other. I don't think any of these people have claimed to be making a living via their sports betting picks or play have they? Druff obviously does other things including poker. Monet once disputed when I even called him and AP or playing with an advantage. :confused:

We have had people like Axelwolf, and maybe there are others in this boat that have casually mentioned some sports betting play based on math type stuff, including bonuses available. But Axelwolf isn't claiming that is how he makes a living. He is a perfect example of a well rounded AP. He probably has a hand in many different things every year and over the years.

So who are these AP's that claim they make a living or even significant money using math as +EV that Red is so wound up about? Is it another forum, like LVA that I don't read?

Mickey is pulling up names of I guess known sportsbetters, (unknown to me). Do they call themselves AP's?

I am just not sure what this arguement is really about?

In this day and age, with all the online sportsbook and even some brick and mortar sportsbook offering all these bonuses, a player certainly could be +EV and make money just by playing the boneses. Even I do a little bit of that. Not enough to make me anywhere close to a winner.

I can think of one AP, or guy that labeled himself an AP from these forums, passed away in the last year, that claimed he made a living from blackjack play and sports betting. I challenged his blackjack claim part but no one said anything about his sports betting part, including redietz who was on at least 3 forums with the guys for several years.

So who the freak are we talking about here that has redietz so riled that he is repeatedly mocking AP's that claim to be winning sport better for a living or at significant levels?

---

I'm mocking the idea that "exploiting soft numbers," "steam chasing" and "arbitrage," all terms used by mickey, can lead to lifetime sports bet winning. I'm mocking the idea that buying some arbitrage-seeking programs can lead one to Elysian Fields. I'm also mocking the idea that sports gamblers can win across all sports for more than some limited promo time by utilizing "AP" priorities without actually be expert.

I could see, maybe 20 or 30 years from now, when sports betting is in every state, some virgin bettor setting up shop in two or three states, using the bonuses and promos for a year or two until dry, then pulling up stakes and setting up shop in two or three other states, then doing it in perpetuity -- that person might be able to claim to be a "winning professional sports bettor" without knowing what they're doing, but we're aways from that.

I'm at loggerheads with mickey more than anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

I will stand on the sidelines as I don't even bet sports outside of recently doing promo stuff for friends of a friend type deal.

If you were limited to $10 on a bet where they didn't know you - then no my reasoning would not be that they limited you. You stated as much.

The fact that you don't think limiting is a common thing blows me away. This is like an episode of Quantum Leap.

So when will we know when you're going to be on GWAE?

Maybe you didn't mock the guy for making a 2k bet but I don't think anyone here is assigning him "gravitas" because he is making the 2k bet either. You're the only one fixating on the 2k aspect of it.

---

Is there a reading comprehension issue? I just said "the reality was books limit people all the time for myriad reasons." You quoted me.

How does that translate into "The fact you don't think limiting is a common thing blows me away?"

Account, is it the use of the word "myriad?" What has you confused here?

You do realize CET had been using a sports betting limit formula based on a combination of tier card status and tier game status? So technically, everyone who bet at CET was being "limited" in the precise meaning in some way vis-a-vis almost all other CET bettors?

---

I am talking about being limited for being a winning bettor. That was the sole context. When one is a client at a book and your max bet has been lowered then you are limited and it isn't for some random reason. It is because he book decided you're too sharp and they want to minimize the action they take from you.

If some random bet has a lower max then that is not YOU who was limited. Likewise I asked around and no one has ever heard of betting limits being raised with your player's card tier. It actually makes some sense so I wouldn't be surprised if this didn't happen somewhere at some point.

.... buuuuut .... Anyone here willing to back up Redietz's claim about CET? In his world when you stop gambling for a year and your card tier goes down - then the casino no longer wants to book your larger bets? Under what set of rules does the world need to operate for this to be true!??!?!

Regardless, when we APs refer to someone being limited it means that the max bet size has been lowered on their account. Nothing more. I should not be surprised that this needs clarification in regards to Redietz.

Redietz, if you were limited on a bet and they have no clue who you are then it was not *you* who was limited. I didn't feel a need to clarify this. It is however you who wants to change around the meaning of limited in this context. You also have some pointless semantic argument about EV in regards to sports. You also want to mock people who refer to others as sharp bettors. You also mock people using the phrase "weak lines".

Not a good look to anyone who has a partial clue. Seriously. If you want more respect you should just stop arguing with people and stick with telling stories.

---

Account -- you really have no clue. Go sit in the corner.

How do you determine that someone is being limited because they are "a winner" versus "the manager has too much on one side" versus "those are the rules for your card status and the tier of the game" versus "the manager's at lunch; let's limit this guy?"

The answer -- you cannot.

I'm limited to $500 futures at a bunch of offshores. You don't see me making YouTube videos to demonstrate it. I was limited to $275 per game on XFL last week at NorthBet. Is it because I'm a "winning sports bettor?" How would you know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I could see, maybe 20 or 30 years from now, when sports betting is in every state, some virgin bettor setting up shop in two or three states, using the bonuses and promos for a year or two until dry, then pulling up stakes and setting up shop in two or three other states, then doing it in perpetuity -- that person might be able to claim to be a "winning professional sports bettor" without knowing what they're doing, but we're aways from that.

---

Are we aways from that? How many states have sports betting now? And that isn't really even necessary now with the explosion of online sports books. Add in multiple accounts from friends and family members (sort of the online sportsbook version of the ever-popular multi-carding) and there are endless opportunities for someone who wants to do that. And they never have to leave home.

Btw Red, your mailbox is full. Just wanted to thank you for answering my question yesterday, but apparently my PM was the one that set you over limit. lol.

Anyway, I will let you get back to your feud with Mickster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I could see, maybe 20 or 30 years from now, when sports betting is in every state, some virgin bettor setting up shop in two or three states, using the bonuses and promos for a year or two until dry, then pulling up stakes and setting up shop in two or three other states, then doing it in perpetuity -- that person might be able to claim to be a "winning professional sports bettor" without knowing what they're doing, but we're aways from that.

---

Are we aways from that? How many states have sports betting now? And that isn't really even necessary now with the explosion of online sports books. Add in multiple accounts from friends and family members (sort of the online sportsbook version of the ever-popular multi-carding) and there are endless opportunities for someone who wants to do that. And they never have to leave home.

---

No, for most you have to be in-state to bet. You could set up people in multiple states (kind of how we tried to recruit Egyptians and Brits so we could use Pinnacle -- LOL -- didn't work out) and go from there. But the promos and parlay boosts are gimmicks. They won't sustain. And your accounts will be cross-referenced and data-mined. You have no control over what account info is shared with whom.

You're not going to be able to hide what you're doing. Then you'll be shut down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Is there a reading comprehension issue? I just said "the reality was books limit people all the time for myriad reasons." You quoted me.

How does that translate into "The fact you don't think limiting is a common thing blows me away?"

Account, is it the use of the word "myriad?" What has you confused here?

You do realize CET had been using a sports betting limit formula based on a combination of tier card status and tier game status? So technically, everyone who bet at CET was being "limited" in the precise meaning in some way vis-a-vis almost all other CET bettors?

---

I am talking about being limited for being a winning bettor. That was the sole context. When one is a client at a book and your max bet has been lowered then you are limited and it isn't for some random reason. It is because he book decided you're too sharp and they want to minimize the action they take from you.

If some random bet has a lower max then that is not YOU who was limited. Likewise I asked around and no one has ever heard of betting limits being raised with your player's card tier. It actually makes some sense so I wouldn't be surprised if this didn't happen somewhere at some point.

.... buuuuut .... Anyone here willing to back up Redietz's claim about CET? In his world when you stop gambling for a year and your card tier goes down - then the casino no longer wants to book your larger bets? Under what set of rules does the world need to operate for this to be true!??!?!

Regardless, when we APs refer to someone being limited it means that the max bet size has been lowered on their account. Nothing more. I should not be surprised that this needs clarification in regards to Redietz.

Redietz, if you were limited on a bet and they have no clue who you are then it was not *you* who was limited. I didn't feel a need to clarify this. It is however you who wants to change around the meaning of limited in this context. You also have some pointless semantic argument about EV in regards to sports. You also want to mock people who refer to others as sharp bettors. You also mock people using the phrase "weak lines".

Not a good look to anyone who has a partial clue. Seriously. If you want more respect you should just stop arguing with people and stick with telling stories.

---

Account -- you really have no clue. Go sit in the corner.

How do you determine that someone is being limited because they are "a winner" versus "the manager has too much on one side" versus "those are the rules for your card status and the tier of the game" versus "the manager's at lunch; let's limit this guy?"

The answer -- you cannot.

I'm limited to $500 futures at a bunch of offshores. You don't see me making YouTube videos to demonstrate it. I was limited to $275 per game on XFL last week at NorthBet. Is it because I'm a "winning sports bettor?" How would you know?

---

Uhhh Redietz when you are limited on every bet at the sports book and it is far below their posted maxs then you can uhm easily tell vs your scenario.

You are not even worth insulting over this. It is just embarassing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I could see, maybe 20 or 30 years from now, when sports betting is in every state, some virgin bettor setting up shop in two or three states, using the bonuses and promos for a year or two until dry, then pulling up stakes and setting up shop in two or three other states, then doing it in perpetuity -- that person might be able to claim to be a "winning professional sports bettor" without knowing what they're doing, but we're aways from that.

