kewlJ can we have a Rob Singer update?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I complained to management here about things said about me that are just flat out lies. Management responded that the way to handle that was to demand that the person prove what they are saying or link to where it was said. I have done that with both Rob and Mdawg and they just ignore it.

---

You have got to be kidding with that bullshit...have you no shame?

---

No, have YOU no shame, cockroach? You just posted a quote from another forum, without acknowledging it was from another forum, making it look as if it from here. That is as dishonest as dishonest can be.

I am aware of the rules here, that unless you say something about the money-grubbing, big nosed Jews or that Todd/Dan Druff is a big nosed, money-grubbing Jew, that there are no limits to the bigotry and homophobic hate that is allowed. So no, that post is not from this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

You just posted a quote from another forum.
So no, that post is not from this forum.

---

What difference does that make?...still your words that you posted.

You quote posts from WOV all the time.

Nothing to do with bigotry or homophobia...simmer down now.

BTW...you have often insulted me with homophobic rhetoric...what's up with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

You just posted a quote from another forum

---

What difference does that make?...still your words that you posted.

You quote posts from WOV all the time.

Nothing to do with bigotry or homophobia...simmer down now.

BTW...you have often insulted me with homophobic rhetoric...what's up with that?

---

It makes a big difference. If you are posting a quote from another forum, you should disclaim that it is from another forum. When I post a quote from WoV, I state it is from WoV.

What difference does it make? For one thing, it might not even be the same person. Can you prove it is? Suppose I quote a coach belly from the KKK/nigger hating forum and don't disclose that it is from a different forum and may not even be the same person. Is that ok?

And just to be clear, my comments about Druff are not anti-sematic. I have no issues with Jews. Most are a little too hairy for my liking but at least they are circumcised and don't look like some snuffleupagus. I am just pointing out that there is no line until it hits home with Todd/dan Druff, then all the sudden you have crossed the line. But if the hate is directed at someone else...that is fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

If you are posting a quote from another forum, you should disclaim that it is from another forum.

What difference does it make? For one might not even be the same person. Can you prove it is?

---

I don't agree that I should disclaim, unless the quote is disputed.

I'll provide a link if requested, the readers can decide.

As far as who is posting as kewlj, I don't have to prove it's the same person.

I'll provide a link if requested, the readers can decide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Well, it comes down to this, basically, regarding the Leonardo da AP narrative.

1) What's more likely, (A1) that experts in particular sports have managed to win, grinding and battling each season or (A2) a population of self-proclaimed APs have managed to solve "sports betting" -- across all or most sports -- based on angles and principles and shopping?

2) That (B1) experts in particular sports can anticipate line moves based on their experience with the public, their experience with where most money will come from, and their experience with interpreting media coverage so as to provide the occasional arbitrage opportunity or consistent middle shots or (B2) APs can arbitrage most sports most of the time?

3) That (C1) line moves are erratic, based as often on media coverage, how the public interprets information, and vulnerable to zig-zagging by someone like Billy Walters or (C2) taking advantage of "slow" or "weak" lines is something APs can do on a regular basis?

4) That (D1) winning handicappers are specialists, focusing on particular sports where they have massive experience and intimate knowledge or (D2) winning handicappers are APs using their generalized approach to conquer all sports?

5) That (E1) winning handicappers are few and far between and have lifetimes of records backing them up or (E2) APs can be winning handicappers with some insight and application of their ideas as to what comprises an edge, but have no public records of such edges?

What's more likely, really, that many APs are jacks of all trades, conquering the betting world from every direction or that they are overestimating their abilities because they prefer to think of themselves as conquering polymaths?

One would expect the APs to be dominating all of the handicapping competitions. But they do not.

I leave the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.

---

It all comes down to weak lines. You have to find a source of what is equivalent to handicapping. You have to be able to do the math to figure out it is +EV. There are oodles of ways to fall within this. Doesn't matter what people tell you, your whole sense of self is tied into being some handicapper and you think that is the only way to beat sports.

It is funny how you make up shit to disagree with it. Who has said APs are "conquering the betting world from every direction"? Sure, but not some singular AP. Even positive handicappers fall under AP umbrella which makes your whole argument stupid.

You're such a fool if you think you'd know all secondary business of people in "handicapping competitions".

I'm pretty sure everyone here have described these situations as opportunities.

Perhaps the only reason you're so into these fucking contests is because you can beat them. If you had to beat juice I have a solid feeling you'd be/been a loser. This is why you're so quick to dismiss all the talk of prices and finding positive spots.

