[QUOTE=accountinquestion;169363]Sure. Keep at it. Keep ganging up and bullying. That is what this forum is and does.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Printable View
[QUOTE=accountinquestion;169363]Sure. Keep at it. Keep ganging up and bullying. That is what this forum is and does.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
[QUOTE=kewlJ;169369]when someone reveals themselves as a big phoney, are we supposed to have a backroom powwow to figure out who our spokesperson is? It isn't ganging up because we don't do this. Pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionSure. Keep at it. Keep ganging up and bullying. That is what this forum is and does.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
In fact redietz has constantly made this a him vs AP thing. How else is it supposed to work?
Let me ask you this AinQ, and let's see if you can give an honest answer. What if everything Redeitz has claimed is BS. I only care about that when it has the potential to hurt other players. So do you really think there is anybody reading that is hoping to emulate Redeitz and play contests for a living?
And other than that what has he claimed? That he was a runner for billy watters 30-40 years ago? Is someone going to try to follow THAT path?
Come on man...this guy is no threat to anyone....anywhere. And that means all this is about is bullying someone you don't like...that you even posted that you don't like. That is just being a bully and a dick.
I want to, first of all, emphasize that I was NOT a runner for Bill Walters. Repeat: Not a runner.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
That question was asked at the book club meeting. And answered.
Second, the question isn't whether everything I have written is BS. The question is whether anything I've written is BS. I have a great idea, why not start a poll? Yeah, that's the ticket. Start a poll breaking down this and that and see who believes what I said regarding this or that. May as well commit opinions to public reality.
That's it. I'll respond in a couple of weeks.
Kewl - Lol dude implies violence in PMs. He constantly looks for fights.
There is only one way I'd lay off him.. if I call him arrogance you'll have some excuse. His arrogance is 2nd to none. Always this .. you are lazy! Go research my bullshit! Lol over and over.
The thing about bullies .. if someone is being bullied and keeps coming back to fight with everyone - you think this is bullying. WRONG.
I get it. This let's you hold onto this concept that people are just bullying you yet you ask for it over and over. Ugh. Not going into this anymore.
You lied about the Stanford "gold standard". The go research it bullshit. Guess what. I did so while totally wasting my time. When shown counter evidence you went off on something else. Demanding I email someone .. same shit he always did but the fact is the man was completely full of shit for whatever reason. You made the mistake much like kewl did. Bullshit that was readily verifiable as bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzI want to, first of all, emphasize that I was NOT a runner for Bill Walters. Repeat: Not a runner.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
That question was asked at the book club meeting. And answered.
Second, the question isn't whether everything I have written is BS. The question is whether anything I've written is BS. I have a great idea, why not start a poll? Yeah, that's the ticket. Start a poll breaking down this and that and see who believes what I said regarding this or that. May as well commit opinions to public reality.
That's it. I'll respond in a couple of weeks.
This is basically you sharing shoes with redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
We could swap out redietz for you and absolutely nothing would seem out of place.
Dude, I have too many Irons in the fire as it is. I don't want to guess or play detective, I already spend too much time jacking around on here and WOV, it's shameful nowadays. At one time it was truly beneficial and fun as many people who I knew in real life posted regularly on WOV and here, there was a legitimate community, but not so much anymore. Nowadays, here and WOV are just places to veg out and engage in mindless shenanigans. I'm not obsessing, I asked so I could do some research and see if there's any merit to the skills you are suggesting he has.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfSo there's no name yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Here's a wager for you. You won't guess his name with a dozen tries. And I've already slipped up and told you all you need to know.
Let's see how bright the "AP" bulbs shine.
Monet, however, is 50/50 to get it. He has a brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Tennessee being hit with tornadoes.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/09/weath...ado-fatalities
Even Dan Druff would call your reply... GAY.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJSure. Keep at it. Keep ganging up and bullying. That is what this forum is and does.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
You had no problem participating in the gang up on Singer.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
unjon: 50-27 64.9%Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Should he start a tout service and get some kind of award for this?
What a pile of BS. You care as much about other players as you do about that fabricated "baby bro" you've concocted in some sort of pathetic effort to ease all the pain you've caused yourself by choosing to be a fringe-dwelling queer who likes talking to himself. You're not even close to being a real man, which explains your uncontrollable propensity to lie about yourself thinking that will somehow garner you a smidget of relevance and respect. And that fat old aids magnet who supported you, mommy, and your gambling habit? He was nothing more than an enabler of your degenerate lifestyle.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Keep lying kew. And keep degenerating....
