Best post of 2023.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedvalue
Printable View
Best post of 2023.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedvalue
A big part of life is the fertile value of wasting time. Giving yourself a chance to constantly re-evaluate yourself, and life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerBest post of 2023.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedvalue
You're an idiot. I have a strong feeling if I agreed to go, you still wouldn't show. Nothing suggests that you would.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzSo I take it you are a "Yes" to sit in on the session with Todd in person? That's great!!Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Why you actually think this is a valid thing. You never even got Druff to agree to it because it is just another way for you to be a coward.
You're a loser. But not even a likeable loser.
You haven't answered so many questions on here.. whatever.. why am I even giving you a response.
Grow some pride and/or shame. It isn't too late in life.
Worst post of 2023.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Hit1derA big part of life is the fertile value of wasting time. Giving yourself a chance to constantly re-evaluate yourself, and life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerBest post of 2023.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedvalue
Account can easily be a part of the teleconference between you and Druff which will be broadcast over the radio. Or he can be a call in. Whichever.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Dietz, quit living in 1980.. You really need to catch up to the 21st century.
You know how it is, mickey. Some people hang with name "APs" in person. Some can't handle the reality.
That's fine. I like to test the limits of sanity, but, in a structured way that I can keep up with. You have to pace yourself. Not so serious as with the English/math forums, where more than a handful of people toil away, day after day, for very little other than points to toil more efficiently, and a pat on the back from each other. Stuff that won't matter longer than the hour, or two, as headlines in more forums that shall, as surely as this one, fall by the wayside before many of those guys die off. If you want thus meaning in life, then you have to do the actual writing, or mathematical research. Talking about contests, university homework, or, nuances in stuff from hundreds of years ago, isn't going to cut it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerWorst post of 2023.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Hit1derA big part of life is the fertile value of wasting time. Giving yourself a chance to constantly re-evaluate yourself, and life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Overall, nothing good can come of gambling. You won't find a psychiatrist, let alone real, practicing mathematician, to endorse it for whichever purpose. The Greek mathematicians, who surely knew all about it, totally avoided mention of it, in the literature. Yeah, sure, a lot of people claim that probability and statistics came of dice games. But, no, the science, and philosophy, of that has nothing to do with casino games. However, people still try to relate the richness of the former to the poverty of the latter, to try to gain a gambling edge.
It's enough for me, say, to get a kick out of the cute pictures that Max puts up, and, the hidden details that Finkle points out. There isn't any best/worst to it. Then, again, Seedvalue is just plain nuts.
Everything you've written about visiting Las Vegas indicates how cheap you are. You look for the cheapest meals and hotels. One dollar hot dogs and shrimp cocktails. To cheap to rent a car. Your last visit was at the very cheapest time of year for hotels in Las Vegas. You're a low roller.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
You want us to believe you will spend money on travel, meals and lodging to go to California to do a radio interview? When you could do it for no cost on a teleconference? Get real.
Where is this room located that you want to do the radio interview in?
In all fairness you're king of the $1 hotdog. Also, probably the only one to have ate at the mission downtown and slept under the riverwalk in Laughlin. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmEverything you've written about visiting Las Vegas indicates how cheap you are. You look for the cheapest meals and hotels. One dollar hot dogs and shrimp cocktails. To cheap to rent a car. Your last visit was at the very cheapest time of year for hotels in Las Vegas. You're a low roller.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
You want us to believe you will spend money on travel, meals and lodging to go to California to do a radio interview? When you could do it for no cost on a teleconference? Get real.
Where is this room located that you want to do the radio interview in?
Happy New Year hobo....RIP
That hot dog stand at Circus Circus closed years ago.
https://i.imgur.com/xA0QMJdl.jpg
but the (well over $1.) turkey dogs at Steamie Weanie are still on and cracking!
https://i.imgur.com/RpxRmJtl.jpg
I sure ate plenty of $1 hot dogs 30 years ago. You and ditz are still looking for those dollar dogs. I sure at at the mission, St. Vincents and the Sally thirty years ago. I had the balls to take on Vegas and the gambling with absolutely nothing in my pockets. Nothing but sheer will . I worked my way up from nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPenIn all fairness you're king of the $1 hotdog. Also, probably the only one to have ate at the mission downtown and slept under the riverwalk in Laughlin. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmEverything you've written about visiting Las Vegas indicates how cheap you are. You look for the cheapest meals and hotels. One dollar hot dogs and shrimp cocktails. To cheap to rent a car. Your last visit was at the very cheapest time of year for hotels in Las Vegas. You're a low roller.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
You want us to believe you will spend money on travel, meals and lodging to go to California to do a radio interview? When you could do it for no cost on a teleconference? Get real.
Where is this room located that you want to do the radio interview in?
Happy New Year hobo....RIP
How about you, brownbagger? Ask your boss for a 50 cent an hour raise. Get out there and stepandfetchit.
Never had to sleep under the Riverwalk in Laughlin. I had full RFB 24/7/362.
It's sad that you've reduced yourself to just a lowlife slug of a troll. Get help.
Being this is the final day of this year and insults, hate, envy, and ego dominate this place more than ever.....its time for a bold assessment.
Seedvalue got it right when he compared being involved here with it being a true time-waster. Even as a retiree, this forum's only value for me has come in the form of watching the world's most prolific/pathetic/pitiful/weak/serial liar go on & on & on with his incessant need to convince others that his made-up views and concocted forum life are real. I have to admit--it's unbelievably enjoyable witnessing kew make such a fool of himself and constantly be ridiculed. And it's off-the-charts entertainment seeing him torment himself nearly 24/7! But just as with Seed, I have many better things in life awaiting me in 2024.
Finally, while max's digs at kew are fun and cute and all that, his constant pissing on mickey is not. His portrayals about mickey's life are about as accurate as he's been in fabricating what I am and have done & accomplished--where he's been right the one time and wrong about everything else. Max appears only to participate just to talk about others and create whatever he thinks makes him happy to believe about them. I won't argue with him any more because he loses almost every time. And that's nothing for him to be ashamed of.
My sense says that max is somewhat intelligent but he lives with a private issue thats turned out to be some real baggage. I mean, even when he researched kew's fake lawsuit it was for nefarious purposes. Hate begets hate.....and he's not as street smart as he thinks he is. That "prop money" bought me some interesting information about him from those streets this past year. Things even boz is unaware of.
