Printable View
To be fair he never said anything about 50 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
He mentioned he was number 1 in college football in 86, 89, & 90 & number 3 in 83.
So that would 39 years ago, 36 years ago, 35 years ago, & only one over 40 years, the number 3 spot 42 years ago.
I don't want to pick on Redietz specifically, because this is just an informal recollection. Instead, I want to use this anecdote to illustrate pitfalls of monitoring.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
There is the issue of "roughly" and a fallible memory. Records deteriorate under scrutiny. Maybe it was 55.1%, but only if you exclude playoffs, totals, and a disastrous 40% initial season.
Teasers have odds of -120 or worse, requiring 55% to break even. Also, there is the line shopping issue. In the 1980's, you could get a half point or more on many games, including key numbers like "3" and "7". Dan Gordon's book basically added an extra point to enhance his record.
What about other sports? There are ten more major sports if you include college basketball, NFL, NBA, baseball, hockey, both side and totals. There are also halftimes, propositions, boxing/mma, soccer, gold, tennis, etc. Maybe a tout just got lucky in college football while winning only 45% in NFL or basketball.
No, this is mathematically wrong. The number of games per season does not affect your bet size. The Kelly bet for 57% is roughly 10% of bankroll. That means $5,500 to win $5,000 on a $50k bankroll. You do not need this entire bankroll liquid. You might have only $20k, plus the ability to scrape up more over the next year. And you can bet on credit. It might be rough the first season or two. But you expect to double your bankroll in one season. And the college season is only 12 weeks long! You can spend the rest of the year living cheap and working a job to get the bankroll.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
KewlJ and DD' from BJ21 followed this approach at blackjack. DD' saved up session bankrolls from his job because there is no point in making minimum wage betting $25 per hand when you can bet $250 and earn $100/hour. He got unlucky and lost his session bankrolls for several months until he went on a winning streak, quit his job, and grew his bankroll big enough to bet $1,000 per hand. Many poker players similarly went from grinding low stakes to winning in big games.
We don't need to rely on my opinion. Redietz bragged about betting $500k+ in one account. What was the average bet size? A winning bettor would accumulate a pretty big bankroll over four decades! It takes more than $1,000,000 to retire. That would support Kelly bets of $100k+. Despite many posts, Redietz has not posted about regularly betting large amounts.
I think Redietz has some integrity, and does not want to lie about his betting levels.
"The Heim" on LVASports forums acted like a sports expert and posted a $2,500 parlay ticket, forged by adding two zeros to a $25 parlay ticket. I confirmed this by making a similar parlay at Bodog, which uses proprietary software with a unique format. Bodog betting limits were far below $2,500.
Similarly, Bob McCune was an old fart Vegas legend who gave handicapping seminars and wrote long shitty books like Education of a Sports Bettor. I asked him about data sources, and he said he did everything by hand and did not use computers. He also said that he lived off Social Security and bet $100 per game, and then offered to sell me private picks. The Las Vegas Sun called him a "top handicapper" and was "knowledgeable". Nobody said anything bad about him, perhaps because they felt sorry him. He won the Mr. America bodybuilding title in 1949, was drafted by the New York Rangers, became a pro wrestler, and a salesman for Encyclopedia Britannica. There were no Las Vegas funeral services for him.
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2002/ju...r-mccune-dies/
He was a personable good-looking athlete. He spent his 60's and 70's delusionally handicapping and died alone. He could have coached kids on fitness or done something else useful. What a fucking waste.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim LeeI don't want to pick on Redietz specifically, because this is just an informal recollection. Instead, I want to use this anecdote to illustrate pitfalls of monitoring.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
There is the issue of "roughly" and a fallible memory. Records deteriorate under scrutiny. Maybe it was 55.1%, but only if you exclude playoffs, totals, and a disastrous 40% initial season.
Teasers have odds of -120 or worse, requiring 55% to break even. Also, there is the line shopping issue. In the 1980's, you could get a half point or more on many games, including key numbers like "3" and "7". Dan Gordon's book basically added an extra point to enhance his record.
What about other sports? There are ten more major sports if you include college basketball, NFL, NBA, baseball, hockey, both side and totals. There are also halftimes, propositions, boxing/mma, soccer, gold, tennis, etc. Maybe a tout just got lucky in college football while winning only 45% in NFL or basketball.