There is a big difference in the two situations mickeycrimm. Rob Singer is a guy who promoted math defying voodoo claims for 2 decades. He even wrote a book (or was it two) promoting this nonsense, progressive betting systems and "special plays". We all witnessed a member on this very forum, Slingshot, who repeatedly tried to emulate Rob and play this voodoo math defying system. And I am sure there were others along the way. Rob even claimed he gave private lessons to people.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Redietz did none of that kind of shit. If none of what Redietz says is true, and I am not convinced of that, all that does is put him in the class of people like an Evenbob, who makes claims that aren't true and no one takes seriously.
I would even accept it if redietz had been found to be soliciting people for his picks. But over the years there has been exactly one person that has ever claimed that, Rob Singer with zero evidence. If Redietz had been doing that there would have been many, many more and Dan Druff would have discovered that and put a stop to it.
In the absence of anything like that, all the redietz situation is, is a witchhunt and bullying against a member that many here have publicly stated they dislike.
It is fair to point out many of the stupid things he has said, like the EV comments, comments about advantage players, as like many others he seems to now have an anti-AP bias to him. Even the "games over .500" discussion that is your current signature is fair game if that is important to you. But this has now gone way beyond that, with many members ganging up, who will accept nothing less that driving redietz from the forum, just the same as people have attempted with me.
And guess what? Rob Singer is still posting here. So why the need to drive redietz away? He isn't really hurting anyone.
Whenever the hypocritical Pac Islander starts off his 10x multiplier response with anything likeyou may bet that there is no difference between whatever he did and what he claims others did and it's all SChiZoPHreNiC UNKewl PYsCHo babble.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
---> The Tortoise and The Geese.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
https://anagram-solver.net/%20Tennes...oogle_vignette
Quote:
The Panchatantra tale of a tortoise and two geese teaches that it is important to understand the consequences of one's actions.
The way he responds certifies every bit of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawgWhenever the hypocritical Pac Islander starts off his 10x multiplier response with anything likeyou may bet that there is no difference between whatever he did and what he claims others did and it's all SChiZoPHreNiC UNKewl PYsCHo babble.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
There is nothing more entertaining than watching kew's constant attempts at building alternate scenarios about his failed life, and the successful lives of those who've had him pegged from the start. And in the process, we can almost feel his giddiness in being able to make up these things, as he shares aloud each and every moment with the non-existent figment of his twisted imagination--the inimitable "baby bro".
For the record I am not trying to drive redietz away. I take particular delight in reading redietz's post. I actually read all of them unlike both you and singer.
If there is a baby bro you can bet he's not working Vegas as a blackjack player. He's in the next stall over at the Excalibur working the trade that FraudJ taught him.....RIPQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerThe way he responds certifies every bit of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawgWhenever the hypocritical Pac Islander starts off his 10x multiplier response with anything like you may bet that there is no difference between whatever he did and what he claims others did and it's all SChiZoPHreNiC UNKewl PYsCHo babble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
There is nothing more entertaining than watching kew's constant attempts at building alternate scenarios about his failed life, and the successful lives of those who've had him pegged from the start. And in the process, we can almost feel his giddiness in being able to make up these things, as he shares aloud each and every moment with the non-existent figment of his twisted imagination--the inimitable "baby bro".
---> You Be the Anchor That Keeps My Feet on the Ground, I'll [KJ] Be the Wings That Keep Your Heart in the Clouds.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
https://anagram-solver.net/Ifthereis...P?partial=true
P.S. I'll never know why the A=0 IQ has no anagrams, not even his 4,000th etc posts. Ha. Without passion, I guess.
MaxPen
MaxPen is offline
Platinum
MaxPen's Avatar
Join Date
Dec 2017
Posts
3,397 ---> 3397 = (3400-3) ---> 343 = 7*7*7 ---> 777
Nobody drives anyone else away V. They drive themselves away. Redietz harms no one with his odd style of participation. Even when I was solicited by broke & hungry contacts who said they either him or were directed to by him, it was of no consequence. Weaker victims might view that differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Kew OTOH, even though it's more than obvious that he'd be far better off not being involved with forums any longer, can't live without the accompanying deserved abuse which helps him create all those lies he tells. And in a failed life where there is absolutely zero hope for a better future given his chosen warped lifestlyle, the torture of never being able or strong enuf to just walk away is just too sweet for such a freak.
