The old Western Casino on Fremont

Looks like Red is in the same boat as Rob. He would have no idea where to find information like this. But most real players and almost all real AP players do know.

It isn't a secret. I am just pointing out the kind of people like Rob and Red that talk about things they have no idea about.

AND I actually gave the answer yesterday in an unrelated post. So here it is for you geniuses. Wongs BJ21 has a monthly report of conditions and rules that can be purchased as a one time purchase or on a subscription. They have paid reporters that report the first of each month. And for Las Vegas the report is pretty accurate with one caveat. A local reporter sometimes holds back or doesn't share really good conditions of a game on his route, saving it for himself. The reporters all deny this though. :rolleyes: But overall for Las Vegas it is pretty accurate. Other states and areas, not always as accurate. Depends on if they even have a reporter for that particular area. If not information can be months or even several years old.

Wizard also has a free blackjack survey reporting the same conditions at casinos throughout Vegas. That is also pretty good. Not sure just how often it is updated or who does it, but it is pretty accurate.

But most real players only use these as a guide anyway, so you purchase the report once or twice a year to see if there any changes somewhere you might not know about and then go check for yourself. Because every real player puts more stock in their own scouting than these different reports.

One other thing to remember about these reports as well as your own scouting is that they are only a "snapshot" of conditions at that particular moment in time. It isn't unusual for condition and rules (more conditions like penetration that actual rules) to change from one day to the next, depending on a variety of things. For example, if a casino has encountered a team or even single higher end counter, that they took countermeasures against, they sometime tighten up for a short period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

That one exception would be the wongers, who jump in as soon as the count turns good. They are blackjacks version of vultures. They are essentially stealing EV and ultimately money from those of us that have worked the count. I will glare at them, but it has no effect. Better than doing what I would really like to do to them.

---

Do you mean like when you count 2 tables, and jump from the one that you're playing over to the other one that you're counting...when the count next door turns good?

Oh what a tangled web you weave when you practice to deceive.

But you're well beyond practicing, you are proficient at it...so full of shit it's mind boggling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

You can't do it today because the options do not exist anymore.
These days it costs you 400 per week.
In those days and days prior it was around 300 to 400 PER MONTH.

---

After I sold my first condo here in Vegas 11-12 years ago, (was sort of forced out when they changed the rules), I knew I wanted to buy a single family home and out in Summerlin away from the strip. But I didn't want to be forced into a quick purchase. I wanted to take my time and look. So I was considering a temporary move into one of those weekly place like Seigle suites/Budget suites. I knew the bad reputation with bugs and crime and lousy management running things, but didn't want to sign a lease at a more regular apartment while I looked for a purchase. I ended up renting a regular apartment for 6 months.

But I was pricing those weekly joints. They were all between $149 and $179 a week, depending on location.

Recently I have seen billboards and advertisements where they are $400ish. A check on their website showed prices from $379, to $$459.

That is a 200% increase in a little more than 10 years. :D It is also $1800 a month (+tax). People can rent a decent apartment in a decent area for that money. So why the fuck do people live in these places? And considering the kind of people that do....how can they afford to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

That one exception would be the wongers, who jump in as soon as the count turns good. They are blackjacks version of vultures. They are essentially stealing EV and ultimately money from those of us that have worked the count. I will glare at them, but it has no effect. Better than doing what I would really like to do to them.

---

Do you mean like when you count 2 tables, and jump from the one that you're playing over to the other one that you're counting...when the count next door turns good?

Oh what a tangled web you weave when you practice to deceive.

But you're well beyond practicing, you are proficient at it...so full of shit it's mind boggling.

---

No tangled web, douchbag. That is exactly what tracking two tables and jumping to the better is....a form of wonging. :D If there was a counter at any of those tables I jumped to, and there probably was somewhere along the way, they probably were as unhappy with me as I am when people "wong" my games.

What is your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

So when a blackjack player is asked a rules question, and he was allegedly playing today and yesterday and last week, and that player goes out of his way to respond with NO actual details or specifics, you gotta ask why. It is either really strange, quite a consistent coincidence, or something else.

---

Quite a consistent coincidence indeed.

Just like when tewlj fabricated his story about playing the gaffed BJ machine.

He travelled all over the country "APing" the game, but he wasn't able to comment knowledgeably about the rules.

LOL...what a real pro he is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

So when a blackjack player is asked a rules question, and he was allegedly playing today and yesterday and last week, and that player goes out of his way to respond with NO actual details or specifics, you gotta ask why. It is either really strange, quite a consistent coincidence, or something else.

---

Quite a consistent coincidence indeed.

Just like when tewlj fabricated his story about playing the gaffed BJ machine.

He travelled all over the country "APing" the game, but he wasn't able to comment knowledgeably about the rules.

LOL...what a real pro he is.

---

Douch bag belly. WTF? You are a troll, but I never thought you a complete idiot before.

The play my brother and I did across the country last spring was a machine....just as you noted. Rules for a machine aren't going to be in a report or list like I just mentioned for table games. WHT is the matter with you man?

Additionally, I wasn't sure about the rule after I had played the game for about 10 minutes just to confirm you could take a second action after doubling down. the specific rule wasn't what I was looking to confirm in those few minutes. I was looking to confirm you could hit (or take action) after doublung down. That is where the huge advantage came from. Those other rules were just icing on the cake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

What is your point?

---

My point is that you insist/insisted that you engage in the same behavior that you claim to have a problem with.

Does that make sense...felcher?

The problem for you is that you got entangled in your own web of lies. You must have forgotten that you claimed to be a wonger, stealing EV and money from those who worked the count, when you derided others for doing the same thing.

That begs the question...what would you really like to do to yourself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Rules for a machine aren't going to be in a report or list like I just mentioned for table games. WHT is the matter with you man?

---

I'm not talking about a report.

I'm talking about the thread where you did not know about the most advantageous option(rule) available to the player...after you played the machine.

You had not even conceived that the option was available, or how valuable it was, until other members here posted about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

The problem for you is that you got entangled in your own web of lies. You must have forgotten that you claimed to be a wonger, stealing EV and money from those who worked the count, when you derided others for doing the same thing.

---

No I didn't. NOT at all. Of course jumping to a new table with a better count is a form of "wonging".

What the fuck are you talking about.

People join games that I am playing all the time. EVERY time I play. That is fine. 99.9% (probably more) are not wongers. they are just players joining a game rather than wait 10-15 mnutes to the shuffle. Nothing wrong with that. Even if the count is good and them joining cost me EV, I have no issues with that. Some of them even ask if it is ok that they join and I will say yes it is fine with me, even if it is a decent count (+EV). A few times if the count is really high and there is just a couple rounds left, I might say "could you wait 2 hands til the shuffle because I am on a good run", but that is rare. Most of the time, even though the count is good and they are eating EV I welcome them in.

Now when a wonger wongs in, having stood behind the game tracking the table, he is well aware I am there and counting because he has stood behind the table and witnessed me raise my bets. So he KNOWS he is vulturing in on my count and EV.

Now when I track a second table, and jump to a better count, I don't know that there is someone counting that I am moving in on There is a limit to what I can do tracking from another table. I can't make note of what every player is betting and who might be raising their wager with the count.

So yes, I might be vulturing in on someone else count or EV in the same manner, but I am not aware of it. These douchbags have stood behind and are absolutely aware that I am counting and these are moving in on my EV.

But again, it isn't really a big issue. Hasn't happened too often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Rules for a machine aren't going to be in a report or list like I just mentioned for table games. WHT is the matter with you man?

---

I'm not talking about a report.

