I have come back from the dead. Not that big a deal. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasha
Printable View
I have come back from the dead. Not that big a deal. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasha
But never stopped lying. So that near death experience didn't teach you anything.
Why isn't this retard posting more fake baccarat sessions?
The name doesn’t ring a bell. Who was he.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfMickey, do you remember Robert X?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Oh he is! For those not following this Cinderella Fairytale, Dawg has claimed 3 winning days totaling $326,000 for the first 3 days of February. This on top of his $977k in claimed winnings in January. Plus an additional 5 figure amount for winning a tournament.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaewoo
As he has done throughout these 7 years of this bullshit, his claims are escalating and pretty rapidly, desperately seeking interest and attention.
I think my favorite comment by Dawg today when SooPoo notices that he had posted 500k in winnings over the last 4 days was Dawg saying he is able to do so because he moves around a lot. :D:D:D:D
Moving around a lot (known as hit and run), is a tactic that works if 1) a player is playing unrated and 2) a player is playing moderate stakes (under $500) that is well tolerated. I employed this tactic for a dozen years in Vegas.
BUT it is not something you can do playing rated and playing up to 50k a hand in high limit rooms as Dawg claims. It is just another case of this guy's claims defying how Las Vegas works. I know people get tired of me saying that, but it is just ridiculous. This guy's claims are just a fantasy, and I think based on things he has read and movies he has seen from last century. NONE of it is based on reality that is Las Vegas in 2025.
And it really is disappointing that Shackleford provides a platform for this mis-information AND goes as far as to protect this bullshit by not allowing real players to even push back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVRF...dHUgdW5nZXI%3DQuote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmThe cash game referred to was gin rummy, not poker.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I recall being at a party with Todd and talking to one of the total unknown yet most successful cash players. She, Todd, and myself all found it surprising we were on Planet Poker. Interestingly I ran into another person a few months ago at a cash game who was also on it. It is rare but people tend to never completely leave the poker world when they start out that early. What brought them there is also what keeps them playing the game on occasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfThat may be me you are talking about, as I started playing on Planet Poker around 1999 which was pre-no-limit online. At the time I think the highest they had was 10-20 limit they may have had 20-40 Limit.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionTodd was around in the very very early days of online poker. It is very possible/likely he played before that. IIRC he played on the very first site - Planet Poker.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
He was not part of the days of Unger's world and all that but again - I might be wrong but I won't be as wrong as Redietz and the dunce.
I was also on Paradise in '99. I remember specifically I had hand histories that had that date on it. If I only knew what I know now and was 25 years younger I could clean up. I was never particularly good at poker though. Not disciplined enough in some regards.
I've played a lot of live poker. I've been around ... but I still played far more hands of online poker and it isn't even close. I've played very few live tournaments but a decent amount of online SNGs and some tournaments. I was never a tournament guy. Never liked the commitment of having to sit there and pee on your break or whatever.
A taller skinny brown haired white guy, he was just a general scuffler, railbird who hung out with Danny, Ali, and the rest of the Hustler gang like Jack Etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmThe name doesn’t ring a bell. Who was he.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfMickey, do you remember Robert X?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
He would work for people off and on(he worked for me many times) play flush attack, etc. but he had leaks and usually needed a loan or to be put in action. At one time he played a decent amount of Poker and new guys like Phil H, the Greek well. I think he's mentioned in one of Helmets's books as one of the guys he always loaned a few bucks to.
He placed in a few tournaments around that time, you're talking about, but he always sold off most of his action. He was a solid ABC poker player
He earned the X because when he was busted and disgusted, he would sleep in the XXX theaters or whatever.
I was absolutely being Super Used on while playing heads-up on Paradise poker. It wasn't even very big Stakes. I played long enough to prove to myself I wasn't mistaken. I never played there again. This is well before all the evidence came out and confirmed that this was a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionI recall being at a party with Todd and talking to one of the total unknown yet most successful cash players. She, Todd, and myself all found it surprising we were on Planet Poker. Interestingly I ran into another person a few months ago at a cash game who was also on it. It is rare but people tend to never completely leave the poker world when they start out that early. What brought them there is also what keeps them playing the game on occasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfThat may be me you are talking about, as I started playing on Planet Poker around 1999 which was pre-no-limit online. At the time I think the highest they had was 10-20 limit they may have had 20-40 Limit.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
I was also on Paradise in '99. I remember specifically I had hand histories that had that date on it. If I only knew what I know now and was 25 years younger I could clean up. I was never particularly good at poker though. Not disciplined enough in some regards.
I've played a lot of live poker. I've been around ... but I still played far more hands of online poker and it isn't even close. I've played very few live tournaments but a decent amount of online SNGs and some tournaments. I was never a tournament guy. Never liked the commitment of having to sit there and pee on your break or whatever.
Speaking of Poker.
I actually helped Cindy Violet create her logo and did various other things to help her start her Vegan restaurant. That logo she had was mostly a creation of mine,I think there were some slight edits after the fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Kew, when you're trying to put together misinformation about someone else, it's best not to include lies about yourself within the same rant.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJOh he is! For those not following this Cinderella Fairytale, Dawg has claimed 3 winning days totaling $326,000 for the first 3 days of February. This on top of his $977k in claimed winnings in January. Plus an additional 5 figure amount for winning a tournament.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaewoo
As he has done throughout these 7 years of this bullshit, his claims are escalating and pretty rapidly, desperately seeking interest and attention.
I think my favorite comment by Dawg today when SooPoo notices that he had posted 500k in winnings over the last 4 days was Dawg saying he is able to do so because he moves around a lot. :D:D:D:D
Moving around a lot (known as hit and run), is a tactic that works if 1) a player is playing unrated and 2) a player is playing moderate stakes (under $500) that is well tolerated. I employed this tactic for a dozen years in Vegas.
BUT it is not something you can do playing rated and playing up to 50k a hand in high limit rooms as Dawg claims. It is just another case of this guy's claims defying how Las Vegas works. I know people get tired of me saying that, but it is just ridiculous. This guy's claims are just a fantasy, and I think based on things he has read and movies he has seen from last century. NONE of it is based on reality that is Las Vegas in 2025.
And it really is disappointing that Shackleford provides a platform for this mis-information AND goes as far as to protect this bullshit by not allowing real players to even push back.
Since Trump banned transgender "women" from playing women's sports today, I figured I better hustle to Wal-Mart to try on women's clothing before it became illegal to do so. I knew it was a major gamble, so I alerted Bob Nersesian.
While I was trying on a pink sequined body suit, Wal-Mart security grabbed me and forced me into a back room, shoving me into a table. They tore my pantyhose and, after I escaped and flagged a cab while still wearing the bodysuit in question, I realized they had also broken my arm. I went straight to the hospital. Turns out my left arm was broken in two places and my right arm was cut badly from sharp dislodged sequins.
While I was awaiting the final X-rays, Nersesian called me back. I told him I had lost a bad gamble and my sequin counting had gotten me in hot water. He called Wal-Mart brass, who he had on speed dial (a lot of people gamble in Wal-Mart), and he began negotiating my settlement, which will not appear in the press because Wal-Mart avoids publicly prosecuting adult men in ripped pantyhose wearing pink bodysuits and with bloody sequins.
But take my word for it.
Sound like anyone?
