Professional Sportsbetting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Is that from hits? I'm having a hard time finding just total bases.

---

see link - it shows bet365 and DraftKings offering this prop - DraftKings is unavailable right at this moment - they say they are changing the odds

Total Bases is different from hits but no difference if the line is 0.5 - if the line was 1.5 the over would win if the player had just one hit that was a double - but over on the hits at 1.5 would lose with just one hit which was a double


https://www.covers.com/sport/basebal...5/kyle-stowers

.

---

It comes up as total bases from hits. I don't bet or watch(never) much baseball, very little BB knowledge beyond baseball cards.

---

yes, it's Total Bases from hits - meaning they don't include walks - a single is one Total Base - a double is 2 Total Bases - a Triple is 3 and a Homer is 4

.

.

also, this site is much better for finding the odds - click under the right side where it says "Pick" by which pick you are looking at

it then gives you the current odds at 6 or more different books


https://www.bettingpros.com/mlb/picks/prop-bets/

.

.

won pick above

today - Mike Conley - over 13.5 points, rebounds and assists - even money_______________Minnesota vs. OKC

.

Game 1 of the Guardians/Twins series was suspended in the 4th last night. Resumption is scheduled for 6:10 (Eastern) tonight.

I'm arbed on the first half (5 innings) total at BetMGM and Circa.

BetMGM rules: "If a game has been suspended after the game has started, due to a weather delay or other deferral, and resumes within 36 hours after the original start time, all wagers will stand."

So that means I'm good if the outcome resolves today. But with more rain in the forecast, resumption could push out to Wednesday in which case I'll be cancelled.

Circa rules: "If a [suspended] game is completed within 5 days of its start, all wagering options that encompass a full game ... will have action and carry over ...."

I assume this applies to me, although my wager does not encompass a full game.

I'll plan to look in near the scheduled time to see if the bet remains open.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

.

won pick above

today - Mike Conley - over 13.5 points, rebounds and assists - even money_______________Minnesota vs. OKC

.

---

Are you sure you don't want to add some complicated riddles to relay these picks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Game 1 of the Guardians/Twins series was suspended in the 4th last night. Resumption is scheduled for 6:10 (Eastern) tonight.

I'm arbed on the first half (5 innings) total at BetMGM and Circa.

BetMGM rules: "If a game has been suspended after the game has started, due to a weather delay or other deferral, and resumes within 36 hours after the original start time, all wagers will stand."

So that means I'm good if the outcome resolves today. But with more rain in the forecast, resumption could push out to Wednesday in which case I'll be cancelled.

Circa rules: "If a [suspended] game is completed within 5 days of its start, all wagering options that encompass a full game ... will have action and carry over ...."

I assume this applies to me, although my wager does not encompass a full game.

I'll plan to look in near the scheduled time to see if the bet remains open.

---

I hate when rule applications do not match up, which is why baseball arbitrage is not on my list of fave-to-dos. I am aware that rules/regs vary wildly and some places decide to change the standard rules (TopBet.eu comes to mind, all baseball bets action) and impose their own. One of my old partners who specialized in tennis was tortured by a classic difference in rules application for a tennis match that had a "retirement." He had the match arbitraged, but wound up with a loss. That kind of thing is beyond my pay grade and beyond my frustration tolerance levels. I hate squinting at fine print every time I make a play like that, because sports books can change the fine print daily if they want, and being aware is on our shoulders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I hate when rule applications do not match up, which is why baseball arbitrage is not on my list of fave-to-dos. I am aware that rules/regs vary wildly and some places decide to change the standard rules (TopBet.eu comes to mind, all baseball bets action) and impose their own. One of my old partners who specialized in tennis was tortured by a classic difference in rules application for a tennis match that had a "retirement." He had the match arbitraged, but wound up with a loss.

---

Yes, I can recall having at least one tennis arb that mutated into a push (cancellation) and a loss.

For my purposes, I typically want all my baseball bets specified as "action" (meaning the bet stands regardless of who pitches). Afaik, "action" is locked in on most of the regulated sports apps. Circa optionally allows listed selections on money line bets.

I understand the offshores may orient differently. To my frustration, BetOnline/LowVig defaults to listed-listed, with an option to select "action" on money line bets. I don't know how it goes at the B&M sportsbooks, as I only bet from home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Game 1 of the Guardians/Twins series was suspended in the 4th last night. Resumption is scheduled for 6:10 (Eastern) tonight.