I'm talking about the thread where you did not know about the most advantageous option(rule) available to the player...after you played the machine.

You had not even conceived that the option was available, or how valuable it was, until other members here posted about it.

---

You are just coach bellying looking for your gottcha moment when there is none here, dude.

I was in the process of checking out the game and what it was all worth. Even after playing a few minutes I was not sure what it was worth. I knew it was +EV, but not how much. That is why I immediately contacted several people, including Shackleford that would know. I mean if it turned out it was +EV but only worth $40 bucks and hour, still would have hit up the 2 machines here in Vegas, but wouldn't have chased it all over the country for 10 weeks.

I'll tell you something else that I haven't shared before. I have mentioned that Wizard didn't give me the answer I requested of him. He was willing to provide the answer if I cut him in and told him the machine and locations. I wouldn't do that because it wasn't my play....it was my brothers. I had no hard feelings that he didn't give me the information and don't think he did that I didn't cut him in. I got the information I needed from other sources.

So here is the part I haven't mentioned before. Last fall, months after we had completed the play, Mike contacted me and asked how we had made out on the play. And I told him. By that time, he had surely heard from other people about the play, and just wanted to know how we made out. If the play wasn't real or hadn't been what I shared, he would not have benn inquiring how we made out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

You are just coach bellying looking for your gottcha moment when there is none here

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tableplay

the ability to get at least 4 times your money in (via double downing a 2nd time) when you have a 10 or 11 versus a dealer upcard of 4,5, or 6 creates a significant edge for the player. Prior to my asking KewlJ why he does not mention taking the action to re-double

---

I'm following you completely.

If doubling-down after 2 cards is to the player's advantage, and taking a 4th card after a double-down is a bigger advantage, then the ability to re-double on your 3-card hand must be the biggest advantage in this entire play.

Yet he never mentioned that he or his brother (with a combined total of 628 hours played) ever re-doubled.

So, he's obviously full of shit about the whole thing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I might be vulturing in on someone else count or EV in the same manner, but I am not aware of it. These douchbags have stood behind and are absolutely aware that I am counting.

---

So your story has morphed into back-counters not only tracking the cards played, but also tracking your betting pattern, and I suppose everyone else's betting patterns as well?

And since you are only tracking the cards played at table #2, and not tracking the players' bets, it's cool for you to wong in and steal the EV? Even though you are wonging in, and taking face cards away from the other players who have been there, that's OK because they may not be counting?

Is that how you justify your hypocrisy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

players jumping in and out of the game isn't something that bothers me, other than it slows the game down, with one exception.

That one exception would be the wongers, who jump in as soon as the count turns good. They are blackjacks version of vultures. They are essentially stealing EV and ultimately money from those of us that have worked the count. I will glare at them, but it has no effect. Better than doing what I would really like to do to them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Last fall, months after we had completed the play, Mike contacted me and asked how we had made out on the play. And I told him.

---

Why didn't you take that opportunity to provide the info he has about MDawg, in exchange for the info that he was asking you to provide?

You make it seem like things are pretty chummy between you and Shack, despite all the accusations that you've made about him.

This latest story sounds like it belongs on MDawg's list of your 40+ lies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I was in the process of checking out the game and what it was all worth. Even after playing a few minutes I was not sure what it was worth. I knew it was +EV, but not how much. That is why I immediately contacted several people, including Shackleford that would know.

---

You played the machine for 10 minutes, and did not know if you could double on soft hands, or exactly which 2-card hands that you could double on?

You didn't need to play the game at all to get that basic info.

Originally you wrote that you could double on any 2-cards, then retracted that...even though you did not go back and play a second session to be sure.

You're a pro, and yet didn't think to check the rules, but asked others to calculate the EV without knowing the basic rules? (never mind the huge advantage associated with re-doubling)

Your story was nonsense in May, and now you're adding even more bullshit on top of the original bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Last fall, months after we had completed the play, Mike contacted me and asked how we had made out on the play. And I told him.

---

Why didn't you take that opportunity to provide the info he has about MDawg, in exchange for the info that he was asking you to provide?

You make it seem like things are pretty chummy between you and Shack, despite all the accusations that you've made about him.

---

No I am not "chummy" with Wizard. But I don't think we are on bad terms either (outside of the forum). If I have reason to communicate with him, I contact him via Pm and he responds. It has been that way for years. He can separate out forum shit from real life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I might be vulturing in on someone else count or EV in the same manner, but I am not aware of it. These douchbags have stood behind and are absolutely aware that I am counting.

---

So your story has morphed into back-counters not only tracking the cards played, but also tracking your betting pattern, and I suppose everyone else's betting patterns as well?

And since you are only tracking the cards played at table #2, and not tracking the players' bets, it's cool for you to wong in and steal the EV? Even though you are wonging in, and taking face cards away from the other players who have been there, that's OK because they may not be counting?

Is that how you justify your hypocrisy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

players jumping in and out of the game isn't something that bothers me, other than it slows the game down, with one exception.

That one exception would be the wongers, who jump in as soon as the count turns good. They are blackjacks version of vultures. They are essentially stealing EV and ultimately money from those of us that have worked the count. I will glare at them, but it has no effect. Better than doing what I would really like to do to them.

---

---

You are just embarrassing yourself with the rest of this shit. You clearly have no idea how much about card counting works. I will just say this....yes card counters recognize one another pretty quickly. bet spread is part of it, but not the only thing. If I suspect someone may be a card counter even before seeing his spread 95% of time I am correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

You clearly have no idea how much about card counting works.

---

It's OK for you to wong in on a table, and take face cards away from the seated players, as long as you are not aware that they are counting...is that how card counting works?

So then why bother paying attention to whether they are counting or not?

Just assume that they are not.

Belly, how about this: get back to me when you have something intelligent to say.

That way I will never have to hear from you again.

Coach Belly has to be lacking in any and all senses of humor. Just an angry old man being angry 24/7. Incredible.

Anyone want to spitball one redeeming quality of his?

Love or hate Kewl - at least he somehow keeps this forum going. He has some good BJ counting info if you are wanting to go down that path.

Coach Belly? Like I literally can not think of one redeeming trait.

He doesn't even try to be funny. I know Kewl's new thing is to say I "try too hard" to be funny but I don't think Coach Belly has an ounce of humor inside him. Just nothing but a void of miserableness. What an existence that must be. And apparently he's been on the forums for 20ish years at least.

Coach, adopt a pet or something. You gotta have something in your life... for real

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

apparently he's been on the forums for 20ish years at least.

---

My join date is displayed, how old do you think I am?

But I'm not following you...I'm replying to what others have written by questioning their own words and the story they have told.

It's as if you think questioning things displays anger.

Which questions are the angry ones, why do you consider the intent angry, and why do they make you uncomfortable?

You are here constantly feuding with and insulting everyone...is that supposed to be funny?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

No I am not "chummy" with Wizard. But I don't think we are on bad terms either (outside of the forum). If I have reason to communicate with him, I contact him via Pm and he responds. It has been that way for years. He can separate out forum shit from real life.

---

So you don't really care if he reveals more than he's told about the MDawg event?

Because you been harping on that, and insulted him about it, for a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

No I am not "chummy" with Wizard. But I don't think we are on bad terms either (outside of the forum). If I have reason to communicate with him, I contact him via Pm and he responds. It has been that way for years. He can separate out forum shit from real life.

---

So you don't really care if he reveals more than he's told about the MDawg event?

Because you been harping on that, and insulted him about it, for a long time.