Not only that, but the market is going to be far less efficient because the house has no real interest in the outcome. You're playing against a bunch of amateurs. Oh you beat it huh? You should have cleaned up on fantasy sports like a lot of other APs did........... but you didn't ... we'll let the reader draw his or her own conclusions.

Actually maybe you are an AP because you only play contests. lol

---

Frankly, if you're calling the people who cleaned up on fantasy sports in its early days "APs," that's quite a confession. They were employees of the companies cross-swapping inside information to bypass their own company's restrictions, basically ripping off the general public. I'd call them crooks. But if you call them APs, more power to you and the "APs."

So I guess "APs" and "crooks" are interchangeable labels.

The reason that fantasy sports offer so many single entry contests these days is that they were forced to as a way to avoid criminal prosecution for the way they had been run. They had lost lawsuits detailing how the rampant "insider trading" was ripping off the public. I believe both the NYTimes and Philly Inquirer wrote exposes.

You still don't get it, do you? Someone like Billy Walters can create a "weak line" in your mind simply by betting a particular game at a particular time. You have zero idea who likes that side or why the line has moved. You have only speculation. He may be moving a line to zigzag the game the other way, and what you see as a weak line is a location smart enough to not move the line when Walters moved it elsewhere with the intention of zigzagging. He used to do that routinely on games where small amounts of money had maximum effect, like midweek MAC games. You're looking at a checkerboard while he's playing chess.

I bow to the AP polymaths. It's amazing the books stay in business with so many "sharps." And yes, Sheldon, that was sarcasm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

LOL. I already know what casino it was, also, just like Mickey "The Truth" Crimm. See, two can play at this idiocy.

P.S. MrV, if you're wondering, it was The Tangiers. People say there's no such place, but I have a coin cup proving otherwise.

P.S.S. No, seriously, I know which casino it was. They leaked Rob's win to me. But they also said he blew 1.45 of the 1.5 mil in the last three months. He got great comps, though. Of course, I'm sworn to not give the casino name publicly. They said something like, "We'd be embarrassed he won it. Plus he'd be embarrassed that he lost it back." They said if I didn't believe them, just ask for a copy of his tax return.

I said that I didn't think Mickey would make a wager with me based on Rob's tax return so people would just have to decide who was telling the truth, me or "The Truth."

Double P.S.S. Nobody believes Rob, obviously. Which means nobody believes Mickey. It's a shame when a polyglot like Mickey, winning at machines, poker, and various sports, makes the "Not Likely to be Believed" roster of alleged APs. Damned shame. I hear Mickey still kills it at The Tangiers, however.

---

I've won quite a bit at keno and blackjack too. And also won a lot from a myriad of promotions, most all of them configured differently. The math had to be worked out differently for most of them.

What DimwitDitz doesn't get is gambling math is gambling math. It's doesn't matter what the game is. If you are skilled at gambling math you have the ability to analyze every casino game to find edges.

It's obviously a skill Ditz doesn't have so he has to lash out....bitch and moan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Well, it comes down to this, basically, regarding the Leonardo da AP narrative.

1) What's more likely, (A1) that experts in particular sports have managed to win, grinding and battling each season or (A2) a population of self-proclaimed APs have managed to solve "sports betting" -- across all or most sports -- based on angles and principles and shopping?

2) That (B1) experts in particular sports can anticipate line moves based on their experience with the public, their experience with where most money will come from, and their experience with interpreting media coverage so as to provide the occasional arbitrage opportunity or consistent middle shots or (B2) APs can arbitrage most sports most of the time?

3) That (C1) line moves are erratic, based as often on media coverage, how the public interprets information, and vulnerable to zig-zagging by someone like Billy Walters or (C2) taking advantage of "slow" or "weak" lines is something APs can do on a regular basis?

4) That (D1) winning handicappers are specialists, focusing on particular sports where they have massive experience and intimate knowledge or (D2) winning handicappers are APs using their generalized approach to conquer all sports?

5) That (E1) winning handicappers are few and far between and have lifetimes of records backing them up or (E2) APs can be winning handicappers with some insight and application of their ideas as to what comprises an edge, but have no public records of such edges?

What's more likely, really, that many APs are jacks of all trades, conquering the betting world from every direction or that they are overestimating their abilities because they prefer to think of themselves as conquering polymaths?

One would expect the APs to be dominating all of the handicapping competitions. But they do not.

I leave the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.

