Printable View
You're both clueless and a clown.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
I mean, other than every one of "The Riddler's" suggestions making money. LOL.
God Bless "actionable info." It's a great substitute for winning.
Unintentionally, of course.
Lol or lecture him how EV is not a useful concept in sports betting because such a thing can't exist!Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmYou took a meteorology course? Yeah, just like you read a probability book. Ahahahahaha!Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Did you explain to Munch how he is wrong about multi-accounting?
Redietz is just a football nerd who will prattle on about minutia expecting real gamblers to look up to him.
Redietz stick with sports bettors.
To be clear - my issue was you tracking 3 tables.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJWhat about tracking a second table....did you have time to ask Munchkin about that. He was one of the first that when I mentioned it and started getting all that pushback, he told me, "Oh yeah, I have been doing some of that for years".Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmDid you explain to Munch how he is wrong about multi-accounting?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
If one doesn't bet sports then one has to establish a book and deposit. In addition to that one has to expend effort on your goofy riddles or whatever. Then if a legit AP they're going to do an off the cuff EV calculation of each riddle to determine whether it is worth their time.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionYou're both clueless and a clown.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
I mean, other than every one of "The Riddler's" suggestions making money. LOL.
God Bless "actionable info." It's a great substitute for winning.
Unintentionally, of course.
To any actual successful prof3ssional gambler it is as clear as day why that isn't a winning move. But in your simple world model they're fools for not listening to you.
Good stuff redietz. I love you not for the man you are but for the poster you are. I'm likely your #1 fan, yanno.
I just felt it wasn't very clear why I was so mean.
First of all, I don't really care what YOUR issue is with anything, AcctinQ. I don't think that much of you as a person or AP to care what you might think.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Secondly, you weren't even a member of this forum when the original tracking of multiple tables took place. You became a member some 2 years later. So what exactly is your objection. What do you think was said about tracking a 3rd table?
The discussion started with me mentioning the tracking of a second table, which Alan, Rob and some of the other arguing types immediately jumped on to argue. None of those arguing that someone couldn't track a second (or later in the discussion 3rd) table had or has any experience playing blackjack that I could tell and certainly not counting cards. At the time, there were two members that did have a good deal of experience counting cards, JBJB and RS_. Both confirmed that they had tracked a second table or were well aware of the technique. RS_ had time playing on a professional blackjack teams, so naturally he was aware of the technique.
In addition, mickeycrimm, linked to a discussion at another forum where a pretty well know long time card counter "Sonny" (slightly before my time) spoke of tracking 2 tables at once. And during the discussion I contacted 3 longtime card counters, Munchkin, Schlesinger and the 3rd prefers I not use his name, that all confirmed they not only were aware of tracking a second table, but had done so at times during their career.
So a bunch of real card counters, most at a professional level, all confirmed. Vs, a handful of non-card counters, most like Alan and Singer, didn't even play much if any blackjack. So the topic just evolved into a typical VCT those who know vs those who don't discussion.
I will break here so as not to make this post too long.
Now several weeks into this discussion (still 2 years before you joined the forum AcctinQ), is when I mentioned that if everything was just right, which would include sitting in middle seat with a view of BOTH neighboring tables, and both neighboring tables were starting at the same time, I could track all three tables FOR A ROUND OR TWO ONLY, at which point I would drop the lowest count at one of the neighboring tables and continue tracking the better two.
So THAT is what I said, acctinQ. What is it that you object to? That a person can track a 3rd table for a round or two (approximately a minute)? That is what you think is impossible? :confused:
I have news for you. On the blackjack teams that use the spotter/big player call in approach, spotters are tracking 3-5 tables and for far longer than a round or two. What amazes me is that YOU acctinQ and some of these other people that have absolutely no experience counting cards, some of you appear to know little about blackjack, yet these are the people arguing tracking multiple tables can't be done. Your opinion is meaningless. So I don't really give a flying FUCK, what your issue is.
And for the record, which I have said a number of times, this technique is all but gone now. There may be an occasional casino that has a set up with enough BJ tables in close proximity, and arranged just right, but for the most part all the new table games, including some blackjack variants, have taken up space that used to just be traditional blackjack tables, and you just don't see that perfect set up very often anymore. But by all means, lets continue an argument with non card counters, and non blackjack players voicing their "issues". :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by MickeyCrimm
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionLol or lecture him how EV is not a useful concept in sports betting because such a thing can't exist!Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmYou took a meteorology course? Yeah, just like you read a probability book. Ahahahahaha!Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Did you explain to Munch how he is wrong about multi-accounting?
Redietz is just a football nerd who will prattle on about minutia expecting real gamblers to look up to him.
Redietz stick with sports bettors.
Again, for the umpteenth time, since I will not allow you to misrepresent anything I said (which is undoubtedly why you don't use direct quotes of me and instead paraphrase everything), EV is fine for arbitrage or middles shooting calculations. It's also fine to use in PAST TENSE to describe what the EV WAS for a particular play or project. But you should not use EV going forward for sports investing outside of arbitrage or middles shooting calculations because you are not dealing with random events. It really is that simple. No amount of history or past results or success/failure allows one to logically use EV going forward for sports betting outside of those parameters because:
1) You do not know what is currently affecting what is an open real-world system. A change in rules season to season, or in-season, or a change in the pool of people doing the gambling (demographic or money profile) -- in other words, a change in the source of the money -- changes the current odds relationship with past odds. To blithely presume none of these matter is utter naivete and utter arrogance, which leads to:
2) You always have to ask yourself, what is more likely? That people (A) overestimate their ability to describe, calculate, and predict events based on their data access and abilities, or (B) they underestimate their abilities to do so. Hint -- it's not B.
So what I suggest is asking what's more likely, is the idea one can use blanket, simple skills to win at everything in reality, or is doing so both self-aggrandizement and an excuse to gamble. If people answer that question honestly, then they may get some awareness of their Fred Flintstone gamble/gamble/gamble problem.
Why people think they should be applying the math of random events to non-random events is baffling, unless they simply want an excuse to (1) claim expertise they do not have and (2) gamble, gamble, gamble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Are we on a first name basis now? Then you won't mind if I post your name over and over? That is an attempt at doxxing and everyone knows it. And you wonder why people think you are such a lowlife sand nigger. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
You are correct that I do not correspond regularly with Munchkin much anymore. Used to when we were on the same forum (norms forum and BJinfo). Munchkin was someone that I asked some questions and advice of privately. But we are no longer on the same forum, and he doesn't play much blackjack at least in regards to card counting, so I don't have much of a reason to contact him much. I think the last time was when I contacted several people in 2017 or early 2018 asking about their experience with tracking a second or 3rd table. And he got back to me very quickly. I have no doubt if I had a reason to contact him, he would again get back to me in a timely manner.
