Scrape your drunk ass off the tractor and explain what and why you are hiding from Bob Dietz.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Printable View
Scrape your drunk ass off the tractor and explain what and why you are hiding from Bob Dietz.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
It just dawned on me that Redietz despises Kelly as much as EV because his approach does not work at all for that. He just picks a few things where he feels the line is off after he does his handicapping.
He can't really estimate an EV with his methodology of hunches. SO it is also something worthy of his ridicule. As is applying Kelly to sports betting.
You change your email name. You could always send an email elsewhere. Just look at all the headers. I have no idea but if your real name is not on the account and isn't linked on the internet and it isn't leaking your IP then you're fine. Even having someone know your IP means very little. I sometimes get IP addresses that are 3 hours away when I use a hotspot for example. Some residential ips can kinda be narrowed down moreso. Whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfA significant amount of personal information/location can be scraped from emails. Didn't he say his brother-in-law or someone close to him was a PI?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJIntegritysporsts @ AOL(dot) com. (done intentionally so as not to aid his spamming).Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
All I can say is AOL???? :D Again, does this Dietz fella know what year it is? What century it is?
And yes, I have always been suspicious that Mr Dietz wants everyone to submit any correspondence to his Tout email account. I mean it could be a question/comment that you could ask right in the public forum or PM/DM using the forum. But no, he wants you to email his TOUT account. I am sure there is something up with that.
Was this table in FB's house?Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfPlease, do tell. ... We bough a 100% real craps table.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim Lee
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim Lee
per the link Wong has backed off his claim that craps can be beaten with dice influencing -
but I don't see how Kim Lee's fading of Wong's dice action would be advantageous - the HE is still there - maybe he just did it for fun - that would be my guess
"And finally, in April 2011, in a tacit admission that he had been wrong in believing casino craps could be legitimately beaten, Wong removed craps from the list of “Beatable Casino Games” on his popular BJ21.com website, and also removed the “Craps” discussion page from his site, as well. In addition, a few months later, in October 2011, in an interview on Bob Dancer’s popular KLAV radio program, “Gambling With an Edge,” Wong admitted that for players “who want to get serious about making money in casinos, craps is not the game to play.” That pretty much says it all."
https://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/gamb...lKZDMXMJRCnon3
.
Here's what the AI says about Kelly betting:
"In time, however, sports bettors and Wall Street traders realized the value of the formula as an investment management system that could help protect assets and maximize earnings. The Kelly Criterion (or simply "Kelly") is now widely recognized as the "truest" sports betting bankroll management strategy."
Bob Dietz' anti-kelly stance should be brought up in any interview.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Evidently, unlike some folks, I have read the definition and caveats regarding use of Kelly Criterion, all of which are available if you simply Google it. Although, if you read the definitions carefully, it is possible for God to apply Kelly Criterion to sports betting.
I did not know there were so many omniscient people in the "AP" world. I salute you. You should probably start your own religion. Wait...you have, now that I think about it.
I love this. I get to bring in social psychological research from left field because it's apropos.
In other words, you never read Kelly's original paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
To prove you at least Googled it, tell us the Kelly bet for a 56% handicapper laying -110 with a bankroll of $10k? Then what is his bankroll after winning 56 and losing 44 sequential Kelly bets? What is his bankroll after 40 seasons of this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim LeeIn other words, you never read Kelly's original paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
To prove you at least Googled it, tell us the Kelly bet for a 56% handicapper laying -110 with a bankroll of $10k? Then what is his bankroll after winning 56 and losing 44 sequential Kelly bets? What is his bankroll after 40 seasons of this?
None of this is relevant. There are only 56% handicappers past tense. And there are no 56% handicappers cross sports. I doubt there are 53% handicappers cross sports. So what are you asking? To presume that someone who has generated 56% ATS winners IN THE PAST IN A SPECIFIC SPORT will continue to do so ad infinitum?
These are not coin flips. The personnel regs for something like college football or college basketball can change radically from season to season. If anything underlines the inanity of presuming, it would be the current state of both major college sports, where the entire gestalt is radically different from even five years ago and requires completely different emphases and analyses. The leagues have changed memberships to such a degree, that presumption could get you killed. With the average head coach lasting less than four years at any institution, relying on even-relatively-recent emphases is silly. And co-ordinators, who in many instances actually run the ship, change even more frequently.
And, as you may suspect from reading McCusker or following other monitors, college football and college basketball have been (note the past tense) the most beatable sports. So good luck with the logic of applying Kelly Criterion to non-random events.