---

Are we aways from that? How many states have sports betting now? And that isn't really even necessary now with the explosion of online sports books. Add in multiple accounts from friends and family members (sort of the online sportsbook version of the ever-popular multi-carding) and there are endless opportunities for someone who wants to do that. And they never have to leave home.

---

No, for most you have to be in-state to bet. You could set up people in multiple states (kind of how we tried to recruit Egyptians and Brits so we could use Pinnacle -- LOL -- didn't work out) and go from there. But the promos and parlay boosts are gimmicks. They won't sustain. And your accounts will be cross-referenced and data-mined. You have no control over what account info is shared with whom.

You're not going to be able to hide what you're doing. Then you'll be shut down.

---

Have 0 knowledge about cash betting but makes some vague reference to needing foreigners to bet on Pinnacle. riiiiiiiiiiight. Ok - maybe don't stick with the stories. lol

I am understanding now. Your handicapping is so strong you don't need the concept of EV to determine whether a bet is profitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I could see, maybe 20 or 30 years from now, when sports betting is in every state, some virgin bettor setting up shop in two or three states, using the bonuses and promos for a year or two until dry, then pulling up stakes and setting up shop in two or three other states, then doing it in perpetuity -- that person might be able to claim to be a "winning professional sports bettor" without knowing what they're doing, but we're aways from that.

---

Are we aways from that? How many states have sports betting now? And that isn't really even necessary now with the explosion of online sports books. Add in multiple accounts from friends and family members (sort of the online sportsbook version of the ever-popular multi-carding) and there are endless opportunities for someone who wants to do that. And they never have to leave home.

Btw Red, your mailbox is full. Just wanted to thank you for answering my question yesterday, but apparently my PM was the one that set you over limit. lol.

Anyway, I will let you get back to your feud with Mickster.

---

Guys at the top who scale and understand it all and put in the work can easily pay for Redietz's house and his property tax for decades when the promos are lucrative. This whole concept of "sustainable" suggests you never win much to begin with ..............................

Please Redietz I beg of you. For your own sake! Just STOP it. Go back to talking about the old days ... do some name dropping ... create a picture in our heads. That is the good stuff. Get on GWAE. Talk about your history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

I am talking about being limited for being a winning bettor. That was the sole context. When one is a client at a book and your max bet has been lowered then you are limited and it isn't for some random reason. It is because he book decided you're too sharp and they want to minimize the action they take from you.

If some random bet has a lower max then that is not YOU who was limited. Likewise I asked around and no one has ever heard of betting limits being raised with your player's card tier. It actually makes some sense so I wouldn't be surprised if this didn't happen somewhere at some point.

.... buuuuut .... Anyone here willing to back up Redietz's claim about CET? In his world when you stop gambling for a year and your card tier goes down - then the casino no longer wants to book your larger bets? Under what set of rules does the world need to operate for this to be true!??!?!

Regardless, when we APs refer to someone being limited it means that the max bet size has been lowered on their account. Nothing more. I should not be surprised that this needs clarification in regards to Redietz.

Redietz, if you were limited on a bet and they have no clue who you are then it was not *you* who was limited. I didn't feel a need to clarify this. It is however you who wants to change around the meaning of limited in this context. You also have some pointless semantic argument about EV in regards to sports. You also want to mock people who refer to others as sharp bettors. You also mock people using the phrase "weak lines".

Not a good look to anyone who has a partial clue. Seriously. If you want more respect you should just stop arguing with people and stick with telling stories.

---

Account -- you really have no clue. Go sit in the corner.

How do you determine that someone is being limited because they are "a winner" versus "the manager has too much on one side" versus "those are the rules for your card status and the tier of the game" versus "the manager's at lunch; let's limit this guy?"

The answer -- you cannot.

I'm limited to $500 futures at a bunch of offshores. You don't see me making YouTube videos to demonstrate it. I was limited to $275 per game on XFL last week at NorthBet. Is it because I'm a "winning sports bettor?" How would you know?

---

Uhhh Redietz when you are limited on every bet at the sports book and it is far below their posted maxs then you can uhm easily tell vs your scenario.

You are not even worth insulting over this. It is just embarassing.

---

Posted maxes are flexible. And in Las Vegas, if you'll notice, very few places even post maxes any longer. If you ask what the maxes are, the majority of places will answer you with a ho, a hum, and some questions so they can find you in their data base and figure out what YOUR maxes should be.

In fact, I actually did a formal survey in Las Vegas, about 15 years ago, regarding maxes. A summary was published in PlayBook. The majority of places did not want to give a hard-and-fast answer. But some would give a conditional answer. That summary is when I discovered the card-tier and game-tier priorities at CET. I still have some questionnaires lying around if you want to check them out.

But yes, account, you're an expert to end all experts.

But don't take my word for it. Go to Las Vegas, show up at windows in all the sports books, and ask what their maximum bets are for such-and-such sport. See how many give you an immediate crystalline answer and see how many do not. And don't cheat by just asking for some limits sheet or brochure. Actually ASK the window people what the limits are. Then see if you get a straight answer or if you get shuttled to the manager, who will likely determine YOUR limits. And dress nicely, so they know you're not some vagabond asking silly questions to kill time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Account -- you really have no clue. Go sit in the corner.

How do you determine that someone is being limited because they are "a winner" versus "the manager has too much on one side" versus "those are the rules for your card status and the tier of the game" versus "the manager's at lunch; let's limit this guy?"

The answer -- you cannot.

I'm limited to $500 futures at a bunch of offshores. You don't see me making YouTube videos to demonstrate it. I was limited to $275 per game on XFL last week at NorthBet. Is it because I'm a "winning sports bettor?" How would you know?

---

Uhhh Redietz when you are limited on every bet at the sports book and it is far below their posted maxs then you can uhm easily tell vs your scenario.

You are not even worth insulting over this. It is just embarassing.

---

Posted maxes are flexible. And in Las Vegas, if you'll notice, very few places even post maxes any longer. If you ask what the maxes are, the majority of places will answer you with a ho, a hum, and some questions so they can find you in their data base and figure out what YOUR maxes should be.

In fact, I actually did a formal survey in Las Vegas, about 15 years ago, regarding maxes. A summary was published in PlayBook. The majority of places did not want to give a hard-and-fast answer. But some would give a conditional answer. That summary is when I discovered the card-tier and game-tier priorities at CET. I still have some questionnaires lying around if you want to check them out.

But yes, account, you're an expert to end all experts.

But don't take my word for it. Go to Las Vegas, show up at windows in all the sports books, and ask what their maximum bets are for such-and-such sport. See how many give you an immediate crystalline answer and see how many do not. And don't cheat by just asking for some limits sheet or brochure. Actually ASK the window people what the limits are. Then see if you get a straight answer or if you get shuttled to the manager, who will likely determine YOUR limits. And dress nicely, so they know you're not some vagabond asking silly questions to kill time.

---

I've never placed a bet in LV so I am not going to claim I know much there. Just I've never heard of a place limiting bets according to tier card status in this day and age.

How is the lack of response from a LV teller evidence for your position that people aren't limited by their perceived sharpness!?!? Oh I get it. You're just digging deeper trying to dig on through.

I wonder how the size of the LV sports betting market compares to the online market and what % of sharp betting occurs in LV books vs online books.

I would be talking about the one that is far more pertinent from my perspective.

Get this! Some online books have been known to have 2 sets of lines. One with the soft numbers/weak lines and the other one the sharps receive.

Anyway, I wish you luck in finding people you can reliably trust so that you can continue beating Pinnacle.

edit - It does make sense to have bets limited by tier status but it would need to be flipped. If you are an established -EV gambler then you get higher limits but it makes absolutely no sense to have that LOWERED (limited by tier). Still, I have never heard of it. Wonder if anyone else has?

Redietz has certainly proven at least one thing and that is there are people doing a lot of talking that have no clue what they are talking about. AccountinQuestion is at the top of that list.

If you don't know what you are talking about, you can ask questions (as I do), but for God Sakes don't be challenging the guy, like AinQ is doing. WTF!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Redietz has certainly proven at least one thing and that is there are people doing a lot of talking that have no clue what they are talking about. AccountinQuestion is at the top of that list.

If you don't know what you are talking about, you can ask questions (as I do), but for God Sakes don't be challenging the guy, like AinQ is doing. WTF!

---

Example?

BTW I've asked a ton of questions of Redietz which he never bothers to respond to because he can't. Pay attention nitwit. It isn't our problem you're literally too stupid to follow along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Uhhh Redietz when you are limited on every bet at the sports book and it is far below their posted maxs then you can uhm easily tell vs your scenario.

You are not even worth insulting over this. It is just embarassing.

---

Posted maxes are flexible. And in Las Vegas, if you'll notice, very few places even post maxes any longer. If you ask what the maxes are, the majority of places will answer you with a ho, a hum, and some questions so they can find you in their data base and figure out what YOUR maxes should be.

In fact, I actually did a formal survey in Las Vegas, about 15 years ago, regarding maxes. A summary was published in PlayBook. The majority of places did not want to give a hard-and-fast answer. But some would give a conditional answer. That summary is when I discovered the card-tier and game-tier priorities at CET. I still have some questionnaires lying around if you want to check them out.