---

And today is a washout. Game 1 will try again Wednesday, then they'll play game 3. Game 2 is postponed to September.

I'm hoping for more rain, otherwise I'm stuck with a busted arb. Is that a thing?

Also I discovered some of my Circa bets are listed-listed when I thought they were action :(. I got faked out because the summary display of pending bets doesn't include that level of detail. You have to click through, and I'm not into that.

That's going to be a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I hate when rule applications do not match up, which is why baseball arbitrage is not on my list of fave-to-dos. I am aware that rules/regs vary wildly and some places decide to change the standard rules (TopBet.eu comes to mind, all baseball bets action) and impose their own. One of my old partners who specialized in tennis was tortured by a classic difference in rules application for a tennis match that had a "retirement." He had the match arbitraged, but wound up with a loss.

---

Yes, I can recall having at least one tennis arb that mutated into a push (cancellation) and a loss.

For my purposes, I typically want all my baseball bets specified as "action" (meaning the bet stands regardless of who pitches). Afaik, "action" is locked in on most of the regulated sports apps. Circa optionally allows listed selections on money line bets.

I understand the offshores may orient differently. To my frustration, BetOnline/LowVig defaults to listed-listed, with an option to select "action" on money line bets. I don't know how it goes at the B&M sportsbooks, as I only bet from home.

---

I understand why sports books want "action" as default, but really, if you're betting significant money, who wants to draw a matchup out of a hat? I can see the argument either way, I guess. You don't get to specify specific matchups for starting quarterbacks, so why for starting pitchers? I get it, but I also get why books want to inject randomness as something everyone should tolerate with a smile and a crossing of one's fingers.

.

lost above pick


tonight - Jalen Brunson Under 36.5 points and assists___-110_______________Pacers vs. Knicks


the Knicks have a shot at winning it all - they haven't won a Championship in 52 years since 1973

if it happens they'll be dancing in the street in the Apple

'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I understand why sports books want "action" as default, but really, if you're betting significant money, who wants to draw a matchup out of a hat?

---

That's over my head and out of my realm, but I see your logic.

It surprises me that when the books offer a choice, they don't vary the odds. For example, here's BetOnline:



I have four menu selections to choose from, all paying at the same +114 odds. That seems exploitable for someone with appropriate analytical skills, which I wouldn't personally know about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

.

lost above pick


tonight - Jalen Brunson Under 36.5 points and assists___-110_______________Pacers vs. Knicks


the Knicks have a shot at winning it all - they haven't won a Championship in 52 years since 1973

if it happens they'll be dancing in the street in the Apple

'

---

Damn, I be old. I remember that last Knicks title and all those players. I actually remember the previous year more clearly, when Lucas came out bombing from long range with Chamberlain on him, the Knicks somehow won the first game, then got smashed four straight.

Hard to believe the Mecca of hoops hasn't had a title since.

People sometimes ask me why I bet so little on baseball. I tell them when you think about it, you gotta be off your rocker to bet baseball. The entirety of the scoring could be riding on a single pitch, 1 out of 200. The stadiums are all different shapes and sizes, and change shapes and sizes year-to-year. Move the fences in; move them out; use a cutout down the right field line, and so on. No other sport has fields of varying sizes (once upon a time, hockey did, and high school/college hoops, but not now). Plus you're dealing with a "window" sport which hogs a bigger chunk.

I feel insane to put any money on this sport at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I feel insane to put any money on this sport at all.

---

This year I've bet much more on college baseball than MLB.

Still confused though about "action."

These examples are all from Circa.

Here's an MLB total:



Two specific pitchers are "listed," so I assume the bet goes void if either pitcher fails to start. At BetOnline, the pitcher names would be clearly notated "must start."

Now let's do college. This one looks straightforward:



But then there's this:



What's that supposed to mean? You can't "list" a pitcher without the pitcher's name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

It surprises me that when the books offer a choice, they don't vary the odds.

---

Correction. There's a rule for that:



If you bet "action," and the pitchers don't go as scheduled, Circa can adjust your price.

That's awkward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I feel insane to put any money on this sport at all.

---

This year I've bet much more on college baseball than MLB.

Still confused though about "action."

These examples are all from Circa.

Here's an MLB total:



Two specific pitchers are "listed," so I assume the bet goes void if either pitcher fails to start. At BetOnline, the pitcher names would be clearly notated "must start."