I know Cindy too. Small world, sorta. You'd know her a lot better than me though.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfI was absolutely being Super Used on while playing heads-up on Paradise poker. It wasn't even very big Stakes. I played long enough to prove to myself I wasn't mistaken. I never played there again. This is well before all the evidence came out and confirmed that this was a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionI recall being at a party with Todd and talking to one of the total unknown yet most successful cash players. She, Todd, and myself all found it surprising we were on Planet Poker. Interestingly I ran into another person a few months ago at a cash game who was also on it. It is rare but people tend to never completely leave the poker world when they start out that early. What brought them there is also what keeps them playing the game on occasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
I was also on Paradise in '99. I remember specifically I had hand histories that had that date on it. If I only knew what I know now and was 25 years younger I could clean up. I was never particularly good at poker though. Not disciplined enough in some regards.
I've played a lot of live poker. I've been around ... but I still played far more hands of online poker and it isn't even close. I've played very few live tournaments but a decent amount of online SNGs and some tournaments. I was never a tournament guy. Never liked the commitment of having to sit there and pee on your break or whatever.
Speaking of Poker.
I actually helped Cindy Violet create her logo and did various other things to help her start her Vegan restaurant. That logo she had was mostly a creation of mine,I think there were some slight edits after the fact.
Regarding Paradise. There was some sort stud bot on paradise. I remember that it existed for many years. I'm not sure about this but the fact that people sat at HU stud table at 20/40 on paradise what seemed like 24/7 and nowhere else was suspicious.
I thought I was super-usered too but it was only 3/6 and on UB. People have laughed at me when I tell this story like "who would bother?" but this was back when the highest stake was probably something like 10/20 or 20/40. You couldn't even get hand histories through an automated process. I felt almost positive I'd been cheated at the time but looking back I don't know if I knew enough at that time to really make that decision. LHE is such a swingy game. I lost like 2k or something crazy. Man I wish I had those HHs still so I could look through them and see if I'd have the same opinion. I definitely didn't play very well at that time so who knows ...
I still believe that generally speaking Mdawg to be more truthful than Kewl and it isn't close.
It is just that Kewl tries to make his stories as believable as possible and Mdawgs are from the land of fantastic.
But if you look at everything Kewl has said and the sum whole of it - it really covers more grand even if the amount being lied about may be less.
We can't all be perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
The review on bovada is a professionally written thing that is produced like a full on ad. Like.. it is a landing page and not a review. Not sure whats going on with that site but it sure isn't a user generated review.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
My "Cash out option being HUGE means Sports Player is going to WIN, Cash out option being LOW means that Sports Player is going to LOSE, was crummy advice because recently, I have seen the cash out option being HUGE and the Sports Player LOSING. :/
It's been quite some time since I interacted with her other than the occasional few good wishes /how is it going direct messages.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionI know Cindy too. Small world, sorta. You'd know her a lot better than me though.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfI was absolutely being Super Used on while playing heads-up on Paradise poker. It wasn't even very big Stakes. I played long enough to prove to myself I wasn't mistaken. I never played there again. This is well before all the evidence came out and confirmed that this was a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Speaking of Poker.
I actually helped Cindy Violet create her logo and did various other things to help her start her Vegan restaurant. That logo she had was mostly a creation of mine,I think there were some slight edits after the fact.
Regarding Paradise. There was some sort stud bot on paradise. I remember that it existed for many years. I'm not sure about this but the fact that people sat at HU stud table at 20/40 on paradise what seemed like 24/7 and nowhere else was suspicious.
I thought I was super-usered too but it was only 3/6 and on UB. People have laughed at me when I tell this story like "who would bother?" but this was back when the highest stake was probably something like 10/20 or 20/40. You couldn't even get hand histories through an automated process. I felt almost positive I'd been cheated at the time but looking back I don't know if I knew enough at that time to really make that decision. LHE is such a swingy game. I lost like 2k or something crazy. Man I wish I had those HHs still so I could look through them and see if I'd have the same opinion. I definitely didn't play very well at that time so who knows ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was blatantly obvious I was being super used, they didn't even attempt to hide this fact. They made 100% correct decisions.
There was a time on Bovada in a ring game when it seemed quite obvious something hokey was going on, I believe it was even more notorious than super using, it's almost as if they knew what cards were going to be coming out somehow, it was crazy. Super Hyper-aggressive play with rag cards that always get there when they are in till the end, and out on the hands where you end up flopping the stone-cold nuts. It was blatantly obvious perfect play.
Heck, they even were taunting people in the chat. Why would somebody who had that ability be so blatantly obvious? I have no idea, people oftentimes do dumb things. Perhaps it was just to prove a point, or they know they're Untouchable somehow.
A few others and I contacted support, and while support admitted their play seemed very unusual, their final conclusion/decision was based solely on the fact that the player in question was a losing player overall.
How fucking dumb is that? You know damn well they are dumping the money into other accounts.
Yep, sounds like the lawsuit lie Kewlj came up with with his back rooming incident lie. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Pretty damn good.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Chapter 10 In Walters' book is called "THE COMPUTER GROUP." In it he gives the history and origins of the computer group and his participation in it.
He stated that the originator of the group was Michael Kent. I found a wiki and articles on Kent. In the 3rd link Walters insisted that Kent be inducted into the Sportsbettors Hall of Fame:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...76DCtMQy2sZi3_
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...oLdHV4gRUsmwBt
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...0vWyz5ccSBO8lV
In his book this is what Walters wrote about Michael Kent:
"The Computer Group was the largest sports betting syndicate in the nation. Mike wrote a computer program that pioneered the use of algorithms and probability theories to predict power-rated numbers in sporting events against the official Vegas line produced by mere mortals who were working with pen and paper. He accounted for every variable imaginable. His creation proved to be a ground breaking formula for wagering on college and professional sports.
During football season he went from betting $2400 a week to betting $50,000 a week. The Computer Group....was winning north of 60% of their bets, earning millions in the process. At times they were betting one hundred games per week."
Status from ESPN Bet:
Doubtful, but does this open the door to another signup bonus? Presumably I still have a long wait because first I have to go inactive, and then later dormant.
.
NBA Thursday - first games for both after All Star break - neither team has played since 2/12
shooting may be cold especially on threes
it's a very high total - averaging points made and allowed for both teams I came up with 236
Memphis/Indiana under 249
.
.
not including pushes Pacers have been under that total in 21 of their last 25 games; Grizzlies in 17 of their last 25
.
link is how unders crushed after the NBA All Star Break last year - going 65-21 in the 11 days after - of course no guarantee for the same this year - still pretty interesting
I will be tracking how the unders do on games on the first 11 days back this year
Edit:
.
using covers.com I just tracked the previous season from the link - the 2022/2023 season - after the All Star break
I got the unders winning in the first 60 games after the All Star break - 37-23
.
.
https://nypost.com/2024/03/04/bettin...rth-a-fortune/
.
IIRC, Dan Druff spotted a trend similar last year or the year before just about the all-star break. The problem with this kind of trend is that by the time you spot it, you have missed probably a good portion of the trend and when the trend ends, you will not know until you have realized some losses. So it is an after the fact type thing not all that beneficial, unless there is a reason for that trend in the first place. I am not going to guess at a reason, but maybe the 90% of players not involved in the all star game just took 4-5 days off completely with no practice and it took several games to get back in the flow. (You wouldn't think it would take 11 games). I would be more inclined to get on board with that with baseball and hitting and timing ect. But maybe there is some other logical reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
That is one of the reasons I really like your NFL 1st two weeks trend of more than a decade now. There is a logical reason behind that trend. NFL teams only play 3 pre-season games and starters only play a quarter of one game, if that. (Some teams like Eagles don't play starters at all in preseason games, only organized practices against other teams). :confused: So it stands to reason that the better/favored team with better talent, just isn't quite ready to go as they might be a month later and hence all the upsets and underdog covers the first couple weeks.