But Alan M. always said DI was a legitimate method of profiting from gambling. And he's witnessed it as well as having had some success with it. An actual player!Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim Lee
per the link Wong has backed off his claim that craps can be beaten with dice influencing -
but I don't see how Kim Lee's fading of Wong's dice action would be advantageous - the HE is still there - maybe he just did it for fun - that would be my guess
"And finally, in April 2011, in a tacit admission that he had been wrong in believing casino craps could be legitimately beaten, Wong removed craps from the list of “Beatable Casino Games” on his popular BJ21.com website, and also removed the “Craps” discussion page from his site, as well. In addition, a few months later, in October 2011, in an interview on Bob Dancer’s popular KLAV radio program, “Gambling With an Edge,” Wong admitted that for players “who want to get serious about making money in casinos, craps is not the game to play.” That pretty much says it all."
https://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/gamb...lKZDMXMJRCnon3
.
Doesn't that supercede anything a guy like Wong comes up with, who won't lift a finger, print a word, or say a thing unless it benefits him commercially?
I don't consider Alan (r.i.p.) to have been an expert on gambling - I guess he was just speaking about his observations - observations are not proofsQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerBut Alan M. always said DI was a legitimate method of profiting from gambling. And he's witnessed it as well as having had some success with it. An actual player!Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim Lee
per the link Wong has backed off his claim that craps can be beaten with dice influencing -
but I don't see how Kim Lee's fading of Wong's dice action would be advantageous - the HE is still there - maybe he just did it for fun - that would be my guess
"And finally, in April 2011, in a tacit admission that he had been wrong in believing casino craps could be legitimately beaten, Wong removed craps from the list of “Beatable Casino Games” on his popular BJ21.com website, and also removed the “Craps” discussion page from his site, as well. In addition, a few months later, in October 2011, in an interview on Bob Dancer’s popular KLAV radio program, “Gambling With an Edge,” Wong admitted that for players “who want to get serious about making money in casinos, craps is not the game to play.” That pretty much says it all."
https://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/gamb...lKZDMXMJRCnon3
.
Doesn't that supercede anything a guy like Wong comes up with, who won't lift a finger, print a word, or say a thing unless it benefits him commercially?
in America, everything, even trivial things, are studied to death
so, in thinking about it - I would have to believe that if dice influencing were possible it would have been proven somehow and somewhere with thousands of rolls
academics love this kind of thing
and guess what - I found an academic study - see link
these PhDs built a machine they called "Lucky Lil" and calibrated it to throw the dice in a way that they believed might produce non random results
they tested both short rolls that did not hit the back wall and legal rolls that did hit the back wall
but alas - "Lucky Lil" failed to produce any results that were significantly different than random results
the is I believe because the action of the dice becomes chaotic once it hits the table and then even more so when it hits the back wall with the pyramids
https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/...5&context=grrj
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by Kim LeeIn other words, you never read Kelly's original paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
To prove you at least Googled it, tell us the Kelly bet for a 56% handicapper laying -110 with a bankroll of $10k? Then what is his bankroll after winning 56 and losing 44 sequential Kelly bets? What is his bankroll after 40 seasons of this?
None of this is relevant. There are only 56% handicappers past tense. And there are no 56% handicappers cross sports. I doubt there are 53% handicappers cross sports. So what are you asking? To presume that someone who has generated 56% ATS winners IN THE PAST IN A SPECIFIC SPORT will continue to do so ad infinitum?
These are not coin flips. The personnel regs for something like college football or college basketball can change radically from season to season. If anything underlines the inanity of presuming, it would be the current state of both major college sports, where the entire gestalt is radically different from even five years ago and requires completely different emphases and analyses. The leagues have changed memberships to such a degree, that presumption could get you killed. With the average head coach lasting less than four years at any institution, relying on even-relatively-recent emphases is silly. And co-ordinators, who in many instances actually run the ship, change even more frequently.
And, as you may suspect from reading McCusker or following other monitors, college football and college basketball have been (note the past tense) the most beatable sports. So good luck with the logic of applying Kelly Criterion to non-random events.
You know, this is the old, somewhat banal observation. People gambling perceive, define, and yearn for more control than they actually have. If you go to the social-psychological experiments addressing this (I'm admittedly dated -- '70s, '80s, '90s publications), Americans almost always perceive more control than they have. It's classic. So let's take a guy who doesn't win at sports betting, and he's going to argue, for some reason, than using Kelly Criterion for a non-random series of betting events is the key to the kingdom. Have at it. It looks silly to me, but when you solve it to the point that you win, please let everyone know, and you can shout from the rooftops that Kelly Criterion was the key.