There are a lot of card counting or blackjack AP's current or former, that if I have a question or seek advice I can contact. Doesn't mean I do so regularly. AND likewise, I hear from some of them and other players on occasion when they have a question. Often a question about playing conditions in Vegas, which I try to help if I can.
Not sure what your point is here, other than to just be the dick that you are.
Luckily, you have the knowledge of La Place's Demon such that everything is deterministic to you. You are unique in this (with the possible exception of your girlfriend). Everyone else, from other sports bettors, casinos, advantage players, meteorologists, actuaries and so on must slum it and use probability.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
People use EV all over in sports betting.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionLol or lecture him how EV is not a useful concept in sports betting because such a thing can't exist!Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Redietz is just a football nerd who will prattle on about minutia expecting real gamblers to look up to him.
Redietz stick with sports bettors.
Again, for the umpteenth time, since I will not allow you to misrepresent anything I said (which is undoubtedly why you don't use direct quotes of me and instead paraphrase everything), EV is fine for arbitrage or middles shooting calculations. It's also fine to use in PAST TENSE to describe what the EV WAS for a particular play or project. But you should not use EV going forward for sports investing outside of arbitrage or middles shooting calculations because you are not dealing with random events. It really is that simple. No amount of history or past results or success/failure allows one to logically use EV going forward for sports betting outside of those parameters because:
1) You do not know what is currently affecting what is an open real-world system. A change in rules season to season, or in-season, or a change in the pool of people doing the gambling (demographic or money profile) -- in other words, a change in the source of the money -- changes the current odds relationship with past odds. To blithely presume none of these matter is utter naivete and utter arrogance, which leads to:
2) You always have to ask yourself, what is more likely? That people (A) overestimate their ability to describe, calculate, and predict events based on their data access and abilities, or (B) they underestimate their abilities to do so. Hint -- it's not B.
So what I suggest is asking what's more likely, is the idea one can use blanket, simple skills to win at everything in reality, or is doing so both self-aggrandizement and an excuse to gamble. If people answer that question honestly, then they may get some awareness of their Fred Flintstone gamble/gamble/gamble problem.
Why people think they should be applying the math of random events to non-random events is baffling, unless they simply want an excuse to (1) claim expertise they do not have and (2) gamble, gamble, gamble.
I don't use direct quotes because I'm not going back to research the nonsensical stuff you've said in the past.
ExactlyQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionPeople use EV all over in sports betting.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Again, for the umpteenth time, since I will not allow you to misrepresent anything I said (which is undoubtedly why you don't use direct quotes of me and instead paraphrase everything), EV is fine for arbitrage or middles shooting calculations. It's also fine to use in PAST TENSE to describe what the EV WAS for a particular play or project. But you should not use EV going forward for sports investing outside of arbitrage or middles shooting calculations because you are not dealing with random events. It really is that simple. No amount of history or past results or success/failure allows one to logically use EV going forward for sports betting outside of those parameters because:
1) You do not know what is currently affecting what is an open real-world system. A change in rules season to season, or in-season, or a change in the pool of people doing the gambling (demographic or money profile) -- in other words, a change in the source of the money -- changes the current odds relationship with past odds. To blithely presume none of these matter is utter naivete and utter arrogance, which leads to:
2) You always have to ask yourself, what is more likely? That people (A) overestimate their ability to describe, calculate, and predict events based on their data access and abilities, or (B) they underestimate their abilities to do so. Hint -- it's not B.
So what I suggest is asking what's more likely, is the idea one can use blanket, simple skills to win at everything in reality, or is doing so both self-aggrandizement and an excuse to gamble. If people answer that question honestly, then they may get some awareness of their Fred Flintstone gamble/gamble/gamble problem.
Why people think they should be applying the math of random events to non-random events is baffling, unless they simply want an excuse to (1) claim expertise they do not have and (2) gamble, gamble, gamble.
I don't use direct quotes because I'm not going back to research the nonsensical stuff you've said in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
As best I can figure it redietz thinks that the use of mathematics implies the belief that mathematical models necessarily yield correct results, which is obviously untrue.
People make casual calculations all the time ("I think there's a 50/50 chance we win if we reject this settlement offer and go forward, and if we do win we'll win $X, therefore...") knowing that the premises of the model and its inputs are not necessarily correct.
If the judge is corrupt and therefore the lawyer's likelihood of winning is not what his historical record would suggest, does that mean his method of estimation was wrong? Should he have used some alternative "mathematics of non-random events"?
How was it he could tell his investors they could expect to make 10%(or whatever he was TOUTING)Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
Apparently using some alternate branch of mathematics.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfHow was it he could tell his investors they could expect to make 10%(or whatever he was TOUTING)Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerApparently using some alternate branch of mathematics.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfHow was it he could tell his investors they could expect to make 10%(or whatever he was TOUTING)Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
You are correct. So, granting you are correct, how is "the EV is" any different from "my opinion is?"
Answer: It's not. And that is my point. The people using "EV" going forward in sports betting are simply subbing in "the EV is" for "my opinion is." It dresses up the estimation with gobbledygook, and it allows the person doing the estimating from needing to dress up the estimating with any actual knowledge of the events being discussed. "Math" phrasing becomes a kind of intellectual cover.
This is obvious, simple stuff. "The EV is" -- LOL. No, it's "I think the EV is." Huge difference.
There is a monstrous difference between an actual established EV based on actual probability theory, and some dude dressing up vague ballpark estimates with "the EV is."
Or maybe I'm all wet, and it's fine when "APs" throw out "the EV is" for non-random events based on their personal history and whatever neurons they can bring to the table in that moment. So what if they turn out to be off by 1% or 5% or 20%? They are, after all, "APs."
Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerApparently using some alternate branch of mathematics.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
You are correct. So, granting you are correct, how is "the EV is" any different from "my opinion is?"
Answer: It's not. And that is my point. The people using "EV" going forward in sports betting are simply subbing in "the EV is" for "my opinion is." It dresses up the estimation with gobbledygook, and it allows the person doing the estimating from needing to dress up the estimating with any actual knowledge of the events being discussed. "Math" phrasing becomes a kind of intellectual cover.
So your true argument is against a particular use of the rhetoric of EV rather than the concept itself.
My friend with a YouWager account finally got back to me with some details.