But yes, account, you're an expert to end all experts.

But don't take my word for it. Go to Las Vegas, show up at windows in all the sports books, and ask what their maximum bets are for such-and-such sport. See how many give you an immediate crystalline answer and see how many do not. And don't cheat by just asking for some limits sheet or brochure. Actually ASK the window people what the limits are. Then see if you get a straight answer or if you get shuttled to the manager, who will likely determine YOUR limits. And dress nicely, so they know you're not some vagabond asking silly questions to kill time.

---

I've never placed a bet in LV so I am not going to claim I know much there. Just I've never heard of a place limiting bets according to tier card status in this day and age.

How is the lack of response from a LV teller evidence for your position that people aren't limited by their perceived sharpness!?!? Oh I get it. You're just digging deeper trying to dig on through.

I wonder how the size of the LV sports betting market compares to the online market and what % of sharp betting occurs in LV books vs online books.

I would be talking about the one that is far more pertinent from my perspective.

Get this! Some online books have been known to have 2 sets of lines. One with the soft numbers/weak lines and the other one the sharps receive.

Anyway, I wish you luck in finding people you can reliably trust so that you can continue beating Pinnacle.

edit - It does make sense to have bets limited by tier status but it would need to be flipped. If you are an established -EV gambler then you get higher limits but it makes absolutely no sense to have that LOWERED (limited by tier). Still, I have never heard of it. Wonder if anyone else has?

---

Limited by game tier means the games are put into categories based on probable action. So games that would get little action (say, off the top of my head, UTEP versus New Mexico) have lower limits than, say, Michigan versus Ohio State. That's what "game tier" means. So people are limited by their card tier status and the status of the tier into which that particular game is assigned.

Oh, God. Sharps versus squares again? Why use that lingo? Do you actually think there are categories of people who gravitate to one team versus another based on their what? Betting experience? Clairvoyance? Color of the jerseys? Lack of internet?

I knew a bookmaker, Mike Stockunas, who could whip through three phone calls simultaneously while putting people on hold, giving three completely different sets of lines tailored to each individual bettor. To say he had memorized them is doing him a disservice. He just flat-out knew the different lines.

Account, why should anyone who knows what they're doing respond to you? It's The Never-Ending Journey without the cool soundtrack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Posted maxes are flexible. And in Las Vegas, if you'll notice, very few places even post maxes any longer. If you ask what the maxes are, the majority of places will answer you with a ho, a hum, and some questions so they can find you in their data base and figure out what YOUR maxes should be.

In fact, I actually did a formal survey in Las Vegas, about 15 years ago, regarding maxes. A summary was published in PlayBook. The majority of places did not want to give a hard-and-fast answer. But some would give a conditional answer. That summary is when I discovered the card-tier and game-tier priorities at CET. I still have some questionnaires lying around if you want to check them out.

But yes, account, you're an expert to end all experts.

But don't take my word for it. Go to Las Vegas, show up at windows in all the sports books, and ask what their maximum bets are for such-and-such sport. See how many give you an immediate crystalline answer and see how many do not. And don't cheat by just asking for some limits sheet or brochure. Actually ASK the window people what the limits are. Then see if you get a straight answer or if you get shuttled to the manager, who will likely determine YOUR limits. And dress nicely, so they know you're not some vagabond asking silly questions to kill time.

---

I've never placed a bet in LV so I am not going to claim I know much there. Just I've never heard of a place limiting bets according to tier card status in this day and age.

How is the lack of response from a LV teller evidence for your position that people aren't limited by their perceived sharpness!?!? Oh I get it. You're just digging deeper trying to dig on through.

I wonder how the size of the LV sports betting market compares to the online market and what % of sharp betting occurs in LV books vs online books.

I would be talking about the one that is far more pertinent from my perspective.

Get this! Some online books have been known to have 2 sets of lines. One with the soft numbers/weak lines and the other one the sharps receive.

Anyway, I wish you luck in finding people you can reliably trust so that you can continue beating Pinnacle.

edit - It does make sense to have bets limited by tier status but it would need to be flipped. If you are an established -EV gambler then you get higher limits but it makes absolutely no sense to have that LOWERED (limited by tier). Still, I have never heard of it. Wonder if anyone else has?

---

Limited by game tier means the games are put into categories based on probable action. So games that would get little action (say, off the top of my head, UTEP versus New Mexico) have lower limits than, say, Michigan versus Ohio State. That's what "game tier" means. So people are limited by their card tier status and the status of the tier into which that particular game is assigned.

Oh, God. Sharps versus squares again? Why use that lingo? Do you actually think there are categories of people who gravitate to one team versus another based on their what? Betting experience? Clairvoyance? Color of the jerseys? Lack of internet?

I knew a bookmaker, Mike Stockunas, who could whip through three phone calls simultaneously while putting people on hold, giving three completely different sets of lines tailored to each individual bettor. To say he had memorized them is doing him a disservice. He just flat-out knew the different lines.

Account, why should anyone who knows what they're doing respond to you? It's The Never-Ending Journey without the cool soundtrack.

---

All nonsensical semantic arguments and excuses. Endless. You would respond to me because I ask tough questions which are the most interesting.. or you wouldn't because you can't.

All hand-waving smoke-screen bullshit.

I hope to be proven wrong when you show up on GWAE.

Anyway, when Kewl is the only one on your side. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Oh, God. Sharps versus squares again? Why use that lingo? Do you actually think there are categories of people who gravitate to one team versus another based on their what? Betting experience? Clairvoyance? Color of the jerseys? Lack of internet?

---

What? And you think all bettors are the same? What lingo should we use? You don't believe in any of these distinctions?

Yes there are categories of people who gravitate to one team but I'm not even sure what your point is. I believe they're called fans. This is at least partially why local books shade (ie weak/soft) lines against the home team.

Tableplay must be having a mental breakdown with all the strawmen being thrown about.

I think the funniest part of all this is how redietz has been spewing his ignorance in and out of every gaming forum imaginable for 20 years or so....and neither Dancer nor the Munchkin have ever heard of him! (psst red....maybe you should have sent them that "PR PKG." years ago....:) )

All this long-post blabbering -- it's just the way red likes it, so all his horseshit can get thinned down into mindless minutiae. And simultaneously, his little fairy friend with no life can babble on about how "red's getting mistreated blah blah blah" and be totally ignored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

I think the funniest part of all this is how redietz has been spewing his ignorance in and out of every gaming forum imaginable for 20 years or so....and neither Dancer nor the Munchkin have ever heard of him! (psst red....maybe you should have sent them that "PR PKG." years ago....:) )

---

Munchkin isn't on forums, at least public forums anymore. I first encountered Munchkin at BJinfo, a blackjack forum I was on from 2006-2011. When that closed in 2011, the members from that forum went to a new forum that Norm started, Blackjack The Forum (there...a plug for you Norm, old friend) to replace that void. Munchkin not only went to that new forum, but was named a moderator, the only moderator the forum has had that wasn't Norm.

But Munchkin didn't stay at BJTF very long. Maybe a year or two at most and then stopped posting. This was about the time that forums stopped being about sharing experiences and learning from other players and started being about pissing contests and putting down others and trolling that we now see dominate gambling forums. I don't think that appealed at all to Richard.

And of course, like so many other blackjack card counting AP's, Munchkin also moved away from card counting at that time, and into other forms of advantage play.

So it is not surprising that Munchkin is not familiar with redietz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I'm mocking the idea that "exploiting soft numbers," "steam chasing" and "arbitrage," all terms used by mickey, can lead to lifetime sports bet winning. I'm mocking the idea that buying some arbitrage-seeking programs can lead one to Elysian Fields. I'm also mocking the idea that sports gamblers can win across all sports for more than some limited promo time by utilizing "AP" priorities without actually be expert.

---

I didn't use those terms. Frank B and Spanky used those terms. Plus they also used "off-market lines" and "weak lines." And they both said they've been doing it for twenty years. You say it can't be done. They say it can. This entire inquisition is about finding out who is right, you or them.

Another thing. This 2K betting shit. You are denigrating Spanky as a lowlife 2K bettor. Did you ever stop to think that he thought that was as big a bet as he could get there? If you followed those links I put up you will see that Spanky tried to deposit 100K in a book. They refused and banned him. And in the Ringer article David Hill wrote that Spanky handed him a bag with 100K in it to make bets in Atlantic City. Spanky handed him the money then walked away. In one interview Spanky said he had to make a lot of small bets on a game in each book instead of one big bet in a book because that was the only way he could get the action in.

You are also hung up on books limiting bets. We all know books limit bets on everyone no matter who they are. But what about not just getting limited? What about being banned. Spanky probably holds the record for bannings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I could see, maybe 20 or 30 years from now, when sports betting is in every state, some virgin bettor setting up shop in two or three states, using the bonuses and promos for a year or two until dry, then pulling up stakes and setting up shop in two or three other states, then doing it in perpetuity -- that person might be able to claim to be a "winning professional sports bettor" without knowing what they're doing, but we're aways from that.