No, this is mathematically wrong. The number of games per season does not affect your bet size. The Kelly bet for 57% is roughly 10% of bankroll. That means $5,500 to win $5,000 on a $50k bankroll. You do not need this entire bankroll liquid. You might have only $20k, plus the ability to scrape up more over the next year. And you can bet on credit. It might be rough the first season or two. But you expect to double your bankroll in one season. And the college season is only 12 weeks long! You can spend the rest of the year living cheap and working a job to get the bankroll.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
KewlJ and DD' from BJ21 followed this approach at blackjack. DD' saved up session bankrolls from his job because there is no point in making minimum wage betting $25 per hand when you can bet $250 and earn $100/hour. He got unlucky and lost his session bankrolls for several months until he went on a winning streak, quit his job, and grew his bankroll big enough to bet $1,000 per hand. Many poker players similarly went from grinding low stakes to winning in big games.
We don't need to rely on my opinion. Redietz bragged about betting $500k+ in one account. What was the average bet size? A winning bettor would accumulate a pretty big bankroll over four decades! It takes more than $1,000,000 to retire. That would support Kelly bets of $100k+. Despite many posts, Redietz has not posted about regularly betting large amounts.
The Kelly Bet Size commentary is largely irrelevant because you are not dealing with a random series of events. Mr. Lee, where did you come up with an applicability for Kelly Bet Sizing?
This is a common, perhaps THE most common logical error taking place on these forums. Why do people insist on importing the math of random events and applying it to what are clearly non-random events?
I hate to blow one of my classic metaphors here, but sports betting seasons are not smooth, two-people-with-equal-weight-on-seesaw series, bouncing back and forth. Sports betting seasons, explicitly and especially college football, are more like two unknown-weight individuals getting on a seesaw and observers frantically adding barbells to one side, then the other, after each push to try to balance the thing out. Sometimes, after six or seven pushes, they might come close to getting the thing right; often they do not, even after a dozen launches by each side into the air. And then it's time for someone else to get on the seesaw.
The difference between people with expertise trying to anticipate which side winds up on the ground and which in the air and people without sports-specific expertise is that the experts at least are facing the seesaw. Maybe the people without sports-specific expertise are not.
Why do people insist on trying to apply the math of random events to non-random events? Well, I have some thoughts on that. It's pseudo-control. Everyone attempts to impose some sense of control and predictive consistency on non-random events. Importing some ballpark precision that's inappropriate is the obvious and easiest way.
Another simple example -- you have a Chinese billionaire who dies, his son decides to bet all the bird logos in honor of his father for a year. Two sports book managers know this; no one else does. Your job as a sports bettor is to figure it out and anticipate line moves and bet accordingly. Criteria has nothing to do with it. Now if you argue that something like this never happens, you would be wrong, because each time a new group of programmers attacks a sport, say college hoops, this is essentially what you are dealing with. It helps to have contacts who can steer you to what the programmers are doing (and maybe a little bit why).
None of this features Kelly Criteria as a steering wheel because it's human beings reacting to non-random events. You should not be importing blackjack math rules into sports betting. Sports betting features non-random events with a permeable environment (in other words, outside influences can affect the events). The permeability of the environment by itself is a major problem (for example, you never know when the officiating legislature has sent out a membership-only recommendation in the middle of the season that will affect how games are called). Happens all the time. Helpful to be on the list that gets those officiating heads-ups.
Now, having said all that (two posts because I got a cup of tea), do I use some semi-formal bet-sizing rules? Yes I do. I apply .7% of bankroll to each unit of a play. Do I assign some mathematical gravitas to my personal rules and regs? No, I do not. It's my OPINION about how to generally attack each week of betting. It's not a system draped in gravitas (I love that word, sorry). It's an OPINION about how to approach the distribution of bankroll.
The bottom line, as with all gambling, is the question of what is the utility of doing something? Unless you're a complete novice, there's not much upside in applying tools for random events to non-random events. It's like thinking that wearing sunglasses will protect you from nuclear fallout. And, more to the point, there are multiple downsides, including thinking that you have more control over the situation than you do. Thinking the situation in front of you is what you have the formulas to solve, when you really don't.
This has much in common with the +EV nonsense. If you want to describe EV in sports betting as it applies to arbitrage or middles shooting, be my guest. If you want to apply it in past tense, be my guest. But don't go applying some generalized EV rules to something where, as they say in investment ads, "past performance is no guarantee of future results." Past performance, since sports betting is a permeable, non-random series of events, may be no guarantee of anything even close. Thinking it is may be a crutch, a way to feel good about what you're doing (or think you're doing).
For someone that loves to call others liars....you have somewhat of an affinity for prevarication yourself. So you are hoping to get her together with Munchkin sometime soon?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
When I inquired thru DM as to why you hadn't appeared on GWAE or Life's a Gamble, Mr. Munchkin's reply was, and this is the exact quote:
"I asked him about coming on the show and he declined. I also asked for his wife to come on and I guess she is more private than he is."