In the last 2 years, he is down 37,800 at YouWager. He is not too keen on the bonus stuff(He doesn't like to be locked into wagering)I asked him to negotiate their best deal and keep asking for something better on a 5k-10k deposit. I told him to tell them that other sports books are offering him over 100% deposit bonuses. I told him there's no obligation to take any bonuses so not to worry.
He sent me a copy of the email. The best we can offer you 40% Free Play bets with a 5X Rollover and 30 Days, but you can cash your winnings out before the rollover has been met on your crypto deposit.
While we offer generous bonuses, we are not considered a bonus book. We are known for our player friendly policies, great lines and really nice programs such as 5% monthly rebate, Daily Casio Rebate and Friday Night 5% Juice.
Can we set up a call to where I can answer any questions you may have or we can continue over email if you would prefer.
We will also get you a casino bonus and a poker tournament.
I waited 5 days and asked what I could get for a larger deposit and they offered me the same thing WITH a big Caveat.
He told me up-front that they would be watching me because of my previous betting history. Somthing about paying me my winning bit, not the bonus money if they deem I'm using professional sports betting tactics. I'm not going to risk it as there are so many other options out there.
Nah hes just sliding along his view until it becomes reasonable to people with a clue.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerQuote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
You are correct. So, granting you are correct, how is "the EV is" any different from "my opinion is?"
Answer: It's not. And that is my point. The people using "EV" going forward in sports betting are simply subbing in "the EV is" for "my opinion is." It dresses up the estimation with gobbledygook, and it allows the person doing the estimating from needing to dress up the estimating with any actual knowledge of the events being discussed. "Math" phrasing becomes a kind of intellectual cover.
So your true argument is against a particular use of the rhetoric of EV rather than the concept itself.
EV suggests someone has an estimated amount they are giving the EV. It also implies a methodology in deriving this value.
"My opinion" could literally mean anything.
Redietz has never messed with EV in this way from anything I've read so it is in his interest to not understand/ridicule it.
That however is not a good look.
It isn't APs that use "EV". All winning professional sports bettors too and they're not particularly considered advantage players to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerApparently using some alternate branch of mathematics.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
You are correct. So, granting you are correct, how is "the EV is" any different from "my opinion is?"
Answer: It's not. And that is my point. The people using "EV" going forward in sports betting are simply subbing in "the EV is" for "my opinion is." It dresses up the estimation with gobbledygook, and it allows the person doing the estimating from needing to dress up the estimating with any actual knowledge of the events being discussed. "Math" phrasing becomes a kind of intellectual cover.
This is obvious, simple stuff. "The EV is" -- LOL. No, it's "I think the EV is." Huge difference.
There is a monstrous difference between an actual established EV based on actual probability theory, and some dude dressing up vague ballpark estimates with "the EV is."
Or maybe I'm all wet, and it's fine when "APs" throw out "the EV is" for non-random events based on their personal history and whatever neurons they can bring to the table in that moment. So what if they turn out to be off by 1% or 5% or 20%? They are, after all, "APs."
This is another part of it. You give Redietz a chance and he'll go off in the weeds talking about football and all this minutia. He has no actual methodology so it all boils down to what he says - "his opinion".
He also makes the error in believing that his knowledge of football minutia translates into correct guessing. Having him try to weigh all the factors and separate all his own inherent biases is not something i'd ever have faith in. Sure coin-flipping contests it is a totally different thing ...
When it comes to handicapping and analyzing games and coming to the conclusion that it has value, there must be a reason why you believe that bet has value, or why are you betting it? Wouldn't that value be considered Expected Value? I understand that might be different on each and every game but they're certainly has to be a range and if you've been doing this for years you must have a large enough sample size to compare similar situations and get an approximate average EV.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionNah hes just sliding along his view until it becomes reasonable to people with a clue.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerQuote:
Originally Posted by redietz
So your true argument is against a particular use of the rhetoric of EV rather than the concept itself.
EV suggests someone has an estimated amount they are giving the EV. It also implies a methodology in deriving this value.
"My opinion" could literally mean anything.
Redietz has never messed with EV in this way from anything I've read so it is in his interest to not understand/ridicule it.
That however is not a good look.
I would assume someone who has been doing this for years with investors(has supposedly been tracked for years) would have a spreadsheet that could break all this down.
I know guys that makegood money betting Sports> they're so confident in their abilities and they know what they're doing but they're not sitting there keeping track of everything because they don't have investors or customers or they're not touting they're just betting for themselves and their bank account is the only thing that matters at the end of the year. But if you ask him what their approximate EV is they can tell you on certain bets and situations with their EV is approximately and what their overall advantages are by calculating the Dollar in versus dollar out and come to an average percentage they make.
I'll spell this out for the low-IQ crowd one more time.
If you want to use the phrase "Expected Value" as a substitute for "personal opinion," for sports betting, be my guest. But you acknowledge that there is no actual calculus, no probability theory, that is applicable. Your personal experience and personal history, tracking x number of plays for y years and z events, may render a situation as being defined as "+EV" by YOU in PAST TENSE. Why you feel as if your personal history with non-random events allows you to anoint your opinion with the phrase "Expected Value" as if "Expected Value" is a mathematically sound estimation from probability theory is beyond me.
Well, it's not beyond me. People want to dress up their personal opinions and personal histories with Shroud of Turin importance all the time. But it's the last thing that I would expect "APs" to do. Your estimations are all, as the investment literature says, "no guarantee of future events," mainly because you are trying to assign actual future values to non-random events using the probability of random events. If that's how you want to perceive yourself, be my guest. But God you ain't. Thinking you have cornered some semi-precise estimations based on a few years of betting a sport is arrogant beyond words.
And if your estimates aren't really all that precise, then why not just refer to them as "my estimates." Instead of labeling stuff as "EV" as if you are dealing with the actual concrete math of random events.
If you want to use "EV" in past tense for sports betting or for middling applications/descriptions or for auto-profit -130/+140 arbitrage applications, cool. That's the proper use. But don't go beyond those specific applications, claiming you have "+EV" going forward using Strategy A for Sports A, B, or C. You have only a general idea what the EV MIGHT be going forward. The proper phrase isn't "the EV is," the proper phrase is "my opinion is."
Basically, my problem with people assigning "EV" to non-random events has to do with their conflating their opinions with math. I've always used "EV" with the "Expected" referring to precise mathematical estimates. Once you substitute your opinion and use the "Expected" as in "What YOU Personally Expect" versus math, you are going mega-arrogant and calculating things way beyond any likely precision.