So any thoughts/guesses as to why NBA totals might be down for 10 games after all-star break?
Last year specifically fouls called were noticeably down in the second half of the season vs the first half, appeared to be a midseason officiating emphasis change. Perhaps it took a little bit for that to be recognized and odds to adjust could be an explanation for why last year was more extreme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawgAxelWolf already publicly and privately stated that he debunked all of UNKewlJ's fraudulent sports bets claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
other than what you and I mentioned - no other thoughts - they have been off more than 4-5 days - the 2 teams I picked haven't played since the 12th and they are playing on the 20thQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
that's 8 days - it could definitely have an impact on their shooting - I doubt that many of them practiced on their days off
did many eat and drink too much on their time off______?________it's possible
but more importantly to me - the 2 seasons tracked - from the link and what I tracked - not including pushes - 65-21 and 37-23 that adds up to be 102-44
that's 65.3%________that's pretty strong - I can't deny it could just be common variance but I tend to doubt it
if a person bet the under on the first 60 games after the break I think the 3 most likely things to happen are - 1. a smallish loss - or 2. a sizeable win - or - 3. a smallish win
I very much doubt the result would a sizeable loss
.
This is the kind of thing I was thinking and looking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcap
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcap
Gentlemen, and I use the term broadly, this is why it behooves one to have a friend or acquaintance who officiates the sports in question --- so that you become aware when private "Points of Emphasis" bulletins are given to officials before and during the seasons. Then you have a heads-up that can lead to a quicker affirmation of adjustments to officiating emphases as they unfold.
Duh.
Yeah, I think "duh" captures it succinctly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
.
a change in officiating practices last year would not explain the large win for the unders in the year before that that I tracked - 37-23 -61.6% - yes it could be common variance
but I predict the unders will win again this season in the first 60 games after the break
.
Yes, but it would/could explain the difference between 61.6% in 22-23 and 75.6% in 23-24. Likely is the 75.6% from last year had a real reason (foul data is there) but a one off while the 61.6% rather than the expected 50% was the common variance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half Smoke
.
yes, KJ and mcap and Redietz were correct I believe and I was wrong
I just tracked the 2 seasons before those 2 and got the unders breaking even for 120 games - going 29-31 in one year and 31-29 then next
so, I admit to my error - it isn't my first - won't be my last - apologies to all
see link on changes in officiating after the break
I do still think my original pick - Memphis/Indiana on Thursday under 249 is a good one -
https://www.legalsportsreport.com/17...ing-landscape/
.
Redietz posted a link in another thread that jogged my memory on something. Sportsbetting was legalized in Montana in 2019, and became operational in 2020. However, the legislature left it up to the Governor, a democrat named Bullock, as to whether it would be run by private enterprise or the State Lottery. Bullock chose the Montana Lottery to run it. What has been the effect of government running the enterprise?. Well, take a look at the juicy lines we have on today's NBA games:
I made a three bet Longshot parlay and won. :)
https://photos.app.goo.gl/cCfajijn9ApUguci7
Imagine my shock.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
New operators are attempting to circumvent the state-level regulators. Robinhood brokerage tried to offer Super Bowl bets/contracts, but was threatened by the federal regulator (CFTC). I understand they still intend to offer sports coverage. Crypto dot com and Kalshi are already offering sports contracts.
Other operators such as Bettor Edge and Novig are relying on a sweepstakes loophole, but aren't available in all states.
I don't know what the DFS sites are doing. I heard some were reformatting to emulate traditional sports bets. But some individual states have shut them out.
It's very much a developing situation. As always, stay tuned to Vegas Casino Talk for the latest news and information.
You also posted a LOSING ticket right below it betting on 2 of the guys opponents in the “winning” ticket. Do you even understand how stupid that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasha
But hey, you now have $11 in the account, you truly are in the big time now retard. Keep posting garbage like this so the few that occasionally defend you see the error of their ways.
Also please post this pic at WoV, without new Mammie stories they need a good laugh.
I bet EVERY bet possible when parlaying. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by The BozYou also posted a LOSING ticket right below it betting on 2 of the guys opponents in the “winning” ticket. Do you even understand how stupid that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasha
But hey, you now have $11 in the account, you truly are in the big time now retard. Keep posting garbage like this so the few that occasionally defend you see the error of their ways.
Also please post this pic at WoV, without new Mammie stories they need a good laugh.
Stop, just STOP. Even you aren’t that stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by TashaI bet EVERY bet possible when parlaying. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by The BozYou also posted a LOSING ticket right below it betting on 2 of the guys opponents in the “winning” ticket. Do you even understand how stupid that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tasha
But hey, you now have $11 in the account, you truly are in the big time now retard. Keep posting garbage like this so the few that occasionally defend you see the error of their ways.
Also please post this pic at WoV, without new Mammie stories they need a good laugh.
Let's say you have $100 in sportsbook freeplay. It's worth a little less than $50 EV.
Bet all combos on a three team parlay. Bet $12.50 an each of the 8 combos. A three teamer pays 6-1.
You have guaranteed 6*12.50 = $75 return on your freeplay.
Perhaps someone could suggest an alternative play with a higher guaranteed return.
Retards use free bets this way and then wonder why they're promo banned.
I've never tried anything like that, but I agree with JD that it might not be well-received by the sportsbook. When I do anything that looks like hedging, I use a different sportsbook.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberbabble
I would probably divide the 100 into a bunch of small, unrelated bets at similarly long odds. That way you're likely to get back a good chunk of the free play amount.
From Caesars, I get 150 monthly which must be wagered lump-sum. Being a nit, I always hedge at another book. So my bets will look something like this:
- Caesars $150 free bet at +500 (pays $750 minus cash expended below)
- other book $600 cash bet at -600 (pays net $100)
I think the EV there is close to 75%, but not quite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don PerignomI've never tried anything like that, but I agree with JD that it might not be well-received by the sportsbook. When I do anything that looks like hedging, I use a different sportsbook.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberbabble
I would probably divide the 100 into a bunch of small, unrelated bets at similarly long odds. That way you're likely to get back a good chunk of the free play amount.
From Caesars, I get 150 monthly which must be wagered lump-sum. Being a nit, I always hedge at another book. So my bets will look something like this:
- Caesars $150 free bet at +500 (pays $750 minus cash expended below)
- other book $600 cash bet at -600 (pays net $100)
I think the EV there is close to 75%, but not quite.
I know from your past posts that you are knowledgeable about such things. You should post more often. Are you in Nevada?
My example is from the glory days of internet betting, 20-25 years ago. I don't know if it would pass today. There were some wild things allowed by books back then. Dozens of books trying to get established by giving away money.
I live in a non-sportsbetting state so I don't know much about the apps.
Tasha has Hard Rock only in Florida. I would guess she gets a free parlay or a few dollars free play. She doesn't explain her gambling very clearly.
Betting medium or small dogs in parlays is what she should be doing. She bets a small amount and will occasionally win a $100 or so. A big enough win that she would really enjoy it rather than a $3 win that is not very interesting.