---

Are we aways from that? How many states have sports betting now? And that isn't really even necessary now with the explosion of online sports books. Add in multiple accounts from friends and family members (sort of the online sportsbook version of the ever-popular multi-carding) and there are endless opportunities for someone who wants to do that. And they never have to leave home.

---

No, for most you have to be in-state to bet. You could set up people in multiple states (kind of how we tried to recruit Egyptians and Brits so we could use Pinnacle -- LOL -- didn't work out) and go from there. But the promos and parlay boosts are gimmicks. They won't sustain. And your accounts will be cross-referenced and data-mined. You have no control over what account info is shared with whom.

You're not going to be able to hide what you're doing. Then you'll be shut down.

---

"What are you going to do when the bonus whore money runs out and you can't win anymore?" said the grizzled old handicapper.

"Who gives a fuck. I'm just taking the bonus whore money while it lasts" said the AP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Another thing. This 2K betting shit. You are denigrating Spanky as a lowlife 2K bettor. Did you ever stop to think that he thought that was as big a bet as he could get there? If you followed those links I put up you will see that Spanky tried to deposit 100K in a book. They refused and banned him. And in the Ringer article David Hill wrote that Spanky handed him a bag with 100K in it to make bets in Atlantic City. Spanky handed him the money then walked away. In one interview Spanky said he had to make a lot of small bets on a game in each book instead of one big bet in a book because that was the only way he could get the action in.

You are also hung up on books limiting bets. We all know books limit bets on everyone no matter who they are. But what about not just getting limited? What about being banned. Spanky probably holds the record for bannings.

---

Mickey, from these discussions, I see a lot of similarities between the way sportsbooks (casinos) handle sports bettors they perceive to be winning players and the way casinos handle card counters. Limiting betting amounts, right up to total bannings.

And to no surprise there are limits that a player or bettor can bet that are better tolerated that can enable a player to avoid those bannings and achieve some longevity. Sports bettors have the advantage that they can spread their action on the same game around to get that desired higher amount on a single game. Card counters don't have that....you can't be playing 5 tables at once. :rolleyes: Well maybe online, but I am just not familiar with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Limited by game tier means the games are put into categories based on probable action. So games that would get little action (say, off the top of my head, UTEP versus New Mexico) have lower limits than, say, Michigan versus Ohio State. That's what "game tier" means. So people are limited by their card tier status and the status of the tier into which that particular game is assigned.

---

So you can bet game tier according to your card status at Caesar's? Caesar's caters to sucker slot, and sucker table games players only. "Suckers only" at CZR. So your card level tells them everything they need to know:

Gold = small frye sucker fish
Platinum = medium frye sucker fish
Diamond = big sucker fish
Diamond Plus = king guppy sucker fish
Diamond Elite = great big king salmon sucker fish
7 Stars = WHALE

At CZR your card level tells the bookie everything he needs to know about your sucker ass. If you are king guppy or whale at a CZR book they will let you "bet 'em high and sleep in the streets."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I could see, maybe 20 or 30 years from now, when sports betting is in every state, some virgin bettor setting up shop in two or three states, using the bonuses and promos for a year or two until dry, then pulling up stakes and setting up shop in two or three other states, then doing it in perpetuity -- that person might be able to claim to be a "winning professional sports bettor" without knowing what they're doing, but we're aways from that.

---

Are we aways from that? How many states have sports betting now? And that isn't really even necessary now with the explosion of online sports books. Add in multiple accounts from friends and family members (sort of the online sportsbook version of the ever-popular multi-carding) and there are endless opportunities for someone who wants to do that. And they never have to leave home.

---

No, for most you have to be in-state to bet. You could set up people in multiple states (kind of how we tried to recruit Egyptians and Brits so we could use Pinnacle -- LOL -- didn't work out) and go from there. But the promos and parlay boosts are gimmicks. They won't sustain. And your accounts will be cross-referenced and data-mined. You have no control over what account info is shared with whom.

You're not going to be able to hide what you're doing. Then you'll be shut down.

---

There was a 3k free bet during super bowl in a new market. I took 25 of my friends and their significant others over to sign up. I also told them to invite another couple. I probably made more on that one play then most of your so called professional handicappers make with zero risk. All without the knowledge you seem to think matters in 2023 to beat sports.

All one really needs is a basic understanding of SIM cards and IMEI masking to not get your accounts locked. Piggy back the bonuses with some whale flipping live window bets and a little negotiating theres unlimited money to make. It’s been this way for a few years. Easy game. O and don’t forget the casino Bonuses on slots. Easier game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Limited by game tier means the games are put into categories based on probable action. So games that would get little action (say, off the top of my head, UTEP versus New Mexico) have lower limits than, say, Michigan versus Ohio State. That's what "game tier" means. So people are limited by their card tier status and the status of the tier into which that particular game is assigned.

---

So you can bet game tier according to your card status at Caesar's? Caesar's caters to sucker slot, and sucker table games players only. "Suckers only" at CZR. So your card level tells them everything they need to know:

Gold = small frye sucker fish
Platinum = medium frye sucker fish
Diamond = big sucker fish
Diamond Plus = king guppy sucker fish
Diamond Elite = great big king salmon sucker fish
7 Stars = WHALE

At CZR your card level tells the bookie everything he needs to know about your sucker ass. If you are king guppy or whale at a CZR book they will let you "bet 'em high and sleep in the streets."

---

I currently have access to 25 seven star cards with player profiles good enough to get down anything you need. These so called pro sports bettors are always looking for beards/runners to bet for them lol. It’s pretty ironic how many times the high horse sports betting types turn to guys like me to help them get down. No different then the “PRO” poker players who are so deep in make up it would make your eyes water. But they still keep telling the world how great they are.

Show your net worth. If you are a winner red over all these years then you should at minimum have 10 million plus.

Funny how once the regs stop doing whatever they're doing for the day and tend to this board they all pile on the doofus that is Redietz.

Redietz if you weren't so condescending you wouldn't have to deal with this and your bullshit would pretty much fly under the radar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

It would be a go with the caveat that I would like to do "in studio" in Las Vegas in person. That way I get to meet the principals involved. I prefer doing these things in person when possible.

I have to get to LV a couple of times in the next four months or so anyway because I'm likely going to do a tour guide thing for a documentary filmmaker who is strictly an East Coast mob expert, but who is unfamiliar with details of Las Vegas. So hopefully I can dovetail the two. If not, I'll do the tour-guide thing later. I'd be doing Mafia Tour 101 while my better half could give the graduate course.

I'm not going to badmouth the LVA crew. They have some legitimacy. Fezzik is, arguably, the best NFL contest player ever, but the whole contest thing underscores that, as in poker, there are contest guys and betting guys.

---

red, I just thought of something. You may not be able to do "in studio." My last interview they were both in their own homes, Bob in Vegas and Richard in California. It was a teleconference. Bob looked like he had just got out of bed. He was in his pajamas.

---

Thanks. I'll contact them. I'm not big on Zoom. I mean, look at Rob's Shackleford interview. Rob looked as if he was broadcasting out of a closet. Why do they teleconference if it's just an audio podcast? Mainly, I'd rather fly to LV than have to clean up my workspace to look like a CNN talking head. I guess I could hang some blow-up dolls from the ceiling in the background just for ambience. Plus I might be able to have the documentary guy film the interview if it's in LV. Not sure he's taking a professional camera or not. I guess I'll find out.

---

The teleconference is just between you, Bob and Richard. Only the audio goes out to the public. The interview I did before the last one we couldn't see each other. Request no zoom if you dont want it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

I think the funniest part of all this is how redietz has been spewing his ignorance in and out of every gaming forum imaginable for 20 years or so....and neither Dancer nor the Munchkin have ever heard of him! (psst red....maybe you should have sent them that "PR PKG." years ago....:) )

---

Munchkin isn't on forums, at least public forums anymore. I first encountered Munchkin at BJinfo, a blackjack forum I was on from 2006-2011. When that closed in 2011, the members from that forum went to a new forum that Norm started, Blackjack The Forum (there...a plug for you Norm, old friend) to replace that void. Munchkin not only went to that new forum, but was named a moderator, the only moderator the forum has had that wasn't Norm.

But Munchkin didn't stay at BJTF very long. Maybe a year or two at most and then stopped posting. This was about the time that forums stopped being about sharing experiences and learning from other players and started being about pissing contests and putting down others and trolling that we now see dominate gambling forums. I don't think that appealed at all to Richard.

And of course, like so many other blackjack card counting AP's, Munchkin also moved away from card counting at that time, and into other forms of advantage play.

So it is not surprising that Munchkin is not familiar with redietz.

---

Dancer's an LVA guy. Redietz throws their names around as much as he does the Gaming Today folks. I've already found that he neither knows nor talks to anybody there, and no employee has ever heard of him. LVA SHOULD be another story but for some reason it isn't. Red was a regular poster during my time on LVA Sports, and seeing that Anthony Curtis paid Dancer to write articles and I believe published one or two of his books, you would think Dancer was familiar with a contributing "world-class handicapper" or whatever he is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I could see, maybe 20 or 30 years from now, when sports betting is in every state, some virgin bettor setting up shop in two or three states, using the bonuses and promos for a year or two until dry, then pulling up stakes and setting up shop in two or three other states, then doing it in perpetuity -- that person might be able to claim to be a "winning professional sports bettor" without knowing what they're doing, but we're aways from that.