---

It all comes down to weak lines. You have to find a source of what is equivalent to handicapping. You have to be able to do the math to figure out it is +EV. There are oodles of ways to fall within this. Doesn't matter what people tell you, your whole sense of self is tied into being some handicapper and you think that is the only way to beat sports.

It is funny how you make up shit to disagree with it. Who has said APs are "conquering the betting world from every direction"? Sure, but not some singular AP. Even positive handicappers fall under AP umbrella which makes your whole argument stupid.

You're such a fool if you think you'd know all secondary business of people in "handicapping competitions".

I'm pretty sure everyone here have described these situations as opportunities.

Perhaps the only reason you're so into these fucking contests is because you can beat them. If you had to beat juice I have a solid feeling you'd be/been a loser. This is why you're so quick to dismiss all the talk of prices and finding positive spots.

Not only that, but the market is going to be far less efficient because the house has no real interest in the outcome. You're playing against a bunch of amateurs. Oh you beat it huh? You should have cleaned up on fantasy sports like a lot of other APs did........... but you didn't ... we'll let the reader draw his or her own conclusions.

Actually maybe you are an AP because you only play contests. lol

---

Frankly, if you're calling the people who cleaned up on fantasy sports in its early days "APs," that's quite a confession. They were employees of the companies cross-swapping inside information to bypass their own company's restrictions, basically ripping off the general public. I'd call them crooks. But if you call them APs, more power to you and the "APs."

So I guess "APs" and "crooks" are interchangeable labels.

The reason that fantasy sports offer so many single entry contests these days is that they were forced to as a way to avoid criminal prosecution for the way they had been run. They had lost lawsuits detailing how the rampant "insider trading" was ripping off the public. I believe both the NYTimes and Philly Inquirer wrote exposes.

You still don't get it, do you? Someone like Billy Walters can create a "weak line" in your mind simply by betting a particular game at a particular time. You have zero idea who likes that side or why the line has moved. You have only speculation. He may be moving a line to zigzag the game the other way, and what you see as a weak line is a location smart enough to not move the line when Walters moved it elsewhere with the intention of zigzagging. He used to do that routinely on games where small amounts of money had maximum effect, like midweek MAC games. You're looking at a checkerboard while he's playing chess.

I bow to the AP polymaths. It's amazing the books stay in business with so many "sharps." And yes, Sheldon, that was sarcasm.

---

So tell us why the books won't take the half-point parley cards.
And why they won't take a baseball parley that has all dogs.

Remember, according to you math doesn't count in sportsbetting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Well, it comes down to this, basically, regarding the Leonardo da AP narrative.

1) What's more likely, (A1) that experts in particular sports have managed to win, grinding and battling each season or (A2) a population of self-proclaimed APs have managed to solve "sports betting" -- across all or most sports -- based on angles and principles and shopping?

2) That (B1) experts in particular sports can anticipate line moves based on their experience with the public, their experience with where most money will come from, and their experience with interpreting media coverage so as to provide the occasional arbitrage opportunity or consistent middle shots or (B2) APs can arbitrage most sports most of the time?

3) That (C1) line moves are erratic, based as often on media coverage, how the public interprets information, and vulnerable to zig-zagging by someone like Billy Walters or (C2) taking advantage of "slow" or "weak" lines is something APs can do on a regular basis?

4) That (D1) winning handicappers are specialists, focusing on particular sports where they have massive experience and intimate knowledge or (D2) winning handicappers are APs using their generalized approach to conquer all sports?

5) That (E1) winning handicappers are few and far between and have lifetimes of records backing them up or (E2) APs can be winning handicappers with some insight and application of their ideas as to what comprises an edge, but have no public records of such edges?

What's more likely, really, that many APs are jacks of all trades, conquering the betting world from every direction or that they are overestimating their abilities because they prefer to think of themselves as conquering polymaths?

One would expect the APs to be dominating all of the handicapping competitions. But they do not.

I leave the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.

---

Diversify.

---

Exactly. Bingo. 100%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcap

Why does everything always circle back to handicapping contests with Redeitz?

---

A-fucking-men

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Well, it comes down to this, basically, regarding the Leonardo da AP narrative.

1) What's more likely, (A1) that experts in particular sports have managed to win, grinding and battling each season or (A2) a population of self-proclaimed APs have managed to solve "sports betting" -- across all or most sports -- based on angles and principles and shopping?