She is playing for fun not to be a pro.
Here is another Parlay, a winning Parlay for sure, but more of a "safe," Parlay. ;) These were ALL favorites and not a RISKY bet like ALL Longshots. ;) https://photos.app.goo.gl/8nhp4RFkGPCWKj4v9
Edit. At this time, it says I only have 0.16 in the Account because I put $10 back in my Bank Account and CURRENTLY am playing a couple of dollars on new bets. :)
I'm guaranteed a WIN by betting EVERY possible bet when I parlay.Quote:
Originally Posted by The BozStop, just STOP. Even you aren’t that stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by TashaI bet EVERY bet possible when parlaying. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Boz
That era was a firehose of advantage opportunities. I had a stressful 9-to-5 which limited my gambling time. I opted to concentrate on poker bonuses and casino signup bonuses, but I knew I was missing out on sports gravy.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberbabble
Yes, I'm in Nevada. I've also given significant action in Arizona. At surface level, Nevada is far inferior because of the primitive apps and lack of promos. Nevada, however, has reasonable vig in many instances, and has been relatively tolerant of my action. I think I've only been limited in a few scenarios, although it's not always clear. Some of the books are small operations that may not want big bets from anyone.
Most of the discussions here involve handicrapping, which I rarely consider. I'm mainly an arb bettor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don PerignomI've never tried anything like that, but I agree with JD that it might not be well-received by the sportsbook. When I do anything that looks like hedging, I use a different sportsbook.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberbabble
I would probably divide the 100 into a bunch of small, unrelated bets at similarly long odds. That way you're likely to get back a good chunk of the free play amount.
From Caesars, I get 150 monthly which must be wagered lump-sum. Being a nit, I always hedge at another book. So my bets will look something like this:
- Caesars $150 free bet at +500 (pays $750 minus cash expended below)
- other book $600 cash bet at -600 (pays net $100)
I think the EV there is close to 75%, but not quite.
Two things -- not major points, but to ignore them is inappropriate.
1) When you do estimates of parlay usage for projects like this, you should take into account the disadvantage of using parlays locked into one sportsbook at one point in time. Those disadvantages are not negligible. You are paying a price for using non-optimal numbers, as the vast majority of the time, you are not getting the best of available numbers vis-a-vis shopping at eight or 10 books over time.
2) The gripe I have with the use of the term "EV" applies here. "EV" is supposed to be a precise term grounded in relatively precise estimations of probability, not somebody's ballpark best guess based on their personal experience and how much coffee they drank that day. In other words, either preface the "EV" with the word "subjective" or "my ballpark estimate of the" or something. Please don't plug in the term "EV" as a ballparking term without adopting the pronoun "MY estimate of the 'EV'" or something similar. "EV" should not be used when there's a good dose of subjectivity involved, which is usually the case. The problem from a language perspective is that mathematicians would interpret "EV" as a math term. Gamblers looking for an excuse to gamble use it as a synonym for "myy opinion."
I don't disagree with your use of the bonus strategy for the working off free play, but anyone relying on math to make these decisions should recognize the not-so-hidden cost of doing business via parlays of any kind. You are very rarely getting optimal numbers, and those non-optimal numbers have a cost. Now if you're betting $50 or $100 parlays, no big deal, but if you're dealing with significant amounts of money, it's important to recognize the non-optimal numbers as such.
Lets get to the bottom of this thread. Professional sports betting.
Red, do you consider yourself a professional sports bettor now or for most of the last 30-40 years? I am using the definition of professional as main activity of paid occupation or income. That leaves a little wiggle room as someone could have done taxes on the side or painted houses on the side and still have been a "professional sports bettor" with most of his income coming from sports betting. (not saying that was you)
If you answer yes, that puts you in a class of 1, on this forum, near as I can tell. Mickeycrimm posts podcasts and quotes from other known professional sports bettors that contradict some things you say and do, or do things differently than you did. But they are not on this forum. Many of us on this forum are doing some sports betting, but it is not our main income. We don't consider ourselves professional sports bettors. (It actually was the largest part of my income in 2024, but I don't anticipate that continuing).
So your claim, which I don't ask you to prove, so please don't send me any McClusker reports from 1984, :D, still has you as singularly the only professional sports bettor on this forum (unless someone else wants to step forward).
So what the fuck are you so bent out of shape about because there are some others on this forum that do some sports betting at a profit, as part of a bigger AP income or even on the side of a non-AP income? What exactly has your feathers all ruffled? :confused:
Yes, agreed. The question mentioned parlays, so I responded in that context. I don't mix parlays with hedging, as you're never gonna get optimal numbers on all the legs.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
This time of year, I typically use my bonus bets on college basketball moneylines. The monthly Caesars bonus bet stays in the back of my mind until I find a good setup. This month, I needed almost three weeks before I finally pulled the trigger. My example of +500/-600 is pretty much a worst-case scenario.
I'm not seeing the subjectivity in this instance. Here's the math if I hedge precisely:Quote:
"EV" should not be used when there's a good dose of subjectivity involved, which is usually the case.
My cash bet is $642.86, and I'm locked into a profit of $107.14. EV is 71.43 as a % of the free play nominal value.
In real life, my risk tolerance is sufficient to dial down a little on the hedge side -- which muddies my EV. But it's certainly not far off from the 71% above.
Lol you're so clueless. We're not talking within the context of mathematicians. Read the wiki on EV and see that a statistical backing of EV is widely accepted. You're just ignorant as fuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
"good dose of subjectivity". You discount the math because you simply do not understand it - regardless of who you know. lol
Winning sports bettors all over use EV and they understand each other. You're just too ignorant to move on.
Keep repeating your wrong opinion though. Yes, EV can be wrong just like handicrapping. There are clear methodologies that define how people apply on EV. This takes into account all the relevant factors and often the actual estimation will be more solid than yours.
I'd never hire a guy and bet his picks if he didn't use some methodology backing his "picks". Really, that is far more the case with your approach. You're basically projecting but keep repeating yourself ad nauseum.
Like I said, 40 years in the game and still apparently looking for investors is all that needs to be known.
Anyway, I need to just let you go and let you run your thing. I'll stop giving you shit as long as you don't give another wrong lecture on EV.
Beating you up feels good at the time but now I feel dirty. Just drop the EV thing, bub.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionLol you're so clueless. We're not talking within the context of mathematicians. Read the wiki on EV and see that a statistical backing of EV is widely accepted. You're just ignorant as fuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
"good dose of subjectivity". You discount the math because you simply do not understand it - regardless of who you know. lol
Winning sports bettors all over use EV and they understand each other. You're just too ignorant to move on.
Keep repeating your wrong opinion though. Yes, EV can be wrong just like handicrapping. There are clear methodologies that define how people apply on EV. This takes into account all the relevant factors and often the actual estimation will be more solid than yours.
I'd never hire a guy and bet his picks if he didn't use some methodology backing his "picks". Really, that is far more the case with your approach. You're basically projecting but keep repeating yourself ad nauseum.
Like I said, 40 years in the game and still apparently looking for investors is all that needs to be known.
Anyway, I need to just let you go and let you run your thing. I'll stop giving you shit as long as you don't give another wrong lecture on EV.
Beating you up feels good at the time but now I feel dirty. Just drop the EV thing, bub.
There is (A) a historical, statistical definition of "EV" that meant you could justify your estimate with actual statistics. You have (B) a more "gambler-friendly," ego-stroking connotation that refers to somebody deciding subjectively what edge they have without precise math and then assigning an "EV" to it.
We who are "ignorant as fuck" and who have made a living gambling for 40 years usually use "EV" the first way. It keeps us out of trouble.
Those looking for an excuse to gamble and to assign some probability onto events based on their subjective, widely-varying estimates, use the second "definition."
More power to them. LOL. Which definition do you think is preferred by and promoted by sports books?
If you're going to use ego-driven imprecision to excuse bad gambling habits, please refrain from reading my posts. Thank you in advance.
P.S. The thing about the anonymous, alleged expert account, he hasn't done anything, far as I can tell, except occasionally ridden in a car with Todd. While I'm a big fan of being a big fanboy, that hardly qualifies as anything in the world of actual gambling. I mean, be my guest, wax expert while using subjective definitions of "EV." Just don't take any math courses (even those taught by adjuncts) and expect to get away with that. You gotta love somebody who says a math term shouldn't be used "in the context of mathematicians." Jesus Mary and Joseph. What a maroon. God bless us all. Instead, just use it in the context of addicted gamblers looking for a pseudo-rationale to gamble. Yes, much better. Much more moderne.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
You're doing exactly what you get incensed that MDawg is doing. You're painting overly rosy, nonsensical, simplistic pictures of "how to win at sports betting" as opposed to "how to win at baccarat."
For example, the whole bonus exploitation schtick is fine...to a degree. When you start recruiting family and friends to vampire bonuses from their names, sports books respond at some point, so you have cut into the opportunities of people betting bigger than you who could use those proportional bonuses to make some real money. You undercut the bigger players' opportunities. It would be the same as $10 coupon clippers invading every 3-2 blackjack table so that eventually there are no 3-2 blackjack tables.
Look, kewlJ(s), you really don't give details, so it's hard to tell if you are actually doing any sensible stuff or not. But, if I remember correctly, I told you years ago that your routine at Oddsmaker.ag would get flagged. It got flagged. You posted here complaining and asking for advice, while not mentioning what happened to you was exactly what I said would happen.
My advice, years earlier, was to not do what you were doing over and over. But God forbid you pass up an "AP" opportunity.
What you have done and are doing sports betting is directly parallel to what MDawg claims to have done and continues to allegedly do at baccarat and blackjack tables...except he occasionally adds a zero.
yap yap yap. You're such a broken record. IDGAF if you think I have no idea what I'm talking about. You can't actually point to what I am saying that is wrong. Again, winning sports bettors ALL over use EV. If you used EV it would be different because you're too clueless.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionLol you're so clueless. We're not talking within the context of mathematicians. Read the wiki on EV and see that a statistical backing of EV is widely accepted. You're just ignorant as fuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
"good dose of subjectivity". You discount the math because you simply do not understand it - regardless of who you know. lol
Winning sports bettors all over use EV and they understand each other. You're just too ignorant to move on.
Keep repeating your wrong opinion though. Yes, EV can be wrong just like handicrapping. There are clear methodologies that define how people apply on EV. This takes into account all the relevant factors and often the actual estimation will be more solid than yours.
I'd never hire a guy and bet his picks if he didn't use some methodology backing his "picks". Really, that is far more the case with your approach. You're basically projecting but keep repeating yourself ad nauseum.
Like I said, 40 years in the game and still apparently looking for investors is all that needs to be known.
Anyway, I need to just let you go and let you run your thing. I'll stop giving you shit as long as you don't give another wrong lecture on EV.
Beating you up feels good at the time but now I feel dirty. Just drop the EV thing, bub.
There is (A) a historical, statistical definition of "EV" that meant you could justify your estimate with actual statistics. You have (B) a more "gambler-friendly," ego-stroking connotation that refers to somebody deciding subjectively what edge they have without precise math and then assigning an "EV" to it.
We who are "ignorant as fuck" and who have made a living gambling for 40 years usually use "EV" the first way. It keeps us out of trouble.
Those looking for an excuse to gamble and to assign some probability onto events based on their subjective, widely-varying estimates, use the second "definition."
More power to them. LOL. Which definition do you think is preferred by and promoted by sports books?
If you're going to use ego-driven imprecision to excuse bad gambling habits, please refrain from reading my posts. Thank you in advance.
P.S. The thing about the anonymous, alleged expert account, he hasn't done anything, far as I can tell, except occasionally ridden in a car with Todd. While I'm a big fan of being a big fanboy, that hardly qualifies as anything in the world of actual gambling. I mean, be my guest, wax expert while using subjective definitions of "EV." Just don't take any math courses (even those taught by adjuncts) and expect to get away with that. You gotta love somebody who says a math term shouldn't be used "in the context of mathematicians." Jesus Mary and Joseph. What a maroon. God bless us all. Instead, just use it in the context of addicted gamblers looking for a pseudo-rationale to gamble. Yes, much better. Much more moderne.
If you don't use the concept of EV then how do you even know when to not bet something vs bet it? Oh I guess you use EV but you just mentally call it "my subjective opinion is that team A at spread and odds "?? So stupid. 100% you will not address this question because you can't. Thats why you play pickem contests - you don't need to use EV.
I'm sure I took more math classes than you ever did, dimwit. From vector calc and diffeq on down. Just sayin'
I'm guessing any mathematician would not have any issue with this context of using EV. It is "expected value". Otherwise it'd be "value". The E is for EXPECTED. Your whole point is beyond silly.
BTW, me having rode with Todd was only brought up in some weird context that had nothing to do with my credentials. I believe I was just pointing out how I am not "anonymous" like you cling to for dear life. Or perhaps I was giving Todd hints as to who I am. One of the 2.
You on the other hand endlessly drop names/professions to somehow gain credibility. Or play games like talking about yourself in 3rd person to obscure your record.
Mickey Crimm is far more knowledgeable about sports betting than you are at this point. That isn't even subjective at this point. That is objective fact.
In the real world the $$ is what counts. Which you've never done one fucking thing to show you have any of. You get butthurt when people don't jump all over your for $200 in EV. True story.
Anyway to the readers of this thread. Just remember. This dude has been in the game for 40 years and still looks for investors. He can't bs his way out of that one. : )
There is (A) a historical, statistical definition of "EV" that meant you could justify your estimate with actual statistics. You have (B) a more "gambler-friendly," ego-stroking connotation that refers to somebody deciding subjectively what edge they have without precise math and then assigning an "EV" to it.
We who are "ignorant as fuck" and who have made a living gambling for 40 years usually use "EV" the first way. It keeps us out of trouble.
I just reread ditz's post once over again and I realized how stupid he is. He has been arguing against using EV based off statistics this whole time. He argued EV can't be used if derived from stats and has to be precise mathematical odds. That is not stats. Now he's switched it over to stats. Lol. fuckin goof.
Oh NOW it isn't that APs are stealing the opportunities from friends and family via bonuses - it is that APs are stealing opportunities from bigger players.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
You're doing exactly what you get incensed that MDawg is doing. You're painting overly rosy, nonsensical, simplistic pictures of "how to win at sports betting" as opposed to "how to win at baccarat."