---

It's already possible in a few spots. Byron Park, Connecticut is a mile from Port Chester, New York, and Northvale, New Jersey is just 20 miles from there.

Stevensville, Delaware is just 5 miles from Whitehall Manor, Maryland.

Washington DC and Arlington, Virginia are just across the river from each other.

Michigan, Ohio and Indiana come together at Billingstown, Ohio. Easy loop to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I could see, maybe 20 or 30 years from now, when sports betting is in every state, some virgin bettor setting up shop in two or three states, using the bonuses and promos for a year or two until dry, then pulling up stakes and setting up shop in two or three other states, then doing it in perpetuity -- that person might be able to claim to be a "winning professional sports bettor" without knowing what they're doing, but we're aways from that.

---

Are we aways from that? How many states have sports betting now? And that isn't really even necessary now with the explosion of online sports books. Add in multiple accounts from friends and family members (sort of the online sportsbook version of the ever-popular multi-carding) and there are endless opportunities for someone who wants to do that. And they never have to leave home.

---

No, for most you have to be in-state to bet. You could set up people in multiple states (kind of how we tried to recruit Egyptians and Brits so we could use Pinnacle -- LOL -- didn't work out) and go from there. But the promos and parlay boosts are gimmicks. They won't sustain. And your accounts will be cross-referenced and data-mined. You have no control over what account info is shared with whom.

You're not going to be able to hide what you're doing. Then you'll be shut down.

---

Won't sustain, my ass. You'll be shut down my ass(One trick ponies might get shut down if they tuck their tales and run and hide) They could end whatever college football advantage you claim to have too.

I have been hearing this (it's ending)BS since the day I started with AP. It's been said about everything, Video poker, slot machines, blackjack, and table games. Griffin, OSN, and Facial Reconigion were going to get us all. And yet it's only gotten BETTER for those hungry enough.



It was the late 90s/early 2000s when online sports bonus opportunities came about. While you were jacking around with Stardust comps, CC drawings, and touting, or whatever The early "sports guys" guys made millions during the online sports peek. I know for a fact one guy made about 750k within a few years. Sure he got burnt for many 10's of thousands. But who cares, that was just part of the rake. Sportsbooks got wise and started to tighten up, but the opportunities were still there, and with more and more places setting up shop. there may have been fewer juicy situations, but more opportunities. Black Friday came and that tossed a wrench into things, but where there's a will, there's a way.

Online bonuses promotions and gimmicks have been going on since the beginning and now 20+ years later they are still going strong. They have even come back with a vengeance. People can make a shit ton in a short period of time instead of waiting years and years honing their handicapping craft with small edges and bets before they are confident enough to bet real money. At least with Bonuses and gimmicks, middling off lines, etc you know exactly where you're at and you can confidently make large or small wagers and you know the money is coming your way.

So keep telling yourself and spreading this false narrative that being a specialized sports handicapper is the only true/real way to beat sports.


There was a brief time in the early 2000's when VP was getting slashed, progressives were going away, promotions were thin, accumulators were disappearing, match plays and coupons were disappearing, Slot club cashback was bad, free play hadn't taken hold and it was a bit rough. During that time, I noticed many guys disappeared. A little while later things came back with a vengeance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I could see, maybe 20 or 30 years from now, when sports betting is in every state, some virgin bettor setting up shop in two or three states, using the bonuses and promos for a year or two until dry, then pulling up stakes and setting up shop in two or three other states, then doing it in perpetuity -- that person might be able to claim to be a "winning professional sports bettor" without knowing what they're doing, but we're aways from that.

---

It's happening NOW. People have been doing it for years. I'll be willing to make you a Large wager that I can make x amount in a year via sports betting without handicapping and limited-sized bets. IE I can't just make some big bet, win, and claim I won.

Come up with something and we can negotiate the terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I could see, maybe 20 or 30 years from now, when sports betting is in every state, some virgin bettor setting up shop in two or three states, using the bonuses and promos for a year or two until dry, then pulling up stakes and setting up shop in two or three other states, then doing it in perpetuity -- that person might be able to claim to be a "winning professional sports bettor" without knowing what they're doing, but we're aways from that.

---

It's already possible in a few spots. Byron Park, Connecticut is a mile from Port Chester, New York, and Northvale, New Jersey is just 20 miles from there.

Stevensville, Delaware is just 5 miles from Whitehall Manor, Maryland.

Washington DC and Arlington, Virginia are just across the river from each other.

Michigan, Ohio and Indiana come together at Billingstown, Ohio. Easy loop to make.

---

That's why I said two to three states at a go. You can do the juncture states. But you can't sustain it for any real amounts unless you're playing the extended family game, and that's easy enough for people to identify. So eventually you get cross-referenced and identified. And when that happens, the gig is up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Are we aways from that? How many states have sports betting now? And that isn't really even necessary now with the explosion of online sports books. Add in multiple accounts from friends and family members (sort of the online sportsbook version of the ever-popular multi-carding) and there are endless opportunities for someone who wants to do that. And they never have to leave home.

---

No, for most you have to be in-state to bet. You could set up people in multiple states (kind of how we tried to recruit Egyptians and Brits so we could use Pinnacle -- LOL -- didn't work out) and go from there. But the promos and parlay boosts are gimmicks. They won't sustain. And your accounts will be cross-referenced and data-mined. You have no control over what account info is shared with whom.

You're not going to be able to hide what you're doing. Then you'll be shut down.

---

Won't sustain, my ass. You'll be shut down my ass(One trick ponies might get shut down if they tuck their tales and run and hide) They could end whatever college football advantage you claim to have too.

I have been hearing this (it's ending)BS since the day I started with AP. It's been said about everything, Video poker, slot machines, blackjack, and table games. Griffin, OSN, and Facial Reconigion were going to get us all. And yet it's only gotten BETTER for those hungry enough.



It was the late 90s/early 2000s when online sports bonus opportunities came about. While you were jacking around with Stardust comps, CC drawings, and touting, or whatever The early "sports guys" guys made millions during the online sports peek. I know for a fact one guy made about 750k within a few years. Sure he got burnt for many 10's of thousands. But who cares, that was just part of the rake. Sportsbooks got wise and started to tighten up, but the opportunities were still there, and with more and more places setting up shop. there may have been fewer juicy situations, but more opportunities. Black Friday came and that tossed a wrench into things, but where there's a will, there's a way.

Online bonuses promotions and gimmicks have been going on since the beginning and now 20+ years later they are still going strong. They have even come back with a vengeance. People can make a shit ton in a short period of time instead of waiting years and years honing their handicapping craft with small edges and bets before they are confident enough to bet real money. At least with Bonuses and gimmicks, middling off lines, etc you know exactly where you're at and you can confidently make large or small wagers and you know the money is coming your way.

So keep telling yourself and spreading this false narrative that being a specialized sports handicapper is the only true/real way to beat sports.


There was a brief time in the early 2000's when VP was getting slashed, progressives were going away, promotions were thin, accumulators were disappearing, match plays and coupons were disappearing, Slot club cashback was bad, free play hadn't taken hold and it was a bit rough. During that time, I noticed many guys disappeared. A little while later things came back with a vengeance

---

I get kick out of you, Axelwolf. What makes you think handicappers can't do what you do, in addition to being handicappers? You're one of the 1% of APs who makes money betting sports? Great, but don't sell it as some long-term money-maker because what you do can be shut down tomorrow.

Expanded sports betting is at its beginnings. Using promos and bonuses to hook people. And with all of the Covid-line moves having propped people up for 18 months. And identity tech hasn't been implemented because of Covid. Expanded use of identity tracking was in the pipeline until Covid. It'll be rolled out soon enough. The times (for APs), they are a'changin'. The asteroid is on its way.

Meanwhile, talk about hubris. Handicappers can't do what Axelwolf does because, what, his knowledge is so specialized? His organizational skill so vast that he's running AP Spectre?

The whole point is that a handicapper can do what you do, plus. How can you possibly make the point that APs can outperform handicappers who can do what the APs do? What, you think Billy Walters doesn't have access to every angle, every program, every bit of specialized knowledge, every opportunity you have? Plus he has unlimited expertise at his disposal and reduced vig everywhere. APs engaged in this have no advantage over handicappers doing the same thing. Why would you think that they do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

No, for most you have to be in-state to bet. You could set up people in multiple states (kind of how we tried to recruit Egyptians and Brits so we could use Pinnacle -- LOL -- didn't work out) and go from there. But the promos and parlay boosts are gimmicks. They won't sustain. And your accounts will be cross-referenced and data-mined. You have no control over what account info is shared with whom.

You're not going to be able to hide what you're doing. Then you'll be shut down.

---

Won't sustain, my ass. You'll be shut down my ass(One trick ponies might get shut down if they tuck their tales and run and hide) They could end whatever college football advantage you claim to have too.

I have been hearing this (it's ending)BS since the day I started with AP. It's been said about everything, Video poker, slot machines, blackjack, and table games. Griffin, OSN, and Facial Reconigion were going to get us all. And yet it's only gotten BETTER for those hungry enough.