I never declined, mickey. Sorry, man. Good try, though. The gist of the issue with GWAE was that evidently Dancer wasn't a fan of my sarcasm regarding "APs.". Who knew? I'm such a gracious dude and all that.
Tell you what, mickey. I'll shoot Munchkin an email this weekend quoting you and offering to be on the show in clear terms. Howzabout that?
Munchkin and my superior half have some old familial ties, and I am not going to comment further. You can ask him about that.
Your quote is hearsay...you are quoting Munchkin, who is quoting Redietz.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Munchkin is not available to this forum for examination... Redietz is available and provides direct testimony.
This dynamic could change, Munchkin could visit this forum and allow his recollection to be challenged and respond accordingly, or Red could stipulate that the quote conveys something that is essentially accurate.
But he didn't, he disputed it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Hidden in Reds long answers to Kim Lee's posts, we find 1) you can't apply math and formula to sports betting and 2) "EV nonsense".Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I think now you see what we have been dealing with for several years now, Kim Lee. :rolleyes:
And what is even more telling is that if coach belly and Singer are your wingmen, then without even knowing what the argument is about, you are on the wrong side. :cool:
Now let the attacks begin. Because THAT is what they are good at.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Is this an anonymous online gambling forum or a court of law?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyYour quote is hearsay...you are quoting Munchkin, who is quoting Redietz.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Munchkin is not available to this forum for examination... Redietz is available and provides direct testimony.
This dynamic could change, Munchkin could visit this forum and allow his recollection to be challenged and respond accordingly, or Red could stipulate that the quote conveys something that is essentially accurate.
But he didn't, he disputed it.
There was a lot of day baseball yesterday. I bet and watched games all day long, working through rollovers on my bonus whoring play. Then I went out and played blackjack for 6 hours. Rare non-weekend play for me these days.
I finished below expectation on both plays. You know how I KNOW I finished below expectation? Because I know what the EV (expected value) was for each play.
But what do I know? I have only been making a living from advantage play for 22 years now. Maybe someday I will get it right. Those of us that went to Villanova are a little slow. :rolleyes:
Why do you ask?Quote:
Originally Posted by DGenBen
I don't consider Redietz, Munchkin or mickeycrimm to be anonymous.
THANK YOU!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by DGenBenIs this an anonymous online gambling forum or a court of law?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyYour quote is hearsay...you are quoting Munchkin, who is quoting Redietz.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Munchkin is not available to this forum for examination... Redietz is available and provides direct testimony.
This dynamic could change, Munchkin could visit this forum and allow his recollection to be challenged and respond accordingly, or Red could stipulate that the quote conveys something that is essentially accurate.
But he didn't, he disputed it.
This is an anonymous gambling forum, where most people are anonymous. That is why we use handles instead of real names.
People share gambling experiences, including some players that play for a living. Anyone can choose to believe them or not. No one is required to prove anything. AND you shouldn't need proof, to figure out who knows what they are talking about and who is just taking and making up and/or exaggerating claims. MATH is a big part of that "figuring out". The math HAS to work.
But these things always evolve into complete bullshit, demanding proof of this or that and what would stand up in a court of law. Again, this is an anonymous gambling forum, not a court of law.
And if members are required to prove everything they say, then you will have no AP and people that play for a living posting here. It will be a forum of nothing but Rob Singers, coach bellys, Mdawgs and the likes, with their strange claims that defy math and reality.
And as for Redietz (Bob Dietz). The guy is a tout. That is someone who markets and sells their picks for profit. Possibly for a living. That is not illegal, even if facts in their presentation are not accurate or are cherry-picked.
But it is less than impressive for a guy who claimed to have made a living for 40 years as a sports bettor. And maybe he did bet alongside selling picks. Just color me less than impressed of the way he presented himself and what it has turned out to be.
I do hope he still is interviewd by either Munchkin or Dan druff though. I am pretty sure both would ask some of the right questions.
It does not matter if it's a random or non-random event; if you are achieving a 56% ATS on average, you can use Kelly.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by Kim Lee
I don't want to pick on Redietz specifically, because this is just an informal recollection. Instead, I want to use this anecdote to illustrate pitfalls of monitoring.
There is the issue of "roughly" and a fallible memory. Records deteriorate under scrutiny. Maybe it was 55.1%, but only if you exclude playoffs, totals, and a disastrous 40% initial season.
Teasers have odds of -120 or worse, requiring 55% to break even. Also, there is the line shopping issue. In the 1980's, you could get a half point or more on many games, including key numbers like "3" and "7". Dan Gordon's book basically added an extra point to enhance his record.