---

Of course I care. As per the event specifically Wizard was suppose to be the witness.. The expert witness. And that means revealing what he witnessed. He apparently made an agreement not to reveal what he saw, for whatever reason is beyond me. (I Think people can guess)

Less specific to the Mdawg thing, Wizard challenges people and claims all the time. He was pretty merciless with Alan.

Now Mike did say something when dawg claimed 50 wins in a row. And I am pretty sure he was behind Mdawg coming clean after claiming he won millions over 7 months. But still he allows dawg to use that forum, a forum that still bears Shacklefords name, to tell he story that defies how Las Vegas and casinos work.

I think he should say something.....but I can't force him too.

Just look at this month alone. Dawg claims he has won over $600k, in about 10 days play, playing rated, getting comps and pats on the back and casinos pit folks telling him how great he is. Mike knows that is not true.

Mike says lying isn't against the rules. Not much I can do about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

He apparently made an agreement not to reveal what he saw, for whatever reason is beyond me.

---

He revealed what he saw, he 100% confirmed MDawg's session report.

Details beyond that are not relevant to the challenge, so he agreed not to reveal any.

The guy made an agreement, and he's complying with the terms of their agreement.

Does that seem so unusual that you should disparage him?

I don't know or care what his reasons were, but what reason is there to assume that he's hiding something?

Do you think he's hiding something? What could it be?

Have you agreed not to reveal or discuss what you know about the session?

Nobody should give a flying fuck about whether someone else wins or not as just that fact alone helps nobody.

The important thing is to know what methods a person employed which led to them winning so that others could also follow suit.

For reasons one can only imagine the hound made the wiz sign an NDA prohibiting him from discussing the hound's betting methods.

Could be he just martingaled and is embarrassed to admit it, given his claims of having a photographic memory etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Could be he just martingaled and is embarrassed to admit it

---

This was discussed years ago.

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...95/#post803691

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

To summarize: there were no long periods of flat betting. If anything, I pressed into runs quite successfully time and again, and my bets ranged from 200 – 3500. There was no Martingale betting; in fact, I would tend to lower my bet after losing a hand versus increasing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizard

I attest that Mdawg's report is accurate, especially that all the conditions of the challenge were met.

---

Interesting.

Why then would he insist on a NDA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Interesting.

Why then would he insist on a NDA?

---

To keep confidential all information not relevant to the challenge.

What other information should be disclosed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MDE4uBMBdI&t=4s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Interesting.

Why then would he insist on a NDA?

---

To keep confidential all information not relevant to the challenge.

What other information should be disclosed?

---

Belly is just trolling, playing games and wasting everyone's time....AGAIN. Why is no one surprised.

While the challenge was very specific, in that it was whether Dawg could have a winning session for 45 minutes or more. That served absolutely no purpose. Hell 40-45% of any gamblers playing any old stupid system will have a winning session for an hour. Proves nothing.

And while Wizard said there was no martingale played, martingale is only one form of a progression system that could have been played that would give a player better than a 50% chance to have a winning session. For example, instead of doubling up after a losing wager as true martingale goes, if that first shoe had resulted in him being down, he could have played a second shoe at higher wagers and then a third at even higher. This would be a progression system, progressing after each shoe rather than each bet, so it wouldn't be a martingale. Additionally that are negative progression systems ect that aren't martingale, but are still progression systems.

He could have even just flat bet and if behind towards the end, thrown out a very large bet to overcome all those losses if he won. AND it wasn't even a wager IIRC, it was a free roll for Dawg. He had nothing to lose, right.



BUT the bigger part of the whole thing was Dawg was claiming he was doing something that could result in long-term winning. THAT was really what this challenge or free roll was supposed to determine. AND that is where Wizard was supposed to come in. This is where his expertise was suppose to take place. And he was unable to do that when he agreed not to say what he saw. And if he had, done what he was supposed to do, we wouldn't have had to endure 5 years of dawgs goofy claims.

If Mike had said, "yeah Dawg showed a winning session, making him the winner of the challenge, but I saw nothing he was doing that would account for long-term winnings", it would have been over that day. THAT is what he was suppose to tell us. Either that or "yeah, Dawg is doing something that would account for all the long-term winning he has claimed". Wizard failed to do his job!!

Now Mike tried to make up for it what...2 years later when he did violate the agreement and basically said, Dawg was not doing something that would account for the winnings". I can't quote or link to it because Mike removed it and suspended himself for violating the agreement after Dawg threatened him.

And anyone that saw what Mike said that day, saw that he tried to say in code what he wanted to say. Paraphrasing it went something like this: "People have asked me what Mdawg does to win. let me just say again, that no betting system can overcome the house edge".

Belly can play his games but what Wizard was saying is he witnessed dawg play some sort of betting system that allowed him to win that session, and that free roll of a challenge, but in no way would account for any of the long-term winning Dawg has claimed.

If Dawg were doing something that would account for all the winning he has claimed for more than 5 years now, he would want Wizard to say that, not prohibit him from saying so. And Mike could have said that without giving away what it was. But that is not what occurred and that should tell anyone who still cares all they need to know.

But if Dawg wants to rectify the situation, he can STILL at any time allow Mike to say what he saw. NOT giving away any secret, just whether Dawg is doing something that would account for all the fantasy winning he claimed. Dawg could do that any day. But Don't hold your breath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Get help.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

MDawg has his challenge available for any session that is in dispute. Really for forums it doesn't get anymore stand up than that.

I'd say the only thing that happened today is it rained bad news for you. Make sure everything is elevated on milk crates in your tunnel abode so it doesn't wash away.

---

Yeah, who didn't know a trollish response by Dawg would occur? He can't legitimately answer.....so he trolls.

That is what he does and that is what he is! And no matter what he does says, or escalates his claims as he has done for months now, EVERYONE KNOWS IT!!

He is basically EvenBob/Spike now, except Dawg posts some interesting pictures along the way. Way to go old boy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Nobody should give a flying fuck about whether someone else wins or not as just that fact alone helps nobody.

The important thing is to know what methods a person employed which led to them winning so that others could also follow suit.

For reasons one can only imagine the hound made the wiz sign an NDA prohibiting him from discussing the hound's betting methods.

Could be he just martingaled and is embarrassed to admit it, given his claims of having a photographic memory etc.

---

V, did it ever occur to you that there are certain people who understand their game of choice on a level beyond what the common AP or gambler does, and as such he or she is able to exploit that superior understanding and turn it into an unusual amount of profiting?

Most people are like you, kew, and others here. Even if mdawg were to attempt to enlighten those who simply don't want to believe him, you people wouldn't understand it anyway. And kew's non-stop/nonsensical bloviating about "That's NOT How LV Works!" and "He can't POSSIBLY win what he reports he does because it goes against the math!" is just him and his inexperience and envy spewing. People "win against the math" all the time, and some people DO it all the time, somehow. And you know what else? There are some who somehow continually get showered with comps as they win. You and others may not understand it, but there ARE those who have done it.

So knock off all the baloney about why you think mdawg should release his method. It would go so far over most peoples' heads that they'd just get more frustrated anyway.

And again, you have my permission to slap down that lying little twit and his "no one should have to provide proof of anything on a forum" BS....unless it's he who's doing the demanding.

Eagles moneyline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Nobody should give a flying fuck about whether someone else wins or not as just that fact alone helps nobody.

The important thing is to know what methods a person employed which led to them winning so that others could also follow suit.

For reasons one can only imagine the hound made the wiz sign an NDA prohibiting him from discussing the hound's betting methods.

Could be he just martingaled and is embarrassed to admit it, given his claims of having a photographic memory etc.