2) That (B1) experts in particular sports can anticipate line moves based on their experience with the public, their experience with where most money will come from, and their experience with interpreting media coverage so as to provide the occasional arbitrage opportunity or consistent middle shots or (B2) APs can arbitrage most sports most of the time?

3) That (C1) line moves are erratic, based as often on media coverage, how the public interprets information, and vulnerable to zig-zagging by someone like Billy Walters or (C2) taking advantage of "slow" or "weak" lines is something APs can do on a regular basis?

4) That (D1) winning handicappers are specialists, focusing on particular sports where they have massive experience and intimate knowledge or (D2) winning handicappers are APs using their generalized approach to conquer all sports?

5) That (E1) winning handicappers are few and far between and have lifetimes of records backing them up or (E2) APs can be winning handicappers with some insight and application of their ideas as to what comprises an edge, but have no public records of such edges?

What's more likely, really, that many APs are jacks of all trades, conquering the betting world from every direction or that they are overestimating their abilities because they prefer to think of themselves as conquering polymaths?

One would expect the APs to be dominating all of the handicapping competitions. But they do not.

I leave the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.

---

It all comes down to weak lines. You have to find a source of what is equivalent to handicapping. You have to be able to do the math to figure out it is +EV. There are oodles of ways to fall within this. Doesn't matter what people tell you, your whole sense of self is tied into being some handicapper and you think that is the only way to beat sports.

It is funny how you make up shit to disagree with it. Who has said APs are "conquering the betting world from every direction"? Sure, but not some singular AP. Even positive handicappers fall under AP umbrella which makes your whole argument stupid.

You're such a fool if you think you'd know all secondary business of people in "handicapping competitions".

I'm pretty sure everyone here have described these situations as opportunities.

Perhaps the only reason you're so into these fucking contests is because you can beat them. If you had to beat juice I have a solid feeling you'd be/been a loser. This is why you're so quick to dismiss all the talk of prices and finding positive spots.

Not only that, but the market is going to be far less efficient because the house has no real interest in the outcome. You're playing against a bunch of amateurs. Oh you beat it huh? You should have cleaned up on fantasy sports like a lot of other APs did........... but you didn't ... we'll let the reader draw his or her own conclusions.

Actually maybe you are an AP because you only play contests. lol

---

Frankly, if you're calling the people who cleaned up on fantasy sports in its early days "APs," that's quite a confession. They were employees of the companies cross-swapping inside information to bypass their own company's restrictions, basically ripping off the general public. I'd call them crooks. But if you call them APs, more power to you and the "APs."

So I guess "APs" and "crooks" are interchangeable labels.

The reason that fantasy sports offer so many single entry contests these days is that they were forced to as a way to avoid criminal prosecution for the way they had been run. They had lost lawsuits detailing how the rampant "insider trading" was ripping off the public. I believe both the NYTimes and Philly Inquirer wrote exposes.

You still don't get it, do you? Someone like Billy Walters can create a "weak line" in your mind simply by betting a particular game at a particular time. You have zero idea who likes that side or why the line has moved. You have only speculation. He may be moving a line to zigzag the game the other way, and what you see as a weak line is a location smart enough to not move the line when Walters moved it elsewhere with the intention of zigzagging. He used to do that routinely on games where small amounts of money had maximum effect, like midweek MAC games. You're looking at a checkerboard while he's playing chess.

I bow to the AP polymaths. It's amazing the books stay in business with so many "sharps." And yes, Sheldon, that was sarcasm.

---

Fuck, quit yapping about Billy Walters, you or none of us are Billy Walters. None of us can do what he was doing so why talk about it? Didn't his chess land him in Jail or something like that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

It all comes down to weak lines. You have to find a source of what is equivalent to handicapping. You have to be able to do the math to figure out it is +EV. There are oodles of ways to fall within this. Doesn't matter what people tell you, your whole sense of self is tied into being some handicapper and you think that is the only way to beat sports.

It is funny how you make up shit to disagree with it. Who has said APs are "conquering the betting world from every direction"? Sure, but not some singular AP. Even positive handicappers fall under AP umbrella which makes your whole argument stupid.

You're such a fool if you think you'd know all secondary business of people in "handicapping competitions".

I'm pretty sure everyone here have described these situations as opportunities.

Perhaps the only reason you're so into these fucking contests is because you can beat them. If you had to beat juice I have a solid feeling you'd be/been a loser. This is why you're so quick to dismiss all the talk of prices and finding positive spots.