Now let's do college. This one looks straightforward:



But then there's this:



What's that supposed to mean? You can't "list" a pitcher without the pitcher's name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

It surprises me that when the books offer a choice, they don't vary the odds.

---

Correction. There's a rule for that:



If you bet "action," and the pitchers don't go as scheduled, Circa can adjust your price.

That's awkward.

---

Circa can "adjust the price?" Wow.

Reminds me a little of exploratory surgery. You don't have much say in what gets found or what they do when they find it. At least with the surgery, they treat you as if you're unconscious because you are. Circa treats you as if you're unconscious because they say you are.

I wonder what precipitated this. Circa superficially seems like such a player-friendly environment. I know nothing, however, as I've only bet a couple of futures there, and nothing over $1500. I hang out there a bit whenever I'm in town, I did get a nice tour of the place, and kudos on the roof. But "adjusting the price" is bizarro. Like betting thoroughbreds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

But "adjusting the price" is bizarro.

---

I guess I need to read through the rules of my sportsbooks. This article mentions the risk:

https://about.darkhorseodds.com/guid...cher-vs-action

Quote:

---

Placing an “Action” bet means that your bet will stand no matter which pitcher starts the game. Some sportsbooks might change the odds of your bet if there is a change from the originally listed pitcher. This is unlike other sports, where the odds are locked in at the time of placing your bet.

---

FanDuel is mentioned as a book that commits to the odds as wagered. I verified it here:

https://www.fanduel.com/fanduel-spor...house-rules-az

Quote:

---

Action: All Money Line wagers are defaulted to “Action” meaning all wagers struck will stand if a pitcher change occurs. Wagers will be honored at the odds at bet placement and settled as normal.

---

That's from Arizona. We don't have FanDuel in Nevada, but Boyd's sports app is powered by FanDuel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I understand why sports books want "action" as default, but really, if you're betting significant money, who wants to draw a matchup out of a hat?

---

That's over my head and out of my realm, but I see your logic.

It surprises me that when the books offer a choice, they don't vary the odds. For example, here's BetOnline:



I have four menu selections to choose from, all paying at the same +114 odds. That seems exploitable for someone with appropriate analytical skills, which I wouldn't personally know about.

---

I will respond despite the trolling likely to follow, because I had a very similar problem on Monday at an offshore book.

In the morning when I made my picks, I placed two wagers on the Dodgers. One on the money line @ -140, the second on the run line at -1.5. The starting pitchers listed were Pfaadt for Arizona, and Landon Knack for the Dodgers. Later in the day I placed an additional wager on the over 10 as the wind was blowing straight out to Ceneter field. When I placed the later wager, I failed to notice the change in Dodger pitcher.

As I watched the game, I saw that Landon Knack was not starting. The Dodgers, at some point during the day had decided to use an "Opening pitcher" Jack Dryer for the first two innings and Brandon Knack came in to pitch the third inning on. So I knew my original two bets on the Dodgers would be no action and money returned according to this books rules. The over wager should remain valid.

So the Dodgers fell behind big early and went on to lose 9-5.

In checking the results of my 3 wagers, the over was graded as a win and paid as it should have been. The run line bet, was graded as a no wager or a push and money returned as it should have been. But the money line wager, which was the bigger of the two wagers on the Dodgers, was graded as a loss, when it should have also been a no wager or push.

So I fired off an email and the first response received the next day, simply said Dodgers lost 9-5. (without addressing the change in pitcher that should have negated the wager). Next I called, and despite explaining everything, got nowhere. The guy said there are different rules for different wagers. I guess meaning a change in pitchers negates the wager on the run line but not the money line, which is NOT what their own rules say, nor even makes any sense. I was getting nowhere with him.

I fired off one more email explaining in as much detail as I could and quoting their own rules, hoping someone with some brains would receive it. I received a response that said "Your objection has been noted" But nothing has been adjusted. :(

I resisted getting into the off-shore sports betting racket for these very concerns. My top worry was a sports book deciding to not honor the bonuses after the fact, which has happened. And my second worry was this exact situation, a sports book changing the rules or not honoring their own rules and having nowhere to dispute it.

Same concerns I have with playing Indian B & M casinos. They can do as they please and you have no recourse.

And with the sports book betting, playing on such slim margin, it only takes getting screwed a couple times and you have wiped away the margins.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!