---

V, did it ever occur to you that there are certain people who understand their game of choice on a level beyond what the common AP or gambler does, and as such he or she is able to exploit that superior understanding and turn it into an unusual amount of profiting?

Most people are like you, kew, and others here. Even if mdawg were to attempt to enlighten those who simply don't want to believe him, you people wouldn't understand it anyway. And kew's non-stop/nonsensical bloviating about "That's NOT How LV Works!" and "He can't POSSIBLY win what he reports he does because it goes against the math!" is just him and his inexperience and envy spewing. People "win against the math" all the time, and some people DO it all the time, somehow. And you know what else? There are some who somehow continually get showered with comps as they win. You and others may not understand it, but there ARE those who have done it.

So knock off all the baloney about why you think mdawg should release his method. It would go so far over most peoples' heads that they'd just get more frustrated anyway.

And again, you have my permission to slap down that lying little twit and his "no one should have to provide proof of anything on a forum" BS....unless it's he who's doing the demanding.

Eagles moneyline.

---

Oh hush Rob. Yeah, you know your game of choice so well, that your retirement plan consists of living with and mooching off your kids. Good Grief!

Pressing bets is called a Reverse Martingale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

While the challenge was very specific, in that it was whether Dawg could have a winning session for 45 minutes or more. That served absolutely no purpose.

---

The purpose of the challenge was to win a wager, you idiot.

MDawg got sucker darkoz to pay him for doing exactly what he said that he could and would do.

We have a witnessed event, and 100% confirmation of the session report.

That's it, there's no situation to rectify.

The rest of your post is disingenuous fantasy, conjecture, speculation, ascribing motives and tasks to others, misinterpretation, and straight up putting words in other peoples' mouths.

And THAT is the entire extent of your participation in this discussion...you're wasting everyone's time with total nonsense...AGAIN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Nobody should give a flying fuck about whether someone else wins or not as just that fact alone helps nobody.

The important thing is to know what methods a person employed which led to them winning so that others could also follow suit.

For reasons one can only imagine the hound made the wiz sign an NDA prohibiting him from discussing the hound's betting methods.

Could be he just martingaled and is embarrassed to admit it, given his claims of having a photographic memory etc.

---

V, did it ever occur to you that there are certain people who understand their game of choice on a level beyond what the common AP or gambler does, and as such he or she is able to exploit that superior understanding and turn it into an unusual amount of profiting?

Most people are like you, kew, and others here. Even if mdawg were to attempt to enlighten those who simply don't want to believe him, you people wouldn't understand it anyway. And kew's non-stop/nonsensical bloviating about "That's NOT How LV Works!" and "He can't POSSIBLY win what he reports he does because it goes against the math!" is just him and his inexperience and envy spewing. People "win against the math" all the time, and some people DO it all the time, somehow. And you know what else? There are some who somehow continually get showered with comps as they win. You and others may not understand it, but there ARE those who have done it.

So knock off all the baloney about why you think mdawg should release his method. It would go so far over most peoples' heads that they'd just get more frustrated anyway.

And again, you have my permission to slap down that lying little twit and his "no one should have to provide proof of anything on a forum" BS....unless it's he who's doing the demanding.

Eagles moneyline.

---

I hate to agree with Mr. Singer, but the commonly used line by kewlJ, "That's not how the math works," is ridiculous. I say this for one definitive reason. KewlJ may know blackjack (he may not; I'm not expert enough to judge), but he definitely doesn't understand the probability of point spreads or the essence of what a pointspread actually is. Yet he blathers on as if he does while refusing to clearly acknowledge that he doesn't.

He makes the same basic grade-school error all the time -- he presumes, for no good reason, that probability theory as it pertains to random events can be applied with precision to non-random events. This is a fundamental error so obvious and egregious that it calls into question any math he applies to anything.

Now the usual reason people make this kind of error is that they are looking for excuses to gamble. They are looking for a rationale to suckle the teat of probability theory as it applies to random events and discretely swap it out for the teat of non-random events as if no one will notice. It's a basic "I'm an addict" swap. Not enough milk on the random teat? Go get some action on the non-random one. Just suckle it the same way and tell people they are the same and hope no one notices they are not.

Someone who makes this kind of error again and again and doesn't acknowledge that they are wrong has no business lecturing anyone on probability theory or "That's not how the math works." A person who does this crap has no idea how "the math" works. And I'll even give kewlJ(s) props here -- maybe he understands blackjack math. But that's it -- that's the extent of what he understands. The problem is that this isn't the extent of what he THINKS he understands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Nobody should give a flying fuck about whether someone else wins or not as just that fact alone helps nobody.

The important thing is to know what methods a person employed which led to them winning so that others could also follow suit.

For reasons one can only imagine the hound made the wiz sign an NDA prohibiting him from discussing the hound's betting methods.

Could be he just martingaled and is embarrassed to admit it, given his claims of having a photographic memory etc.

---

V, did it ever occur to you that there are certain people who understand their game of choice on a level beyond what the common AP or gambler does, and as such he or she is able to exploit that superior understanding and turn it into an unusual amount of profiting?

Most people are like you, kew, and others here. Even if mdawg were to attempt to enlighten those who simply don't want to believe him, you people wouldn't understand it anyway. And kew's non-stop/nonsensical bloviating about "That's NOT How LV Works!" and "He can't POSSIBLY win what he reports he does because it goes against the math!" is just him and his inexperience and envy spewing. People "win against the math" all the time, and some people DO it all the time, somehow. And you know what else? There are some who somehow continually get showered with comps as they win. You and others may not understand it, but there ARE those who have done it.

So knock off all the baloney about why you think mdawg should release his method. It would go so far over most peoples' heads that they'd just get more frustrated anyway.

And again, you have my permission to slap down that lying little twit and his "no one should have to provide proof of anything on a forum" BS....unless it's he who's doing the demanding.

Eagles moneyline.

---

I hate to agree with Mr. Singer, but the commonly used line by kewlJ, "That's not how the math works," is ridiculous. I say this for one definitive reason. KewlJ may know blackjack (he may not; I'm not expert enough to judge), but he definitely doesn't understand the probability of point spreads or the essence of what a pointspread actually is. Yet he blathers on as if he does while refusing to clearly acknowledge that he doesn't.

He makes the same basic grade-school error all the time -- he presumes, for no good reason, that probability theory as it pertains to random events can be applied with precision to non-random events. This is a fundamental error so obvious and egregious that it calls into question any math he applies to anything.

Now the usual reason people make this kind of error is that they are looking for excuses to gamble. They are looking for a rationale to suckle the teat of probability theory as it applies to random events and discretely swap it out for the teat of non-random events as if no one will notice. It's a basic "I'm an addict" swap. Not enough milk on the random teat? Go get some action on the non-random one. Just suckle it the same way and tell people they are the same and hope no one notices they are not.

Someone who makes this kind of error again and again and doesn't acknowledge that they are wrong has no business lecturing anyone on probability theory or "That's not how the math works." A person who does this crap has no idea how "the math" works. And I'll even give kewlJ(s) props here -- maybe he understands blackjack math. But that's it -- that's the extent of what he understands. The problem is that this isn't the extent of what he THINKS he understands.

---

What are you rambling on and on about crybaby? Something about how I don't know point spreads? :confused:

What I am doing with sports betting has NOTHING to do with point spreads. I am playing the bonus whore game and that is all. THAT is where my +EV and winning come from.

And if you want the math on that, it is this simple. I get xxx bonus, requiring xxxx rollover. If I can get through the rollover without eating away all the bonus money....I make a profit (unless the book refuses to pay my profit, which 1 has so far). That is it. That is all I am doing. Doesn't involve point spreads or middling or anything else. Just simple bonus whoring. The real truth to the matter is that what I am doing isn't even about sports betting at all.