Not only that, but the market is going to be far less efficient because the house has no real interest in the outcome. You're playing against a bunch of amateurs. Oh you beat it huh? You should have cleaned up on fantasy sports like a lot of other APs did........... but you didn't ... we'll let the reader draw his or her own conclusions.

Actually maybe you are an AP because you only play contests. lol

---

Frankly, if you're calling the people who cleaned up on fantasy sports in its early days "APs," that's quite a confession. They were employees of the companies cross-swapping inside information to bypass their own company's restrictions, basically ripping off the general public. I'd call them crooks. But if you call them APs, more power to you and the "APs."

So I guess "APs" and "crooks" are interchangeable labels.

The reason that fantasy sports offer so many single entry contests these days is that they were forced to as a way to avoid criminal prosecution for the way they had been run. They had lost lawsuits detailing how the rampant "insider trading" was ripping off the public. I believe both the NYTimes and Philly Inquirer wrote exposes.

You still don't get it, do you? Someone like Billy Walters can create a "weak line" in your mind simply by betting a particular game at a particular time. You have zero idea who likes that side or why the line has moved. You have only speculation. He may be moving a line to zigzag the game the other way, and what you see as a weak line is a location smart enough to not move the line when Walters moved it elsewhere with the intention of zigzagging. He used to do that routinely on games where small amounts of money had maximum effect, like midweek MAC games. You're looking at a checkerboard while he's playing chess.

I bow to the AP polymaths. It's amazing the books stay in business with so many "sharps." And yes, Sheldon, that was sarcasm.

---

So tell us why the books won't take the half-point parley cards.
And why they won't take a baseball parley that has all dogs.

Remember, according to you math doesn't count in sportsbetting.

---

Math is all that fucking matters.

Unless you have math to back up whatever you're doing... The ONLY records that count are doing what Dan and some others do...you post up your picks and the line you're taking before the game.

Anything else is unreliable. It wouldn't be hard for someone to make it seem as if they were a winning handycrapper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Well, it comes down to this, basically, regarding the Leonardo da AP narrative.

1) What's more likely, (A1) that experts in particular sports have managed to win, grinding and battling each season or (A2) a population of self-proclaimed APs have managed to solve "sports betting" -- across all or most sports -- based on angles and principles and shopping?

2) That (B1) experts in particular sports can anticipate line moves based on their experience with the public, their experience with where most money will come from, and their experience with interpreting media coverage so as to provide the occasional arbitrage opportunity or consistent middle shots or (B2) APs can arbitrage most sports most of the time?

3) That (C1) line moves are erratic, based as often on media coverage, how the public interprets information, and vulnerable to zig-zagging by someone like Billy Walters or (C2) taking advantage of "slow" or "weak" lines is something APs can do on a regular basis?

4) That (D1) winning handicappers are specialists, focusing on particular sports where they have massive experience and intimate knowledge or (D2) winning handicappers are APs using their generalized approach to conquer all sports?

5) That (E1) winning handicappers are few and far between and have lifetimes of records backing them up or (E2) APs can be winning handicappers with some insight and application of their ideas as to what comprises an edge, but have no public records of such edges?

What's more likely, really, that many APs are jacks of all trades, conquering the betting world from every direction or that they are overestimating their abilities because they prefer to think of themselves as conquering polymaths?

One would expect the APs to be dominating all of the handicapping competitions. But they do not.

I leave the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.

---

It all comes down to weak lines. You have to find a source of what is equivalent to handicapping. You have to be able to do the math to figure out it is +EV. There are oodles of ways to fall within this. Doesn't matter what people tell you, your whole sense of self is tied into being some handicapper and you think that is the only way to beat sports.

It is funny how you make up shit to disagree with it. Who has said APs are "conquering the betting world from every direction"? Sure, but not some singular AP. Even positive handicappers fall under AP umbrella which makes your whole argument stupid.

You're such a fool if you think you'd know all secondary business of people in "handicapping competitions".

I'm pretty sure everyone here have described these situations as opportunities.

Perhaps the only reason you're so into these fucking contests is because you can beat them. If you had to beat juice I have a solid feeling you'd be/been a loser. This is why you're so quick to dismiss all the talk of prices and finding positive spots.

Not only that, but the market is going to be far less efficient because the house has no real interest in the outcome. You're playing against a bunch of amateurs. Oh you beat it huh? You should have cleaned up on fantasy sports like a lot of other APs did........... but you didn't ... we'll let the reader draw his or her own conclusions.