For example, the whole bonus exploitation schtick is fine...to a degree. When you start recruiting family and friends to vampire bonuses from their names, sports books respond at some point, so you have cut into the opportunities of people betting bigger than you who could use those proportional bonuses to make some real money. You undercut the bigger players' opportunities. It would be the same as $10 coupon clippers invading every 3-2 blackjack table so that eventually there are no 3-2 blackjack tables.
Look, kewlJ(s), you really don't give details, so it's hard to tell if you are actually doing any sensible stuff or not. But, if I remember correctly, I told you years ago that your routine at Oddsmaker.ag would get flagged. It got flagged. You posted here complaining and asking for advice, while not mentioning what happened to you was exactly what I said would happen.
My advice, years earlier, was to not do what you were doing over and over. But God forbid you pass up an "AP" opportunity.
What you have done and are doing sports betting is directly parallel to what MDawg claims to have done and continues to allegedly do at baccarat and blackjack tables...except he occasionally adds a zero.
"so you have cut into the opportunities of people betting bigger than you who could use those proportional bonuses to make some real money." What huh? Are these bigger players not APs? If not then how are they even making money? This is just redietz playing big dog on the internet thinking everyone will listen to him because he's shamelessly consistently wrong.
Give it up Dietz. Now I'm going to respond to any post where you talk about EV and anywhere you're wrong about bonuses.
It is clear you just want to dismiss APs because your schtick is that you're some wise old man been there seen it all. You don't like the concept of APs because it denigrates your nonsense special sauce bs. And while that may be true that you've been there done that (to some degree at least), you're still broke and wrong.
Ridiculous!!! First you are only a bigger player, that is betting bigger because you are betting other people's money. It isn't your money. I could flip that and say your actual "skin" in the game is smaller than mine, therefore YOU are cutting into my opportunities. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
BUT that isn't even how it works either. Other players have every right to play just as much as you do. Just as much as I do. Just imagine if I ran around to every $10 table in Las Vegas and yelled and chastised every blackjack player spreading $10-$50 that they were "cutting into my opportunities", and they need to stop playing because I bet bigger than they do. WTF!!
Everyone has just as much right to make money betting sports as you do, Red. You don't have a monopoly on it.
To put this in context of blackjack, when a good game comes along, that would be a game with better conditions than most, making for higher EV, I prefer to milk that game. Keep it as quiet as I can and milk that game for as long as I can. But sooner or later, other players are going to discover that game. And when they do, they are more likely than I am to hit it hard and get as much as they can for whatever period they can. And when that happens that game and opportunity will disappear. The game probably won't disappear, but the conditions that made it so good will disappear. That opportunity is gone. It may return later, but for that moment, while it was being hit hard, it is gone.
I can't be mad at other players that discovered that game and burned it out. They had every much a right to find it, play it as I do/did. And there have surely been times it has worked the other way. Probably me or my brother finding a game burned it out for others. I am certain that happened with the electronic game last year in different areas. No body has a monopoly on anything Red. Everyone has the same right to every game or opportunity. No APs are moving in on YOUR territory. Get that through your bald head!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawgQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
He basically lies about everything.
1) He starts off by making declarative statements regarding things he knows nothing about (like, how much I wager, how much people I work with wager -- those are obvious ones).
2) Then he flat out lies (like his betting dwarfs mine -- LOL -- mickey can give you my amount of wagering at Northbet based on their free play acquisition rates and how much free play I had), and that's one site.
3) He edits his responses in such a way that he doesn't address core issues. For example, I warned him about what he was doing at Oddsmaker (where, by the way, I've wagered close to a million, not that that's a lot, but it's not nothing) with the bonuses. He ignored me, then one of the kewlJ(s) came back asking for advice two years later because Oddsmaker didn't want to pay him. LOL. Big sur-prise. But the kewlJ(s) don't address how they, the grand expert "APs," fucked up, and how I told them they were fucking up. So kudos to the kewlJ(s) editing. They are smart and everybody else is dumb, unless you actually read.
4) His attempt to branch out into sports betting is understandable, as blackjack players have hit an LV wall. Unfortunately, the KewlJ(s) have no actual sports betting experience, so they are forced to jive talk regarding bonuses as their way of demonstrating some kind of expertise. Only the kewlJ(s) screw up with their bonusing attempts, mainly because they have no finesse and are transparent as glass, which of course leads a suspicious person (say, an MDawg) to wonder how this dude evades constant counting exposure. It is weird that someone who claims to be so slick in avoiding being ID'ed as an AP at blackjack tables could be so ham-handed at sports betting and not realize he's being obvious to the nth.
The KewlJ(s) have the markings of real con men, mainly because of the classic scam red flags (no details; everything is kewlJ-centric against a backdrop of nothing; there are no other verifiable people in his stories). They are The Shadow(s), doing things these days that are beyond the ken of blackjack Hall of Famers. They bob, they weave, they bullshit.
Never a verifiable anything. All fairy tale corroboration and lies.
And MDawg, please quote me on this. Thanks.
So you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Wanna tell us where the 'con' or his 'play' is?
When you accuse someone of being a con man it is assumed the accused has an End Game in mind where he'll Score money from rubes and patsies.
I don't see it with KJ, but obviously you do...care to expound upon it?
I mean, it's not like he's a tout: how do you believe he'll monetize it, what's the Sting?
I don't know what this guy Redietz knows about sports betting. Or What he may have known about sports betting in 1984. :D But this line, about Blackjack players having hit a wall, tells me he knows nothing about blackjack advantage play (card counting and beyond) in Las Vegas in 2025. Opportunities are no worse right at this moment than they have been any time during my 16 years living in and playing this town. My brother has now had 10 good years grinding the locals circuit, same as I did up until 4 years ago. I now play a little differently, a little bigger stakes, during busier times, what I like to call playing in the shadows of other bigger bettors and last year 2024, I had exactly 1 back off in Vegas, the fewest I have ever had in any year.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
So I don't know where this blackjack players wall is that Redietz came up with out of thin air. The only reason fewer players are doing what we do, is because there are now more and better AP opportunities, with bigger advantages and most APs move toward that. But anyone that wants to grind at card counting, that opportunity is still very much available.
Anyone that has hit a wall is someone that doesn't know what they are doing in the first place. There are always obstacles, not just with blackjack/card counting, but all AP play. AP play today is about navigating those obstacles.
But keep chattering Red, about shit you know nothing about. :cool:
Good luck getting an answer to this question MrV.Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterVSo you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Wanna tell us where the 'con' or his 'play' is?
When you accuse someone of being a con man it is assumed the accused has an End Game in mind where he'll Score money from rubes and patsies.
I don't see it with KJ, but obviously you do...care to expound upon it?
I mean, it's not like he's a tout: how do you believe he'll monetize it, what's the Sting?
There is only 1 member of this forum that is a known tout, soliciting clients and money from clients and that is Redietz.
Anyone who claims expertise who doesn't have it is a con man.
Leave it to a lawyer, of which I understand there are a million in this country, to use a legal monetizing definition of "con" as opposed to the general one.
But it's not really just a general one. "Coin of the realm," you see, isn't just coin of the realm. There are "non-material resources" just as there are "material resources." Ask any sociologist, psychologist, psychiatrist, or anthropologist (as opposed to the master of all realms, the lawyer).
For example, for those lawyers who haven't taken a few economics or sociology classes, getting laid is an act that is a possible end result of touting (see what I did there?) one's expertise that one doesn't really possess, ergo it's a non-material con. Let me repeat that. Touting one's faux expertise and benefitting from it, be the benefit material, as in coin of the realm or non-material, as in prestige, community access, or something as pedestrian as getting laid, is a con if you don't have the expertise and if you are presenting yourself as something you are not.