For those of us in reality, who specialize and win at specific sports, taking them one season at a time because, you know, shit changes (sometimes radically), this entire subject is a MacGuffin. College football seasons are their own individual things. Sometimes you solve them; occasionally you don't. There's no magic yellow brick road where if you walk a mile, you can see the next mile.
I simply asked you to prove you understood Kelly by doing a simple calculation. Instead, you obfuscate because you don't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzNone of this is relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim Lee
VP was and Slots mentioned regarding Kelly previously in this thread, and I was thinking about it again. I don't think Kelly is best suited for VP and Slots AP and Slots, since you can't really scale up like you can in BJ and sports betting. With Slot and VP AP are generally dictated by what's available and what you know about at any given time. You could be playing a $100 denomination one day at a 2% Advantage and be playing a $1 denomination the next day with a 5% advantage. I guess one could use Kelly in certain close-hand situations to change up their strategy slightly.
I think figuring out your ROR on bigger plays would be way more useful than Kelly, given the reality of Slots and VP AP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Did Stanford put his oic out there to be recognized?Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionWhere is the picture of Stanford Wong?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJLike I said, craps isn't my thing. I have never played. Not 1 dollar. But what surprised me about Wong and DI, was that EVERYTHING about the man was about the Mathematics of gambling. Getting an edge based on the mathematics. And that wasn't the case with the DI thing. It was surprising. I am sure I have told my Standford Wong story either here or at WoV before.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
I met him at Westin. I lived just up the street at the Platinum (Koval/Flamingo) at the time and walked to somewhere on the strip most days, so I walked right past Westin. They didn't have much live blackjack to speak of (I think they had a table open on weekends but they weren't going to tolerate my action, so I never played). But they did have a good little cafe/restaurant that I liked and made a great burger, so I stopped in once a week.
So I walked past Wong playing the dealer's angel (was that the name?) blackjack game. So I sat down. Up until that point I didn't know the game was beatable, because I didn't know when the shuffle point was. But I figured if he was playing it, it was beatable. We struck up a conversation and he asked if I counted cards and told me that when they changed dealers was the shuffle point. I had thought maybe that was the case, but didn't know for sure. I did tell him my first name, but never told him that I was a member on his forum. I don't know why. Well....I guess I do know why....thats the way I am. :rolleyes:
A while later I saw him again playing again at Westin. He must have liked that set up. Or maybe it was just a close easy shot from where his condo was on the other side of the strip.
prolly he put it out there after he retired from playingQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
.
.
.
I heard some APs considered grouping up to exploit DI, but then decided instead to form a "quitting when ahead" team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
It didn't last very long.
There's been talk about Kim Lee being KJ or some nonsense. I haven't paid much attention to that aspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim LeeI simply asked you to prove you understood Kelly by doing a simple calculation. Instead, you obfuscate because you don't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzNone of this is relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kim Lee
This post and some others certainly don't sound like KJ to me.
So why the strong feeling it's KJ? I don't know, but Kim Lee could be sharing his account with KJ, or it could be his brother, or someone else, I suppose.
Has/Does Kim Lee have an account at WOV?
If so, I would wonder if someone has access to information related to IP addresses, and there happened to be some correlation with past IP addresses between KL and KJ.
I don't know, I'm just throwing that out there as food for thought.
I'll let you guys figure it out, as I really don't care beyond this post.
OMG!!!!! STOP THE DI TALK!!!!!! It's been discussed ad nauseam. If it's possible, it's not worth it, and even if it were only one in a billion people, maybe can do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half SmokeI don't consider Alan (r.i.p.) to have been an expert on gambling - I guess he was just speaking about his observations - observations are not proofsQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.SingerBut Alan M. always said DI was a legitimate method of profiting from gambling. And he's witnessed it as well as having had some success with it. An actual player!Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
Doesn't that supercede anything a guy like Wong comes up with, who won't lift a finger, print a word, or say a thing unless it benefits him commercially?
in America, everything, even trivial things, are studied to death
so, in thinking about it - I would have to believe that if dice influencing were possible it would have been proven somehow and somewhere with thousands of rolls
academics love this kind of thing
and guess what - I found an academic study - see link
these PhDs built a machine they called "Lucky Lil" and calibrated it to throw the dice in a way that they believed might produce non random results
they tested both short rolls that did not hit the back wall and legal rolls that did hit the back wall
but alas - "Lucky Lil" failed to produce any results that were significantly different than random results
the is I believe because the action of the dice becomes chaotic once it hits the table and then even more so when it hits the back wall with the pyramids
https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/...5&context=grrj
.