ALLAH AHKBAR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

I guess I need to read through the rules of my sportsbooks. This article mentions the risk:

https://about.darkhorseodds.com/guid...cher-vs-action



FanDuel is mentioned as a book that commits to the odds as wagered. I verified it here:

https://www.fanduel.com/fanduel-spor...house-rules-az

Quote:

---

Action: All Money Line wagers are defaulted to “Action” meaning all wagers struck will stand if a pitcher change occurs. Wagers will be honored at the odds at bet placement and settled as normal.

---

That's from Arizona. We don't have FanDuel in Nevada, but Boyd's sports app is powered by FanDuel.

---

It is truly sad that we have reached a point where a brick-and-mortar US sports book pats itself on the back for honoring "odds as wagered."

I am stunned that Circa would default to its position. My only theory is that they were tattooed recently by people who were able to get pitching changes in advance of what Circa could access. While I do know some folks who designed programs that can beat normal-speed online wagers to the punch, I always felt for my sport (college football) these programs were helpful but not huge difference-makers. When I see baseball, however, I understand a little of the fixation with processing speed. Echoes of the pandemic-era who-has-Covid personnel reporting for college football and the last-second "load management" decisions for the NBA. This is a way for Circa to neutralize all those announcements by, let's call it, backfitting numbers when other people beat them to the informational punch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!

---

As predicted by even the anagrams-with-gematria ...

https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...l=1#post196026

Forgot to note the Redietz connection. That guy, from Venus, who plays the guitar. For some reason, I always think of Redietz. Too smug? Don't know why.

https://youtu.be/8LhkyyCvUHk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I resisted getting into the off-shore sports betting racket for these very concerns. My top worry was a sports book deciding to not honor the bonuses after the fact, which has happened. And my second worry was this exact situation, a sports book changing the rules or not honoring their own rules and having nowhere to dispute it.

---

You remind me of a former poster here :confused:.

Anyway, yes, those are drawbacks of off-shore betting. Also, they may cancel bets as "mistakes" if you catch them napping on a line. I'm probably more vulnerable to that.

This is my slow season as I'm not adept at beating MLB. Year-to-date, I've been leaning disproportionately into the Nevada-legal books, but I plan to make another run at the off-shores around August as NFL activates.

.

lost pick above - 5-2 since I started making picks here - lost 2 in a row - ***** happens

today

Naz Reid - Under 1.5 three pointers made________+110___________Minnesota vs. OKC


he's not much of a scorer - his points are way off his regular season average - on threes he's 0 for 7, 0 for 2 and 1 for 3 in his last 3 games -

and OKC is tops on defense limiting opponents field goal % to 43.1 in the regular season -

last night the Knicks lost even though they were up by 14 with 2:51 left in the game - a legendary collapse

some fans were heading to the exits when they were up by that much - some had already left

.

If you follow golf, please check out my "Golf Futures" thread in Sports and Sports Betting.

.

somebody dug up a stat re the Knicks loss last night - until this game - Dating back to 1997, NBA teams were 994-0 when leading a playoff game by at least 14 with 2:45 left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

.

lost pick above - 5-2 since I started making picks here - lost 2 in a row - ***** happens

today

Naz Reid - Under 1.5 three pointers made________+110___________Minnesota vs. OKC



.

---

BOL and some other places have this at +117, you just can't get much down.

Does anyone know anywhere you can get down 1k on these types of bets, or is that never going to be possible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Does anyone know anywhere you can get down 1k on these types of bets, or is that never going to be possible?

---

My limit on that one at BetOnline is $106.xx.

Afaik, some of the domestic books take larger bets, but they may not be happy about it. I try to tread carefully on prop bets.

Krack says no one can beat NBA sides. Totals and props are beatable but sides are not. He says he doesnt know anyone that beats NBA sides.

https://youtu.be/crHqF4MgG2A?si=Q3voNygHGZSy-tDt

He also reveals he started sportsbetting with $1000 in the 90’s and built up from there.

.
won above pick

today - Pacers vs. Knicks Over 224.5 total points -110

covers.com shows bet365 currently offering that line

Pacers are capable of scoring a lot of points

Pacers have been over that total playing against the Knicks in 3 out of the last 4 games

Pacers have gone 42-21 over that total in their last 63 games

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

He also reveals he started sportsbetting with $1000 in the 90’s and built up from there.

---

This video is a good example of why I can't endure general-audience content. From the chapter headings, I can see more than half the discussion involved problem gambling and the "youth crisis."