In KewlJ's case, his 15,000 posts and ghostly presence suggests he isn't what he claims to be. Even the act of promoting one's expertise falsely is a con.
I rest my (non-material) case.
And really, V, what do you actually know about kewlJ where you think he hasn't financially conned anyone? You don't know. You don't even have his name. So why would you swing a wiffle bat for an anonymous phantom? Methinks you just like to pick sides based on whatever values you think you have this week.
Which is, now that I think about it, exactly what lawyers do.
What "ghostly presence?"
He posts frequently and gives personal details, what more is needed?
What more do you or others do that he doesn't do?
I think all he "claims to be" is a LV resident who supports himself by gambling: how uncommon is that?
The story of "Red" (near as I can figure....for anyone who cares)
This dude who lives in Johnson City Tennessee, aka "East Bubble Fuck" Tennessee. We know this because he told us 100 times, posting his own address (doxing himself). Apparently he inherited a small house from his father who's last address was the same. Some think he buried the father of the same name in the backyard and collected his SS check for years. I hope that is speculation and not true. All we know more recently is that the great sports handicapper/bettor of 40 years seems to have trouble paying a $500 property tax bill.
Lets take a look at some of Red's claims.
1) That he is a great sports bettor handicapper who worked for and learned from Industry great Billy Walters. Near as I can tell maybe he was a runner for Walters for 1 year. Otherwise Walters doesn't seem to know who the fuck R.E. Dietz is.
2) That he plays a number of sports betting contests every year. Apparently he did well in Some contests in 1984 and has the documentation to prove it. The very same documentation or "package" as it was known 7 years ago that he tried to shove down Alan's throat.
3). These days as each football season progresses he likes to tell us of contests he is doing well in. (i.e. 108th place out of 2500 contestants, when only the top 20 cash anything) :rolleyes: And the contests he isn't doing well, we don't hear about.
4) The other thing Red likes to do is at the very end of the football season he will tell you 1 or 2 teams in the college football playoffs that he has future bets on from the beginning of the season at some long shot odds. Never a mention until the end. Who knows if THAT is real or how many teams he had futures on that didn't make it.
5) 100 days a year spent in Vegas each year for 40 years. How many times have we heard this shit. Why? Most of what he is doing or claims he is doing can be done online from East Bubble Fuck Tennessee or anywhere else. He wants you to think he is some kind of Vegas insider, who knows Vegas. I don't care, but see no evidence of it. When he visits Vegas he stays at downtown Hotels where he apparently pays rack rate. He doesn't even seem to know how to get rooms comped at these lower end places. His "higher end" place where he spends the final few nights of each trip is Tuscany Suites on Flamingo between Koval and Paradise. THAT is his HIGH END place. But then again, Red is from Tennessee. :rolleyes:
6) he likes to name drop people. Everyone from a GF who is the daughter of a mob boss, to professors to people he played a pickup basketball game with 50 years ago at lunch. WHO THE FUCK CARES!!!!
7) When in Vegas he will tell you where he is eating breakfast or lunch and invite people to stop by. No one does. No one cares.
8) Last year he was interviewing sports betting people or writing a book or something. You would have thought these meetings and interviews would have taken place in Las Vegas, but no. He had the Johnson City (East Bubble fuck) BOOK club booked, in a room at the library. No one showed up. :cool:
The guy that spends 100 days a year in Vegas seems to know as much about Vegas as any other tourist that visit a couple times a year. Probably about as much as the Rodeo folks that come each December. :rolleyes:
Now I have no idea if Red really made a living in the sports betting industry for 40 years. I always took him at his word. But recently, within the past few years, people have uncovered the very documents he used to "pitch" perspective clients, right down to a projected return on investment.
All signs point to the guys involvement in sports betting for 40 years was as a "tout". I mean is that really a professional sports bettor?
And for someone who spends 100 days a year in Las Vegas, he seems to understand zero about real professional gamblers, known as APs these days. he has no clue about things like EV and why such players NEED to maintain their anonymity. The only thing Red seems to understand about APs is that some find some things they can do and make money on in sports betting and he doesn't like it. He feels threatened by it. Guess what hillbilly dork. THAT is what APs do.
I am not on a crusade like I was with Singer and Dawg who both spewed complete bullshit gambling claims. I don't really care if Redietz made money as a sports bettor or not.....even as a tout. I don't care if that was his primary income or not. And I sure as hell don't care if he did well in a couple contests in 1984.
I just don't fucking care!! But I will be damned if I will say nothing while this sports picking "tout" calls other real players, real APs scammy. Nothing more scammy than a "tout".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterV
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Why isn't this retard posting more fake baccarat sessions?
I have to say that I enjoy how he spices up his yarns with references to him hob-nobbing with the mob / mobbed up characters.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Alas, one of my life's regrets is that I never laid down with dogs and got up with fleas.
You were a family law attorney? No mob or connected clients? No murder for hire plots hatched by disgruntled parties?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KmXBP6MGcKQ
Actually at my private school couple of the children of a mob front man were dropped off and picked up in a limo daily. And while I’m not aware (for certain) of any such mob kids in the Ivy League there were connected guys in the towns (“Townies”) we might cross paths with in the seedier East Coast bars.
I had one client who definitely was mobbed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Once was enough: he stiffed me at the end and WTF could I do to collect?
I didn't want to sleep with the fishes.
I’ll take “More Bullshit Stories” for $500 please AlexQuote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
No, I can't give anyone the amount you wagered, or didn't wager, at Northbet. The formula for doing it is easy enough but you never gave any proof that you had any free play at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by MDawgQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
He basically lies about everything.
1) He starts off by making declarative statements regarding things he knows nothing about (like, how much I wager, how much people I work with wager -- those are obvious ones).
2) Then he flat out lies (like his betting dwarfs mine -- LOL -- mickey can give you my amount of wagering at Northbet based on their free play acquisition rates and how much free play I had), and that's one site.
3) He edits his responses in such a way that he doesn't address core issues. For example, I warned him about what he was doing at Oddsmaker (where, by the way, I've wagered close to a million, not that that's a lot, but it's not nothing) with the bonuses. He ignored me, then one of the kewlJ(s) came back asking for advice two years later because Oddsmaker didn't want to pay him. LOL. Big sur-prise. But the kewlJ(s) don't address how they, the grand expert "APs," fucked up, and how I told them they were fucking up. So kudos to the kewlJ(s) editing. They are smart and everybody else is dumb, unless you actually read.
4) His attempt to branch out into sports betting is understandable, as blackjack players have hit an LV wall. Unfortunately, the KewlJ(s) have no actual sports betting experience, so they are forced to jive talk regarding bonuses as their way of demonstrating some kind of expertise. Only the kewlJ(s) screw up with their bonusing attempts, mainly because they have no finesse and are transparent as glass, which of course leads a suspicious person (say, an MDawg) to wonder how this dude evades constant counting exposure. It is weird that someone who claims to be so slick in avoiding being ID'ed as an AP at blackjack tables could be so ham-handed at sports betting and not realize he's being obvious to the nth.