It was the late 90s/early 2000s when online sports bonus opportunities came about. While you were jacking around with Stardust comps, CC drawings, and touting, or whatever The early "sports guys" guys made millions during the online sports peek. I know for a fact one guy made about 750k within a few years. Sure he got burnt for many 10's of thousands. But who cares, that was just part of the rake. Sportsbooks got wise and started to tighten up, but the opportunities were still there, and with more and more places setting up shop. there may have been fewer juicy situations, but more opportunities. Black Friday came and that tossed a wrench into things, but where there's a will, there's a way.

Online bonuses promotions and gimmicks have been going on since the beginning and now 20+ years later they are still going strong. They have even come back with a vengeance. People can make a shit ton in a short period of time instead of waiting years and years honing their handicapping craft with small edges and bets before they are confident enough to bet real money. At least with Bonuses and gimmicks, middling off lines, etc you know exactly where you're at and you can confidently make large or small wagers and you know the money is coming your way.

So keep telling yourself and spreading this false narrative that being a specialized sports handicapper is the only true/real way to beat sports.


There was a brief time in the early 2000's when VP was getting slashed, progressives were going away, promotions were thin, accumulators were disappearing, match plays and coupons were disappearing, Slot club cashback was bad, free play hadn't taken hold and it was a bit rough. During that time, I noticed many guys disappeared. A little while later things came back with a vengeance

---

I get kick out of you, Axelwolf. What makes you think handicappers can't do what you do, in addition to being handicappers? You're one of the 1% of APs who makes money betting sports? Great, but don't sell it as some long-term money-maker because what you do can be shut down tomorrow.

Expanded sports betting is at its beginnings. Using promos and bonuses to hook people. And with all of the Covid-line moves having propped people up for 18 months. And identity tech hasn't been implemented because of Covid. Expanded use of identity tracking was in the pipeline until Covid. It'll be rolled out soon enough. The times (for APs), they are a'changin'. The asteroid is on its way.

Meanwhile, talk about hubris. Handicappers can't do what Axelwolf does because, what, his knowledge is so specialized? His organizational skill so vast that he's running AP Spectre?

The whole point is that a handicapper can do what you do, plus. How can you possibly make the point that APs can outperform handicappers who can do what the APs do? What, you think Billy Walters doesn't have access to every angle, every program, every bit of specialized knowledge, every opportunity you have? Plus he has unlimited expertise at his disposal and reduced vig everywhere. APs engaged in this have no advantage over handicappers doing the same thing. Why would you think that they do?

---

I'm just going on some of the stange statement you have said in the past.

Of course, handicappers can do it, and they should even be way better at it. There are no arguments there. Here's the thing, with very few rare exceptions, I don't know anyone that beats sports on just pure handicapping period. There are almost no situations where giving up a percentage to a handycrapping tout or service on mainstream sports would yield a profit long-term. Where's the decade of records you've talked about? Who are we talking about?

Can we stop talking about Billy Walters, he started with money, He went broke a number of times, He lost his wife, and ended up in jail only by the grace of God(Trump in this case) did he get out. He's an anomaly a rare duck very few can do what he's done. The next thing you know you're going to be talking about how Magnus Carlsen can make money in chess. Great, Very few people have that ability. And in sports handicapping very few people have the money, knowledge, motivation, dedication, guts, time, and experience to make a living, let alone make a killing.
.

Obviously, there are exceptions where people find unique opportunities or they are doing something special but that's not really handicapping.



I'm no sports guru and my math sucks, especially compared to the guys I have seen guys who can scan the boards, and sheets portal and spot a possible mathematical overly opportunity within minutes. They quickly see something that isn't right. I guess in the same way I would instantly notice a casino promotion was super exploitable at first glance, or I might notice a progressive VP meter was +EV without running the numbers.

I don't make a killing betting on sports, I have done well overall. Oftentimes it's not my own stuff I came up with, but good information obtained from others or as a group effort. I did my own handicapping and contest-winning in the 90s and I did well but never had the balls and confidence to bet big. I don't need to be a genius to know a 1k free bet/deposit bonus etc with a 0-3x rollover is a lock.


Let's talk about what a reasonably intelligent person can actually do to make money via sports betting.

Can I ask what your yearly average college handicapping percentage is, and over how many bets? I'm not talking about contests, bonuses, kickbacks free bets, loyalty points, etc.

The greatest handicapper of all time. Never lost. Redietz, can you tell me where this scene was filmed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fPJUg5nbzg

"Hey, what's your favorite casino game?" someone asked the AP.
"My favorite casino game is the one I'm making the most money off of" answered the AP.

Redietz is stuck on "It's not sustainable."

Hell, nothing is sustainable. I don't think he understands that AP's have been moving on from plays for decades. I couldn't tell you how many promotions I worked. It's got to be dozens or hundreds. I think the longest one I worked was a month. None of those promotions were "sustainable." You just take the money while it lasts and move on.

I worked 3% and 4% video poker (no promotions involved) for about 7 years. The games went extinct.

Video blackjack. Breakeven game with same day cashback as high as 2%. The casinos took a bath on that game especially for dollars. Didn't last that long. Time to move on.

Advantage slot games wear out their shelf life. There's no telling how long a game will last. Some make it a year or two others make it 7 or 8 years. Depends on the popularity of the game. I just seen one casino put in 7 Wolf Run Eclipse. They were gone in 3 months.

I've got pictures of new exploitable games that are so new they are only in a couple of casinos. They'll come my way soon or later. I'll work them while they last.

I seen an opportunity in sportsbetting in Wendover that even a novice could work. No big money because sides and totals were capped at $500. My main gig in Wendover was video blackjack and live poker so I was there anyway and I took the sportsbetting money too. Didn't last long. If I see another opportunity in sportsbetting I may jump on it. How long it lasts ain't part of the equation. I just take the money when it shows. I'm used to moving on.

I've worked hundreds of different plays in 27 years. None of them were "sustainable." You just take the money and move on to the next play.

The thing about promotions and machines is the math is different in every situation. I have to think up the equations. There's about 80 exploitable slot games at present. They all have different configurations. You have to figure all the shit out for each game. So you have to be versatile. Figure the shit out. Make the money while it lasts. Then move on to the next gig.

Sustainable? Nothing is sustainable. We're all going to die someday.

deleted

Serious question for Red or anyone, it's not a trick question. I would assume a pro sports bettor would have some knowledge regarding this. They have various online parlay challenge contests and whatnot(different from a regular football contest) is there or has anyone tried them? I'm wondering if there's any value there. I haven't really taken the time to look into it that much, but I did notice there weren't a bunch of people participating in a few, therefore the pots were not significant. That may be a good thing since it won't attract the sharps/pros or whatever you want to call them. Perhaps you can pick off some small overlay pots with minimal effort. I noticed one where I believe they seed it with house money to get it started.

Red, I got an email from Dancer saying they don't have a studio but they definitely can arrange a pre-show lunch.

They use Zencstr which is similar to Zoom and Skype.

Bob wouldn't have sent this information to me if you had already contacted him. Please contact them as soon as possible at gamblingwithanedge.com and rwmunchkin.com so I don't have to continue to relay messages.

Here's an educational article on Expected Value in sportsbetting:

https://sportshandle.com/expected-value/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Here's an educational article on Expected Value in sportsbetting:

https://sportshandle.com/expected-value/

---

Another thing that i'm not sure has ever been brought up but I believe Redietz likes to claim that handicappers have some special way of anticipating line moves. Attacking weak lines early on will net the same effect in general. But get this !! you don't even have to know shit about the sport !!!!!

From the above article: For example, if a book assigns a team — let’s say the Seahawks against the Patriots– a +100 line, that translates to a 50% winning probability, or a coin flip.

If a bettor believes that in this game the Seahawks actually have a greater than 50% chance to win, they would assign a positive expected value (+EV)

In blackjack as well as video poker, expected value (EV) is determined purely by the math. Strickly by the odds of different events occurring, based on math. Once you get into "if a player believes"...something will occur more or less that the math says, you have crossed over to opinion. EV is not based on opinion, it is based on math.

Now let's take this to video poker. Let's use full pay jacks or better. The math says a royal will occur every 40,391 rounds on average. And from that and knowing how often every other payout will occur, we are able to come up with and expected return of 99.54, (-EV). This is all based purely on math. There is no room for opinion.

So if the player somehow believes that he will hit a royal every 35,000 rounds instead of every 40,000 rounds that the math tells us, does this game become +EV, purely based on that opinion or hope? Of course not. (BTW, this is getting into Rob Singer voodoo territory) But that is what the article says. "If a player believes" the chances are better than this...then it is +EV.

So I don't know what that is or what term should be used but it really isn't EV. EV is based strictly on the math. There is no room for opinion in that equation.....in my opinion of course. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

From the above article: For example, if a book assigns a team — let’s say the Seahawks against the Patriots– a +100 line, that translates to a 50% winning probability, or a coin flip.

If a bettor believes that in this game the Seahawks actually have a greater than 50% chance to win, they would assign a positive expected value (+EV)

In blackjack as well as video poker, expected value (EV) is determined purely by the math. Strickly by the odds of different events occurring, based on math. Once you get into "if a player believes"...something will occur more or less that the math says, you have crossed over to opinion. EV is not based on opinion, it is based on math.

