Professional Sportsbetting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Sorry, gentlemen. I'm obviously telling it exactly like it is. Ask anyone who has hung out with Mr. Walters, or ask Mr. Walters himself.

For people who know nothing, you guys have remarkable opinions.

---

Bob Dietz likes to past post. That is tell us of picks after the fact, including "open teasers" that he never mentioned. :rolleyes:

Now he is doing that on a larger scale claiming, taking credit and trying to associating himself with computer simulations used by top experts. :confused:

But here is the bottom line Dietz. If ANY of this were true and you were even a moderately successful sports bettor/handicapper, you wouldn't have needed to sell picks and use other people's money. You wouldn't have needed to be the "tout" that you were for decades.

End of story!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Sorry, gentlemen. I'm obviously telling it exactly like it is. Ask anyone who has hung out with Mr. Walters, or ask Mr. Walters himself.

For people who know nothing, you guys have remarkable opinions.

---

Bob Dietz likes to past post. That is tell us of picks after the fact, including "open teasers" that he never mentioned. :rolleyes:

Now he is doing that on a larger scale claiming, taking credit and trying to associating himself with computer simulations used by top experts. :confused:

But here is the bottom line Dietz. If ANY of this were true and you were even a moderately successful sports bettor/handicapper, you wouldn't have needed to sell picks and use other people's money. You wouldn't have needed to be the "tout" that you were for decades.

End of story!

---

Right. And every investment counselor or manager in this country is also a "tout." And no "APs" should partner up because, well, if they were so good, why would they need to partner up?

The bottom line is that the games I have played for 40 years are a matter of public and private record, and there was no way to fake the results. In public, on newsstands, every week for 40 years. I won. Period. No tricks, no gimmicks.

And then you have the kewlJ, who has by his own admission died, come back from the dead, had his limb broken in a back room, has never met anyone on this forum, and who remains anonymous to enhance his credibility. Talk about anonymous bullshit and fake bottom lines, kewlJ cornered the market a long, long time ago with his thousands of posts and nada of evidence. The more he posts, the less he proves.

MDawg, please quote me on this this.

Why is it redietz never just lays out his picks to prove anything? It is always riddler this that never here is my record?

It's simply his method of trolling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Why is it redietz never just lays out his picks to prove anything? It is always riddler this that never here is my record?

---

I'm a big fan of The Riddler. He won every single time.

And I guess I'll have to be the one to introduce accounting to trendsvestites.

Counting the Titan wager as a win (it pushed most of the week and was a loser early in the week), and including the Steeler loss by one point as a 3-point fave, underdogs managed to stagger to a 6-8 ATS record Week One, with the two remaining games having flipped fave/dog roles over the course of the betting week, so I'm not sure how or why you would include them in this kind of tally. Personally, I would designate Buffalo and Chicago, the home squads, as the "true" favorites, but they are now underdogs so not sure how you want to grade that.

Denver opted to throw deep rather than attempt a 52-yard kick at the end, a curious decision, but it prevented underdogs from being 5-9. If you graded Tennessee based on opening numbers, it was a loser anyway.

Maybe Week Two will bring better results. I'll send a wire to The Riddler and see what he thinks.

KewlJ asked what I thought of the opening two-week underdog angle, and I said "not much." Someone should buy me dinner for warning readers off the idea.

You know the old saying, "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

The above is "creative accounting" by Red in an effort to root against this play that he knows I am on.

I am currently 6-6 and down some juice with 2 games remaining this week. Two games TB/Atlanta and Miami/Colts were pickem's with no betting favorites when I was making my wagers yesterday so I did not bet either as far as this 1st 2 weeks play. I did have wagers on both games, tagging along with Daly from Druff's other site. But that doesn't count towards this play.

I am 6-6 and down some juice with 2 games remaining. My two remaining wagers are Bills +1 and Bears +1.5, if you are tracking (or rooting against me) on this play.