So I don't know what you are getting yourself so worked up over?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

V, did it ever occur to you that there are certain people who understand their game of choice on a level beyond what the common AP or gambler does, and as such he or she is able to exploit that superior understanding and turn it into an unusual amount of profiting?

Most people are like you, kew, and others here. Even if mdawg were to attempt to enlighten those who simply don't want to believe him, you people wouldn't understand it anyway. And kew's non-stop/nonsensical bloviating about "That's NOT How LV Works!" and "He can't POSSIBLY win what he reports he does because it goes against the math!" is just him and his inexperience and envy spewing. People "win against the math" all the time, and some people DO it all the time, somehow. And you know what else? There are some who somehow continually get showered with comps as they win. You and others may not understand it, but there ARE those who have done it.

So knock off all the baloney about why you think mdawg should release his method. It would go so far over most peoples' heads that they'd just get more frustrated anyway.

And again, you have my permission to slap down that lying little twit and his "no one should have to provide proof of anything on a forum" BS....unless it's he who's doing the demanding.

Eagles moneyline.

---

I hate to agree with Mr. Singer, but the commonly used line by kewlJ, "That's not how the math works," is ridiculous. I say this for one definitive reason. KewlJ may know blackjack (he may not; I'm not expert enough to judge), but he definitely doesn't understand the probability of point spreads or the essence of what a pointspread actually is. Yet he blathers on as if he does while refusing to clearly acknowledge that he doesn't.

He makes the same basic grade-school error all the time -- he presumes, for no good reason, that probability theory as it pertains to random events can be applied with precision to non-random events. This is a fundamental error so obvious and egregious that it calls into question any math he applies to anything.

Now the usual reason people make this kind of error is that they are looking for excuses to gamble. They are looking for a rationale to suckle the teat of probability theory as it applies to random events and discretely swap it out for the teat of non-random events as if no one will notice. It's a basic "I'm an addict" swap. Not enough milk on the random teat? Go get some action on the non-random one. Just suckle it the same way and tell people they are the same and hope no one notices they are not.

Someone who makes this kind of error again and again and doesn't acknowledge that they are wrong has no business lecturing anyone on probability theory or "That's not how the math works." A person who does this crap has no idea how "the math" works. And I'll even give kewlJ(s) props here -- maybe he understands blackjack math. But that's it -- that's the extent of what he understands. The problem is that this isn't the extent of what he THINKS he understands.

---

What are you rambling on and on about crybaby? Something about how I don't know point spreads? :confused:

What I am doing with sports betting has NOTHING to do with point spreads. I am playing the bonus whore game and that is all. THAT is where my +EV and winning come from.

And if you want the math on that, it is this simple. I get xxx bonus, requiring xxxx rollover. If I can get through the rollover without eating away all the bonus money....I make a profit (unless the book refuses to pay my profit, which 1 has so far). That is it. That is all I am doing. Doesn't involve point spreads or middling or anything else. Just simple bonus whoring. The real truth to the matter is that what I am doing isn't even about sports betting at all.

So I don't know what you are getting yourself so worked up over?

---

Kew, I think what he's saying is just about everybody who is a no one in sports betting, like myself, has already been doing that or has done that, because most of us, like you, don't know our ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to the ins & outs of how to bet on sports consistently for a profit.

In other words, after months and months of reading about how these bonuses were easy money, you FINALLY caught on and, like a 3000 watt light bulb being flashed at you, you found yet another gambling angle to concoct into a new tale of your making some kind of profit over.

Even a caveman can see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

UNKewlJ's stupidity explained: mental illness.

---

Why isn't this retard posting more fake baccarat sessions?

Redietz makes fun of things that serious professional sports bettors use all the time because it denigrates his feeling of having some sort of special sauce expertise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Redietz makes fun of things that serious professional sports bettors use all the time because it denigrates his feeling of having some sort of special sauce expertise.

---

No, redietz makes fun of people who can do A vis-a-vis sports betting and who think BECAUSE they can do only A, they are somehow superior to or on a par with people who can do A and B and C. In other words, there is literally nothing you do that a handicapper can't do.

And more importantly, go ahead, genius, explain how probability theory for random events should be applied to non-random events.

Has it occurred to you that the "secret sauce" is what's being lathered on by people who know grade school random probability theory and who somehow think they'll just slap their condiment on everything as if everything is random?

You think I'm arrogant? LOL. That's rich. I'm not the one claiming to be a "Leonardo Da AP."

You do realize there is really no such thing as "sports betting?" There is betting individual sports, and other than middles-shooting, bonusing, and arbitrage, the expertise required to bet individual sports is not some shared expertise. People who think that must also think their foot doctor makes a fine neurosurgeon.

Did this retard just say there's no such thing as sports betting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

No, redietz makes fun of people who can do A vis-a-vis sports betting and who think BECAUSE they can do only A, they are somehow superior to or on a par with people who can do A and B and C. In other words, there is literally nothing you do that a handicapper can't do.

---

"Superior or on Par with". Where Red? Where have I EVER, in ALL the time on this forum said anything that would make anyone think I feel superior to anyone?

Just about everything I do and have done in advantage play has been on the simpler side of different things. Card counting...probably the simplest form of all advantage play. With video poker....exploiting the casino mailers. The very simplest of anything you can do with video poker. And now Sports betting....very similarly, exploiting the bonuses, which in reality isn't even about sports betting.

It is beyond me how ANYBODY could come to the conclusion that I think I am better than anybody. In the AP world, I have even said many times, what I do is the lower ring of the AP ladder. And frankly I love that. I love that I can and have won using the simplest of AP techniques.

That you feel threatened by what I do, only highlights some kind of insecurity on your part Red. And your use of terms like "Leonardo Da AP" only proves it. And you know what else proves your insecurities? You posting IQ score and SAT scores from 50 years ago. Who the fuck else does that? Something REALLY wrong with you Red.

It isn't my job to stroke your ego, or babysit you though your insecurities dude. You are 70 years old or thereabout. Get a fucking grip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

One thing you can tell, when UNKewlJ makes with the all bold sentences one after another something has really gotten to him. You can practically see the hand cocked onto his side, the bent elbow and the high pitched whiny voice complaining, "Now wayyyyt a minute, Misterrrrr."

---

Shut the fuck up Dawg. Jdaewoo is correct. Shouldn't you be posting how you have won another $100k today, playing rated, while the pit folks give you a big sloppy kiss? Instead of sitting and waiting for me to post so you can troll some 7 minutes later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

There are two reasons why UNKewlJ’s stories are so bland and generic. One is because he’s lying. He can’t flesh out what he never did and simply lifted from what he read or heard. The second is that he has all the personality of a wooden rocking chair and couldn’t come up with much interesting to say period.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Redietz makes fun of things that serious professional sports bettors use all the time because it denigrates his feeling of having some sort of special sauce expertise.

---

No, redietz makes fun of people who can do A vis-a-vis sports betting and who think BECAUSE they can do only A, they are somehow superior to or on a par with people who can do A and B and C. In other words, there is literally nothing you do that a handicapper can't do.

And more importantly, go ahead, genius, explain how probability theory for random events should be applied to non-random events.

Has it occurred to you that the "secret sauce" is what's being lathered on by people who know grade school random probability theory and who somehow think they'll just slap their condiment on everything as if everything is random?

You think I'm arrogant? LOL. That's rich. I'm not the one claiming to be a "Leonardo Da AP."

You do realize there is really no such thing as "sports betting?" There is betting individual sports, and other than middles-shooting, bonusing, and arbitrage, the expertise required to bet individual sports is not some shared expertise. People who think that must also think their foot doctor makes a fine neurosurgeon.

---

This is all your sense of inferiority whispering in your ear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Shut the fuck up Dawg. Jdaewoo is correct. Shouldn't you be posting how you have won another $100k today, playing rated, while the pit folks give you a big sloppy kiss? Instead of sitting and waiting for me to post so you can troll some 7 minutes later.

---

KJ, the hound is full of shit: that dog needs an enema.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

No, redietz makes fun of people who can do A vis-a-vis sports betting and who think BECAUSE they can do only A, they are somehow superior to or on a par with people who can do A and B and C. In other words, there is literally nothing you do that a handicapper can't do.

---

"Superior or on Par with". Where Red? Where have I EVER, in ALL the time on this forum said anything that would make anyone think I feel superior to

---

I'll help with this.

Kew has NEVER EVER said a thing that could in any way be construed to imply that he is superior to anyone else.

That's because he's a dumbass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

No, redietz makes fun of people who can do A vis-a-vis sports betting and who think BECAUSE they can do only A, they are somehow superior to or on a par with people who can do A and B and C. In other words, there is literally nothing you do that a handicapper can't do.

---

"Superior or on Par with". Where Red? Where have I EVER, in ALL the time on this forum said anything that would make anyone think I feel superior to

---

I'll help with this.

Kew has NEVER EVER said a thing that could in any way be construed to imply that he is superior to anyone else.

That's because he's a dumbass.

---

Oh I am so look crushed Rob. How can I possibly go on?

Redietz doesn’t even know grade school probability. His talk about probability theory for random events being applied to non random events is brain dead drivel conjured up to try and make himself look intelligent. It makes him look stupid.

There is nothing redietz can do that a handicapper can’t do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Redietz doesn’t even know grade school probability. His talk about probability theory for random events being applied to non random events is brain dead drivel conjured up to try and make himself look intelligent. It makes him look stupid.

---

Yep. He has no idea.

Go look up EV in wikipedia and look at where they talk about using stats to come to an EV value. It is what he ridicules others for but it is an accepted use of the word EV. That is why the word expected precedes value. It is all nonsense conjured up to make himself look intelligent.

But it is also him being threatened that others bet sports without a deep knowledge of the sports themselves. (infact often very little knowledge) Handicappers are great if they can do it. I don't think I've seen many if any people ridicule true accurate handicappers. The problem is that Redietz holds up his tournament history as his bona fides where you play many rec players and not professional books. It is a whole different games for many reasons but yet again it is where Redietz's ignorance shines through. I wish he'd stop it. He actually has a lot to contribute.

And maybe I should just be a nicer person and not point these things out ..... maybe. But then again you see how Redietz sees others and i'm like fuck it, why?

Those people are squid game potential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Redietz doesn’t even know grade school probability. His talk about probability theory for random events being applied to non random events is brain dead drivel conjured up to try and make himself look intelligent. It makes him look stupid.

---

Yep. He has no idea.

Go look up EV in wikipedia and look at where they talk about using stats to come to an EV value. It is what he ridicules others for but it is an accepted use of the word EV. That is why the word expected precedes value. It is all nonsense conjured up to make himself look intelligent.

But it is also him being threatened that others bet sports without a deep knowledge of the sports themselves. (infact often very little knowledge) Handicappers are great if they can do it. I don't think I've seen many if any people ridicule true accurate handicappers. The problem is that Redietz holds up his tournament history as his bona fides where you play many rec players and not professional books. It is a whole different games for many reasons but yet again it is where Redietz's ignorance shines through. I wish he'd stop it. He actually has a lot to contribute.

And maybe I should just be a nicer person and not point these things out ..... maybe. But then again you see how Redietz sees others and i'm like fuck it, why?

---

The problem with the phrase "expected value" is that it denotes an actual established distribution of results. But what account, mickey, et al attempt is a substitution of the phrase "what I expect" for the phrase "what is expected." "What I expect" is ballpark, subjective nonsense with no real precision dressed up as if it were a precise mathematical estimate repeatable across people and across opinions.

If you are going to substitute "expected value" for "my opinion is," then the question becomes, "Why are you substituting 'EV' for 'my opinion'" and presenting it to the world as if you are actually performing precise math. You are not.

I don't hold up "tournament history" as bona fides. I hold up actual gambling records for 40 years as bona fides. If someone has the best ATS record versus other people over a span of 20 years in one competition or has consistently shown an overall profit as monitored by third parties for 45 years, then that is gambling reality. The "APs" posting here have no bona fides. They want people to simply take their word that they know what they're doing and that they make money.

I give Bob Dancer credit in this sense. He dipped his toe into sports betting, had the good sense to know what he didn't know, and got the hell out. That is a much better result than people like, say, Phil Ivey or Stu Ungar, who stepped into sports betting and got basically murdered, despite having access to every AP angle, trick, and priority in the world.

The classic example of "AP narcissism" on this forum has been The Riddler winning money (albeit not always a fortune; sometimes "only" a 20% or 25% return -- LOL) every single time, and KewlJ attempting to make the argument that it was simply the luck of winning eight events in a row. Even though some of the recommendations involved a dozen plays or more.

Now, do any of you brilliant "APs" really think The Riddler did that by getting lucky?

Unless you have some magic formula that turns non-random events into random ones, most of the "AP" discussions here regarding sports are pretty much nonsense. Now I know some of you believe you are brighter than an Ungar or an Ivey or a Dancer.

Which is funny as hell, when you think about it. You have guys driving around playing slots who have the brains and insights and contacts and experience to do what an Ivey or an Ungar or a Dancer have not been able to do. And lo and behold, they don't just do it for one sport; they do it for all of them by "sports betting."

This forum is blessed with a real collection of polymaths. It's a shame none of them are adjunct professors.

That's where the moniker, "Leonardo da AP" comes from. People who have no sense of their own limitations. And such scintillating, verifiable success stories spanning decades. One is left in awe. If only Ungar or Ivey or Dancer could have learned from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

The problem with the phrase "expected value" is that it denotes an actual established distribution of results. But what account, mickey, et al attempt is a substitution of the phrase "what I expect" for the phrase "what is expected." "What I expect" is ballpark, subjective nonsense with no real precision dressed up as if it were a precise mathematical estimate repeatable across people and across opinions.

---

Anyone who uses EV will also be able to substitute "what I expect". Your point?

Again, I ask you read the wikipedia which goes over this. It is accepted amongst many people outside of this forum that one can use EV that is backed by some sort of statistics. It isn't just this forum. Not only that, all real sports bettors (guys who don't fuck with contests) will also use the phrase EV. These are men who have done far better in life than anything you have demonstrated to us. 100% reality talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

If you are going to substitute "expected value" for "my opinion is," then the question becomes, "Why are you substituting 'EV' for 'my opinion'" and presenting it to the world as if you are actually performing precise math. You are not.

---

No one is claiming it is "precise math". (Whatever that means.) It is precise within the context and far more precise than your opinions. I can promise. But yes, people can be completely wrong about how the derive their EV. Just like a handicapper can be a complete joke but they can call themselves a handicapper all day. Typically there is a methodology behind someone's belief when they use the phrase EV as it pertains to sports betting. You're right though it is not 100% objective.