This nonchalant use of "EV" for non-random events by alleged "APs" blows my mind. It also blows my mind that they call me arrogant when they are the ones deciding that their personal opinion is math itself.
Point spreads do not create coin flips. How hard is that to understand? Point spreads are designed to balance betting, not create 50/50 results. That's kindergarten basics. This has little to do with the math of random events. You are dealing with a permeable universe of non-random events.
If you can't use past history to estimate your EV how/why did you come up with a percentage telling investors how much they should expect to make on your website?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Well now you know 2 people that Youwager has screwed or threatened to screw in the same manner in the last month. :rolleyes: Maybe somebody, some big bonus whore or group hit them hard sometime recently leading to this crackdown , because they were good through 4 cycles with me and then bam.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
I find this EV discussion regarding sports betting very interesting. I am a very novice sports better, especially trying to play with an advantage so I don't profess to know the answer. But I gotta say, I agree somewhat with redietz. Although I don't know why he can't be involved in the discussion and make his points without being so arrogant. And then he has the freaking nerve to call the APs the arrogant ones. :rolleyes:
With other things I do at an advantage, like card counting and even the machine/mailer game my partner and I played for years, you can point right to what makes the play at an advantage. And once you have that advantage, EV is just a formula. Advantage x amount wagered = expected value or EV.
No with the bonus stuff I have done with sports betting for the last year, you can also point right to the advantage, and subtracting rollover from bonus, calculate the expected win or expected value. Easy peasy.
But with non bonus type sports betting, I don't know where the EV comes from or how to calculate it. Suppose you are doing something like betting against the public or betting with sharp picks, or doing something with line movements (not involving middling). Where is the EV and how do you calculate it? A lot of that seems based on past trends and I don't think that works as EV.
Take the little first two weeks NFL underdog play that Axelwolf and myself have played in recent years. You are talking 15 games a week for 2 weeks or 30 games a year with data from 10-12 years. That isn't enough data to say that is a +EV play is it? In blackjack we use not just a million or two but 10s or 100s of millions of simulation size to have any real meaning. So 300-360 games worth of data can't really mean anything as far as definitively declaring something +EV. Not in my mind.
I will let you guys fight it out and Red keep weighing in with his very nasty arrogant posts, but so far I just don't see that the term EV translates all that well into sports betting, with the exception of something like the bonus play where you can point right to the advantage and then calculate EV.
The above said, there are people that win at sports betting year after year after year. (I have no idea is Red is one of them). So the must be doing something at an advantage and can come up with a number leading to a +EV type expectation. I just don't know what that is. So I should re-phrase my previous statement to say For me and what I know to date, I don't think the term EV or +EV translates that well into sports betting. Not like other areas where you can point right to where the advantage is and comes from.
I'm fairly certain most professional sports bettors who do any sort of origination have an IQ higher than yours. They all know what is implied in the use of "EV". The only real question is "how do you derive EV". Your observations are silly but you don't get that.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
You keep repeating yourself like others don't understand when they're already 3 steps beyond you. This is real talk.
<cough cough> hes a bullshitterQuote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfIf you can't use past history to estimate your EV how/why did you come up with a percentage telling investors how much they should expect to make on your website?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
it speaks for itself you're the only one who agrees with Redietz.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Just so help you out - No one is disagreeing that EV is not estimated in some capacity. It is just IMPLIED.
It bothers Redietz because his sports betting was never that sophisticated in an analytical sense. It is all "Charlie's cousin ran the 100 M dash to Ken State therefore Jeremy K is a darkhorse running back". Or whatever the fuck.
I don't have a hard time believing Redietz beats the public in coin flipping contests. The problem is without a concept of EV you never know when to bet and when not to bet. You might say "OH this is the best bet" and it might very well have the best EV out of what you're analyzing. You won't be able to go down the list and know when there is no longer value without the concept of EV.
There is no fight to be had with Redietz. We're just loling at him.
C'mon, guys. Redietz has said over and over again you can't use probability of random events to assign actual value to non-random events. He has said repeatedly that NFL games are non-random.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
So what should you use? No brainer. Use the chart below. It's a collection of statistics from thousands of NON-RANDOM NFL GAMES, right redietz?
Axel, you’ll never get an answer to that question.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfIf you can't use past history to estimate your EV how/why did you come up with a percentage telling investors how much they should expect to make on your website?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmAxel, you’ll never get an answer to that question.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfIf you can't use past history to estimate your EV how/why did you come up with a percentage telling investors how much they should expect to make on your website?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Of course you will.
(1) That site reference is from a site roughly 30 years old. I would expect that I have learned how to be more precise and accurate in my language in the intervening 30 years.
(2) Second, and more importantly, Axel paraphrases as opposed to direct quoting (obviously), which allows him to use the phrase, "telling investors how much they should expect to make" instead of quoting from the site directly. He does that a lot.
(3) And even using Axel's misrepresentative language, "telling investors how much they should expect to make" is clearly an opinion, not a math formula. Last I checked "should expect" is not "the EV will be." I have no problem with "should expect" as used by "APs." I have an issue with assignation of a math formula as opposed to "the history has been" or "we expect to."
(4) On that site, I used the phrase "our modus operandi is," not "we will" or "the EV is." "Modus operandi" means "method of operating." "Modus operandi" in this case refers both to past results and future goals. There is no reference to EV, guarantees going forward, or a specific math formula. Even 30 years ago, I didn't think anyone would believe sports betting could yield something as fairy tale-ish as a mathematically grounded "EV." No one in the business did, and there were hundreds, if not thousands, of people in the business.
(5) In none of the sports gambling papers I have read from the National Conferences on Gambling and Risk-Taking, which stretch back to 1980, have I read anything "assigning EV" to sports betting except as it related to reporting in PAST TENSE. I gave a paper at one of these conferences, by the way.
6) I would think, as with the stock market, that one legally cannot and should not anchor "EV" going forward to past results.
7) And finally and most obvious -- whenever you have persistent, one might say addicted, gamblers, some of the questions you have to ask yourself are, "Do they overestimate their expertise? What indications would there be that they do so? Can you assign something as denotatively precise as an "EV" label to what they are doing? What kind of security blanket does using a phrase like "EV" provide, when in reality there are no such security blankets? Are they substituting math lingo for expertise to provide them comfort and a rationale to bet? Are they adopting specific language to hide their lack of expertise? Are they adopting specific language to hide their lack of historical knowledge regarding spreads and sports? Are these gamblers using 'EV' as a crutch concept to make them think they have some edge when in reality they may or may not?" Which leads to...