I think I can explain the bug redeitz now has up his ass.

For years he told us he was a 40 year professional sports bettor. That this is how he made a living. Talked about a lot of contests along the way. But then he was exposed, in large part by Kim Lee, but most of us had figured out what was going on about that same time. It was Redietz, himself that shared that "perspective" he used with new "clients". Well a professional sports bettor doesn't have a "perspective" promising new clients a certain return. A TOUT DOES!

A real sports bettor bets and wins. A tout has to sell picks or services. Bob Dietz was the later. But even though he shared the actual perspective he used with clients, he didn't like this narrative that he was a tout, rather than a real professional sports bettor.

So now he just trolls and attacks real players doing anything at an advantage. Similar to degenerate losing gamblers Rob Singer and Mdawg. As a matter of fact, Redietz, has buddied up to Mdawg, wanting him to quote him, proving he is nothing but a troll now.

Look, a sports betting "tout" isn't illegal. It just isn't a professional sports bettor. I guess Dietz doesn't like that narrative. That is HIS problem.

As you probably noticed, i havent posted here in years. I have correponded with redietz, however. And just as an fyi, he has given me good knowledge and winners.

Thats the end of my participation. I have health issues that keep me from participating

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

Thats the end of my participation. I have health issues that keep me from participating

---

Are you any relation to CS Gnis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You should try actually reading the book sometime. Just a suggestion.

Mickey has, for some reason, started bullshitting. Don't take my word for it. Read the book. All of mickey's paraphrasing is wrong at best and purposefully misleading at worst. And mickey being wrong here is not some secret. Anybody who talked with/worked with Mr. Walters at all would completely disagree with what mickey just wrote.

I think even Mr. Walters would chuckle at mickey's paraphrasing.

---

In a recent episode of Unscripted, Krackomberger was asked who the most successful handicapper of all time was. He named Michael Kent’s computer as the best of all time, having made hundreds of millions of dollars. Of course, Kent was the inventor. That’s the computer Billy Walters used.

---

That's the "series of programs" Walters used at the time. If the programs had continued to work, he would have continued using them. Instead, he went out and assembled round tables of experts for each sport, the majority of whom (but by no means all) were programmers with their own programs and emphases.

Walters does NOT state in the book which sport at which he was most successful. Each sport would have its own experts, programs, and programmers. Instead, Walters mentions how much he bet on NFL, not which sports or sports yielded the most profit or best ROI. There are reasons certain info is presented as it is, and which info is absent. Anyone with a little common sense can figure out the reasons.

---

Ask your buddy, Munchkin, if his picks are computer generated or based on opinions. I would say report back to us but no way you would give an honest report of what Munchkin says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You should try actually reading the book sometime. Just a suggestion.

Mickey has, for some reason, started bullshitting. Don't take my word for it. Read the book. All of mickey's paraphrasing is wrong at best and purposefully misleading at worst. And mickey being wrong here is not some secret. Anybody who talked with/worked with Mr. Walters at all would completely disagree with what mickey just wrote.

I think even Mr. Walters would chuckle at mickey's paraphrasing.

---

In a recent episode of Unscripted, Krackomberger was asked who the most successful handicapper of all time was. He named Michael Kent’s computer as the best of all time, having made hundreds of millions of dollars. Of course, Kent was the inventor. That’s the computer Billy Walters used.

---

That's the "series of programs" Walters used at the time. If the programs had continued to work, he would have continued using them. Instead, he went out and assembled round tables of experts for each sport, the majority of whom (but by no means all) were programmers with their own programs and emphases.

Walters does NOT state in the book which sport at which he was most successful. Each sport would have its own experts, programs, and programmers. Instead, Walters mentions how much he bet on NFL, not which sports or sports yielded the most profit or best ROI. There are reasons certain info is presented as it is, and which info is absent. Anyone with a little common sense can figure out the reasons.

---

College football.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You should try actually reading the book sometime. Just a suggestion.
.