Hey Robert, you got your posters mixed up, that ain't me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerNobody drives anyone else away V.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
FWIW I cut Redietz a lot of slack, same as I do KJ.
I don't know how/if redietz recruited investors. I suspect if he was doing so it would be on a much bigger scale looking for bigger investors through some kind of network, shows, speaking engagements, tours, lists, Word of Mouth Etc. There's almost no chance a seasoned recruiter would be messing about with people on the forums, one would want to stay as far away from recruiting on the forums as possible, you don't want your investors anywhere near any type of gambling forums that might have some sharp guys on there.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Ultimately, Sports guys looking for investors or touting really want some big-ass investors who are for the most part clueless and can't be bothered with nonsense forums. I'm pretty sure recruiting sports investors is an art form refined over years of practice.
I'm sure it would be very eye-opening if someone did a deep-dive investigation into this type of stuff.
I can only compare it to the high-limit poker pros and they're big private games. They're trying to catch a few big donkeys with the s*** ton of cash.
Here's what happened to someone I know:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...70/#post892114
As far as this REDietz debate, there are people where nothing positive have been verified about them - all negative verifications (such as UNKewlJ), and then there are people where whatever has been verified about them is on the up and up (such as REDietz, and MDawg) and anything negative is speculative.
Who knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterVHey Robert, you got your posters mixed up, that ain't me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerNobody drives anyone else away but (?) V.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
FWIW I cut Redietz a lot of slack, same as I do KJ.
Absolutely NOTHING has been verified about you fool, except maybe that you took advantage of the Darkoz free roll and had a small winning session one day. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Now if you wanted to verify something....easy peasy.....just allow Wizard to say what he thinks. :cool:
Why on earth would the dawg have even thought of having the Wiz sign a NDA unless there was something he didn't want the Wiz to tell us about, and if so, what could it be?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I thought the whole idea was for the Wiz, deemed a reliable witness, to watch some typical baccarat play and then tell us how it went, and what he observed.
How can the Wiz be candid, and how can he be deemed a reliable witness, if he cannot say what he saw?
I tell ya, the Bard was right about these pesky, grasping, scheming, bullying shysters: “The first thing we do is, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
I don't know??? :confused: Are there some kind of troll points awarded on this forum, for trolling with the most detached from reality comments or something?
Singer, Mdawg and Maxpen (what a trio you have associated yourself with maxpen). If any one of these guys or anyone else (AinQ) really thought that I had misrepresented who I am, they would just say they didn't believe this or that, which is their right. The fact that they come up with such completely ludicrous, not to mention childish nonsense, all but confirms they know what/who I am and just can't handle it because they dislike me for reasons that have nothing to do with anything really.
Funniest is Singer. He thinks he is playing some phycological mind games, when I don't give a damn what he says. As if what some degenerate gambler old fool who's retirement plan is to live off his daughter has to say changes anything about my life or what I do.
Not only has Wizard not only NOT verified what Mdawg claims, but Shackleford on multiple instances called out things as false.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterVWhy on earth would the dawg have even thought of having the Wiz sign a NDA unless there was something he didn't want the Wiz to tell us about, and if so, what could it be?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I thought the whole idea was for the Wiz, deemed a reliable witness, to watch some typical baccarat play and then tell us how it went, and what he observed.
How can the Wiz be candid, and how can he be deemed a reliable witness, if he cannot say what he saw?
I tell ya, the Bard was right about these pesky, grasping, scheming, bullying shysters: “The first thing we do is, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
When Mdawg claimed he played a $100-$5000 spread at double deck on the strip, Wizard stepped up and called that unbelievable.
When Mdawg posted for 7 months claiming he had won half a million, Wizard stepped in and we got that "additionally, Wizard and I went over my records and I am about even".
When Mdawg claimed he won 50 straight blackjack hands in a row, Wizard stepped up and called that BS (in his own gee whiz, golly gee way).
And each time he has felt the need to say something about an Mdawg claim, Mike will say something like "I want to repeat that no system can overcome -EV". That is about as close as he can go with that NDA. And one time, he went even further and had to retract. :rolleyes:
As for why the NDA in the first place? Mdawg knows damn well that if permitted Wizard would say something to the effect that on that day, Mike witnessed Mdawg play a small progression which resulted in a small win and winning the "free roll" type challenge with Darkoz. And that Mike would likely add something like, such play can in no way result in any kind of long term winning.