8) Are the people writing about "EV" vis-a-vis sports betting underestimating or overestimating their abilities to predict events? That's the bottom line. I suggest going to the social-psychological literature, and there are literally thousands of papers on the subject, regarding whether Americans underestimate or overestimate their knowledge and abilities and skill in predicting future events. I'd say the literature runs about 90/10, but that is, of course, just my opinion. Despite thousands of papers on the subject, it's not a math formula using "EV."
A less retarded person would have said "I was wrong about EV not being relevant to profitable sports betting" a long time ago.
Your 8 points are nearly all retarded word salad.
Isn't it you who keep going on how your results were tracked from 30 years ago or whatever?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmAxel, you’ll never get an answer to that question.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Of course you will.
(1) That site reference is from a site roughly 30 years old. I would expect that I have learned how to be more precise and accurate in my language in the intervening 30 years.
(2) Second, and more importantly, Axel paraphrases as opposed to direct quoting (obviously), which allows him to use the phrase, "telling investors how much they should expect to make" instead of quoting from the site directly. He does that a lot.
(3) And even using Axel's misrepresentative language, "telling investors how much they should expect to make" is clearly an opinion, not a math formula. Last I checked "should expect" is not "the EV will be." I have no problem with "should expect" as used by "APs." I have an issue with assignation of a math formula as opposed to "the history has been" or "we expect to."
(4) On that site, I used the phrase "our modus operandi is," not "we will" or "the EV is." "Modus operandi" means "method of operating." "Modus operandi" in this case refers both to past results and future goals. There is no reference to EV, guarantees going forward, or a specific math formula. Even 30 years ago, I didn't think anyone would believe sports betting could yield something as fairy tale-ish as a mathematically grounded "EV." No one in the business did, and there were hundreds, if not thousands, of people in the business.
(5) In none of the sports gambling papers I have read from the National Conferences on Gambling and Risk-Taking, which stretch back to 1980, have I read anything "assigning EV" to sports betting except as it related to reporting in PAST TENSE. I gave a paper at one of these conferences, by the way.
6) I would think, as with the stock market, that one legally cannot and should not anchor "EV" going forward to past results.
7) And finally and most obvious -- whenever you have persistent, one might say addicted, gamblers, some of the questions you have to ask yourself are, "Do they overestimate their expertise? What indications would there be that they do so? Can you assign something as denotatively precise as an "EV" label to what they are doing? What kind of security blanket does using a phrase like "EV" provide, when in reality there are no such security blankets? Are they substituting math lingo for expertise to provide them comfort and a rationale to bet? Are they adopting specific language to hide their lack of expertise? Are they adopting specific language to hide their lack of historical knowledge regarding spreads and sports? Are these gamblers using 'EV' as a crutch concept to make them think they have some edge when in reality they may or may not?" Which leads to...
8) Are the people writing about "EV" vis-a-vis sports betting underestimating or overestimating their abilities to predict events? That's the bottom line. I suggest going to the social-psychological literature, and there are literally thousands of papers on the subject, regarding whether Americans underestimate or overestimate their knowledge and abilities and skill in predicting future events. I'd say the literature runs about 90/10, but that is, of course, just my opinion. Despite thousands of papers on the subject, it's not a math formula using "EV."
I commend you on using tricky clever verbiage for the sake of recruiting investors.
But never mind the verbiage.
I'm still curious as to how or why you came up with that number in the first place?
Wasn't that based on your past results? Or did you just make up a number?
One could also make the argument that in a pure random sense you could remove the expected and just use the word value.
In sports betting it literally is your expected value. That's how the word expected works.
Redietz mind blown.
.
a game could open up as a pick 'em
then a few days later close to game time a fave could be bet down to -1.5 - happens quite often
so when would the bet be random________?___________when it was offered a a pick_________?__________or when it was offered at -1.5
my answer - if it is random - then it would be random close to game time after which there would be no changes in the line
and non-random early in the week
the bettors themselves, the sharps, move the bet spread closer to randomness the closer the bet is to the actual game time as the sharps make their late bets against the early non random line causing the books to alter their spread offering
.
Good to see you posting here Half smoke. But I don't think this is right. Line movements are not designed to reflect the true odds or advantage of a game. They are designed to have as close to 50% wagers on both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
Maybe I am looking at this through card counters eyes, but I am going to introduce the term "points of data". In card counting we know that at a true count of +2, the player will have between .5 and 1% advantage, depending on exact rules. Now how do we KNOW this? Well there are mathematical formulas based on card removals. Now that stuff is really above my head. So someone like me relies on simulations to PROVE the same thing. And simulations will show an exact advantage or expected value (EV) for a true count of +2 (and every true count), for each set of rules.
Now the simulations use points of data, past data to determine this. It is millions and millions, 10's and 100's of millions of points of data to determine this. Anything less than multiple millions of points of data and it is deemed too small a sample size to have any real meaning.
So move over to sports betting. How exactly is EV figured? I am not aware of any such formula, like in card counting. If there is, please correct me. It appears to me it is all based on past results, each one being a point of data. For example, they look at similar +3.5 point games to try to figure out something about todays +3.5 game. Well how many +3.5 games is someone looking at? Even using computers, it is only thousands of games (or points of data) not millions. And to me, again, maybe my card counter brain at play, but that is just not a large enough sample size for any significance. :confused:
I used your (Half smoke's) first two week NFL underdog play as an earlier example. I like that play. Have made money the last 2 years on it (more 2 years ago than this year). And I am looking forward to playing in next season. But that play which is 30 games (15 for 2 weeks) each years, is based on about 12 years data or 360 games or "points of data". That is not enough to realistically figure expected anything going forward to my card counting mentality thinking. :rolleyes:
Maybe I am missing something. Maybe I am not looking at it correctly, maybe through those card counter glasses, but until someone shows me in a way I can understand, I just don't think EV, which is based on a mathematical formula really translates to sports betting. It translates with the bonus whoring aspect of sports betting, but the handicapping or how ever some picks games, I don't see it.
LOL as if a high IQ has anything to do with ones ability to make money gambling. Some of the highest IQ people I know know of couldn't +EV themselves out of a wet papper bag even with an understanding of gambling and +EV. Just because you don't agree with commonly use terms from the 80's doesn't raise your IQ. And your credit score is as meaningless as your supposed IQ when it comes to making money at gambling.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I'm willing to put my Gambling IQ vs your'. Just say the word and we can come up with something as I have already suggested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfLOL as if a high IQ has anything to do with ones ability to make money gambling. Some of the highest IQ people I know know of couldn't +EV themselves out of a wet papper bag even with an understanding of gambling and +EV. Just because you don't agree with commonly use terms from the 80's doesn't raise your IQ. And your credit score is as meaningless as your supposed IQ when it comes to making money at gambling.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
This is a fact that the no AP or anti-AP people can't seem to grasp. I don't mean to pick on Eliot, but he is a great example. He is a very smart dude, when it comes to mathematics. (please no comments about his political or climate change views). With Gambling mathematics he is as smart as they come. But as an AP, he was not a success. Some people just don't have what it takes, despite having that math knowledge.