---

I read it several times. The word “opinion” doesn’t appear in it.

Ditz, this is what Daven Ramsey thinks of your credit score:

https://youtube.com/shorts/ABi7piG23...1H7oJrkBihlAWE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

As you probably noticed, i havent posted here in years. I have correponded with redietz, however. And just as an fyi, he has given me good knowledge and winners.

Thats the end of my participation. I have health issues that keep me from participating

---

Doesn't matter.
Nobody posting on this site is that good anyways.
Including myself.
If we were that good, we wouldn't waste a minute on this stupid site.
Feel Better Soon or Don't, gotta die eventually, that's an experience we all have to have.

.
redietz is hoping so very much that the picks will fail as if that will prove he's right. that's so very stupid - it won't prove anything - it's only 32 games - before this season I've tracked the last 500 games of the first 2 weeks and dogs have won 55%

what I've tracked is from the past - it doesn't in any way guarantee future results - it's a speculation - but a good one imo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

The bottom line is that the games I have played for 40 years are a matter of PUBLIC RECORD, and there was no way to fake the results. IN PUBLIC, ON NEWSTANDS, every week for 40 years. I won.

---

and here he brags about his PUBLIC RECORD ON NEWSTANDS

really______________? - I couldn't find his public record on Goggle or any mention of him other than on forums like this

he tries to act like he's big time______________sure he is - in his dreams

if a person was really a well known big time handicapper wouldn't something about him appear in Google________?_________I think so

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

.
redietz is hoping so very much that the picks will fail as if that will prove he's right. that's so very stupid - it won't prove anything - it's only 32 games - before this season I've tracked the last 500 games of the first 2 weeks and dogs have won 55%

what I've tracked is from the past - it doesn't in any way guarantee future results - it's a speculation - but a good one imo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

The bottom line is that the games I have played for 40 years are a matter of PUBLIC RECORD, and there was no way to fake the results. IN PUBLIC, ON NEWSTANDS, every week for 40 years. I won.

---

and here he brags about his PUBLIC RECORD ON NEWSTANDS

really______________? - I couldn't find his public record on Goggle or any mention of him other than on forums like this

he tries to act like he's big time______________sure he is - in his dreams

if a person was really a well known big time handicapper wouldn't something about him appear in Google________?_________I think so

.

---

You are incorrect. I am just demonstrating how naive your approach is. And how, if the general public (you know -- LOL -- the alleged "squares") is plugged into the latest trend, you are on the proverbial crazy train. Obviously, thousands of bettors knew exactly the angle you were talking about. How that makes you a "sharp" is beyond me.

But people like the security blanket of jargon and feeling as if you know what you are doing. It's an odd combination of trying to be part of an insider universe and the self-generated arrogance that comes with thinking you've cornered the market on jargon.

So, as Singer often says, allow me to school you.

I don't care if your angle works or fails. But plugging in some obvious public angle in service of being a "sharp" is actually pretty funny. You do realize you are being the classic "square" by doing so, right? Is there a threshold of numbers of people who know something for you to be a "sharp?" Like, if you know to cross the street when the light is red, does that make you a "pedestrian sharp?" Or do you need to do so successfully a thousand times to qualify?

So we should probably classify squares and sharps and come up with some extra categories. Like how about we rate sharps by geometric shapes? If you spend 30 minutes thinking about something and researching it, you are a "blunt sharp." If you spend two hours and have 20 years experience, you are a "sharp with some teeth." If you read four google summaries and can do freshman college math, you are a "square-ish," you know, like "Black-ish" for math people.

Now that gives me a segue to Google because it follows the same self-absorbed train of thought. "Bob Dietz doesn't show up on Google." Oh, how sad. But no context.