Given your dedication to sports betting it is a shame you can't comprehend these things or perhaps you could have found yourself in a lot better place financially due to not be relying on yearly contests where the EV is probably not even $500 but they're quite beatable. You're basically competing against a field full of non-pros.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I don't hold up "tournament history" as bona fides. I hold up actual gambling records for 40 years as bona fides. If someone has the best ATS record versus other people over a span of 20 years in one competition or has consistently shown an overall profit as monitored by third parties for 45 years, then that is gambling reality. The "APs" posting here have no bona fides. They want people to simply take their word that they know what they're doing and that they make money.

I give Bob Dancer credit in this sense. He dipped his toe into sports betting, had the good sense to know what he didn't know, and got the hell out. That is a much better result than people like, say, Phil Ivey or Stu Unger, who stepped into sports betting and got basically murdered, despite having access to every AP angle, trick, and priority in the world.

---

lol you haven't a clue about stu ungar or phil ivey. Don't even act like you do. And who is claiming they were professoinal sports bettors? Both of those men loved action.

Yes you hold up your tournament results all the time. Picking a side on an ATS and having it recording doesn't take into account the actual vig. You don't seem to get that. "ATS" does not mean winning money. You don't get this because you don't understand EV. I'm sorry but this is the reality, Redietz. Instead of being an ass - you should have read Mickey's thread on sports betting. Maye you could finally learn these things when you're still going at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

The classic example of "AP narcissism" on this forum has been The Riddler winning money (albeit not always a fortune; sometimes "only" a 20% or 25% return -- LOL) every single time, and KewlJ attempting to make the argument that it was simply the luck of winning eight events in a row. Even though some of the recommendations involved a dozen plays or more.

---

No, they understand the value of time and EV and realize you're a joker. No one wants to play your silly little 'riddle me this, riddle me that'. It is just more shit you spew to try and elevate yourself as being intellectually superior. If not that it is your meh math score (credit though for you not lying about it). Or your credit score. lol. You're just too insecure for this forum.

Yes, luck was involved in your streak. It is YOUR narcissim that discards that component. That isn't to say you didn't make intelligent choices in your pick but of course there is luck involved.

I offered you a friendly wager once. And of course you backed down with some lame excuse like to be expected. Just like you havent' went on any shows. Some lame excuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

.

Now, do any of you brilliant "APs" really think The Riddler did that by getting lucky?

Unless you have some magic formula that turns non-random events into random ones, most of the "AP" discussions here regarding sports are pretty much nonsense. Now I know some of you believe you are brighter than an Unger or an Ivey or a Dancer.

---

Of course you got lucky. If there was no luck involved and you were as good as you claim, you wouldn't be living in a Tennessee shack. (Possibly inherited from your father?)

No, you know very little including what people think. I have other things to do than deal with some joker who calls themselves the Riddler in third person while attempting to brag.

I love you though man, you're one of the most entertaining people on here by far. Only Kewl could even be in the running for being so unintentionally amusing. Singer and Mdawg have some sort of self-awareness. THe other great thing about you is your arrogance - it removes any guilt I might have from picking on you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Which is funny as hell, when you think about it. You have guys driving around playing slots who have the brains and insights and contacts and experience to do what an Ivey or an Unger or a Dancer have not been able to do.

That's where the moniker, "Leonardo da AP" comes from.

---

Who are you talking about driving aroudn playing slots? I only know Mickey does that. I have some in the past but I was never professional and really only drove around once for a week. I only tried to play with an advantage. Mickey at least figures things out as he encounters them. All you do is geek out hard on football then sit around thinking everyone should idiolize you. Goofy shit.

I know, say "Leonardo da AP" again as if you aren't deeply insecure and jealous of random APs who probably don't do that great but sitll do better than you.

BTW thanks for this post because I responded to it while doing cardio. Something I hate to do but correcting you is compelling and interesting enough that the last 30 minutes went by pretty quickly.

Red seems to know someone (by 3 degrees) that is a top professional in EVERY field. A friend's, cousin's boyfriend, ect.

I would recommend that he find which every friend or associate knows someone in the field of mental health, because I am pretty sure anyone in that field will tell you that talking of yourself in the third person is well on the way down the path of Narcissism. And talking about yourself in the third person with some sort of name like "The Riddler" or "the Pope of Las Vegas", even further down that road.

If you haven't dismissed Red as nuts before now, with this "Riddler" shit is now the time to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Red seems to know someone (by 3 degrees) that is a top professional in EVERY field. A friend's, cousin's boyfriend, ect.

I would recommend that he find which every friend or associate knows someone in the field of mental health, because I am pretty sure anyone in that field will tell you that talking of yourself in the third person is well on the way down the path of Narcissism. And talking about yourself in the third person with some sort of name like "The Riddler" or "the Pope of Las Vegas", even further down that road.

If you haven't dismissed Red as nuts before now, with this "Riddler" shit is now the time to do so.

---

I hate it when people respond to posts just to pat someone kn the back but I feel I owe it to you. Nice post.

The talking about yourself in third person as a comic book character while apparently sitting on a pile of comic books may be peak forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Redietz makes fun of things that serious professional sports bettors use all the time because it denigrates his feeling of having some sort of special sauce expertise.

---

No, redietz makes fun of people who can do A vis-a-vis sports betting and who think BECAUSE they can do only A, they are somehow superior to or on a par with people who can do A and B and C. In other words, there is literally nothing you do that a handicapper can't do.

And more importantly, go ahead, genius, explain how probability theory for random events should be applied to non-random events.

Has it occurred to you that the "secret sauce" is what's being lathered on by people who know grade school random probability theory and who somehow think they'll just slap their condiment on everything as if everything is random?

You think I'm arrogant? LOL. That's rich. I'm not the one claiming to be a "Leonardo Da AP."

You do realize there is really no such thing as "sports betting?" There is betting individual sports, and other than middles-shooting, bonusing, and arbitrage, the expertise required to bet individual sports is not some shared expertise. People who think that must also think their foot doctor makes a fine neurosurgeon.

---

You forgot parlays.
Don't Bet Parlays!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Redietz doesn’t even know grade school probability. His talk about probability theory for random events being applied to non random events is brain dead drivel conjured up to try and make himself look intelligent. It makes him look stupid.

---

Yep. He has no idea.

Go look up EV in wikipedia and look at where they talk about using stats to come to an EV value. It is what he ridicules others for but it is an accepted use of the word EV. That is why the word expected precedes value. It is all nonsense conjured up to make himself look intelligent.

But it is also him being threatened that others bet sports without a deep knowledge of the sports themselves. (infact often very little knowledge) Handicappers are great if they can do it. I don't think I've seen many if any people ridicule true accurate handicappers. The problem is that Redietz holds up his tournament history as his bona fides where you play many rec players and not professional books. It is a whole different games for many reasons but yet again it is where Redietz's ignorance shines through. I wish he'd stop it. He actually has a lot to contribute.

And maybe I should just be a nicer person and not point these things out ..... maybe. But then again you see how Redietz sees others and i'm like fuck it, why?

---

The problem with the phrase "expected value" is that it denotes an actual established distribution of results. But what account, mickey, et al attempt is a substitution of the phrase "what I expect" for the phrase "what is expected." "What I expect" is ballpark, subjective nonsense with no real precision dressed up as if it were a precise mathematical estimate repeatable across people and across opinions.

If you are going to substitute "expected value" for "my opinion is," then the question becomes, "Why are you substituting 'EV' for 'my opinion'" and presenting it to the world as if you are actually performing precise math. You are not.

I don't hold up "tournament history" as bona fides. I hold up actual gambling records for 40 years as bona fides. If someone has the best ATS record versus other people over a span of 20 years in one competition or has consistently shown an overall profit as monitored by third parties for 45 years, then that is gambling reality. The "APs" posting here have no bona fides. They want people to simply take their word that they know what they're doing and that they make money.