The KewlJ(s) have the markings of real con men, mainly because of the classic scam red flags (no details; everything is kewlJ-centric against a backdrop of nothing; there are no other verifiable people in his stories). They are The Shadow(s), doing things these days that are beyond the ken of blackjack Hall of Famers. They bob, they weave, they bullshit.
Never a verifiable anything. All fairy tale corroboration and lies.
And MDawg, please quote me on this. Thanks.
Without proof your word can't be trusted. You showed your propensity to deceive with the GWAE fiasco. You met with Munchkin right after we suggested you do a podcast. Then, for months you led us to believe you would be making an appearance. Kept saying you would be making the appearance shortly. But after several months with no action, just words by you that you would appear, I contacted Munchkin to see what the hold up was all about. He told me you turned him down flat for doing a podcast at that meeting you had with him several months before.
You casually lied to us for several months. It calls into question every claim you've ever made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmNo, I can't give anyone the amount you wagered, or didn't wager, at Northbet. The formula for doing it is easy enough but you never gave any proof that you had any free play at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Without proof your word can't be trusted. You showed your propensity to deceive with the GWAE fiasco. You met with Munchkin right after we suggested you do a podcast. Then, for months you led us to believe you would be making an appearance. Kept saying you would be making the appearance shortly. But after several months with no action, just words by you that you would appear, I contacted Munchkin to see what the hold up was all about. He told me you turned him down flat for doing a podcast at that meeting you had with him several months before.
You casually lied to us for several months. It calls into question every claim you've ever made.
That's all bullshit from you, mickey, and you know it. You are the one who has bullshitted everybody.
Go ahead and pull up the QUOTES where I said I'd be appearing on the podcast. Not that I was amenable to it, but that I had spoken with Munchkin and would be appearing on it. There are none.
The bullshit comes from your end, with you saying Munchkin wanted me on. The fact is that Dancer has qualms about allowing anybody who rolls his eyes at the ubiquitous use of the "AP" label on the podcast, so I assume that's why he's reticent to have me on. In fact, the last lunch I had with Munchkin, I said I'd be willing to be on pretty much any time, and he said he'd get back to me.
Now before mickey goes off and says, "Well, that proves you have no credentials -- LOL," which is what he'll say, let me add that....
No, you know what, let mickey have his say. Then I'll respond.
Mickey, you have devolved into a Grade A bullshitter. Munchkin never told you he'd definitely have me on, obviously, so what is your trick here? Tell me he'll have me on, he decides that's not a good idea, and then you claim I don't pass muster? I pass muster, my friend, but alienating half his audience is probably what Dancer is concerned about if I don't play nice.
It's disturbing that you flat-out lie about this stuff.
Anybody who has any questions about any of this should just email Munchkin. Easy Peasie. I assume his email is available via the LVA, so I won't give it out here. That's all I'll say for now. Email Munchkin directly and ask him (1) if I had lunches with him, (2) was I amenable to going on the show, and (3) did I pass any kind of fact check or reputation check? Instead of reading mickey's bullshit, just go to the source.
Mickey, I understand you probably have some dementia issues, and that's why I've been relatively respectful. I'm sure people have noticed that I've held my tongue with you quite a bit lately. I have even said some nice things. I have experience with people with the onset of dementia. They get facts wrong; they get nasty. Their personalities change. But, as with my father, they can sometimes do simple math as well as they ever could. I'm not going to sit here and engage in some back-and-forth and berate somebody who I think has dementia. I didn't argue with my father; I won't argue with you. That's respect.
So you have a good life.
Anybody who wants the reality of this nonsense should just contact Munchkin. That's easy enough.
MCrimm is slots. REDietz is sports.
I was also under the impression you were going on a podcast and didn't do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmNo, I can't give anyone the amount you wagered, or didn't wager, at Northbet. The formula for doing it is easy enough but you never gave any proof that you had any free play at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Without proof your word can't be trusted. You showed your propensity to deceive with the GWAE fiasco. You met with Munchkin right after we suggested you do a podcast. Then, for months you led us to believe you would be making an appearance. Kept saying you would be making the appearance shortly. But after several months with no action, just words by you that you would appear, I contacted Munchkin to see what the hold up was all about. He told me you turned him down flat for doing a podcast at that meeting you had with him several months before.
You casually lied to us for several months. It calls into question every claim you've ever made.
That's all bullshit from you, mickey, and you know it. You are the one who has bullshitted everybody.
Go ahead and pull up the QUOTES where I said I'd be appearing on the podcast. Not that I was amenable to it, but that I had spoken with Munchkin and would be appearing on it. There are none.
The bullshit comes from your end, with you saying Munchkin wanted me on. The fact is that Dancer has qualms about allowing anybody who rolls his eyes at the ubiquitous use of the "AP" label on the podcast, so I assume that's why he's reticent to have me on. In fact, the last lunch I had with Munchkin, I said I'd be willing to be on pretty much any time, and he said he'd get back to me.
Now before mickey goes off and says, "Well, that proves you have no credentials -- LOL," which is what he'll say, let me add that....
No, you know what, let mickey have his say. Then I'll respond.
Mickey, you have devolved into a Grade A bullshitter. Munchkin never told you he'd definitely have me on, obviously, so what is your trick here? Tell me he'll have me on, he decides that's not a good idea, and then you claim I don't pass muster? I pass muster, my friend, but alienating half his audience is probably what Dancer is concerned about if I don't play nice.
It's disturbing that you flat-out lie about this stuff.
Anybody who has any questions about any of this should just email Munchkin. Easy Peasie. I assume his email is available via the LVA, so I won't give it out here. That's all I'll say for now. Email Munchkin directly and ask him (1) if I had lunches with him, (2) was I amenable to going on the show, and (3) did I pass any kind of fact check or reputation check? Instead of reading mickey's bullshit, just go to the source.
Mickey, I understand you probably have some dementia issues, and that's why I've been relatively respectful. I'm sure people have noticed that I've held my tongue with you quite a bit lately. I have even said some nice things. I have experience with people with the onset of dementia. They get facts wrong; they get nasty. Their personalities change. But, as with my father, they can sometimes do simple math as well as they ever could. I'm not going to sit here and engage in some back-and-forth and berate somebody who I think has dementia. I didn't argue with my father; I won't argue with you. That's respect.
So you have a good life.
Anybody who wants the reality of this nonsense should just contact Munchkin. That's easy enough.
You welched on a $100 gift to some sort of orphanage. (And even if you didn't welch - if you weren't broke AF and halfway decent you'd just paid the $100)
If you want to go off into the dementia thing - I've told other people on here that I suspect you have dementia. That I infact should not pick on you because of this. Then I am too weak and you're too appealing as a target and I beat you over the head some more.
I've never thought Mickey has dementia that I recall.
Underneath it all, I feel you're a nasty person. This is why I'm being truthful here. Otherwise I'd never say such things because it is really just a nasty thing to go into and too over the top for even here. Yet, that won't stop you.
The fact is Redietz, I've thought a few times I shouldn't pick on you. But because you find this acceptable, enjoy. I'm 100% not bullshitting either and personally I have no desire to be right.
Crimm is/was cutting edge on slots. Redietz is lagged behind decades in many ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
The truth is everyone over the age of 60 (maybe 50) probably has some dementia. That is they are not as sharp or don't remember things as they did when they were 20. Some you will see it more than others.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
What is mickey 70 now? 71? 72? Mickey is as sharp as ever and as sharp as anyone on this forum. Almost 3 decades younger than him, I wish I was as sharp as he is.