THAT is what the NDA is all about.
And who exactly has verified what you've done, kj?
More 10x multiplier responses asQuote:
Originally Posted by Gottlob1
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
People like Mission146, DarkOz , AxelWolf understood what it means.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Nobody. It isn't a requirement that someone needs to verify claims on an anonymous forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Finkle
Nor am I asking that of MDawg. It is he who is falsely claiming wizard has verified things that Mike most definately hasn't verified. All I said if this is important to MDawg, all he has to do is let Wizard say what he saw.
After all, Wizard was paid to witness that event. Shouldn't he be able to say what he saw?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJNobody. It isn't a requirement that someone needs to verify claims on an anonymous forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Finkle
Nor am I asking that of MDawg.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawgIn the past UNKewlJ has pushed RobSinger to provide proof to the Dandruff man,
https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...l=1#post105150
and stated that failure to do so, failure to be willing to provide proof to someone like Dan Druff AFTER talking about whatever online, represents lack of credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
And as V pointed out,so, just like what UNKewlJ said about RobSinger, that because he "had to tell someone," he should be willing to back up what he said, so should the UNKewl one follow his own demand and prove up what he has said.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
Before that occasion when he kept pushing RobSinger to provide proof to DanDruff (and made a big deal out of that he didn't meet up with him / didn't provide any proof), UNKewlJ kept pushing for MDawg to play at a table in front of DanDruff or to at least meet him in Vegas, including for example here,
to prove that he's for real, which was before I'd played in front of Wizard in the DarkOz Challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
UNKewlJ also loves to quote the DanDruff man with conviction, stating that Druff speaks with authority,
Basically, this hypocrite whatever he accuses others of, you may be assured that he's done himself first, and worse. In the end, he can't come up with any reason for his not wanting to prove up his backrooming lawsuit story, or anything else he has claimed (including the oily surfboard story ;)), other than that no proof exists. We are, after all, talking about a guy who, as AccountInQuestion has put it, is in a Neverending quest for street creds on the internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
, so it makes no sense that someone so desperate to be believed would not put up, since obviously he's not ever going to shut up. If he wanted no one to know, he would not have put the stories out there in the first place.
Isn't that exactly what happened?Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
What else is there to tell, beyond what was reported and confirmed by Shack, that could be relevant to the challenge?
The location of the session, and MDawg's accommodations, are among details that MD would not want disclosed.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
MD played at a private table, why speculate about whatever he expects to remain private?
Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyThe location of the session, and MDawg's accommodations, are among details that MD would not want disclosed.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
MD played at a private table, why speculate about whatever he expects to remain private?
The hound was bragging about a tremendous win rate but wouldn't tell exactly how he played.
His method of play, his system,was what I and I assume others were mostly curious about.
Due to the NDA...*crickets*
MD explained that he pressed into winning streaks. He had multiple posts to that affect, complete with photos of the tote boards for the shoes that he played, and a nearly hand-by-hand report of how he played them.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
This was long before Dennenburp's challenge.
Ultimately, the Wiz witnessed the Dawg doing what he said that he could do, and then verified what MD reported about the session.
Shackleford never asserted that anything MD reported was false...that's another one of your fairy tales.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Wizard already confirmed that MD pressed into winning streaks during that session...is that the progression you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I've seen him play. He's just your average ploppie at both bac and bj.
Which begs the question: how can a common cur without any advantage win fifty or so seesions in a row as he claimed?Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
Answer: He can't, it's pure bullshit.
jbjb is not a credible witness.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
Don't have more questions for him than that?
So you were that guy I had removed out of high limit :D for trying to borrow money from me.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjb
https://youtu.be/5vyMuxxLsD0
Oh, wow, 1647 = 3^3*61 ---> 2/7 in '61. Ha.