Now let's take this to video poker. Let's use full pay jacks or better. The math says a royal will occur every 40,391 rounds on average. And from that and knowing how often every other payout will occur, we are able to come up with and expected return of 99.54, (-EV). This is all based purely on math. There is no room for opinion.

So if the player somehow believes that he will hit a royal every 35,000 rounds instead of every 40,000 rounds that the math tells us, does this game become +EV, purely based on that opinion or hope? Of course not. (BTW, this is getting into Rob Singer voodoo territory) But that is what the article says. "If a player believes" the chances are better than this...then it is +EV.

So I don't know what that is or what term should be used but it really isn't EV. EV is based strictly on the math. There is no room for opinion in that equation.....in my opinion of course. ;)

---

Ok team redietz starring kewlj vs consensus of everyone else. Thank you for the explanation. Maybe we'll finally get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Ok team redietz starring kewlj vs consensus of everyone else. Thank you for the explanation. Maybe we'll finally get it.

---

See, this is a very typical troll response. No surprise it is coming from you. You form teams, based on that you don't like someone (something you have admitted and prove every day), then you call names, like coach belly does with ditz, and TewlJ and mickey has followed coach belly. Who ever thought mickey would be following coach belly's lead. :confused: This name calling is an attempt to demonize.

God forbid, there should be an honest discussion, without all the polarization and name calling where someone, maybe even me, could actually learn something. I mean I would like to know how EV stops being about the math and starts being about someone's opinion that a team will do better than the odds or point spread with no explanation as to how that "opinion" came to be.

Now lets' get into how lines occur. And someone correct me if I am wrong. It is my understanding that there is an early line posted somewhere for football on Sunday night, that may not be available to everyone, and based wagers on that early line, the line moves to the first publicly available line posted usually Monday morning. And from there it moves further based on how much play each side is getting.

But lets get back to this earl(iest) of lines that comes out Sunday night. How is that determined? That is based on somebody's (supposedly an expert handicapper's) opinion. Someone's opinion just really can't be a part of expected value. TRUE expected value is based on math, not opinion. So if a sports bettor is beating that opinion of the line which starts out as one guys opinion and moves based oin the public's opinion, that should be called something else. I don't know what it should be called, but it is not the pure definition of EV.

Opinion handicappers are obsolete. Modern handicappers are using very sophisticated software. And the statistical data, at least in the past, was much more in depth than the bookie's statistical data.

So when the books have the Patriots and Seahawks at pickem but the computer algorithm tells the sharp bettor that the Pats will win 55% of the time....that creates the edge. It's based on averages per the statistics not opinions.

The software running artificial intelligence algorithms doing a 10,000 game simulation shows Pats winning 55% of the time.

For simplification you are betting $1.10 to win $1.00 per game.

That an $11,000 wager.

Pats win 55% of games for a return of $5,500

Pats lose 45% of games for a loss of $4,950

A profit of $550

$550 divided by the $11000 total wager = an expected value of +5%

An experienced software user like Spanky, who has a degree in computer science, has a collection of statistics on his computer derived bets going back 20 years that tells him how accurate the algorithm's EV calculations are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Opinion handicappers are obsolete. Modern handicappers are using very sophisticated software. And the statistical data, at least in the past, was much more in depth than the bookie's statistical data.

So when the books have the Patriots and Seahawks at pickem but the computer algorithm tells the sharp bettor that the Pats will win 55% of the time....that creates the edge. It's based on averages per the statistics not opinions.

The software running artificial intelligence algorithms doing a 10,000 game simulation shows Pats winning 55% of the time.

For simplification you are betting $1.10 to win $1.00 per game.

That an $11,000 wager.

Pats win 55% of games for a return of $5,500

Pats lose 45% of games for a loss of $4,950

A profit of $550

$550 divided by the $11000 total wager = an expected value of +5%

An experienced software user like Spanky, who has a degree in computer science, has a collection of statistics on his computer derived bets going back 20 years that tells him how accurate the algorithm's EV calculations are.

---

That is amazing mickey crimm. Thanks for this post. So where can we get our hands on this software? ;) Just kidding..sort of.

Just another case of software, computers and A.I. changing everything. :cool:

So I use software in my card counting. The software from my dear Friend Norm Wattenberger which he calls Qfit products (just a plug for good old Norm). And you and many VP players have used software for quite a while. I never did use software with VP, because my play was very elementary and my advantage from the disproportionate mailer free play offers.

But here is the thing. Prior to software and computers in every home, there were guys still beating blackjack via card counting and still beating VP right. The software just works as an aid now. A tool if you will. And that is what I equate redietz to. The guy who was beating blackjack and video poker before the tools we have now in computers and software. That is not to say redietz doesn't use software of computers. That is not what I am saying. But when he started out, he did it the old school way I think. So why this push to say the old school way is wrong. He has been successful doing it that way for decades. I have no reason to doubt him. Do you mickey? Do you really doubt him?

I mean I still have the pleasure of communicating with some old school blackjack players. That would be guys that played in the 80's and 90's. Basically, anything before 2000. I would never say their way was wrong and they couldn't win their way. They did it! :rolleyes:

My take is redietz believes strongly in his way, an old school way. And doesn't seem very accepting of newer methods. But that doesn't mean he is wrong. Isn't there a saying that there is more than one way to skin a cat? (kind of gross, BTW).

An excerpt from Requiem for a Sports Bettor by David Hill.

"He’s known throughout the gambling world by the name Spanky....His backpack filled with bricks of cash, $150,000 worth....We stop at the edge of the Ocean Casino at the end of the boardwalk. Spanky hands me the backpack. 'I gotta leave you here. You don’t want to be seen on camera with me.” Why not?, I ask him, trying to mask my concern. 'They don’t let me bet in there. And if they saw you talking to me, they probably wouldn’t let you bet, either.' He’s known as a sharp player by every major bookmaker in the world. Spanky shakes my hand and turns and walks off down the boardwalk.

The Ocean is one of Atlantic City’s newest properties, and the tallest on the boardwalk. There isn’t much of a crowd as I amble into the 7,500-square-foot luxury sportsbook with my bag full of money. I ask to speak to the manager, and let him know that I’m going to bet the NCAA and NIT tournaments, and that I plan to bet big. Whenever Spanky has a pick for me, he’ll send me a text. I fill out all the necessary paperwork. Spanky texts me and tells me to try to get $10,000 on Xavier -5 against Toledo in the first round of the NIT. The line for the game isn’t yet on the big screen in the sportsbook, so I ask the manager, and he picks up the phone and calls Las Vegas. He comes back and tells me I have a bet at $5,000.

I give him the money and take the betslip, then return to my chair in the front row. The game then appears on the screen, only the line is now Xavier -4.5. Spanky sees it from his screen, wherever he is, because he texts me “They disrespected you.” Spanky tells me to try and get another 5K in. “You’ve got a bet,” the bookie says. I hand him $5,000 more. The line moved back to -5. “Bet it again,” Spanky texts. This time, the line moves to -5.5. “That’s enough,” Spanky texts."

Spanky’s model thought the game should have been Xavier -7.5. When I left the casino the line was already at -7...The following day the Xavier Musketeers will defeat the Toledo Rockets by 14 points

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Are we aways from that? How many states have sports betting now? And that isn't really even necessary now with the explosion of online sports books. Add in multiple accounts from friends and family members (sort of the online sportsbook version of the ever-popular multi-carding) and there are endless opportunities for someone who wants to do that. And they never have to leave home.

---

No, for most you have to be in-state to bet. You could set up people in multiple states (kind of how we tried to recruit Egyptians and Brits so we could use Pinnacle -- LOL -- didn't work out) and go from there. But the promos and parlay boosts are gimmicks. They won't sustain. And your accounts will be cross-referenced and data-mined. You have no control over what account info is shared with whom.

You're not going to be able to hide what you're doing. Then you'll be shut down.

---

"What are you going to do when the bonus whore money runs out and you can't win anymore?" said the grizzled old handicapper.

"Who gives a fuck. I'm just taking the bonus whore money while it lasts" said the AP.

---

"What are you going to do when the bonus whore money runs out and you can't win anymore?" said the grizzled old handicapper.

"That's what they have been saying for the last 20 years, and that's what they will be saying 20 years from now, I guess I'll be trying to Advantage Play Heaven since we will probably all be dead by the time it all ends ." said the AP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Opinion handicappers are obsolete. Modern handicappers are using very sophisticated software. And the statistical data, at least in the past, was much more in depth than the bookie's statistical data.

So when the books have the Patriots and Seahawks at pickem but the computer algorithm tells the sharp bettor that the Pats will win 55% of the time....that creates the edge. It's based on averages per the statistics not opinions.

The software running artificial intelligence algorithms doing a 10,000 game simulation shows Pats winning 55% of the time.

For simplification you are betting $1.10 to win $1.00 per game.

That an $11,000 wager.

Pats win 55% of games for a return of $5,500

Pats lose 45% of games for a loss of $4,950

A profit of $550

$550 divided by the $11000 total wager = an expected value of +5%

An experienced software user like Spanky, who has a degree in computer science, has a collection of statistics on his computer derived bets going back 20 years that tells him how accurate the algorithm's EV calculations are.

---

That is amazing mickey crimm. Thanks for this post. So where can we get our hands on this software? ;) Just kidding..sort of.