As soon as someone starts talking about high I.Q. or how book smart they are, thinking it translates to gambling, I immediately know they don't understand gambling and what it takes to be a long-term winning player and probably aren't such a long-term winning player.
that is correctQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
but it is the late betting sharps that caused to line to move (not every time but many times) by betting in to what they saw as a soft line
the books don't care if the sharps actually got the advantage they tried to get (most of the time)
the books making a profit is a completely different thing from the sharps making a profit
.
Well what is "the mathematical formula" that the sharps are using to determine that the line is wrong? I don't think there is a mathematical formula and that is what EV is based on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smokethat is correctQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
but it is the late betting sharps that caused to line to move (not every time but many times) by betting in to what they saw as a soft line
the books don't care if the sharps actually got the advantage they tried to get (most of the time)
the books making a profit is a completely different thing from the sharps making a profit
.
With real EV (expected value), you can point to a mathematical formula to back it up. As near as I can tell people use the term EV in sports betting when it really isn't. It is closer to what redietz said. It is an "opinion" that there is value on a particular line.
there is no "mathematical formula"Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJWell what is "the mathematical formula" that the sharps are using to determine that the line is wrong? I don't think there is a mathematical formula and that is what EV is based on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smokethat is correctQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
but it is the late betting sharps that caused to line to move (not every time but many times) by betting in to what they saw as a soft line
the books don't care if the sharps actually got the advantage they tried to get (most of the time)
the books making a profit is a completely different thing from the sharps making a profit
.
some very sharp bettors have very sharp opinions
they have a particular insight into certain games - they are right more often than they are wrong usually by only a small % - but big enough to be profitable
the vast majority of bettors are not sharp and are setting the table for the sharps
there are 2 ways to profit in betting sports
multi-accounting and handicapping
I would guess that those who profit by the greatest % do both
I believe that in multi-accounting or match betting books will limit the bonuses and/or free play that they offer and that the offers are usually smallish
a handicapper does not (usually) have a limitation such as that
.
Okay then!! That is not EV. That is opinion. Maybe a very, very good opinion, which is why they are called "sharps". But still just an opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
I try to follow or tag along with some bettors that have very good opinions and records, including Druff when he is not going 1 for his last 12. :D But it really is just opinion. I should not be seeing the term EV in sports betting discussions.
Now that said, it is possible there are a few situations where expected value may come into play with sports betting, because it comes from the math. the dreaded parlay for example. It is possible that the odds for a parlay are far greater than what it should be based on the odds of the two games. Rarely happens, but every once in a while, you will see a number that is out of whack. That would be +EV based on math, not opinion.
A second example may be the baseball run line or hockey puck line. There may be situations that some of these numbers are out of whack based on the math. I think the books are pretty careful with that, but you may find situations with an overlay, especially if you are checking many books. I think Monet is looking for such situations with his hockey picks.
I agree that the term EV is not a good one for a handicapper to useQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJOkay then!! That is not EV. That is opinion. Maybe a very, very good opinion, which is why they are called "sharps". But still just an opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
I try to follow or tag along with some bettors that have very good opinions and records, including Druff when he is not going 1 for his last 12. :D But it really is just opinion. I should not be seeing the term EV in sports betting discussions.
it might be better for someone milking bonuses but even then it would be difficult to say what it is with any degree of accuracy
and yes, last year's superstar capper might falter the next year
there are no guarantees
I believe there are some cappers, maybe very small in number, who are very consistent thru the years
re bonuses and such - obviously, even the most clueless bettor is going to have an advantage if a book lures him in with a 50% bonus free play offer on his first bet
.
Without a doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
That is me for the last 16 months. :) Not sure how much longer I have at it though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
With bonus chasing, you still have to pick games by some method. The bonuses are designed in a manner that if you flip a coin to determine all games, you will pretty much eat up the bonus, unless you have gotten a really great bonus, which I initially did. So to make money you have to do a little better than a coin flip. You don't have to win more than you lose, but you need to find ways to cut that 5% loss on rollover down to 2-3%, or 0% is even better.
That is why I tag along with people I think are a little bit better than a coin flip. Doesn't always work out that way. :D You also try to find other things like half juice Fridays and free bets and such promotions as much as you can.
Of course it is all for not, if at the end of the cycle the sportsbook renegs on the bonus, which just happened at one of my books. :mad:
This is what Billy Walter's said. Chapter 22 in Walter's book is called Advanced Master Class. It says there is a lot of math and statistics involved. He worked with "true geniuses" in computer modeling and probability theory. They built power ratings that mirrored the betting spread. The power ratings ranged between +10 to -10. On specific games ratings were adjusted for factors like weather, schedule, injuries, etc. They had specific numbers for these kind of adjustments to power ratings. Power ratings were updated weekly. Average team has a rating of zero. Good teams have positive ratings, bad teams negative.
Walters shows all the factors that go into a power rating. It's detailed and in depth. There are hundreds of factors. He would bet 5 to 10 NFL games per week.
So Team A with a power rating of 10 is playing Team B with a power rating of 2.5. That's a 7.5 point differential. The posted spread on the game is 4.5. A 3 point difference between his line and the posted line. He says the 3 points difference is a 14% difference and gives a mathematical formula for it.
He uses a star system for bet sizing:
0.5 star = 5.5%
1.0 star = 7.%
1.5 star = 9%
2.0 stars = 11%
2.5 stars = 13%
3.0 stars = 15%.
The bigger the point differential between his line and the books line the bigger the percentage difference, consequently the more stars the bet gets.
He sizes his bets based on the number of stars. He won't bet anything less than 0.5 stars/5.5%. The more stars the more he will bet on a game.
I posted this just to show you what Walters says. Not what I say. What Walters says. His bets are based in numbers and statistics, not opinion. So should we believe him?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
There are a 'hundred' diffrent ways to be profitable in sports betting, but some people only think there are only a few ways it can and should be done.
yes, he should be believedQuote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
but that doesn't mean that other successful cappers have not profited without using mathematical models
they have - that is a sure thing
he was maybe the greatest ever - but still - his way is not the only way
and mickey - take another look at that chart you posted from Mike
and see that in about 2,000 games the away underdog had a 2.57% profit against the spread
and the home fave was -11.51% ats
it doesn't look random - not at all
.
Not every winning bettor uses the term EV but most do.
Yes it is EV. It is literally the expected value.
Although not every cash bettor may use EV I would hazard to guess they understand the word expected.
The only difference is it is their expectation of the value and not the underlying empirical probability.
Even a coin won't be 50/50. People don't have a hissy because it is not 50/50 and may be .4999/.5001 . The coin will never be perfectly symmetrical and there will be some imperfections to keep it from .50/.50. Smart people will understand this but they also understand it is not a particularly useful convo to be had or even that keen of an observation.
Redietz is not one of these people.
Gm
.
I made a winning pick in week 10 - Cardinals at home (5-4 at the time) +1.5 over the Jets (3-6) at that time - the spread actually went to Cardinals +2 after my pick
I'm not bragging - I'm not a pro - but I believe I made a good pick - I can't do it often - I don't try much anymore - but this pick stood out
I believed the ploppies wrongly still thought Aaron Rodgers was very great even though he had been messing up badly
I thought it was a very good pick but there was absolutely no way I could say what the EV was
I wouldn't have a clue
Edit - this ESPN link shows some of the wildest bets from this year so far - mostly crazy parlays
but one bettor bet $ 3.1 million on the Eagles on the moneyline -700 to beat the Panthers at Circa Sports - it went down to the wire but he won it winning $442, 857
https://www.espn.com/espn/betting/st...st-wagers-2024
.
.
And you can very well be a winning bettor. Again, even without using EV you could win with the proper discipline.
Without EV it becomes hard to know when the bet is actually profitable. It becomes even more of an opinion. With some form of a methodology that derives expected value you will have something that tells you when the bet is actually profitable.
On pickem tournaments this concept is not needed.
Redietz talks about people using EV as some form of hocus pocus but the only hocus pocus is his 8 bullet points of word salad.
n
china
@chinamaniac
Some people say books cut you off if you bet too many props and while that can be true in some cases...
I have been betting about 8 props per game or so on LONG and RCPT plays with some normal yardage props mixed in over the past week with one book and the guy tripled my credit limit without me asking for an increase
Some of these guys just think you are crazy for betting volume on carnival props
I have the Hard Rock Sports betting App and the tip off that you most likely will win is that the cash out option is MORE than you bet. For example, if you bet for Mika Vushka to win a Table Tennis Game against Nikolos Tiruka, and put $20 on Mika, you might see,"Cash out 25. A cash out that is higher than your bet most likely means that your bet is going to win. :) For example, I got a cash out option that was higher than my bet and I took the cash out option thinking"I win more than my bet by cashing out and low and behold, my cashed out bet WON! :/ I shouldn't have selected "Cash out," option. The opposite is true, that if you are offered a much lower cash out than your bet, like putting $20 on a Sports Player and only getting offered about $10 in a cash out choice, that most likely means your Sports Player choice will LOSE. :/
Karen is now a sports bettor.
This will be good.
Is there a band wagon she DOESN'T try to jump on?
Can't wait for all of her picks and sage explanations in their support.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
"Mammie, go gets me 'dat copy o' "Sport Ill-strated," I and I jus' found at de bus stop. I and I needs to figure out hows to bet all de upcoming games."
Her long suffering mother stopped scrubbing the linoleum, took off her rubber gloves, swallowed a big belt of fortified wine and handed Karen the magazine.
"Now 'dat I and I is a sports gamblin' expert I and I is gonna win big."
Mammie let fly a stealthy toot of uncertainly bordering on disagreement.
"Chile, why is you all a sudden sayin' you knows jack shit 'bout sports? You is no athlete and has never watched sports on TV: fo' you it all be about scamming fools online, eatin' chicken and shittin' de flo'. "
"Shut yo' mouf, mammie...you knows I and I has a condition 'dat causes me to shit de flo."
Once again mammie regretted having shared the advice with Karen which the Magic Eight Ball presented when asked long ago why she shit de flo,' but that was urine under the bridge.
"Where is you gwine get de money to makes dese sport bets? You be broke as a joke."
"I and I reached out to my casino friends for money, dey always comes thru, jus' you wait and see."
Mammie took another deep pull from the bottle and got back to scrubbing, knowing in her heart that like always, her daughter's latest endeavor would once again blow up in her face.
The fact you have it in for Tasha so bad yet want to cuddle up with Kewl pretty much locks down the fact you have some latent homo-based concern for Kewl.
And they chastised me for attempting to get her involved with online +EV.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
I'll be honest I don't even know what she is seeing. Cash out buttons on bets? Can you abort bets and give up juice somehow? Or is she talking about the payout? Which if the latter (and what makes the most sense) she has it completely backwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfAnd they chastised me for attempting to get her involved with online +EV.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
Tasha - if the bet pays less than the wager that means that it has a higher chance of winning. Thats why you are paid less. If it pays more than your bet (along with the original bet) then that means it was a less than 50% chance. A one in 4 chance of winning will pay you roughly 3x your bet (plus original bet). If you have a 3 in 4 chance of winning then it will pay you far less than your original bet.
I think it would be theoretically possible to teach her some advantage slots that have hard distinct entry points. I don't think you'd ever have any luck if she had to user her judgement because she'd play everything.
Honestly though, I think with sports betting and the time delays she has a better chance of having $$ in her pocket than slots playing.
I'm so often amazed at how bad people are with numbers even though they seem averagely smart in their writings. I once defended her intelligence but lol I don't think I would again.
Fantasize and project much, do ya, boyo?Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Not that there's anything really wrong with that...
just sayin'
It is beyond comical you think this is a fitting insult. But yea lol keep it up with Tasha. I used to see you as background noise but your personality blazed out before Singer et al got up for the sunshine. You somehow managed to be top notch annoying. I'm sure you'll tell yourself got 'em. Whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterVFantasize and project much, do ya, boyo?Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Not that there's anything really wrong with that...
just sayin'
It wasn't an insult, it was a valid question.
You strike me as a bit fem.
Whatever, read my shit or block / ignore it, I could give a flying fuck: I write for myself primarily and if anyone else likes it, great; if not, that's great too.
For forty years I earned a good living from my words: now they're for entertainment / private amusement only.
BTW, when I was a practicing attorney I also used other people and their lives as my source material.
Yea I'm fem clearly. I'm just trying to buddy up to you so you'll tell me the texture of kewls ballsack.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Why isn't this retard making up more fake baccarat sessions?