And, 211 ---> 2^11 = [1961 + (91 - √16)] ---> 1961_1691
I've never been plugged in good enough to get par sheets although I've been given scraps here and there. I've always had to do empirical studies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedvalue
Redietz, a known professional sports bettor, said the number one sports bettor in the world published a fraudulent sports betting system. That's a gargantuan accusation but he won't list any proof. We're just supposed to believe him.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJThere is a big difference in the two situations mickeycrimm. Rob Singer is a guy who promoted math defying voodoo claims for 2 decades. He even wrote a book (or was it two) promoting this nonsense, progressive betting systems and "special plays". We all witnessed a member on this very forum, Slingshot, who repeatedly tried to emulate Rob and play this voodoo math defying system. And I am sure there were others along the way. Rob even claimed he gave private lessons to people.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Redietz did none of that kind of shit. If none of what Redietz says is true, and I am not convinced of that, all that does is put him in the class of people like an Evenbob, who makes claims that aren't true and no one takes seriously.
I would even accept it if redietz had been found to be soliciting people for his picks. But over the years there has been exactly one person that has ever claimed that, Rob Singer with zero evidence. If Redietz had been doing that there would have been many, many more and Dan Druff would have discovered that and put a stop to it.
In the absence of anything like that, all the redietz situation is, is a witchhunt and bullying against a member that many here have publicly stated they dislike.
It is fair to point out many of the stupid things he has said, like the EV comments, comments about advantage players, as like many others he seems to now have an anti-AP bias to him. Even the "games over .500" discussion that is your current signature is fair game if that is important to you. But this has now gone way beyond that, with many members ganging up, who will accept nothing less that driving redietz from the forum, just the same as people have attempted with me.
And guess what? Rob Singer is still posting here. So why the need to drive redietz away? He isn't really hurting anyone.
Axel was cordial and polite with redietz but redietz ridicules him with every post.
Redietz ridicules and picks fights with all AP's.
He even ridiculed you, saying you were more likely to be a male prostitute than a professional blackjack player.
As for me he has resorted to telling out and out lies about what I've said.
Redietz has ganged up on everyone here. Which of us do you think should refrain from rebuffing redietz' insults?
I have never ever come close to saying that Billy Walters published a "fraudulent sports betting system." Nothing I have ever written in any venue or said publicly or privately comes remotely close to what mickey crimm just wrote.
I'm not sure if he's libeling me or Billy Walters more.
I will bring this up with Todd. I have no choice in the matter.
lmao. I remember reading this. Some comment about how he had something wrong.. some small detail.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Bringing Todd into this.. Redietz you're just asking to be more abused. Saying someone is "wrong" will never rise to the level of actionable libel. I forget what is required but damn sure more than that.
Hobo Crimm has done his share of whining to Druff too....lol
I think number one whiner by a longshot is FraudJ though.
Fuck Dan, what's he going to do or say? Would you do a radio interview with me and Dan asking some tough questions? We can both invite anyone to the interview who we wish to.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I'm kind of thinking redietz is a bit mentally ill at this point.
Yes, I noticed that as well, I just let it go. Even before Redietz had an issue with me I asked some legitimate tough questions and didn't get any legit answers.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I was kind of thinking he got kicked in the head with one too many monk shoes...RIP :DQuote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RFH7C3vkK4Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPenI was kind of thinking he got kicked in the head with one too many monk shoes...RIP :DQuote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
Except Redietz didn't duck. THey hit them in the head and he picked em up .. said.. nice shoes. THe rest is history.
It is what happened when his picks went 3-9 .. at the imperial palace sports book. He still wears them.
True story. I promise.
I only have one question regarding Red's specialty college football betting skills. On average per year how much does he make?
Unfortunately, not enough to stay current on $500/year property taxes....RIPQuote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
In UNKewlJ's case, not enough to even masquerade as more than a red and green chip player.
Hell, even out and out cons who try to pray on us high rollers come up with a few thousand in chips to try to pretend that they belong in the room.
Who are you asking?Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
On average per year how much do you make from AP?
While you are at it tell Todd you would like to appear on his radio show to discuss what you called Walter's "faulty strategy." You also said there were actually only a couple of helpful hints in the book but one had to squint real hard to find them. Please discuss your diagnosis of Walters having Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. And please discuss why you said Walters published a faulty strategy on purpose. Isn't that saying he was dishonest, a fraud?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
While you are at it tell Todd you would like to appear on his radio show to discuss what you called Walter's "faulty strategy."Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
You also said there were actually only a couple of helpful hints in the book but one had to squint real hard to find them. That would mean it was a bad overall strategy, wouldn't it?
Please discuss your diagnosis of Walters having Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.
And please discuss why you said Walters published a faulty strategy on purpose. Isn't that saying he was dishonest, a fraud?
You keep putting "faulty strategy" in quotes, as if I actually wrote that. I never wrote "faulty strategy."