Just another case of software, computers and A.I. changing everything. :cool:

So I use software in my card counting. The software from my dear Friend Norm Wattenberger which he calls Qfit products (just a plug for good old Norm). And you and many VP players have used software for quite a while. I never did use software with VP, because my play was very elementary and my advantage from the disproportionate mailer free play offers.

But here is the thing. Prior to software and computers in every home, there were guys still beating blackjack via card counting and still beating VP right. The software just works as an aid now. A tool if you will. And that is what I equate redietz to. The guy who was beating blackjack and video poker before the tools we have now in computers and software. That is not to say redietz doesn't use software of computers. That is not what I am saying. But when he started out, he did it the old school way I think. So why this push to say the old school way is wrong. He has been successful doing it that way for decades. I have no reason to doubt him. Do you mickey? Do you really doubt him?

I mean I still have the pleasure of communicating with some old school blackjack players. That would be guys that played in the 80's and 90's. Basically, anything before 2000. I would never say their way was wrong and they couldn't win their way. They did it! :rolleyes:

My take is redietz believes strongly in his way, an old school way. And doesn't seem very accepting of newer methods. But that doesn't mean he is wrong. Isn't there a saying that there is more than one way to skin a cat? (kind of gross, BTW).

---

The closest thing you get to using software or AI is opening up your grinder app to cruise for BBC you Fraud

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Ok team redietz starring kewlj vs consensus of everyone else. Thank you for the explanation. Maybe we'll finally get it.

---

See, this is a very typical troll response. No surprise it is coming from you. You form teams, based on that you don't like someone (something you have admitted and prove every day), then you call names, like coach belly does with ditz, and TewlJ and mickey has followed coach belly. Who ever thought mickey would be following coach belly's lead. :confused: This name calling is an attempt to demonize.

God forbid, there should be an honest discussion, without all the polarization and name calling where someone, maybe even me, could actually learn something. I mean I would like to know how EV stops being about the math and starts being about someone's opinion that a team will do better than the odds or point spread with no explanation as to how that "opinion" came to be.

Now lets' get into how lines occur. And someone correct me if I am wrong. It is my understanding that there is an early line posted somewhere for football on Sunday night, that may not be available to everyone, and based wagers on that early line, the line moves to the first publicly available line posted usually Monday morning. And from there it moves further based on how much play each side is getting.

But lets get back to this earl(iest) of lines that comes out Sunday night. How is that determined? That is based on somebody's (supposedly an expert handicapper's) opinion. Someone's opinion just really can't be a part of expected value. TRUE expected value is based on math, not opinion. So if a sports bettor is beating that opinion of the line which starts out as one guys opinion and moves based oin the public's opinion, that should be called something else. I don't know what it should be called, but it is not the pure definition of EV.

---

This whole conversation is like an intro to gambling for the mathematically lacking. You went off pontificating to no one in particular. You can find plenty of explanations of what people are talking about when they reference EV. Rediet should never have clowned on APs around here.

Then you back his idiotic points up. THe reason you were put on team redietz should be self-explanatory. Only you feel the need to teach everyone basic stuff about what EV means in a game of pure chance and well defined outcomes. There may other forums for that but it sure ain't here, pal.

You and Redietz both crave attention for your "gambling" and lots of us don't even really believe either of you. How can you even be a successful sports bettor and not use the concept of EV? Only if you're playing in goddam contests where lines and vig don't matter. And why on earth would you do that? It is just layers of crap.

I've never formed teams with who I like. People I like tend to see things in a similar way so these things occur. Redietz isn't liked for reasons given many times over. Pay attention. Typical Kewl making shit up from what others post to his everyday liefe.

I see value in predicting line movement if that's included in what we consider handicapping.

I would love for Red to take a week out and show us his skills. Give us pre-game line movement predictions etc and explain his thinking and explain what the value is and why.

.


over the last few years there has been a large increase in the no. of States that allow sports betting - now there are only 16 States where it is not legal

because of this there is heightened competition between the books - and they're offering lots of crazy ass in game and otherwise prop bets that the gamblers love

some of these prop bets are mispriced - and sometimes by a lot - it takes quite a bit of time and knowledge to uncover them

and there is definitely the possibility of arbitrage - guaranteeing a win - by playing one book against another from time to time


.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

.


over the last few years there has been a large increase in the no. of States that allow sports betting - now there are only 16 States where it is not legal

because of this there is heightened competition between the books - and they're offering lots of crazy ass in game and otherwise prop bets that the gamblers love

some of these prop bets are mispriced - and sometimes by a lot - it takes quite a bit of time and knowledge to uncover them

and there is definitely the possibility of arbitrage - guaranteeing a win - by playing one book against another from time to time


.

---

Sorry Half Smoke, nothing to see here, according to Red that's nothing but full Smoke and mirrors. Even though it's been 20 years, and the bonus and good non-Candy Happing opportunities have gotten better in many instances... it's still much better for you to spend years perfecting and honing in on a specific sport and handicapping that. And don't even think about making any +EV parlays, that's for idiots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

.


over the last few years there has been a large increase in the no. of States that allow sports betting - now there are only 16 States where it is not legal

because of this there is heightened competition between the books - and they're offering lots of crazy ass in game and otherwise prop bets that the gamblers love

some of these prop bets are mispriced - and sometimes by a lot - it takes quite a bit of time and knowledge to uncover them

and there is definitely the possibility of arbitrage - guaranteeing a win - by playing one book against another from time to time


.

---

Sorry Half Smoke, nothing to see here, according to Red that's nothing but full Smoke and mirrors. Even though it's been 20 years, and the bonus and good non-Candy Happing opportunities have gotten better in many instances... it's still much better for you to spend years perfecting and honing in on a specific sport and handicapping that. And don't even think about making any +EV parlays, that's for idiots.

---

I'm going to answer that with a line from a Ray Charles song:



"Well I guess if you say so


I'll have to pack my bags and go"


.

1) For the record, I never said handicapping was learn-able, teach-able, or do-able. What I said was that's how the people who win long-term, win. Most people do not have the ability to do it, as in 99.999%. It's not freshman college math.

2) What I've stated is that there's nothing wrong pursuing lunch-money props middles and arbitrage. I do it myself. But most props have $300 to 1K limits, so when you do find an arbitrage, you're making lunch money. Nothing wrong with a free lunch, every day if you can do it. But it's a lot of work.

3) The example I give of "a lot of work" is when I won the Heritage Sports Race to the Super Bowl about 10 years ago, which resulted in 25K in free SB wagers. I used the money to try to middle SB props. It is hard work; you check numbers every couple of hours at a dozen books. I went to LV and incorporated brick-and-mortar in the process. But, again, with limits of $300 to 1K on many SB props, I wound up making dozens of bets to exhaust the 25K. I middled one prop -- the "longest punt." LOL. Brutal work spread over two weeks to middle one wager for a nickel a side.

4) To try to arbitrage for larger amounts on regular wagers creates logistical issues for most people. You need well into five digits spread at a dozen or more books.

5) Boutique offshores will have the most end-of-bell-curve lines. By "boutique" I mean small, privately owned. These are also the offshores where you're most likely to not get paid or they go out of business. If one fails or they decide to label you "professional," you've lost whatever edge you think you have.

6) Using the term "EV" for something that is not mathematically circumscribed is inappropriate without bracketing "EV" with the words "in my opinion," "in my subjective estimation," or simply "I think." Pretending there is precision when there is not is no way to gamble.

Again, the main question is:

Handicappers can do every blessed thing "APs" do and have been doing them for decades. Arbitrage? Check. Middles shooting? Check. Bonus exploitation? Check. Using programs to monitor line moves to facilitate arbitrage and middles shooting? Check. Plus, handicappers know the teams. They also know the public, which means they have some non-zero effectiveness anticipating line shifts before they happen. Thus, the question becomes: What do "APs" think that they do that handicappers can't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Again, the main question is:

Handicappers can do every blessed thing "APs" do and have been doing them for decades. Arbitrage? Check. Middles shooting? Check. Bonus exploitation? Check. Using programs to monitor line moves to facilitate arbitrage and middles shooting? Check. Plus, handicappers know the teams. They also know the public, which means they have some non-zero effectiveness anticipating line shifts before they happen. Thus, the question becomes: What do "APs" think that they do that handicappers can't?

---

If you think you know what you're talking about you wouldn't be so terrified about facing questions from Dancer and the Munch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Again, the main question is:

Handicappers can do every blessed thing "APs" do and have been doing them for decades. Arbitrage? Check. Middles shooting? Check. Bonus exploitation? Check. Using programs to monitor line moves to facilitate arbitrage and middles shooting? Check. Plus, handicappers know the teams. They also know the public, which means they have some non-zero effectiveness anticipating line shifts before they happen. Thus, the question becomes: What do "APs" think that they do that handicappers can't?

---

"What do AP's think they can do that handicappers can't?" I question the premise of this statement. For some reason redietz is implying that AP's think they are better at betting sports than professional handicappers. Why the hell would any AP think that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

What I've stated is that there's nothing wrong pursuing lunch-money props middles and arbitrage. I do it myself. But most props have $300 to 1K limits, so when you do find an arbitrage, you're making lunch money.

---

Tell us how the big money is made.