He did make up more if his baccarat fake wins. Claims he won 42k yesterday, and of course the casinos love him for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaewoo
It is this simple. If this guy will lie about the nonsense he just did, then why would anyone believe any of his retarded fantasy claims.
Oh wait...no one does! No one even responds to his bullshit claims anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
Great, now we have 2 clowns on this same thread(Mcocksucker and Accunt) trying to get into Nathan/Tasha`s pantsQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionIt is beyond comical you think this is a fitting insult. But yea lol keep it up with Tasha. I used to see you as background noise but your personality blazed out before Singer et al got up for the sunshine. You somehow managed to be top notch annoying. I'm sure you'll tell yourself got 'em. Whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterVFantasize and project much, do ya, boyo?Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Not that there's anything really wrong with that...
just sayin'
So in the situation between Team A and Team B above, Walter's model says Team A should be favored by 7.5 points and the posted spread is -4.5. A 3 point difference. Walters put that at a 14% edge. So how did he determine that 14% edge?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
There is a chart in his book, which I will post below. It shows how often a favorite will win by exactly the number of points it was favored by. Stats going back to 1974 were collected. But he warned that numbers can change over time, especially with rules changes.
So the posted line is -4.5 and Walters' line is -7.5.
The chart shows:
a team favored by 5 will win by exactly 5 points 3% of the time.
a team favored by 6 will win by exactly 6 points 5% of the time.
a team favored by 7 will win by exactly 7 points 6% of the time.
That totals to 14%. Since his model puts the line at -7.5 he has the -5,-6 and -7 covered.
Also it helps to regularly follow the Player of your choice. :) Usually the Longshot is who you don't want to bet and you want to bet the Favorite, but know your Player. :) For example, I chose a Player that I know often wins but this time he was the LONGSHOT. I chose him and he WON. :)
It's nice that your state has the one designated sportsbook. I think I have 9 registrations here in Nevada, so there's always a risk that I'll bet a worse line than I could have gotten somewhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasha
I have an offshore progress report:
So far so good. I feel very conspicuous, but everyone has paid me and I haven't detected any obvious heat. I'm just lacking in options, as I only feel confident with a few of the operators, and I fear scrutiny for playing multiple books in the same group (which I may not be aware of).
My favorite so far is BetOnline. Good odds, functional web site, lots of promos, contests and loyalty benefits. Instant payouts. Bonuses are probably not so good. I'm not even sure they're doing reloads, and the freeplay is very restrictive. You can only bet up to +150, and only on designated sports selections.
Somebody mentioned heat from Just Bet. I've played a lot at Bookmaker in the same group. I've run hot and beat them for several thousand, but they cashed me out without complaint. Just about a 30-minute wait for review. Bookmaker's website is less dazzling than BetOnline, but there's a loyalty program and reloads. Freeplay usage is basically unrestricted iirc -- you're allowed to bet longshots.
I'm not impressed with Bet US.
I have my first bonus in progress now at MyBookie. Site has all the features, but I find the lines are pretty much fully juiced.
I have an account at a top-five offshore Sportsbook that I let get up to tens of thousands of dollars recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don PerignomIt's nice that your state has the one designated sportsbook. I think I have 9 registrations here in Nevada, so there's always a risk that I'll bet a worse line than I could have gotten somewhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasha
I have an offshore progress report:
So far so good. I feel very conspicuous, but everyone has paid me and I haven't detected any obvious heat. I'm just lacking in options, as I only feel confident with a few of the operators, and I fear scrutiny for playing multiple books in the same group (which I may not be aware of).
My favorite so far is BetOnline. Good odds, functional web site, lots of promos, contests and loyalty benefits. Instant payouts. Bonuses are probably not so good. I'm not even sure they're doing reloads, and the freeplay is very restrictive. You can only bet up to +150, and only on designated sports selections.
Somebody mentioned heat from Just Bet. I've played a lot at Bookmaker in the same group. I've run hot and beat them for several thousand, but they cashed me out without complaint. Just about a 30-minute wait for review. Bookmaker's website is less dazzling than BetOnline, but there's a loyalty program and reloads. Freeplay usage is basically unrestricted iirc -- you're allowed to bet longshots.
I'm not impressed with Bet US.
I have my first bonus in progress now at MyBookie. Site has all the features, but I find the lines are pretty much fully juiced.
Over the years in the past Cashing Out has only taken 1 to 5 days depending on if it was a weekend or not.
I want to mention that I rolled over much, much more than the required amount for the bonus.
I recently started out cashing out my weekly limit and everything was okay the first few times I cashed out, but as I kept cashing out the time in between cashouts got longer and longer, almost 2 weeks for one cashout. Now suddenly they have limited my cashout limits by about 65%.
This is my favorite form of gambling because (the way I do it) it's very low-stress, without any of the annoyances encountered in a b&m sportsbook or casino. Probably not realistic, but I would like to peacefully coexist with the sportsbooks to ensure durable relationships. I'm trying to employ heavy cover, but I don't know what's effective. I give double the rollover if not more. I mostly avoid certain types of bets that may be associated with smart players. I'm cautious about exploiting sudden line movements. I never bet outright mistakes. Ultimately though, I can't hide my account balance.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Here is some email content I have gotten from a top online sports book manager so you can see what they are thinking a bit when it comes to this stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don PerignomThis is my favorite form of gambling because (the way I do it) it's very low-stress, without any of the annoyances encountered in a b&m sportsbook or casino. Probably not realistic, but I would like to peacefully coexist with the sportsbooks to ensure durable relationships. I'm trying to employ heavy cover, but I don't know what's effective. I give double the rollover if not more. I mostly avoid certain types of bets that may be associated with smart players. I'm cautious about exploiting sudden line movements. I never bet outright mistakes. Ultimately though, I can't hide my account balance.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Keep in mind that we are a book for recreational players. Recreational players are welcome to play and win and cash out as much as they want. However, we are not interested in bonusing professional gamblers.
Being a professional gambler has nothing to do with winning or losing. It has to do with what you are playing. If you are playing all line moves and stale lines in obscure sports with week lines, we will pay you but not bonus your transactions.
I get that being from Vegas does make you a pro gambler. But most of our professional gamblers come in from Vegas and they generally come in for a couple to a few thousand dollars and always in crypto. So when I see those 3 things I like to be upfront."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
FYI they are worse than me when it comes to writing, LOL.
I will no longer play there due to those comments.
More details about Richard's move into Sports Betting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyV691qoEyA