If you put something in quotes as a way of declaring someone said something, and they never did, well, that's lying, isn't it?
Again, quoting someone with false quotes is libelous.
You should either learn to read or learn to be honest. I won't expect both. But one or the other would be beneficial to the public.
You said I called myself a professional gambler. Not true. I've said for many years on this forum I consider the term to be an oxymoron.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
You said that in my 2017 interview on GWAE that I said I bet sports. Not true. I didn't even talk about sports. Easy enough for you to put up evidence since the entire interview is on youtube. But you certainly didn't put up any evidence, did you. Case closed.
You said I was the one that came up with 8-4 is 2 games above .500. Not true. That came from KJ.
You have become a habitual at lying about me. Should I snitch you off to Dan?
In post #1259 of this thread redietz wrote:
"Lunch next week will feature some debunking of the Walters how-to chapters -- what he has right, what he has wrong. Why the chapters' context is FAULTY, which is why he probably included them. He knew, of course."
In post #1273 of this thread redietz wrote:
"I'm going to review the two how-to chapters with one of the guys who taught some probability. He made a boatload of notes and we only scratched the surface, so we'll do a deeper dive. The context of the chapters undermines their overall value....but there are a couple of actual helpful thoughts in there -- you just have to squint real hard to notice them."
In post #13 of the GAMBLER: SECRETS OF A LIFE AT RISK thread redietz wrote:
"And honestly, Walters does not present himself as a particularly wonderful handicapper in the book. He's very careful about that. In fact, even the blurbs to sell the book are careful, as in Michael Roxborough's "Is he the greatest handicapper of all time? Maybe. Is he the greatest bettor of all time? Unquestionably." There are few references in the book to Walters' himself actually handicapping anything."
In post #25 of the JOHNSON CITY MEN'S BOOK CLUB thread redietz wrote:
"Already got a couple of nice thank you emails from attendees, which surprised me. There were some really good observations regarding Walters' OCD tendencies and what wasn't stated in the book."
You can easily look these posts up yourself.
In the first quote redietz said Walters intentionally published a faulty strategy.
In the second quote redietz said there were only a couple of helpful thoughts in the strategy but you had to look real hard to find them.
In the third quote redietz downplays Walters' handicapping skills.
In the fourth quote redietz alleges Walters has OCD and things were left out of his handicapping strategy.
The one thing you won't find is any evidence listed in redietz' allegations. And there is no evidence that this book club meeting ever took place.
Why the chapters' context is faulty is not close to synonymous with saying that strategies are faulty. The strategies, in fact, are fine, given the context.
The reason the context is faulty is that which sports were and were not addressed was a purposeful decision. That decision has consequences, and that decision has an historical track record different from the case if other decisions had been made.
There's also an issue with the selection of data points. Within the context I mentioned, there were additional contextual decisions made. Those decisions were probably made because (1) they made the case for what was being written, (2) people tend to look where the streetlight shines (assuming it's dark), (3) it made for clearer, more concise writing, (4) the chapters were already more opaque than a casual reader would find optimal, and (5) these decisions made the chapters easier to write.
Those with some sports gambling experience or who know the history of sports gambling likely know exactly what I'm talking about. Those without experience do not.
Note: One of the reasons Fezzik is held in esteem is because his record is in the NFL. There are other individuals who have managed to match or better Fezzik's ATS record in other sports, but because they do not operate versus the NFL, they are not as well known or respected. This dovetails with what I said about context. Choice of context has enormous effect on results. The "APs" sometimes don't recognize that applying the same tools with the same skill to different contexts can have very different outcomes.
Could it actually be the case that there was no book club? That would be wild.
It would be near impossible for there to be a book club and not be a Facebook page for it or something of that nature. I made up group?
It's pretty obvious why Walters chose the NFL to write about. That's what interests the masses, i.e, book sales.
In addition, redietz has always said the NFL is to hard to beat. In the book Walters said he bet five to ten NFL games per week. And he was betting a lot of money. On a 3-star play he would bet upwards of 2 million.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
You should probably start a poll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
LOL. And did you read any mention of Walters' saying which sport he cumulatively bet the MOST on? Or a ranking of sports in order of how much he bet on them? Or which sports he won what percentage? Or which sports he had the most income from? Or which sports he had the most general success with?
Gee, what strange omissions, eh?
Ding, ding, light bulbs going on at VCT.