Did you "google" -- which you are using as a verb -- for five minutes, 30 minutes, two days, or 40 hours? You see, that's the key question. For example, this is how private investigators work -- they don't spend three minutes typing and think they have answers. PI's spend days tracking things down online. My brother-in-law is a PI, and my nephew (not his son, by the way) is pursuing a degree in online forensics at Bloomsburg. So let's have it -- how long did you spend "googling" Bob Dietz's Integrity Sports? What exactly do you define as research due diligence before you decide you know something or not?

That's funny. I type "Bob Dietz's Integrity Sports" and the first page features links to blog entries and something on medium, which is wild because I've probably done two pieces on medium in my life. So when I type that in I get 95,100 results listed. The first 10 pages are almost all blog links. At some point, I guess I'll search the 95,000 pages to see what else is there, but you get my drift. I assume the blog gets the google attention because there were 1400 views last month, which is fine because I haven't written anything in months.

Now, as to historicity, I guess being published in The Humanist or giving a paper at the National Conference on Gambling and Risk-Taking don't show up on most Google because why would they unless someone took the time to enter them? But damn, here sits the book with the published conference papers in the bookcase, and it's real. How about that? And here sits a dozen different copies of a national newsletter with my name featured, yet only 30,000 or 40,000 or so people read each one, so I guess that wasn't real.

But, and hold the fort, the anonymous musings of some alleged "APs" are oh-so-real on a God forsaken forum. Or on self-published YouTube channels.

More important, however, is what did I do, practically, with my theory to ignore the "first-two-weeks-NFL-underdog" angle? Well, the evidence lies in the Heritage Sports Race to the SB Contest, which I won about a dozen years ago. I am currently 55th out of a couple thousand because I took the chalk to win the games outright. And all the squares who think they are sharps did not.

In a week with eight toss-up games, that put me 55th out of a couple thousand. I would be doing better, much better, but I managed to lose two out of three of the featured totals.

All the "APs" can cheer me on. I won this thing about a dozen years ago and will attempt to be the first person to win it twice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

That's funny. I type "Bob Dietz's Integrity Sports" and the first page features links to blog entries and something on medium, which is wild because I've probably done two pieces on medium in my life. So when I type that in I get 95,100 results listed. The first 10 pages are almost all blog links. At some point, I guess I'll search the 95,000 pages to see what else is there, but you get my drift. I assume the blog gets the google attention because there were 1400 views last month, which is fine because I haven't written anything in months.

---

That's funny

because I just typed in "Bob Dietz's Integrity Sports" into google and got nothing - zip - except links to boards like this - no links to blog entries - nothing on medium - no 95,100 results - see link

there was a pro basketball player named Bob Dietz - don't think that's you___(-:/

I see you bragging about yourself on gamblingforums.com and linkedin - that doesn't count

why don't you copy and paste your links so we can see what you're talking about___?

but everybody gets your drift - you're really great - sure you are - and you've really convinced just about everybody here of that _(-:/

posters here really wanna hear even much, much more about how great you are_(-:/

edit - I did another search on Medium.com and I did find a Bob Dietz who does windows and doors replacements__(-:/

and btw - your "riddler" schtick is lame - from Batman - couldn't you come up with something original instead of just using someone else's famous stuff-?



https://www.google.com/search?q=Bob+...t=gws-wiz-serp

I do not see the blog entry either on the first page. I have a screenshot but too hard to post. Mostly
Mentions of the other Bob Dietz but a few of redietz.

The biggest issue here is the betting landscape has seriously changed and bearing contests decades ago doesbt mean that much. I know sports bettors and they all scaled up over the years and didn't do the tout stuff. I would expect this of redietz but it isn't what we see.

But yea I got same results at HS. I'll be honest though - I don't think it means Bob is lying as google does customize results. Local, etc.

But all this 'I have a record' is not really true by reasonable standards.

I'd rather HS bet my money though. Redietz doesn't even get why EV is a well used concept because he has bet softer contests all his life. You find the best picks and go from there. Therr is no concept of not betting because you don't have positive expectation.