I could not care less. I only want to know how to beat sports.

As for his start in betting, it was only briefly mentioned, but it sounded like he did the usual online routine. He used bonuses, alongside middling and scalping (which the host described as "mechanical" betting). I think I've mentioned that I was active in that era, but I felt the opportunities were stronger in poker and casino bonuses.

Quote:

---

Krack says no one can beat NBA sides.

---

He said he doesn't do the "mechanical" stuff any more, so he may not know what's possible. He implies that there's too much competition using that angle.

Looking back at my last 18 months or so, I'm heavier on college than NBA basketball. NBA offers a wider range of bets including props, but college is easier for finding sides, totals and moneylines imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

He also reveals he started sportsbetting with $1000 in the 90’s and built up from there.

---

This video is a good example of why I can't endure general-audience content. From the chapter headings, I can see more than half the discussion involved problem gambling and the "youth crisis."

I could not care less. I only want to know how to beat sports.

As for his start in betting, it was only briefly mentioned, but it sounded like he did the usual online routine. He used bonuses, alongside middling and scalping (which the host described as "mechanical" betting). I think I've mentioned that I was active in that era, but I felt the opportunities were stronger in poker and casino bonuses.

Quote:

---

Krack says no one can beat NBA sides.

---

He said he doesn't do the "mechanical" stuff any more, so he may not know what's possible. He implies that there's too much competition using that angle.

Looking back at my last 18 months or so, I'm heavier on college than NBA basketball. NBA offers a wider range of bets including props, but college is easier for finding sides, totals and moneylines imo.

---

I think the pandemic line moves and people accessing early "load management" decisions created the perspective that NBA sides were beatable. In the long run, most handicappers have said "no," but this stretch of vulnerabilities created a window where people with appropriate sources could attack the NBA. Certainly, pandemic who's-gonna-sit decisions led to tremendous opportunities.

NBA rules have changed so dramatically that it's a lesson in how APPLYING RULES as much as DEFINING THEM can alter the essence of how a game is played and completely change it.

There were NBA totals angles pre-2000 that worked beautifully for limited numbers of plays. One NBA totals angle that was applicable from about Game #65 on, I think it was, won nine out of 11 years and took marginal losses the two down years while doing fabulously well the other years. But it was very rules-dependent, so it went extinct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I think the pandemic line moves and people accessing early "load management" decisions created the perspective that NBA sides were beatable.

---

Can I chime in from a "mechanical" perspective? (I hope my terminology is correct.)

Middles can often be less obvious than scalps.

Here's a scalp:

Lakers moneyline -105
Mavs moneyline +110

Smart bettors will jump on this because the advantage is plainly apparent.

But now here's a middle:

Lakers -1 -110
Mavs +3 -110

This is a bigger advantage, but requires more thought (and data) to perceive.

Similarly, on a total:

Lakers/Mavs OVER 225 -110
UNDER 229 -110

Again, not completely obvious.

My examples are a little extreme, but this is why opportunities can arise on sides rather than moneylines -- because of the camouflage factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I think the pandemic line moves and people accessing early "load management" decisions created the perspective that NBA sides were beatable.

---

Can I chime in from a "mechanical" perspective? (I hope my terminology is correct.)

Middles can often be less obvious than scalps.

Here's a scalp:

Lakers moneyline -105
Mavs moneyline +110

Smart bettors will jump on this because the advantage is plainly apparent.

But now here's a middle:

Lakers -1 -110
Mavs +3 -110

This is a bigger advantage, but requires more thought (and data) to perceive.

Similarly, on a total:

Lakers/Mavs OVER 225 -110
UNDER 229 -110

Again, not completely obvious.

My examples are a little extreme, but this is why opportunities can arise on sides rather than moneylines -- because of the camouflage factor.

---

Do you have the ability to do an EV calculation between the 2 bets? (I did at one point in my life but it'd take hours for me to figure it out and find the data to do it with)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Do you have the ability to do an EV calculation between the 2 bets?

---

You mean stuff like how much is a point worth?

I haven't attempted my own calculations. I just look at various sites for guidance. Some of the odds screen sites will estimate EV for particular situations. And I'll look at the sportsbooks themselves to see how the payoffs change if I go up or down a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Do you have the ability to do an EV calculation between the 2 bets?

---

You mean stuff like how much is a point worth?

I haven't attempted my own calculations. I just look at various sites for guidance. Some of the odds screen sites will estimate EV for particular situations. And I'll look at the sportsbooks themselves to see how the payoffs change if I go up or down a point.

---

Yea, that sort of thing. You have to have all those stats and something that isn't super stale from a book published 20 years ago.

I was just curious how the 2 approaches you gave compared in terms of EV/variance. It is unlikely I'll ever sports bet seriously so I don't go too deep down that hole but seemed like an interesting exercise. Might convince some people that EV calcs have value and are a reasonable approach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

I was just curious how the 2 approaches you gave compared in terms of EV/variance. It is unlikely I'll ever sports bet seriously so I don't go too deep down that hole but seemed like an interesting exercise. Might convince some people that EV calcs have value and are a reasonable approach.

---

I may not be clear on the question, but mechanical betting is inherently toward the low end of variance. A scalp carries a guaranteed profit, although sometimes I'll tilt to one direction if I detect that one sportsbook is more "wrong" than the other.

Middles are more volatile because most bet pairings will be (small) losers, assuming typically -110 odds on both components. And the wins (when a middle hits) can be chunky.

Mechanical betting volume is limited by what you can find, and what you think will be tolerated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

I was just curious how the 2 approaches you gave compared in terms of EV/variance. It is unlikely I'll ever sports bet seriously so I don't go too deep down that hole but seemed like an interesting exercise. Might convince some people that EV calcs have value and are a reasonable approach.

---

I may not be clear on the question, but mechanical betting is inherently toward the low end of variance. A scalp carries a guaranteed profit, although sometimes I'll tilt to one direction if I detect that one sportsbook is more "wrong" than the other.

Middles are more volatile because most bet pairings will be (small) losers, assuming typically -110 odds on both components. And the wins (when a middle hits) can be chunky.

Mechanical betting volume is limited by what you can find, and what you think will be tolerated.

---

I don't really have a strong understanding of my question either but thought maybe you were doing a deeper analysis or had the tools to readily do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

I don't really have a strong understanding of my question either but thought maybe you were doing a deeper analysis or had the tools to readily do it.

---

I suppose the primary tools are the odds screens such as Unabated. They do a lot of the work for you. There are nuances, but the basic concepts are somewhat simple imo -- which fits me because I can be somewhat simple :o.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

I don't really have a strong understanding of my question either but thought maybe you were doing a deeper analysis or had the tools to readily do it.

---

I suppose the primary tools are the odds screens such as Unabated. They do a lot of the work for you. There are nuances, but the basic concepts are somewhat simple imo -- which fits me because I can be somewhat simple :o.

---

Unabated is pretty cool. I subscribed briefly at one point. I believe you can get a free subscription for a month or so. Definitely worth checking out to see the sorts of things statistical analysis can do for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Unabated is pretty cool. I subscribed briefly at one point.

---

Yes, I like it. But I don't subscribe to any of them. So that means I have various limitations and delays.

I might get myself into trouble if I had perfect, real-time information because the sportsbooks don't like when you insta-attack their line moves. The stuff I bet has usually been sitting a few minutes at least, which I hope gives me some "cover" to look somewhat recreational.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Unabated is pretty cool. I subscribed briefly at one point.

---

Yes, I like it. But I don't subscribe to any of them. So that means I have various limitations and delays.

I might get myself into trouble if I had perfect, real-time information because the sportsbooks don't like when you insta-attack their line moves. The stuff I bet has usually been sitting a few minutes at least, which I hope gives me some "cover" to look somewhat recreational.

---

Interesting. That makes sense. Books could do reports on how quickly people bet lines that move to have a lot of closing value.. I'm not sure what the logic would be but a good way to discern a certain type of sharp betting from the pool to eliminate them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Unabated is pretty cool. I subscribed briefly at one point.

---

Yes, I like it. But I don't subscribe to any of them. So that means I have various limitations and delays.

I might get myself into trouble if I had perfect, real-time information because the sportsbooks don't like when you insta-attack their line moves. The stuff I bet has usually been sitting a few minutes at least, which I hope gives me some "cover" to look somewhat recreational.

---

Interesting. That makes sense. Books could do reports on how quickly people bet lines that move to have a lot of closing value.. I'm not sure what the logic would be but a good way to discern a certain type of sharp betting from the pool to eliminate them.

---

LOL. Also be sure to occasionally glimpse your cards when playing poker. And best to not roll dice by putting them in your mouth and spitting them out.

dupe post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Yes, I like it. But I don't subscribe to any of them. So that means I have various limitations and delays.