That concludes me giving lessons on how to read.
Have a good one. Start a poll. Maybe a couple of polls.
If and when I have time and am so inclined I will do something called research. It is a word that you parrot but don't seem to ever have done yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
You should probably start a poll.
Just because someone found 5 nfl games with value Every week does not mean that It is still possible. It should be beyond obvious that book's sources And methodology of their Lines have and will change over the course of a few years.
Irrelevant points. Quit chasing your tail.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
LOL. And did you read any mention of Walters' saying which sport he cumulatively bet the MOST on? Or a ranking of sports in order of how much he bet on them? Or which sports he won what percentage? Or which sports he had the most income from? Or which sports he had the most general success with?
Gee, what strange omissions, eh?
Ding, ding, light bulbs going on at VCT.
That concludes me giving lessons on how to read.
Have a good one. Start a poll. Maybe a couple of polls.
Redietz has downplayed the relevance of math in sports betting saying it's more a matter of opinion.
So when the Walters book came out it showed Walters and the Computer group used an entirely mathematical approach. The power ratings were based on empirical data. There were no opinions involved. Just pure math.
Everyone knows the success Walters had using this strategy. But here is Bob Dietz telling a book club meeting "what is right and what is wrong" with the strategy. He said there wasn't much right, just a few tidbits. Can you believe that? Redietz really really really thinks he knows more about it than Walters and the Computer Group. LOL. You can't make this shit up.
It don't take a rocket scientist to figure out why Dietz is poo poohing the Walters/Computer Group strategy. He doesn't believe in the math. That's because he doesn't know much about the math. Given how adamant he was in downplaying the math before the book came out it's no wonder he's critical of the strategy. To him it just can't be that math is so important in sports betting.
Redietz has no clue about why Waters wrote what he wrote.. my guess if the extra answers had some huge insight Waters would have put them in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmIrrelevant points. Quit chasing your tail.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
LOL. And did you read any mention of Walters' saying which sport he cumulatively bet the MOST on? Or a ranking of sports in order of how much he bet on them? Or which sports he won what percentage? Or which sports he had the most income from? Or which sports he had the most general success with?
Gee, what strange omissions, eh?
Ding, ding, light bulbs going on at VCT.
That concludes me giving lessons on how to read.
Have a good one. Start a poll. Maybe a couple of polls.
Redietz's post above does sound like some approach Redietz would take at the book club to try and sound so knowledgeable. "We will discuss what he said and didn't say and why he said those things" .. lol .. you know just to show how much smarter he is.. wink wink
11 hour audio book. That sounds really great for next long road trip somewhere...
That's 5 to 10 games a week. Walters wrote about how things change and how his power ratings are based on a team's last ten games. There were a lot of changes over 40 years. It looks like Walter's adapted well to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
I wasn't very clear above... At least online I know books lines became a lot sharper. Basically Waters could have been way ahead of whatever Books were using to handicap but it is very unlikely that would be the same in this day and age. Info is just so much more symmetrical. Books have had a chance to wise up. So many guys using computer models.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmThat's 5 to 10 games a week. Walters wrote about how things change and how his power ratings are based on a team's last ten games. There were a lot of changes over 40 years. It looks like Walter's adapted well to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Books also might realize if your lines are as sharp as possible you no longer have to worry about sharp bettors finding value bets.
So the argument about whether NFL is beatable or not and using Water's experiences to say yes it is - doesn't seem like a sound conclusion
Dietz general AP and math poo poohing seem to be more about the fact that if anyone can make money following the math, using bonuses, middling, stale lines, locking up money betting both sides, off-market lines, and legitimate AP in sports. It renderers his investment services and 20+ years of experience useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Some new smart mathematical Advantage Player who's never even bet a sport in his life can look at all those things and figure out how to make 10 times per year than what Red has ever made.
redietz should start a poll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfDietz general AP and math poo poohing seem to be more about the fact that if anyone can make money following the math, using bonuses, middling, stale lines, locking up money betting both sides, off-market lines, and legitimate AP in sports. It renderers his investment services and 20+ years of experience useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Some new smart mathematical Advantage Player who's never even bet a sport in his life can look at all those things and figure out how to make 10 times per year than what Red has ever made.
I would love to know all the stuff he has learned from reading APs methods on sports betting. Of course he'll NEVER admit it .. never ever.
One would think though that he would want widen his opportunities to start making some level of real money.