What about other sports? There are ten more major sports if you include college basketball, NFL, NBA, baseball, hockey, both side and totals. There are also halftimes, propositions, boxing/mma, soccer, gold, tennis, etc. Maybe a tout just got lucky in college football while winning only 45% in NFL or basketball.
No, this is mathematically wrong. The number of games per season does not affect your bet size. The Kelly bet for 57% is roughly 10% of bankroll. That means $5,500 to win $5,000 on a $50k bankroll. You do not need this entire bankroll liquid. You might have only $20k, plus the ability to scrape up more over the next year. And you can bet on credit. It might be rough the first season or two. But you expect to double your bankroll in one season. And the college season is only 12 weeks long! You can spend the rest of the year living cheap and working a job to get the bankroll.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
KewlJ and DD' from BJ21 followed this approach at blackjack. DD' saved up session bankrolls from his job because there is no point in making minimum wage betting $25 per hand when you can bet $250 and earn $100/hour. He got unlucky and lost his session bankrolls for several months until he went on a winning streak, quit his job, and grew his bankroll big enough to bet $1,000 per hand. Many poker players similarly went from grinding low stakes to winning in big games.
We don't need to rely on my opinion. Redietz bragged about betting $500k+ in one account. What was the average bet size? A winning bettor would accumulate a pretty big bankroll over four decades! It takes more than $1,000,000 to retire. That would support Kelly bets of $100k+. Despite many posts, Redietz has not posted about regularly betting large amounts.
The Kelly Bet Size commentary is largely irrelevant because you are not dealing with a random series of events. Mr. Lee, where did you come up with an applicability for Kelly Bet Sizing?
This is a common, perhaps THE most common logical error taking place on these forums. Why do people insist on importing the math of random events and applying it to what are clearly non-random events?
I hate to blow one of my classic metaphors here, but sports betting seasons are not smooth, two-people-with-equal-weight-on-seesaw series, bouncing back and forth. Sports betting seasons, explicitly and especially college football, are more like two unknown-weight individuals getting on a seesaw and observers frantically adding barbells to one side, then the other, after each push to try to balance the thing out. Sometimes, after six or seven pushes, they might come close to getting the thing right; often they do not, even after a dozen launches by each side into the air. And then it's time for someone else to get on the seesaw.
The difference between people with expertise trying to anticipate which side winds up on the ground and which in the air and people without sports-specific expertise is that the experts at least are facing the seesaw. Maybe the people without sports-specific expertise are not.
Why do people insist on trying to apply the math of random events to non-random events? Well, I have some thoughts on that. It's pseudo-control. Everyone attempts to impose some sense of control and predictive consistency on non-random events. Importing some ballpark precision that's inappropriate is the obvious and easiest way.
Another simple example -- you have a Chinese billionaire who dies, his son decides to bet all the bird logos in honor of his father for a year. Two sports book managers know this; no one else does. Your job as a sports bettor is to figure it out and anticipate line moves and bet accordingly. Criteria has nothing to do with it. Now if you argue that something like this never happens, you would be wrong, because each time a new group of programmers attacks a sport, say college hoops, this is essentially what you are dealing with. It helps to have contacts who can steer you to what the programmers are doing (and maybe a little bit why).
None of this features Kelly Criteria as a steering wheel because it's human beings reacting to non-random events. You should not be importing blackjack math rules into sports betting. Sports betting features non-random events with a permeable environment (in other words, outside influences can affect the events). The permeability of the environment by itself is a major problem (for example, you never know when the officiating legislature has sent out a membership-only recommendation in the middle of the season that will affect how games are called). Happens all the time. Helpful to be on the list that gets those officiating heads-ups.
I doubt they will ask the right questions; all the interviews are softballs, they just want a good show, and they almost never want to put people on the spot, that's not their MO. I've seen it time and time again, even when the original goal was to call someone out on their BS. I doubt Dan (zero chance Munchkin) realizes all the dumb shit that's been said.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Well if that is the case, then their should be someone else involved as well, a second "guest" who would ask the right questions, along with having questions submitted by others.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfI doubt they will ask the right questions; all the interviews are softballs, they just want a good show, and they almost never want to put people on the spot, that's not their MO. I've seen it time and time again.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
But it doesn't matter. I will believe this when I see or hear it. It has been drug out for so long now. And all indications are Dietz is the one doing the dragging. On the forum he says he wants to do an interview and behind the scenes with the people that would be involved he says no, no no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNKewlJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by seedvalue
Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeedValue
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen