My Apologies to MDawg and coach belly

Let me recap what has really happened here. Dietz invoked Kim Lees name, talking him up as an academic (which Red puts on a pedestal) and someone who had all the publications from the 1980's and 90's and knew all about the contests and rankings that are part of this handi-scamming operation of the 80s/90s era. I let Kim Lee know that Red had mentioned him and Kim Lee came here and gave his expert opinion, which happened to be the same as mine, mickey's axelwlolf, that Dietz was NOT the successful sports betting guru for 40 years but more of a "tout".

Having shared his expert opinion, which was opposite of what Dietz thought and hoped he might say, Dietz, MDOG and coach belly, the current troll patrol, are now out to discredit their very own expert witness, which happens in court all the time.

I feel bad that I ever contacted Kim Lee. I know he is a big boy and can handle the trolling and handle himself, but what was I thinking suggesting anyone visit this troll/sewer of a forum. I didn't really suggest that he come here, but I did open the door. For THAT I apologize Kim Lee.

Meanwhile Kim Lee's conclusion based on studying the publications is correct and almost exactly in line with what not only I, but mickey, and Axelwolf thought. That any money Dietz made in the sports betting arena came as a tout selling picks, not as a sports bettor making picks.

I particularly enjoyed the conclusion that Dietz might have broke even or made a little bit of money, if he had a GF or wife that supported him, paid the rent ect. This was particularly interesting because I don't think Kim Lee knew about Red's wife, a professor at a college in the town Red resides. And yet he hit it right on the head.

This little troll patrol group thinks they can break me. They will NEVER break me. They haven't don't it in 9 years now. I KNOW how Las Vegas works. I live here. I play here. I make a living here. And it doesn't work the way MDOG claims that players, win, win, win and get all the comps and freebies reserved for losing players.

Granted, I know less about sports betting, and especially about the scam-icapping of the 1980's and 90's. But I am learning. And Dietz's story has just never rang true. And now we know why.

If he could have hit 56% even at a cherry picked sports, picking his best, he would be the second coming of Billy Walters, who lives in a mansion and flies in his own private jet, not someone who lives in East Bumble (bumble right?) Fuck Tennessee and visits Vegas a couple times a year on a budget plan.

If he had hit 56%, he wouldn't have needed investors or clients. He would have bet, won, repeated a million times, and never looked back. Instead, all we get is looking back 40 years.

If he had hit 56% he wouldn't have been let go from Billy Walters operation. I would really love for someone to ask Mr Walters about Bob Dietz. My guess is he would say "who?" And yet Dietz name drops Billy Walters nearly every day.

And all the trolling and trying to discredit different people this little troll patrol does, doesn't change these facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

The mere need for walls of text to Explain Her Position denotes the rottenness of this matter.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

Guess who said this UNKewlJ?

He's pretty much a pathological liar you can't believe anything he says. But also probably a sociopath and they have no guilt no shame no embarrassment. They simply make up lies to cover the other lies.

Could it be perhaps that well known AP you used to think is on your side?

But it was so well said I decided to just adopt it for myself.

---

Dog....and it IS dog, not Dawg, I eat trolls like you for breakfast, lunch and dinner. And sometimes even a late night snack. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

With sociopaths it's all about what they need at the moment. It is now evidently clear that this is what we are dealing with when it comes to this fraud.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

There's no way a respectable Ivy League assistant professor would act as he has...unless he had a peculiar malfunction of some sort...(wink wink nudge nudge nudge y'know what I mean?)

---

There's no way a respectable High rolling, super multi millionaire attorney who can hit 80% of hit baccarat ties due to his photographic memory would act as MD has...unless he had a peculiar malfunction of some sort...(wink wink nudge nudge nudge y'know what I mean?)

https://i.imgur.com/CEqOTAP.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/zmPBBJ5.jpg

The KewlJ problem runs deep. I have been clued in, and it's really way more definitive than I thought.

I'm sure he/they have figured out what exposed them by now, but they are stuck because if they suddenly change what linked them, it's just damning on top of damning. I'm shocked at how stupid/naive I was, but I'm a little surprised how sloppy/naive they have been. In my opinion, the likelihood of kewlJ contributing to Kim Lee's posts or "being Kim Lee" is way higher than his not having done so. But since I've been an idiot thus far, I can't take my own estimates seriously.

No point in engaging either. I'd most likely be arguing with or exposing a ghost. And yeah, the tip-offs were that obvious. But maybe all blackjack players share the same steno pool. Or maybe they all share a ghostwriter. Who knows?

KewlJ uses a bunch of straw man arguments in the post above, almost all of which can be easily countered and pretty much have been. If you win 56%, you have no need of (A), unless of course you don't have a half-million-dollar starting stake when you're 22. If you hit 56%, you don't need to do (B) unless of course that 56% is a dozen-event surplus per annum that can vary wildly. Again, I state 56%; kewlJ decides unilaterally that is 56% every year with predictable (non)variance going forward. Sorry, reality doesn't work that way. The 56% is past tense, just like using the term "EV" should be for sports betting. Again, kewlJ attaching the probability of random events in impermeable settings to non-random events in a permeable setting.

Now, what I just stated in a couple quick sentences is both obvious as hell and completely neutralizes the KewlJ arguments. But that's not really the point. I think his responses are all just distractions at this point. He likely realizes he got caught and is spinning his wheels until he figures out how he fucked up and how to correct it. Well, I do not think there is a way to correct it without his underlining the fuck-up in bright yellow. I think he got caught, and it's going on his permanent record, so to speak.

He got caught...again. As usual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

If you win 56%, you have no need of (A), unless of course you don't have a half-million-dollar starting stake when you're 22. If you hit 56%, you don't need to do (B) unless of course that 56% is a dozen-event surplus per annum that can vary wildly. Again, I state 56%; kewlJ decides unilaterally that is 56% every year with predictable (non)variance going forward. Sorry, reality doesn't work that way. The 56% is past tense, just like using the term "EV" should be for sports betting. Again, kewlJ attaching the probability of random events in impermeable settings to non-random events in a permeable setting.



He got caught...again. As usual.

---

On your old website, Integrity Sports(IIRC), how did you come up with that 10% of what they should expect to earn (however you phrased it)?

Did you add all that stuff to the fine print warning investors?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

This little troll patrol group thinks they can break me. They will NEVER break me. They haven't don't it in 9 years now. I KNOW how Las Vegas works. I live here. I play here. I make a living here. And it doesn't work the way MDOG claims that players, win, win, win and get all the comps and freebies reserved for losing players.

Granted, I know less about sports betting, and especially about the scam-icapping of the 1980's and 90's. But I am learning. And Dietz's story has just never rang true. And now we know why.

If he could have hit 56% even at a cherry picked sports, picking his best, he would be the second coming of Billy Walters, who lives in a mansion and flies in his own private jet, not someone who lives in East Bumble (bumble right?) Fuck Tennessee and visits Vegas a couple times a year on a budget plan.

If he had hit 56%, he wouldn't have needed investors or clients. He would have bet, won, repeated a million times, and never looked back. Instead, all we get is looking back 40 years.

If he had hit 56% he wouldn't have been let go from Billy Walters operation. I would really love for someone to ask Mr Walters about Bob Dietz. My guess is he would say "who?" And yet Dietz name drops Billy Walters nearly every day.

And all the trolling and trying to discredit different people this little troll patrol does, doesn't change these facts.

---

Thank you so much!

You got the East BUMBLE Fuck right!

The East Bubble Fuck was driving my OCD crazy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

This little troll patrol group thinks they can break me. They will NEVER break me. They haven't don't it in 9 years now. I KNOW how Las Vegas works. I live here. I play here. I make a living here. And it doesn't work the way MDOG claims that players, win, win, win and get all the comps and freebies reserved for losing players.

Granted, I know less about sports betting, and especially about the scam-icapping of the 1980's and 90's. But I am learning. And Dietz's story has just never rang true. And now we know why.

If he could have hit 56% even at a cherry picked sports, picking his best, he would be the second coming of Billy Walters, who lives in a mansion and flies in his own private jet, not someone who lives in East Bumble (bumble right?) Fuck Tennessee and visits Vegas a couple times a year on a budget plan.

If he had hit 56%, he wouldn't have needed investors or clients. He would have bet, won, repeated a million times, and never looked back. Instead, all we get is looking back 40 years.

If he had hit 56% he wouldn't have been let go from Billy Walters operation. I would really love for someone to ask Mr Walters about Bob Dietz. My guess is he would say "who?" And yet Dietz name drops Billy Walters nearly every day.

And all the trolling and trying to discredit different people this little troll patrol does, doesn't change these facts.

---

You just can't help yourself....you can't stop trying to foolishly pretend you're something you are not.

Nobody tries to "break you" kew. You do that all by yourself. You come to these forums out of a serious lack of self-worth and self-confidence, with two goals in mind:

First, you try to portray yourself as something you're not, likely to compensate for having done absolutely nothing productive in your meaningless-to-society, useless little life. And secondly, you get extraordinarily agitated over the reported successes of others who have called you out for the liar and phony you know you are--and that you have been proven to be by virtually every one of your peers.

This, of course, is all the result of you being a faggot. You KNOW & UNDERSTAND your blatant inferiority, and while you have no friends in real life because you know what a loser you truly are compared to others, your sick mind pretends you're really the character you've made up on the internet.

It's plain as day kew--and at the end of it you have no value. And it's all because of YOU....and not anyone else.

Why isn't this retard pretending he can afford an RV?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

The KewlJ problem runs deep. I have been clued in, and it's really way more definitive than I thought.

I'm sure he/they have figured out what exposed them by now, but they are stuck because if they suddenly change what linked them, it's just damning on top of damning. I'm shocked at how stupid/naive I was, but I'm a little surprised how sloppy/naive they have been. In my opinion, the likelihood of kewlJ contributing to Kim Lee's posts or "being Kim Lee" is way higher than his not having done so. But since I've been an idiot thus far, I can't take my own estimates seriously.

No point in engaging either. I'd most likely be arguing with or exposing a ghost. And yeah, the tip-offs were that obvious. But maybe all blackjack players share the same steno pool. Or maybe they all share a ghostwriter. Who knows?

KewlJ uses a bunch of straw man arguments in the post above, almost all of which can be easily countered and pretty much have been. If you win 56%, you have no need of (A), unless of course you don't have a half-million-dollar starting stake when you're 22. If you hit 56%, you don't need to do (B) unless of course that 56% is a dozen-event surplus per annum that can vary wildly. Again, I state 56%; kewlJ decides unilaterally that is 56% every year with predictable (non)variance going forward. Sorry, reality doesn't work that way. The 56% is past tense, just like using the term "EV" should be for sports betting. Again, kewlJ attaching the probability of random events in impermeable settings to non-random events in a permeable setting.

Now, what I just stated in a couple quick sentences is both obvious as hell and completely neutralizes the KewlJ arguments. But that's not really the point. I think his responses are all just distractions at this point. He likely realizes he got caught and is spinning his wheels until he figures out how he fucked up and how to correct it. Well, I do not think there is a way to correct it without his underlining the fuck-up in bright yellow. I think he got caught, and it's going on his permanent record, so to speak.


He got caught...again. As usual.

---

56% and using just quarter kelly or less would have made you a multi millionaire in 20 years.

PS if you were betting a fixed percentage of bankroll per event then you would have been kelly betting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

You just can't help yourself....you can't stop trying to foolishly pretend you're something you are not.

Nobody tries to "break you" kew. You do that all by yourself. You come to these forums out of a serious lack of self-worth and self-confidence, with two goals in mind:

First, you try to portray yourself as something you're not, likely to compensate for having done absolutely nothing productive in your meaningless-to-society, useless little life. And secondly, you get extraordinarily agitated over the reported successes of others who have called you out for the liar and phony you know you are--and that you have been proven to be by virtually every one of your peers.

This, of course, is all the result of you being a faggot. You KNOW & UNDERSTAND your blatant inferiority, and while you have no friends in real life because you know what a loser you truly are compared to others, your sick mind pretends you're really the character you've made up on the internet.

It's plain as day kew--and at the end of it you have no value. And it's all because of YOU....and not anyone else.

---

https://i.imgur.com/3nmNeg9m.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozzy

Rob, you certainly have the UNKOOL1 number though, you have him pegged ! :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

The KewlJ problem runs deep. I have been clued in, and it's really way more definitive than I thought.

I'm sure he/they have figured out what exposed them by now, but they are stuck because if they suddenly change what linked them, it's just damning on top of damning. I'm shocked at how stupid/naive I was, but I'm a little surprised how sloppy/naive they have been. In my opinion, the likelihood of kewlJ contributing to Kim Lee's posts or "being Kim Lee" is way higher than his not having done so. But since I've been an idiot thus far, I can't take my own estimates seriously.

No point in engaging either. I'd most likely be arguing with or exposing a ghost. And yeah, the tip-offs were that obvious. But maybe all blackjack players share the same steno pool. Or maybe they all share a ghostwriter. Who knows?

KewlJ uses a bunch of straw man arguments in the post above, almost all of which can be easily countered and pretty much have been. If you win 56%, you have no need of (A), unless of course you don't have a half-million-dollar starting stake when you're 22. If you hit 56%, you don't need to do (B) unless of course that 56% is a dozen-event surplus per annum that can vary wildly. Again, I state 56%; kewlJ decides unilaterally that is 56% every year with predictable (non)variance going forward. Sorry, reality doesn't work that way. The 56% is past tense, just like using the term "EV" should be for sports betting. Again, kewlJ attaching the probability of random events in impermeable settings to non-random events in a permeable setting.

Now, what I just stated in a couple quick sentences is both obvious as hell and completely neutralizes the KewlJ arguments. But that's not really the point. I think his responses are all just distractions at this point. He likely realizes he got caught and is spinning his wheels until he figures out how he fucked up and how to correct it. Well, I do not think there is a way to correct it without his underlining the fuck-up in bright yellow. I think he got caught, and it's going on his permanent record, so to speak.


He got caught...again. As usual.

---

56% and using just quarter kelly or less would have made you a multi millionaire in 20 years.

PS if you were betting a fixed percentage of bankroll per event then you would have been kelly betting

---

. Can one do a breakdown given the approximate average number of bets Red claims to be betting for his investors with a starting bankroll of 5k

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

The KewlJ problem runs deep. I have been clued in, and it's really way more definitive than I thought.

I'm sure he/they have figured out what exposed them by now, but they are stuck because if they suddenly change what linked them, it's just damning on top of damning. I'm shocked at how stupid/naive I was, but I'm a little surprised how sloppy/naive they have been. In my opinion, the likelihood of kewlJ contributing to Kim Lee's posts or "being Kim Lee" is way higher than his not having done so. But since I've been an idiot thus far, I can't take my own estimates seriously.

No point in engaging either. I'd most likely be arguing with or exposing a ghost. And yeah, the tip-offs were that obvious. But maybe all blackjack players share the same steno pool. Or maybe they all share a ghostwriter. Who knows?

KewlJ uses a bunch of straw man arguments in the post above, almost all of which can be easily countered and pretty much have been. If you win 56%, you have no need of (A), unless of course you don't have a half-million-dollar starting stake when you're 22. If you hit 56%, you don't need to do (B) unless of course that 56% is a dozen-event surplus per annum that can vary wildly. Again, I state 56%; kewlJ decides unilaterally that is 56% every year with predictable (non)variance going forward. Sorry, reality doesn't work that way. The 56% is past tense, just like using the term "EV" should be for sports betting. Again, kewlJ attaching the probability of random events in impermeable settings to non-random events in a permeable setting.

Now, what I just stated in a couple quick sentences is both obvious as hell and completely neutralizes the KewlJ arguments. But that's not really the point. I think his responses are all just distractions at this point. He likely realizes he got caught and is spinning his wheels until he figures out how he fucked up and how to correct it. Well, I do not think there is a way to correct it without his underlining the fuck-up in bright yellow. I think he got caught, and it's going on his permanent record, so to speak.


He got caught...again. As usual.

---

56% and using just quarter kelly or less would have made you a multi millionaire in 20 years.

PS if you were betting a fixed percentage of bankroll per event then you would have been kelly betting

---

. Can one do a breakdown given the approximate average number of bets Red claims to be betting for his investors with a starting bankroll of 5k

---

That would be a lot of work

Redietz stated bet size of 0.7% of bankroll is way to small for a win percentage of 56% so its obvious red wasnt a kelly bettor. The big question is why was his betting unit so small when he had such a big edge?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Redietz stated bet size of 0.7% of bankroll is way to small for a win percentage of 56% so its obvious red wasnt a kelly bettor. The big question is why was his betting unit so small when he had such a big edge?

---

Language, mickey, language. I never used the phrase "betting unit." I said "bet per unit."

These "APs" seem routinely sloppy with their quotes and general language use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Redietz stated bet size of 0.7% of bankroll is way to small for a win percentage of 56% so its obvious red wasnt a kelly bettor. The big question is why was his betting unit so small when he had such a big edge?

---

Language, mickey, language. I never used the phrase "betting unit." I said "bet per unit."

These "APs" seem routinely sloppy with their quotes and general language use.

---

Hows life in the mdawg camp?

So what is “0.7% bet per unit.”