I give Bob Dancer credit in this sense. He dipped his toe into sports betting, had the good sense to know what he didn't know, and got the hell out. That is a much better result than people like, say, Phil Ivey or Stu Ungar, who stepped into sports betting and got basically murdered, despite having access to every AP angle, trick, and priority in the world.

The classic example of "AP narcissism" on this forum has been The Riddler winning money (albeit not always a fortune; sometimes "only" a 20% or 25% return -- LOL) every single time, and KewlJ attempting to make the argument that it was simply the luck of winning eight events in a row. Even though some of the recommendations involved a dozen plays or more.

Now, do any of you brilliant "APs" really think The Riddler did that by getting lucky?

Unless you have some magic formula that turns non-random events into random ones, most of the "AP" discussions here regarding sports are pretty much nonsense. Now I know some of you believe you are brighter than an Ungar or an Ivey or a Dancer.

Which is funny as hell, when you think about it. You have guys driving around playing slots who have the brains and insights and contacts and experience to do what an Ivey or an Ungar or a Dancer have not been able to do. And lo and behold, they don't just do it for one sport; they do it for all of them by "sports betting."

This forum is blessed with a real collection of polymaths. It's a shame none of them are adjunct professors.

That's where the moniker, "Leonardo da AP" comes from. People who have no sense of their own limitations. And such scintillating, verifiable success stories spanning decades. One is left in awe. If only Ungar or Ivey or Dancer could have learned from them.

---

Easy to figure out why Billy Walters fired Dietz. Walters collected statistics and bet on them while Dietz was saying "My opinion is this. My opinion is that....." You know Walters got tired of that shit in a hurry. Walters said "fuck your opinion. I bet the statistics."

Walters explained to Joe Rogan that if his line is 8 and the bookie's line is 6 he bets 1 unit on the dog.
If Walters' line is 8.5 and bookie line is 6 he bets 2 units on the dog.
If Walters' line is 9 and bookie line is 6 he bets 3 units on the dog.
etc, etc.

In other words, the greater the expected value the more he bets.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...YTa1BYQ1cDPNKD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Yep. He has no idea.

Go look up EV in wikipedia and look at where they talk about using stats to come to an EV value. It is what he ridicules others for but it is an accepted use of the word EV. That is why the word expected precedes value. It is all nonsense conjured up to make himself look intelligent.

But it is also him being threatened that others bet sports without a deep knowledge of the sports themselves. (infact often very little knowledge) Handicappers are great if they can do it. I don't think I've seen many if any people ridicule true accurate handicappers. The problem is that Redietz holds up his tournament history as his bona fides where you play many rec players and not professional books. It is a whole different games for many reasons but yet again it is where Redietz's ignorance shines through. I wish he'd stop it. He actually has a lot to contribute.

And maybe I should just be a nicer person and not point these things out ..... maybe. But then again you see how Redietz sees others and i'm like fuck it, why?

---

The problem with the phrase "expected value" is that it denotes an actual established distribution of results. But what account, mickey, et al attempt is a substitution of the phrase "what I expect" for the phrase "what is expected." "What I expect" is ballpark, subjective nonsense with no real precision dressed up as if it were a precise mathematical estimate repeatable across people and across opinions.

If you are going to substitute "expected value" for "my opinion is," then the question becomes, "Why are you substituting 'EV' for 'my opinion'" and presenting it to the world as if you are actually performing precise math. You are not.

I don't hold up "tournament history" as bona fides. I hold up actual gambling records for 40 years as bona fides. If someone has the best ATS record versus other people over a span of 20 years in one competition or has consistently shown an overall profit as monitored by third parties for 45 years, then that is gambling reality. The "APs" posting here have no bona fides. They want people to simply take their word that they know what they're doing and that they make money.

I give Bob Dancer credit in this sense. He dipped his toe into sports betting, had the good sense to know what he didn't know, and got the hell out. That is a much better result than people like, say, Phil Ivey or Stu Ungar, who stepped into sports betting and got basically murdered, despite having access to every AP angle, trick, and priority in the world.

The classic example of "AP narcissism" on this forum has been The Riddler winning money (albeit not always a fortune; sometimes "only" a 20% or 25% return -- LOL) every single time, and KewlJ attempting to make the argument that it was simply the luck of winning eight events in a row. Even though some of the recommendations involved a dozen plays or more.

Now, do any of you brilliant "APs" really think The Riddler did that by getting lucky?

Unless you have some magic formula that turns non-random events into random ones, most of the "AP" discussions here regarding sports are pretty much nonsense. Now I know some of you believe you are brighter than an Ungar or an Ivey or a Dancer.

Which is funny as hell, when you think about it. You have guys driving around playing slots who have the brains and insights and contacts and experience to do what an Ivey or an Ungar or a Dancer have not been able to do. And lo and behold, they don't just do it for one sport; they do it for all of them by "sports betting."

This forum is blessed with a real collection of polymaths. It's a shame none of them are adjunct professors.

That's where the moniker, "Leonardo da AP" comes from. People who have no sense of their own limitations. And such scintillating, verifiable success stories spanning decades. One is left in awe. If only Ungar or Ivey or Dancer could have learned from them.

---

Easy to figure out why Billy Walters fired Dietz. Walters collected statistics and bet on them while Dietz was saying "My opinion is this. My opinion is that....." You know Walters got tired of that shit in a hurry. Walters said "fuck your opinion. I bet the statistics."

Walters explained to Joe Rogan that if his line is 8 and the bookie's line is 6 he bets 1 unit on the dog.
If Walters' line is 8.5 and bookie line is 6 he bets 2 units on the dog.
If Walters' line is 9 and bookie line is 6 he bets 3 units on the dog.
etc, etc.

In other words, the greater the expected value the more he bets.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...YTa1BYQ1cDPNKD

---

Dietz wrongly states there's only one right way( the 1980's-1990's way) to skin a cat. He claims one must be an expert in one area with years of experience to make a good living. He claims everything else is just a fluke/dead/has no longevity/ isn't possible/probable / too hard/ not sustainable, needs too big of a bankroll, etc. While one or more of those things might be true at one time or another, that just isn't true all the time or even a majority of the time.

I and others understand why he needs to tout that there is only one way to skin a cat while claiming you must be a specialized expert in that area. Why? Because his business model depends on others investing in his supposed skill while giving him a free roll. If people knew there were much better opportunities to make bigger profits for less investment, they wouldn't even entertain his services. One with his business model must do everything they can to dis all other forms of AP and +EV sports betting so those suckers don't wise up.

Easy to figure out why Billy Walters fired Dietz. Walters collected statistics and bet on them while Dietz was saying "My opinion is this. My opinion is that....." You know Walters got tired of that shit in a hurry. Walters said "fuck your opinion. I bet the statistics."

Brutal but so true.

I forget ultimately he is a tout. I don't know who the fuck he is pulling in from this site or why he cares anymore. I really don't think he comes away looking good to an outside observer. It is funny he insists on making is personal every time so all these winning gamblers are motivated to come out and piss on his fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZenKinG

Just the way he writes stuff like "Thats not how blackjack card counting works". Like who the fuck talks like that other than someone that never played or has played almost nothing and first getting into it. Its cringy as hell. Put two and two together. No ones ever met this guy, probably some retard in india posting on the forums looking for attention creating this persona online. What else is new in a community and industry full of degens, scammers, and pathological liars.

---

Why isn't this retard posting more fake baccarat sessions?