Anyway, as meaningless as all this really is TO THOSE THAT HAVE AN ACTUAL LIFE WORTH LIVING, the thrill is gone--much in the same way the vp thrill is mostly gone after capping my playing career off with the $1.5mil hit. Nothing I can win in vp will ever top that, and nothing I do on a forum will ever top watching an anti-Trump fairy be constantly exposed and humiliated.
You should probably get up with FraudJ and compare notes....lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
I'm sure your prop money purchased info is worth about what his is....RIP
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I do it for the lolz even if mean spirited.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Singer has some.weird dominance.fetish
You guys figure out who is more pathetic - kewl or singer.
A true coinflip in my mind. People who go out of their way to do what singer does are almost unequivocally losers or they wouldn't have the urge.
Singer used to be funny but I suspect the old age is slowing the brain and the quips just aren't available.
--->Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Ah! The Place Doesn't Matter As Long As the Two [= 1 + 1] of Us Are Together!
Our Lady, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary Cathedral (Toledo, Ohio).
Equestrian statue of Theodore Roosevelt (Portland, Oregon). [V made it to day-2 without piling onto the shit pile. Ha!]
For Magnus Chase: Hotel Valhalla Guide to the Norse Worlds. [Finland]
https://anagram-solver.net/People%20....?partial=true
I guess that it's destiny for such opposites to meet, regardless of the time, and place.
https://youtu.be/c5dwksSbD34
There's a Twitter user named Tbone. He and I follow each other. He's from Billings. So he puts up this tweet with video. Today was the Montana/South Dakota State game for the FCS championship. The line in the major books was SDSU -13.5 to -14 at -110.
So in this video he shows a huge pile of tickets from the sportsbetting kiosks in the Montana Bars. He called it "kiosk stuffing" and I knew what it meant. My guess is he spread the wager out amongst dozens of bars maybe to keep them from catching on--and to keep from hitting one bar to hard. They don't keep that kind of money on premises.
What game was he betting?
He was betting the Montana/SDSU game. Montanans had bet so much money on the Griz that the line moved from -14/-110 all the way down to -10.5 +100.
Fuck me running. I missed out. But hey, they say ignorance is bliss. I had no clue. The thought never entered my head.
But one thing I've picked up on from this. The Montana lines can be different than the out-of-state lines.
PS: I think he's bullshitting about "Georgie."
https://twitter.com/i/status/1744135336945406166
I'm not saying this isn't legit, it probably is.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
But in general,
the problem with one showing stacks of winning or losing tickets is that we haven't any clue what or if something was hedged off on.
I have been involved in many situations where I had stacks of winning tickets but also stacks of losing tickets.
There's situations where people are locking up nice profits without any handy capping and they do very well.
I don't understand...why is that a problem, and who is it a problem for?Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Poor coach got a case of the stupids.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyI don't understand...why is that a problem, and who is it a problem for?Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
My point was the Montana line was 3 points different than the out-of-state lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfI'm not saying this isn't legit, it probably is.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
But in general,
the problem with one showing stacks of winning or losing tickets is that we haven't any clue what or if something was hedged off on.
I have been involved in many situations where I had stacks of winning tickets but also stacks of losing tickets.
There's situations where people are locking up nice profits without any handy capping and they do very well.
Rufus Peabody of Unabated published before the game that Michigan should be favored by 9 points, -400 on the money line.
My buddy, Randy McKay cashed in both Circa and Survivor:
https://twitter.com/RR39/status/1744246170979852302
I didn't know it but Randy has been giving up 3 NFL picks a week on a podcast called Sports Bettors Paradise. He appears to be an opinion bettor like redietz. He was 29-19 thru week 16:
https://youtu.be/qJoVfZCBQHw
Randy is a smart guy (A nice guy as well) I can assure you whatever he is doing is +EV regardless if his picks are good or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Randy did well in the handicapping contests this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfRandy is a smart guy (A nice guy as well) I can assure you whatever he is doing is +EV regardless if his picks are good or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
He tied for 1st in a Draft Kings 50K buy-in contest, cashing for 400K. He went 51-29/63.7%.
In the Circa contests he finished 14th for a 33.5K cash. He went 57-31-2. And did 48th in their other contest.
https://twitter.com/RR39/status/1745113617819664806
Here's Fezzik's record in the contests:
https://twitter.com/FezzikSports/sta...67270513684659
Fezzik is (arguably) the best NFL contest player of all time. There are a couple of people who "ran the gauntlet" (in local contest-speak) some years before Fezzik, but I'm not sure they have the sustained, consistent results of Fezzik. So I'd have to vote Fezzik as the top NFL contest player.
Having said that, I must also mention that he publicly swore off actually betting NFL sides about 10 years ago in a public mea culpa that appeared, I believe, in the LV Review Journal. One can draw whatever conclusions are appropriate.
I also find it somewhat humorous that the LMS results are couched with the "as an investor" phrase. Mickey posted it, so I'm sure he can explain the implications and ramifications of that. Personally, I interpret it as a bald-faced caveat -- don't enter LMS contests for serious money because there's always a bigger dog in the fight, regardless of what the rules state. There's always a way around "the rules," so to speak. Everybody knows that but hope springs eternal. Mickey can spell it out for the studio audience.
Yeas, I'll spell it all out for you. You brag about yourself and your friend in these contests. Except you guys are chickenshit as hell. You play small potatoes contests and act like you are bigshots while doing it. MY FRIEND, plays in 50K buy-in contests... and YOU are a scuffler.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Scufflin' Bob Dietz
Here is a question for you mickey, since you have read and learned a great deal about the sportsbetting racket in the last year or so. Is there anyone left that just picks games, hitting 54, 55% for a profit anymore? It seems all the top sportsbettors are either winning their money from playing contests or seklling their picks and service.
Remember the final line in the movie Casino where after the bombing, the Robert Dinero character said he went back to picking games. He said something like "in the end, I could always pick winners". Is there no one like that left....that just picks winners at a 55% or better clip and wins money?
I am in my second stint of bonus whoring in the last 6 months. But my advantage is strictly from those bonuses. Without that, I am underwater, as I always have been. :rolleyes:
Red, you can answer as well. Anyone left that just handicaps games and picks winners?
Let me know the next time you see a 50K college football contest with one entry per person.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmYeas, I'll spell it all out for you. You brag about yourself and your friend in these contests. Except you guys are chickenshit as hell. You play small potatoes contests and act like you are bigshots while doing it. MY FRIEND, plays in 50K buy-in contests... and YOU are a scuffler.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Scufflin' Bob Dietz
Some of us, alas, are not Leonardo Da APs.
I love adjectives, by the way. Scufflin' sounds good. Kind of like "Battlin' Murdock," for those Daredevil fans. And what might your adjective be, mickey? "Not-Scufflin' Mickey, the King of Montana?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
You're missing the whole point, kewlJ. If you win 55% of your games, but you are a specialist (which almost all winners are), then you have a limited pool of games. Selling your games, say, on a pay-after-you-win premise, just pads the odds for you. It's an obvious advantage play. If you pad every win with a bonus from selling the play, then you eventually get to the point, if you have enough followers, where you can make money while winning 48% or 50% of your plays. You have essentially flipped the odds in your favor, a la being a bookmaker but not being a bookmaker.
I mean, this is obvious as hell. I don't see why "APs" find this strange, when it's a simple, obvious way of turning a house advantage upside down.
Red, Why do you talk down to and take shots at AP's (you just did again), when you just admitted you are APing? That your winnings isn't coming from being a good handicapper or sports picker but from AP contents like selling picks and playing contests?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Like I just said, I am in my second stint of making some money from sports betting bonus whoring. But that money I am making is 100% from the bonus play. I am underwater just going by my picks. Can I call myself a great handicapper or sports bettor? :D
I guess I am just a little surprised. I though there were some legitimate players that won by handicapping games and winning better than 53% needed to overcome the juice. Based on mickey's research and even your comments, I guess not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJRed, Why do you talk down to and take shots at AP's (you just did again), when you just admitted you are APing? That your winnings isn't coming from being a good handicapper or sports picker but from AP contents like selling picks and playing contests?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Like I just said, I am in my second stint of making some money from sports betting bonus whoring. But that money I am making is 100% from the bonus play. I am underwater just going by my picks. Can I call myself a great handicapper or sports bettor? :D
I guess I am just a little surprised. I though there were some legitimate players that won by handicapping games and winning better than 53% needed to overcome the juice. Based on mickey's research and even your comments, I guess not.
See, talking to you is largely a waste. Have you even understood what "Tipsters or Gypsters?" was? Or Handicappers' Report Card? Or The Sports Monitor? Or a publication called The Absolute Truth? Mickey even posted pages from "Tipsters or Gypsters?" on this site.
You don't really listen. There are people who actually win long-term. They are mostly specialists, and most of the winning takes place in college sports. The Walters' book is notable for NOT mentioning how he does what in which sports, by the way. There have always been college hoops savants. Some have lasted for years. The nature of college hoops, however, has constantly changed. The rules have changed. How those rules are officiated has changed (points of emphasis and all that). Shot clock has changed. What wins for a stretch for three or four years is no guarantee going forward when rules change. The three point line distance changes, for example. Sometimes nine inches means a lot, as opposed to six (LOL, Singer). The shot clock, for example. The degree to which NBA-style officiating bleeds down to lower levels.
All you have to do to figure out whether anybody wins long-term is dig up old "Tipsters or Gypsters?" and check the multi-year stats. Those stats actually UNDERreport the efficacy of handicappers because they are locked into lines in 24 to 48 hour periods prior to games. Shopping lines 24/7 would puff those stats up by 1 to 2 percent. Or dig up old Wise Guy Contest results. The cumulative numbers won't show much, but for some people, the college football numbers were pretty good for a span of 30 years. And again, those are not shopped numbers; they are locked numbers, so efficacy is actually higher than the results.
I talk down to "APs" because they think they're "sharps." LOL. They think they're part of the cool club, when there is literally nothing they are doing sports-wise that hasn't been done by handicappers for 40 years. It's the equivalent of listening to people brag about being able to make half their free throws, and then they give lessons.
The misperception of the "size of the clubs" is also funny. The number of people who have applied themselves to sports handicapping; the resources aimed at sports handicapping, and the expertise, have always dwarfed in number and resources applied the entire population of alleged AP players. And now, because sports gambling has become legal, "APs" think they are bringing something new to the table because they can what? Exploit bonuses? Been done for 50 years. Arbitrage? Been done for 50 years. Middles shooting? Been done for 50 years. Do simple math? Puh-lease. How 'bout them parlay calculators?
And here's the beauty of it. Because most know very little about the history of sports betting, the 'APs" think they are the experts! It's Dunning-Kruger to the nth.
Where Red? Where are these APs claiming or thinking they are experts?
On this forum, the APs that seem to be doing some sports betting have said just the opposite. Axelfolf has repeatedly said he doesn't know much about or watch sports. I have repeatedly said that I am a losing recreational sports bettor. The winning I am doing now is strictly because of the bonuses (AP play), not because I am picking winners. Mickeycrimm hasn't said what he is doing, but you can bet it is +EV or an AP play.
Who else? Druff, monet, Half Smoke or a couple others that sometimes make public picks? Never heard anyone say they were an expert at anything about sports betting. They are doing something AP-wise that makes their play +EV.
It is only you that claims to be some great handicapper who has made a living exclusively from sports picking for decades. And now you take offense at anyone applying anything +EV that makes a little money.
Where Red?
Lol at the scuffler.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmYeas, I'll spell it all out for you. You brag about yourself and your friend in these contests. Except you guys are chickenshit as hell. You play small potatoes contests and act like you are bigshots while doing it. MY FRIEND, plays in 50K buy-in contests... and YOU are a scuffler.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Scufflin' Bob Dietz
He isn't chickenshit. He is clearly too broke. Don't hold it against him. Let the man have his fun capping his losses $300 a pop over the course of a few months.
Not everyone on here is a real gambler.
You try 10x to convince others about APs than they ever try to.convince others. As if APs share any particular trait. From a psychological prospective, why do you do this ?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJRed, Why do you talk down to and take shots at AP's (you just did again), when you just admitted you are APing? That your winnings isn't coming from being a good handicapper or sports picker but from AP contents like selling picks and playing contests?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Like I just said, I am in my second stint of making some money from sports betting bonus whoring. But that money I am making is 100% from the bonus play. I am underwater just going by my picks. Can I call myself a great handicapper or sports bettor? :D
I guess I am just a little surprised. I though there were some legitimate players that won by handicapping games and winning better than 53% needed to overcome the juice. Based on mickey's research and even your comments, I guess not.
See, talking to you is largely a waste. Have you even understood what "Tipsters or Gypsters?" was? Or Handicappers' Report Card? Or The Sports Monitor? Or a publication called The Absolute Truth? Mickey even posted pages from "Tipsters or Gypsters?" on this site.
You don't really listen. There are people who actually win long-term. They are mostly specialists, and most of the winning takes place in college sports. The Walters' book is notable for NOT mentioning how he does what in which sports, by the way. There have always been college hoops savants. Some have lasted for years. The nature of college hoops, however, has constantly changed. The rules have changed. How those rules are officiated has changed (points of emphasis and all that). Shot clock has changed. What wins for a stretch for three or four years is no guarantee going forward when rules change. The three point line distance changes, for example. Sometimes nine inches means a lot, as opposed to six (LOL, Singer). The shot clock, for example. The degree to which NBA-style officiating bleeds down to lower levels.
All you have to do to figure out whether anybody wins long-term is dig up old "Tipsters or Gypsters?" and check the multi-year stats. Those stats actually UNDERreport the efficacy of handicappers because they are locked into lines in 24 to 48 hour periods prior to games. Shopping lines 24/7 would puff those stats up by 1 to 2 percent. Or dig up old Wise Guy Contest results. The cumulative numbers won't show much, but for some people, the college football numbers were pretty good for a span of 30 years. And again, those are not shopped numbers; they are locked numbers, so efficacy is actually higher than the results.
I talk down to "APs" because they think they're "sharps." LOL. They think they're part of the cool club, when there is literally nothing they are doing sports-wise that hasn't been done by handicappers for 40 years. It's the equivalent of listening to people brag about being able to make half their free throws, and then they give lessons.
The misperception of the "size of the clubs" is also funny. The number of people who have applied themselves to sports handicapping; the resources aimed at sports handicapping, and the expertise, have always dwarfed in number and resources applied the entire population of alleged AP players. And now, because sports gambling has become legal, "APs" think they are bringing something new to the table because they can what? Exploit bonuses? Been done for 50 years. Arbitrage? Been done for 50 years. Middles shooting? Been done for 50 years. Do simple math? Puh-lease. How 'bout them parlay calculators?
And here's the beauty of it. Because most know very little about the history of sports betting, the 'APs" think they are the experts! It's Dunning-Kruger to the nth.
Sports bettors are a subset if APs. Nothing more. I've never even seen anyone brag about discovering anything in regards to sports betting.
We crack on Redietz for relatively low EV endeavors. Redietz being true to himself brings up strawmen to viciously (lol) attack. He realized bragging about Monk shoes and being able to snap pay a 500 tax bill isn't going anywhere.
At the end of the day Redietz endlessly brags about some sort of low-end media project while clearly being too scared to actually do anything where he could give his views. 'Nuf said.
How does old ""Tipsters or Gypsters?" was? Or Handicappers' Report Card? Or The Sports Monitor? Or a publication called The Absolute Truth?" Help anyone make money on sports in 2024?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJRed, Why do you talk down to and take shots at AP's (you just did again), when you just admitted you are APing? That your winnings isn't coming from being a good handicapper or sports picker but from AP contents like selling picks and playing contests?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Like I just said, I am in my second stint of making some money from sports betting bonus whoring. But that money I am making is 100% from the bonus play. I am underwater just going by my picks. Can I call myself a great handicapper or sports bettor? :D
I guess I am just a little surprised. I though there were some legitimate players that won by handicapping games and winning better than 53% needed to overcome the juice. Based on mickey's research and even your comments, I guess not.
See, talking to you is largely a waste. Have you even understood what "Tipsters or Gypsters?" was? Or Handicappers' Report Card? Or The Sports Monitor? Or a publication called The Absolute Truth? Mickey even posted pages from "Tipsters or Gypsters?" on this site.
You don't really listen. There are people who actually win long-term. They are mostly specialists, and most of the winning takes place in college sports. The Walters' book is notable for NOT mentioning how he does what in which sports, by the way. There have always been college hoops savants. Some have lasted for years. The nature of college hoops, however, has constantly changed. The rules have changed. How those rules are officiated has changed (points of emphasis and all that). Shot clock has changed. What wins for a stretch for three or four years is no guarantee going forward when rules change. The three point line distance changes, for example. Sometimes nine inches means a lot, as opposed to six (LOL, Singer). The shot clock, for example. The degree to which NBA-style officiating bleeds down to lower levels.
All you have to do to figure out whether anybody wins long-term is dig up old "Tipsters or Gypsters?" and check the multi-year stats. Those stats actually UNDERreport the efficacy of handicappers because they are locked into lines in 24 to 48 hour periods prior to games. Shopping lines 24/7 would puff those stats up by 1 to 2 percent. Or dig up old Wise Guy Contest results. The cumulative numbers won't show much, but for some people, the college football numbers were pretty good for a span of 30 years. And again, those are not shopped numbers; they are locked numbers, so efficacy is actually higher than the results.
I talk down to "APs" because they think they're "sharps." LOL. They think they're part of the cool club, when there is literally nothing they are doing sports-wise that hasn't been done by handicappers for 40 years. It's the equivalent of listening to people brag about being able to make half their free throws, and then they give lessons.
The misperception of the "size of the clubs" is also funny. The number of people who have applied themselves to sports handicapping; the resources aimed at sports handicapping, and the expertise, have always dwarfed in number and resources applied the entire population of alleged AP players. And now, because sports gambling has become legal, "APs" think they are bringing something new to the table because they can what? Exploit bonuses? Been done for 50 years. Arbitrage? Been done for 50 years. Middles shooting? Been done for 50 years. Do simple math? Puh-lease. How 'bout them parlay calculators?
And here's the beauty of it. Because most know very little about the history of sports betting, the 'APs" think they are the experts! It's Dunning-Kruger to the nth.
I never said I don't watch sports, I absolutely love watching football, MMA and boxing. I'm just not a fanatic about it. I know guys that dedicate entire days to watching Sports and making bets right on schedule. I used to religiously watch football. But nowadays, I'm good for a couple of games a week at most.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I rarely stop what I'm doing or go out of my way just to watch an event unless it's something special. I do bet on lots of different things that I don't watch.
At the start of this football season, I was planning to do a lot more sports betting and sports watching while taking advantage of + EV bonuses online.
I did do some of that, but I didn't watch anywhere near what I thought I would be watching(that reminds me to cancel ESPN Plus)
I did end up wagering somewhere in the neighborhood of $300,000. The problem is that I have too many irons in the fire to concentrate on the sports stuff and dedicate enough time. Especially when I feel that I'm handicapped in sports betting when it comes to finding +EV value on the games continually and at that point, I'm just flipping coins. I ended up giving up some EV and made a side deal to lock up some profits and to relieve myself of the obligation.
I can't imagine a time when I won't be betting on sports or looking for some +EV betting situations and watching some along the away.
Bobbie Dietz is a chameleon. Yesterday he was Scufflin' Bob Dietz. Today he's Strawman Bob Dietz. He just invents something that someone didn't say then proceeds to debunk what the person didn't say.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJRed, Why do you talk down to and take shots at AP's (you just did again), when you just admitted you are APing? That your winnings isn't coming from being a good handicapper or sports picker but from AP contents like selling picks and playing contests?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Like I just said, I am in my second stint of making some money from sports betting bonus whoring. But that money I am making is 100% from the bonus play. I am underwater just going by my picks. Can I call myself a great handicapper or sports bettor? :D
I guess I am just a little surprised. I though there were some legitimate players that won by handicapping games and winning better than 53% needed to overcome the juice. Based on mickey's research and even your comments, I guess not.
See, talking to you is largely a waste. Have you even understood what "Tipsters or Gypsters?" was? Or Handicappers' Report Card? Or The Sports Monitor? Or a publication called The Absolute Truth? Mickey even posted pages from "Tipsters or Gypsters?" on this site.
You don't really listen. There are people who actually win long-term. They are mostly specialists, and most of the winning takes place in college sports. The Walters' book is notable for NOT mentioning how he does what in which sports, by the way. There have always been college hoops savants. Some have lasted for years. The nature of college hoops, however, has constantly changed. The rules have changed. How those rules are officiated has changed (points of emphasis and all that). Shot clock has changed. What wins for a stretch for three or four years is no guarantee going forward when rules change. The three point line distance changes, for example. Sometimes nine inches means a lot, as opposed to six (LOL, Singer). The shot clock, for example. The degree to which NBA-style officiating bleeds down to lower levels.
All you have to do to figure out whether anybody wins long-term is dig up old "Tipsters or Gypsters?" and check the multi-year stats. Those stats actually UNDERreport the efficacy of handicappers because they are locked into lines in 24 to 48 hour periods prior to games. Shopping lines 24/7 would puff those stats up by 1 to 2 percent. Or dig up old Wise Guy Contest results. The cumulative numbers won't show much, but for some people, the college football numbers were pretty good for a span of 30 years. And again, those are not shopped numbers; they are locked numbers, so efficacy is actually higher than the results.
I talk down to "APs" because they think they're "sharps." LOL. They think they're part of the cool club, when there is literally nothing they are doing sports-wise that hasn't been done by handicappers for 40 years. It's the equivalent of listening to people brag about being able to make half their free throws, and then they give lessons.
The misperception of the "size of the clubs" is also funny. The number of people who have applied themselves to sports handicapping; the resources aimed at sports handicapping, and the expertise, have always dwarfed in number and resources applied the entire population of alleged AP players. And now, because sports gambling has become legal, "APs" think they are bringing something new to the table because they can what? Exploit bonuses? Been done for 50 years. Arbitrage? Been done for 50 years. Middles shooting? Been done for 50 years. Do simple math? Puh-lease. How 'bout them parlay calculators?
And here's the beauty of it. Because most know very little about the history of sports betting, the 'APs" think they are the experts! It's Dunning-Kruger to the nth.
"I've never heard an AP tell anyone he's a "sharp."
"AP's think they are bringing something new to sports betting." Absolutely not, Dietz. AP's are just using the simple techniques that were developed by the old school guys decades ago. But, you gotta get that strawman shit working, don't you.
"AP's think they are experts at sportsbetting." No one on here has ever said they are a sportsbetting expert except Bob Dietz. All AP's are doing is working big fat edges provided by the bonus money. It's a simple AP technique.
You don't have anything to worry about, Dietz. When the bonus money is gone the AP's will be gone. Playing without the extras is thin edge at best. AP's understand that, without the extras, they don't have the expertise to even get a thin edge at sports betting. Repeat. AP's understand they don't have the expertise to beat thin edge sports betting.
When the extras are gone then the AP's will be gone. See ya! Wouldn't want to be ya!
What I find amazing is while AP's took all that easy money from the new legal start up books, you just twiddled your thumbs. WTF? I thought you were an expert at this shit. That was not an expert move, Strawman.
It's never going to dry up as long as there are online casinos with sports betting, it's been 20 years or more. Sure, there are going to be lulls and changes, but there are always going to be new/different opportunities if you know what you're doing and you're willing to put in the time and effort.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I'm sure Red was telling us Bonuses were dead long before the resurgence where people made a s*** ton of money.
I think handicapping will go by the wayside long before bonuses do.
Keep an eye out for Canada, if they ever go full-blown Sports Online.
You can do the flipping coins thing if your EV is coming from bonus money rather than winning picks. But that is boring. I try to come up with something that is going to be better than 50-50. Don't succeed all that much, but I try. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
I am currently on a kick of betting college basketball first half unders. Not blindly, nor all games. I look at the defensive efficiency and Pace stats for teams and you can usually find a few games each day. (maybe a dozen on Saturdays), where you think total will be under, particularly that a higher scoring team will be slowed down
Of course there are 2 end of game situations that can screw all that work up. 1) overtime. You pick a game to go under and it is on pace for under the whole game and regulation ends tied. and the game goes over in Overtime. 2). final 2 minutes with all the fouling. If a team is losing by 5-10 points, when they hit 2 minutes they start fouling. Not uncommon to see 15+ points scored in that final 2 minutes with one team hitting a couple 3 pointers while the other makes it's foul shots. Rarely does all that fouling cut into the lead. It just creates a lot of scoring in the final 2 minutes.
But by betting the half time under total you eliminate both these problems. No overtime. None of that fouling in the last two minutes. extra bonus is that in the final 30 seconds there will be exactly 1 possession. Even teams that like to run up and down the floor will hold for 1 shot with under 30 seconds. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Well, Yeah, especially if you are getting less than 5x rollovers on 20k.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJYou can do the flipping coins thing if your EV is coming from bonus money rather than winning picks. But that is boring. I try to come up with something that is going to be better than 50-50. Don't succeed all that much, but I try. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
I am currently on a kick of betting college basketball first half unders. Not blindly, nor all games. I look at the defensive efficiency and Pace stats for teams and you can usually find a few games each day. (maybe a dozen on Saturdays), where you think total will be under, particularly that a higher scoring team will be slowed down
Of course there are 2 end of game situations that can screw all that work up. 1) overtime. You pick a game to go under and it is on pace for under the whole game and regulation ends tied. and the game goes over in Overtime. 2). final 2 minutes with all the fouling. If a team is losing by 5-10 points, when they hit 2 minutes they start fouling. Not uncommon to see 15+ points scored in that final 2 minutes with one team hitting a couple 3 pointers while the other makes it's foul shots. Rarely does all that fouling cut into the lead. It just creates a lot of scoring in the final 2 minutes.
But by betting the half time under total you eliminate both these problems. No overtime. None of that fouling in the last two minutes. extra bonus is that in the final 30 seconds there will be exactly 1 possession. Even teams that like to run up and down the floor will hold for 1 shot with under 30 seconds. ;)
It's still a head-scratcher how you pulled that off.
Most of the time it's at least 10X oftentimes that's on the deposit and bonus. Now let's assume you can't go with the big bet or bust method due to $500 max bet limitations.
Obviously, there are other things, better deals, bigger percentages, and extra stuff that pad your situation, but let's look at the standard that you can easily get on the regular.
I have a question for you, let's say you deposit $5,000 and get a $5000 bonus how much are you giving up with the wagering via just flipping coins? Don't forget to factor in the fact that you might actually go bust naturally.
In the end, you will see that if you're just flipping coins there is very little profit to be had and a lot of time invested in wagering.
That's why I keep saying if someone can just break even on sports there's significant money to be made.
In the fall of 2020 by buddy, Randy McKay told me he was going to Colorado for the football season. He's been going ever since. He told me conditions were much better there than in Las Vegas.
Spencer Cornelia uncovered a gambling operation in Denver by bettors from Las Vegas. Interesting video. They aren't opinion betting. They're just working the discrepencies in the lines from book to book. A 20 minute video. Worth the watch:
https://youtu.be/7N05vGcw_tI?si=mMAhMEWPkFbdbT3t
Kudos to the groundbreaking "working the discrepancies in the lines from book to book."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckRVRxxP60Q
There was a time, on Tuesday mornings, when a stroll up Fremont yielded "working the discrepancies in the lines from book to book" as bettors launched on virgin numbers. Hell, sometimes as little as $400 or $500 could create discrepancies with which to work, since they were almost all independent of each other. Of course, that was 1982 or 1983, so that would be $1500 to $2000 in today's money.
Nice to know some folks haven't abandoned the old ways, and they even post about it on Youtube these days. Like Fred in this video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJRed, Why do you talk down to and take shots at AP's (you just did again), when you just admitted you are APing? That your winnings isn't coming from being a good handicapper or sports picker but from AP contents like selling picks and playing contests?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Like I just said, I am in my second stint of making some money from sports betting bonus whoring. But that money I am making is 100% from the bonus play. I am underwater just going by my picks. Can I call myself a great handicapper or sports bettor? :D
I guess I am just a little surprised. I though there were some legitimate players that won by handicapping games and winning better than 53% needed to overcome the juice. Based on mickey's research and even your comments, I guess not.
See, talking to you is largely a waste. Have you even understood what "Tipsters or Gypsters?" was? Or Handicappers' Report Card? Or The Sports Monitor? Or a publication called The Absolute Truth? Mickey even posted pages from "Tipsters or Gypsters?" on this site.
You don't really listen. There are people who actually win long-term. They are mostly specialists, and most of the winning takes place in college sports. The Walters' book is notable for NOT mentioning how he does what in which sports, by the way. There have always been college hoops savants. Some have lasted for years. The nature of college hoops, however, has constantly changed. The rules have changed. How those rules are officiated has changed (points of emphasis and all that). Shot clock has changed. What wins for a stretch for three or four years is no guarantee going forward when rules change. The three point line distance changes, for example. Sometimes nine inches means a lot, as opposed to six (LOL, Singer). The shot clock, for example. The degree to which NBA-style officiating bleeds down to lower levels.
All you have to do to figure out whether anybody wins long-term is dig up old "Tipsters or Gypsters?" and check the multi-year stats. Those stats actually UNDERreport the efficacy of handicappers because they are locked into lines in 24 to 48 hour periods prior to games. Shopping lines 24/7 would puff those stats up by 1 to 2 percent. Or dig up old Wise Guy Contest results. The cumulative numbers won't show much, but for some people, the college football numbers were pretty good for a span of 30 years. And again, those are not shopped numbers; they are locked numbers, so efficacy is actually higher than the results.
I talk down to "APs" because they think they're "sharps." LOL. They think they're part of the cool club, when there is literally nothing they are doing sports-wise that hasn't been done by handicappers for 40 years. It's the equivalent of listening to people brag about being able to make half their free throws, and then they give lessons.
The misperception of the "size of the clubs" is also funny. The number of people who have applied themselves to sports handicapping; the resources aimed at sports handicapping, and the expertise, have always dwarfed in number and resources applied the entire population of alleged AP players. And now, because sports gambling has become legal, "APs" think they are bringing something new to the table because they can what? Exploit bonuses? Been done for 50 years. Arbitrage? Been done for 50 years. Middles shooting? Been done for 50 years. Do simple math? Puh-lease. How 'bout them parlay calculators?
And here's the beauty of it. Because most know very little about the history of sports betting, the 'APs" think they are the experts! It's Dunning-Kruger to the nth.
Doesn’t matter when it was first exploited grandma Rat. The money is all that matters. That’s how we keep score. That’s really the measure of success in gambling. Nothing else
Thanks for the tip that flinch bets were around 40 years ago. What do you want, a participation trophy?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Once again the mouse flips off the elephant. Face it, ditz. Your ego is 10X your ability. You're just a small time capper working for ham and eggs.
Not long ago you were saying one couldn't make more than lunch money working those discrepencies. After evidence gets exposed once again you change your tune to anyone can do that shit.
In the past you've falsely accused AP's of saying they invented the shit. And here you go again. Many years ago Jean Scott quoted me about strategic gambling in one of her articles. Here's the quote:
"I don't try to reinvent the wheel. I study the person that invented the wheel."
That don't sound much like I think I invented anything does it? The fundamental in gambling I know best is combinatorial math. It's a 400 year old science.
This is what redietz would tell kids that have just learned to read: You think you invented that shit, kid? We were doing that shit 40 years ago.
Face it's Dietz. That gambling outfit in Denver has you outclassed. And so does my friend, Randy McKay. When I met him in the late nineties he lived in the books in Laughlin. He was just getting started then. Now it's 25 years later and he's a well-respected capper playing in 50K buy-in contests. He passed you like you were standing still.
A lot of people that are much newer to the game have passed you up. Eat your heart out.
Now take your participation trophy and go on home.
Remove the letters in red, which spell out 1evel_level, as in level one, to obtain the following.
---> One-hit wonder in the United States.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
https://anagram-solver.net/1%20don%2...X?partial=true
Now note the one hit wonder song, "Something About You", from Level-42. And, something called a steering wheel level.
Furthermore, my current number of posts is 168 = 42*4 ---> 42_24. And, the time of the video is 8:01 ---> 801 = (2*400 + 2^0) ---> 24_42.
https://youtu.be/v5WA-xvbF2M
Interestingly, the post time of 8:58 ---> 858, and, spot #1889, lead to 858*(1889 + 0^0) = 162162*10 ---> 1621621, whatever that means. Ha.
Oh, 1621621 = [(810810 + 0^0)^2 - 810810^2], as in the time of the video, with 810 ---> 810.
1Hit1der
1Hit1der is online now
Gold
1Hit1der's Avatar
Join Date
Nov 2023
Posts
168
If it felt like an infomercial, it's because Dave Miller offers a selection of services ranging from picks to partnerships.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I'm not there yet. The good news is I'm finding a steady supply of breakeven or slightly positive bets, without subscribing to any services for assistance.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
The bad news is the offshore bonuses don't feel very generous. Typical reloads are only worth about 2% of playthrough, and initial signups aren't much better than that.
Also, I have no idea how to look square, or whether it's worth the effort to try. In the casinos, sometimes video poker specialists will play slots for cover, but that's usually a wasteful effort imo unless they have AP slot knowledge.
For God's sake, don't use that word "square." LOL. It's like George Costanza deciding his nickname should be "T-Bone."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5ibSvOWAMg
Wait, wait, I get it! Or I got it!!
Use that term "square" all the time! That's actually a great idea. If anything will point to you being a "square," it's using the word "square" to describe other bettors.
It's like the old joke about "How do you know you're a sharp?" Answer(s): (1) "Because you say you are or (2) Because everybody else tells you that you are.
What's a "sharp?" Oh, I get it now. Stanford Wong named his book Sharp Sports Betting. So is Stanford on your shit list too? Every other knowledgeable sports bettor is.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
On that note, when I pronounce "Tipsters or Gypsters," I feel like I'm not rhyming the words exactly. The y vowel is influencing me toward "Gee-ipsters" almost.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmQuote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I looked on a phonological site, which said it's allowable until age 6 but after that it's a disorder.
I don't have mickey's mathematical abilities, so I am not comparing myself to him in that regard. But this philosophy about re-inventing the wheel is something I live by. I am going to put it in terms of blackjack card counting for a moment and then we will go back to other forms of advantage play.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
In card counting the wheel that was invented was the fact that some rounds favor house, some fairly neutral (small house advantage) and some favor the player (player advantage). And that by tracking the cards played (card counting) a player can identify those rounds that favor the player and bet more. THAT is the wheel that was invented long ago.
Now some people come along and try to reinvent that wheel by coming up with "super duper counts" (the guy on Norm's website) or specialized "column counts" (the late moses). These things are not re-inventing the wheel. Just using the wheel in different sizes. The guy that invented the wheel still invented the wheel. And really these new counts don't even add much. Most still identify the exact same situations advantageous to the player. So there is absolutely no re-inventing the wheel with these new counts. Just guys trying to make a name for themselves. That is all it feels like to me.
And then even worse you will have someone come along and claim to win by really re-inventing the wheel. Say something like he wins by "betting into hot steaks", or by "progression wagering". That kind of (long disproven nonsense) is pre-wheel invention. That is like back to the square wheel and trying to make that work again, when it was long ago proven it doesn't.
These attempts at re-inventing the wheel irk me. Maybe that is my issue and not theirs. Maybe I should just laugh it off. But I usually don't. :rolleyes:
Now what I have done is use that wheel invented by other. You can make tweaks to it, which I would equate to betting in patterns that are better tolerated by casinos, including short sessions and limits better accepted. Or maybe something a little deeper like spreading wagers both ways. Even these "tweaks" added to the basic invention of the wheel are often not my own. They are things that others came up with and I have adopted or incorporated in my game. But they are things like the initial invention of the wheel (card counting) that actually work and still work.
Now moving on from blackjack and card counting. I don't see all that much difference in other games and opportunities. The math (the wheel) was invented a long time ago. It doesn't change and there is no need to reinvent it. All you need to do is tweak it and how it is applied to newer games. Unfortunately, a lot of that is above my grade. As well as my interest. Players like mickeycrimm are experts at that.
Don’t say square guys, just repeat tipsters and gypsterd again, and again, and again, and again instead. That’ll put them in their place.
A lot of the new things I see coming down the pike that are labeled as advantage play, I am not sure are really advantage play. If you are showing a profit betting sports because of the bonuses (as I have for the last 6 months) you aren't really beating sports....you are beating the bonuses.
Multi-carding isn't beating any casino game.....it is beating a glitch or hole in casino marketing.
Even Don Johnson didn't beat blackjack, he beat or exploited the loss rebate.
The real guys that did the double up bug, Kane and Nestor, didn't beat video poker, they beat a computer glitch.
I am not saying there is anything wrong with any of this. Nothing illegal, although I am still not sure about the double up bug. But none of this is pure advantage play of beating a game without the bonuses and holes in marketing, or rebates etc.
Anyway carry on. Red is the greatest sports bettor of all time. Mdawg is well I guess Rainman now. Singer....just the fool that always was Rob Singer.
Speaking of which. Rob Singer was the handle Rob Argentino came up with to 'mock' a real advantage player Bob Dancer. And that is ALL Singer has ever been and done is a mockery. Likewise, I believe Mdawgs intent was to make a mockery of Michael Shackleford, the math and his website WoV. He now claims that he and Shackleford are friends or have become friends. Maybe Shackleford is now in on it. But both these guys Singer and Mdawg it was about mocking the math and real players playing and winning by the math. In other words, it just wasn't real. Again maybe it is my issue that I can't just say that once and laugh at them like everyone else does. :confused:
Quite a 10x multiplier response!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
This is the kind of genius who touts himself as able to be savvy enuf to win at blackjack.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
No one beats a computer glitch. I used a glitch to beat the hell out of video poker.
I and many others have used sports betting bonuses, not to beat the bonuses, doofus. The bonuses are a tool sports bettors use to make a profit from the books.
As mdawg says, the longer the post by kew, the more lies it contains.....in addition to the glaring stupidity.
Where's "baby bro" when he needs him?
No you didn't. You stole that story from the news. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Of course you did! :rolleyes: You have never mentioned sports betting bonuses until now that others are talking about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Typical Singer: "Oh I did that before anyone else". :D
The first part of your quote answers the second part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don PerignomOn that note, when I pronounce "Tipsters or Gypsters," I feel like I'm not rhyming the words exactly. The y vowel is influencing me toward "Gee-ipsters" almost.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmQuote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I looked on a phonological site, which said it's allowable until age 6 but after that it's a disorder.
---> Leeds University Library's Gypsy, Traveller and Roma Collections.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View PostQuote:
Originally Posted by Redietz View Post
For God's sake, don't use that word "square." LOL.
https://anagram-solver.net/Originall....?partial=true
It's the only solution that uses all of the L's, for losses. And, the L's occur as in the quote as in the solution, except in reverse, with two sets of two L's occurring together, and, the two L's, of the other set, occurring one word apart.
What I call professional losing. Losing, as in misspelling leads as Leeds.
Perhaps, the y in gypsy may be extended, to go along with tiiiiiipsy. Ha.
1Hit1der 1Hit1der is online now
Gold
1Hit1der's AvatarJoin Date
Nov 2023
Posts
169
Versus UNKewLyingJ? and his fake news stories, that have yet to hit the news...about his fabricated Brittle Bones story.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
7/5/2023:6/24/2023:Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I don't want the microfilm clerk at the library to think I'm stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Hit1der
You sure about that, Nancy? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
"Nancy..."
LOL
More like a "Karen."
I like how this fraud who claims to value his privacy is so out there that a news reporter could find his email and phone number....lolQuote:
Originally Posted by MDawgVersus UNKewLyingJ? and his fake news stories, that have yet to hit the news...about his fabricated Brittle Bones story.
7/5/2023:
6/24/2023:Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
You could have my legal name and still not find those 2 things...RIP
I guess though when you're number is plastered in every restroom stall on the Strip it's kind of public info at that point:cool:
Do you never give up being an idiot MaxPen? The email address that I use to communicate with players I network with and anyone on the topic of blackjack is well known. If you google my real name, and check a couple of the free information sites, it shows up with the word "yahoo" slightly redacted. Not too hard to figure out. I have also even posted it on forums in the past. Rob Singer has even sent me harassing emails to that address. Come on Maxpen, I am sure a great sleuth like you could have come up with it if you wanted. :rolleyes:
In the case of the reporter than contacted me, she was given my name. I told her I didn't want to comment and explained why, but they still ran my name in the story. There was a story at a second station days later that did not include my name. That second story focused more on the casino actions. Both had video of the incident and it was not supplied by me or my attorney. Only other place it could have come from was someone at the casino involved. :D I find that kind of interesting.
But anyway, I am not really supposed to be discussing this shit, so that is all I am going to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Wait a second. Are you claiming that news stories were aired about your alleged backrooming incident?
You know that stuff is archived so please save us all some time and just back off of this claim now.
You can't help yourself....lolQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
It is compulsive. No other explanation...RIP
Bbbbbwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh, if the kewl-J told me that the sky is blue I'd have to go outside and eye-ball it myself just to be sure, hey hey!!!!
Looks like KJ took an EO tonight.
He had to bow out before his ever prattling forked tongue got him in more conflagrations.
The news stories already aired - ech.
But even the “reporter found my email online” lie is worthless. The only way anyone would conceivably find his email online is connected to his screen name Kewlj. As if “KewlJ” would ever have been associated with his Brittle Bones casino incident in the first place in any manner in which a news reporter would have found it. UNKewlJ would like us to think that the world is hanging on his every post and reporters were scouring the internet so closely that they found his little fable on this little forum and connected it immediately with the real world incident and then emailed him. Lol why not just create a username and PM him here at the forum?
And a reporter coming up with his phone number - again, ech.
That’s your boy MrV. You still profess kinship with him and his ever present lies?
A pretty good interview:
https://youtu.be/0kDqaWvQNcw?si=IG9-JgleUjey2mPr
Spanky seems like a good guy, but I can't listen to him. His coughing into the microphone is brutal when listening with the volume up in a loud environment. I'm subscribed to his podcast, and when he has an interesting topic or guest, I convert the mp3 to text.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Never ever seen a retard with such a compulsion to lie.
My guess is kew wet his pants as he concocted this story about reporters etc. But then wouldn't 'cha know it--baby bro took off with his last pair of clean underware, and all he could do was lie some more about his brokeback casino incident in order to deal with it!
He da "Man About LV" alright :)
Great. You call him a liar but don't say what he lied about. That's a real strong case you built. Not.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Continued, from https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...l=1#post171125
Don, I'm much more concerned about the mental health of Redietz, KJ, and Singer, so I thrice removed the word, gypsy, from the society of your last relevant quote, to ensure that they, "Go to VCT, go directly to VCT". Interestingly, each of the letters of gypsy were used up, by either stroking those letters out, and/or putting those into the anagram solution.
---> Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illnesses and the Improvement of Mental Health Care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Perignom View Post
I don't want the microfilm clerk at the library to think I'm stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Hit1der View Post
The first part of your quote answers the second part.
https://anagram-solver.net/OriinallP...d?partial=true
And, after I thought about it, some more, with Roma as right outta my ass, to have the same number of words between those sets of L's, and, with gypsy extended to g y y y y y y y y y s p y, for 13 letters, with a letter for each of words between those sets of L's.
Now how about a song?
---> Can't Take That Away (Mariah's Theme). [For matter and time]Quote:
Yes, I think that that was the perfect anagram with gematria. Ha.
https://anagram-solver.net/Yes,%20I%....?partial=true
https://youtu.be/nepPReposR0
Note the time of the video, 4:32 ---> 432 = 2* (6*6*6) ---> 666_666, to go with the 6 L's, of the initial thus quote, with L the 12th letter of the alphabet, as 6*(6 + 6) ---> 666.
1Hit1der
1Hit1der is online now
Gold
1Hit1der's Avatar
Join Date
Nov 2023
Posts
170 ---> 170 = (1 + 169) ---> 1/169 = 1/(109 + 6*10) ---> 1/1961
Furthermore, if go by the 6 L's, in a different way, then 6*12 = 72, for day- 7/2 as July 7.
Thank you for the important work you're doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Hit1der
I asked the microfilm clerk for the latest edition of "Tipsters or Hungarian Americans" and she said there were no matches in the catalog.
It's hard to find good clerical help.
To be clear - I was talking about kewl and not spanking or whomever.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmGreat. You call him a liar but don't say what he lied about. That's a real strong case you built. Not.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Was clear to me. When the guy tries to make his case he just ends up making himself look like even more of a liar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by soxfan