Actually maybe you are an AP because you only play contests. lol

---

Frankly, if you're calling the people who cleaned up on fantasy sports in its early days "APs," that's quite a confession. They were employees of the companies cross-swapping inside information to bypass their own company's restrictions, basically ripping off the general public. I'd call them crooks. But if you call them APs, more power to you and the "APs."

So I guess "APs" and "crooks" are interchangeable labels.

---

Frankly you're trying to change around the discussion. There are plenty of people who did quite well at fantasy sports AFAIK. I'm fairly comfortable in guessing they far outweighed the "insider trading" stuff going on but hey if you can't win an argument just start switching stuff around. Thats the ditz method.

The question remains, why didn't Dietz go off into the world of fantasy sports??

Sure an AP can be a crook and a crook can be an AP. Great point ditz.

When a bunch of guys who don't particularly like each other line up to clown on you - THAT should tell you something.

Billy was convicted and imprisoned for profiting from insider trading, making $32M profit while avoiding $11M in losses.

He's out now: Trump commuted his sentence.

I think you guys are coming down a bit hard on redietz. So he brags a little and tells us about the contests he is doing well in with nary a mention of the contests that he is in 694th place and was out after 2 weeks. Don't you machine players post up pictures of your big winning hands, but don't talk much about losing sessions. I don't remember anyone other than myself, saying something like I was playing this game with an advantage but just didn't win....in the case of a machine, maybe just didn't hit that bigger jackpot that really makes the play a winner (despite the game being +EV at that time).

You know my saying. It doesn't take that much to figure out who knows what they are talking about. At least to me, Redietz has easily cleared that bar.

Here is another thing I learned from redietz: Sports better don't have to be guys that pick and bet specific games, hitting 55, 57% to make a profit as I always thought. Nor do they have to be scammers, selling their picks to both sides. (IF you are really picking winners, why would these cats be selling them?). The contest circuit that redietz seems to specialize in, is something I never even considered and frankly, moves him a little closer to the AP label, which he has always resisted. :cool:

I just don't get what it is that is bothering some of you guys? Did he claim to hit anything for millions of dollars (several different claims) that can't be verified? Did he claim to buy a million and a half dollar RV or home? Or to have bought homes for his kids that there is no record of? Did he steal some story from the news of someone winning a million dollar contest and say that was him?

None of that, he tells you exactly where he lives, in a modest house in East Bubblefuck, Tenn. And he shares some of his experiences winning or doing well in contests. Big deal. So what is the issue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I think you guys are coming down a bit hard on redietz. So he brags a little and tells us about the contests he is doing well in with nary a mention of the contests that he is in 694th place and was out after 2 weeks. Don't you machine players post up pictures of your big winning hands, but don't talk much about losing sessions. I don't remember anyone other than myself, saying something like I was playing this game with an advantage but just didn't win....in the case of a machine, maybe just didn't hit that bigger jackpot that really makes the play a winner (despite the game being +EV at that time).

You know my saying. It doesn't take that much to figure out who knows what they are talking about. At least to me, Redietz has easily cleared that bar.

Here is another thing I learned from redietz: Sports better don't have to be guys that pick and bet specific games, hitting 55, 57% to make a profit as I always thought. Nor do they have to be scammers, selling their picks to both sides. (IF you are really picking winners, why would these cats be selling them?). The contest circuit that redietz seems to specialize in, is something I never even considered and frankly, moves him a little closer to the AP label, which he has always resisted. :cool:

I just don't get what it is that is bothering some of you guys? Did he claim to hit anything for millions of dollars (several different claims) that can't be verified? Did he claim to buy a million and a half dollar RV or home? Or to have bought homes for his kids that there is no record of? Did he steal some story from the news of someone winning a million dollar contest and say that was him?

None of that, he tells you exactly where he lives, in a modest house in East Bubblefuck, Tenn. And he shares some of his experiences winning or doing well in contests. Big deal. So what is the issue?

---

No one is saying he can't beat baseball handicapping contests in the long run but no one cares either.

Lots of people on here have interests outside of machines in the gambling world.

If you can't see his arrogance then I'm not sure what to tell you. His constant doubt of claims that aren't anywhere near unbelievable to begin with. His self-promoting. He tends to avoid questions he can't answer.

He consistently twists everything people say into some strawman.

If he is the contest specialist like he claims and you believe, then the question remains - why didn't he clean up fantasy sports when it was ripe? He then comes up with something unrelated which is yet another strawman. Pathetic.

I used to find him ok but either he has gotten worse or I have come to notice his broken record approach.

If he wants to be respected he should likely just stick to other forums where people are nicer :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

No one is saying he can't beat baseball handicapping contests in the long run but no one cares either.

Lots of people on here have interests outside of machines in the gambling world.

If you can't see his arrogance then I'm not sure what to tell you. His constant doubt of claims that aren't anywhere near unbelievable to begin with. His self-promoting. He tends to avoid questions he can't answer.

He consistently twists everything people say into some strawman.

If he is the contest specialist like he claims and you believe, then the question remains - why didn't he clean up fantasy sports when it was ripe? He then comes up with something unrelated which is yet another strawman. Pathetic.

I used to find him ok but either he has gotten worse or I have come to notice his broken record approach.

If he wants to be respected he should likely just stick to other forums where people are nicer :)

---

Can you give me an example of his "constantly" doubting claims that aren't anywhere near unbelievable? Most of the claims he doubts are by Singer and Mdawg and as far as I am concerned, almost all claims by these two have been way more than proven unbelievable. To the point that if one of them says the sky is blue, it probably isn't.

I think there are two things that come into play here with this sudden attacking of Redietz. One is his recent statements that math can't be a part of winning sports betting. As I have said, I think he is wrong on that. I attribute that to he is an old school sports handicapper, looking at everything from player matchups to strength of schedule to any info he can find in determining his picks and less about math. He is going by what has worked for him. Whatever the reasoning...he is wrong. :) Big deal.

The second thing going on and it is a much bigger thing is that some here have decided they don't like him because of things that have nothing to do with gambling or his sports betting picks or history. Redietz is a liberal on two forums here and GF, dominated by conservatives, including some far right conspiracy theory "dudes". Now I know I am talking to the wrong person, because you are not one of those, but these guys, break it down to teams regarding politics, or lifestyle or any number of other damn things that they don't like and agree with and then they demonize everything about that person. It happens with me every day and I see that with redietz as well. They dont like his politics so they set out to demonize him on everything, including his sports betting history. Imagine if I started finding mickeycrimm not credible concerning gambling topics, simply because his political views are extreme.

As I said I just don't see anything that warrants the attack redietz is under. As a matter of fact, in addition to that he has revealed exactly who he is right down to where he lives in East Bubblefuck (<- :D), (I only wish he understood why other AP's cant do that), redietz also tells anyone that questions his claims of 3rd place here, or 4th place in this contest, exactly where they can go to see that for themselves. I have never bothered to, but anyone that wants to can.

Now again, is he leaving out the contests that he isn't doing too well in? I am quite sure he is. Again, just like many AP's that share when they hit a big win, but say nothing when they don't. That is why I have tried to share both winning and losing.

So again, I just don't see what the problem is?

Flat out question: Do you accountinQuestion, not believe redietz has made a living doing what he claims, playing all these contests and placing some "future type wagers" that he can then hedge on later? (you can also hedge on the contests). If he has not met that bar for you, I guess that is your call, but I don't believe that is the case with most of these guys. Singer has labeled redietz, "weird" and "a Martian" because of things completely unrelated to anything redietz claims and these other guys are feeding off that nonsense.

I figure Redietz has likely won more than he lost in these contests. TBH I don't know anything about contests but seems like a huge amount of variance unless you're able to do multiple entries. TBH I don't really give a shit. Outside of bj counting I can't think of a gambling out that I am less interested in unless I have a solid source of picks. I don't even have a way to place sports bets at the moment if I did. I just don't do sports, I just do math.

He continually doubts anyone who says they beat sports in whatever small context they give. Then he goes into lecture mode which just further shows his ignorance. Anyway, I don't care to debate this I just find Redietz annoying. Go look at those 2 threads he created aimed at me. I don't recall what they were about but he thought he was going to school me/whomever in sports betting. If he does what he says, then his stuff is far more complicated than I have any interest in. He isn't sharp enough to know what he doesn't know.

Being a serious handicapper is a very iffy proposition and would take a ton of study. Good for him if he does it but most APs have absolutely no interest in it. I always kinda enjoyed his 'back in the day' type stories but the problem is he just can't accept people beat sports betting without knowing shit about the sport, myself included. I went through a sports betting phase a few years ago but it was only because the book gave juice free bets under certain circumstances. So at that point you just need an accurate line you can trust and go through picking anything with a small edge if you can get the juice free bets. Weak lines would be when the book has lines far off whatever you are using as your prediction. That means more EV per bet but in Redietz's world it is worth making fun over because he doesn't really seem to even grasp the concept. Kinda crazy.

He ridiculed me for using the word weak in reference to lines. Or his lecturing about using the word sharp. Go read his fucking threads. Any real AP/sharp person would never blink at the use of either terms as far as I know, but Redietz can't help but demonstrate his clueless when someone uses these words in a discussion with him.

... I need to find something else to waste my life on.... lol having a discussion about redietz. Noose me now.

Ok, let me try to explain my feeling, in a different context and then you can have the final say, if you like, if not that is fine too.

Not here or at GF, because there are few real BJ players, but on some of the blackjack forums I used to participate on quite a bit, there were some older players, some well known, well respected. Some of these guys would advise newer players not to even bother trying to win at blackjack with current conditions, that it just can't be done. They are obviously wrong, because I have been doing it for 20 years and not just me, there are a couple dozen players that started about when I started, in the early/mid 2000's with surprisingly similar stories. Some of them aren't still playing blackjack as they have gone on to things with bigger edges, but they made a living and good money for years card counting....the very thing that these older generation players said can't be done.

These older guys are just expressing an opinion because they are frustrated with these new conditions. It isn't how they used to be able play, sitting down and playing all without escaping some of the negative counts and table and casino hopping, so they don't like it. They are old school and things have changed from the old school way they played the game. They don't like it and perhaps are having a hard time accepting it.

I see some of that same thing in redietz. He is an old school handicapper. In his day, handicapping was about information, matchups of players. There were no people exploiting the math and promotions that make that math work, because there weren't all these online casinos and all these promotions. In his day a sports handicapper won by picking winners the old fashion way. I just don't think he appreciates that times have changed and a player can win by doing things like you just said and Axelwolf has also said, really knowing nothing about the teams or sport, just using math and promotions that make the math +EV.

I don't think that makes him a bad guy. It just makes him old school. He knows what has worked for him for decades.

No, kewlJ, that's not it at all. Not close.

Promotions aside, and I extract promotional advantages at every opportunity without being a dick, there is technically no such thing as EV, positive or negative, in a game of opinion. I have said this again and again., It is not dice. It is not blackjack. It is not mathematically self-contained. It is not its own bounded universe. If the Kentucky team doctor bets Indiana, as happened, and I learn about it, there is no EV involved. What's involved is knowledge.

Same with sports teams. Teams are organisms. Not coin flips. If you know organisms intimately (just like knowing people), you can predict their behavior. Not coin flips. Not blackjack.

The entire flippant jargon of "weak lines" is ridiculous. What is a "weak line?" You mean a line that trails other lines. An aberrant line? If there are five 7's and one 6, is the 6 the so-called weak line? You realize Mr. Walters jammed lines one way just to create that illusion, let the followers of "weak lines" hammer away, created snowballs of money, then zagged the other way, preferably through reasonable middle shots? An Asian billionaire's son shows up in LV one week, has some money to blow, it's a boxing weekend, you think lines that don't follow his preferences are "weak lines?"

The idea that line moves are correct more often than not is problematic, varying in terms of being correct both by sport and when in the season of each sport those line moves occur. The idea that simply always betting the lagged line is some huge advantage across all sports at any time in each sports season is so overblown, it's ridiculous. The NFL, I believe, is the worst of the major sports when it comes to line moves winning...unless it's weather related, and even then it's not a gigantic advantage.

You have two presentations here:

You can buy the idea that some generalized "AP" strategizing outperforms someone like Billy Walters, who has on occasion taken some beatings for long stretches, or you don't buy that idea. Mr. Walters had roundtables of experts for each sport, many of whom think of themselves as "APs," he had unlimited resources, he had the best software and data that money could buy, he had access to every gambling genius on the planet, and yet even he struggled for stretches to make money. Now do you really believe that Joe Citizen AP routinely does better than someone who brings all of that to the table in sports betting? Do you really think Joe Citizen AP routinely outperforms Phil Ivey when it comes to sports gambling?

Now none of what I'm saying applies to bonus whoring and promo addicts. If that's your gig, great -- I do it myself, but it's not some sustainable money-making-at-sports schtick. It's a gimmick, a transient angle that can disappear tomorrow.

The fact is, also, you're not going to find years-long records of these APs who have made money betting sports. All you're going to get are stories and anecdotes and tales of winning and of course, it's all a secret club (as Alan Mendelson often said). Well, great, but not many people are buying it.