I might get myself into trouble if I had perfect, real-time information because the sportsbooks don't like when you insta-attack their line moves. The stuff I bet has usually been sitting a few minutes at least, which I hope gives me some "cover" to look somewhat recreational.

---

Interesting. That makes sense. Books could do reports on how quickly people bet lines that move to have a lot of closing value.. I'm not sure what the logic would be but a good way to discern a certain type of sharp betting from the pool to eliminate them.

---

LOL. Also be sure to occasionally glimpse your cards when playing poker. And best to not roll dice by putting them in your mouth and spitting them out.

---

get on the podcast or stfu finally. jesus. you fucking clown.

You've literally been beat down to Singer's level which is one level above Kewl as far as credibility. Now DEAL with it. Or do you no longer have the mental faculties to understand this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Interesting. That makes sense. Books could do reports on how quickly people bet lines that move to have a lot of closing value.. I'm not sure what the logic would be but a good way to discern a certain type of sharp betting from the pool to eliminate them.

---

LOL. Also be sure to occasionally glimpse your cards when playing poker. And best to not roll dice by putting them in your mouth and spitting them out.

---

get on the podcast or stfu finally. jesus. you fucking clown.

You've literally been beat down to Singer's level which is one level above Kewl as far as credibility. Now DEAL with it. Or do you no longer have the mental faculties to understand this?

---

I am up for the podcast any day any time. It's not my podcast, genius. Tomorrow, Sunday, Monday, next week, next month. I'm good with any and all of it.

Look, account, I promise to not respond to you again. But out of the goodness of my heart, I let you know that your response to the post above was something a third-grader with Alzheimer's might write. Have you considered not actually writing about shit you know absolutely nothing about? I guess not. One of the advantages/disadvantages of online "anonymity." Take account of yourself, for God's sake. Actually ponder what you just typed once in awhile. If you don't know anything about something, you might want to consider not typing. These trailblazing observations of yours are embarrassing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I think the pandemic line moves and people accessing early "load management" decisions created the perspective that NBA sides were beatable.

---

Can I chime in from a "mechanical" perspective? (I hope my terminology is correct.)

Middles can often be less obvious than scalps.

Here's a scalp:

Lakers moneyline -105
Mavs moneyline +110

Smart bettors will jump on this because the advantage is plainly apparent.

But now here's a middle:

Lakers -1 -110
Mavs +3 -110

This is a bigger advantage, but requires more thought (and data) to perceive.

Similarly, on a total:

Lakers/Mavs OVER 225 -110
UNDER 229 -110

Again, not completely obvious.

My examples are a little extreme, but this is why opportunities can arise on sides rather than moneylines -- because of the camouflage factor.

---

Do you have the ability to do an EV calculation between the 2 bets? (I did at one point in my life but it'd take hours for me to figure it out and find the data to do it with)

---

I can’t recall all the details but I think someone once said something like “There is no such thing as EV in sports betting, but you can calculate it after the game has been played & the results are in.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

LOL. Also be sure to occasionally glimpse your cards when playing poker. And best to not roll dice by putting them in your mouth and spitting them out.

---

get on the podcast or stfu finally. jesus. you fucking clown.

You've literally been beat down to Singer's level which is one level above Kewl as far as credibility. Now DEAL with it. Or do you no longer have the mental faculties to understand this?

---

I am up for the podcast any day any time. It's not my podcast, genius. Tomorrow, Sunday, Monday, next week, next month. I'm good with any and all of it.

Look, account, I promise to not respond to you again. But out of the goodness of my heart, I let you know that your response to the post above was something a third-grader with Alzheimer's might write. Have you considered not actually writing about shit you know absolutely nothing about? I guess not. One of the advantages/disadvantages of online "anonymity." Take account of yourself, for God's sake. Actually ponder what you just typed once in awhile. If you don't know anything about something, you might want to consider not typing. These trailblazing observations of yours are embarrassing.

---

We are having a discussion about sports betting. I understand how books can easily pick off people that beat CLV or whatever but it never occurred to me that they can also look at the timestamps of your bets to find sharps. We were just having a discussion and I admitted to some level of ignorance. Who gives a fuck but you? I've never put myself out there as anything NEAR a professional sports bettor. Infact, I'm sure I've said numerous times I've placed relatively few bets.

The whole thread was started by successful APs who have an interest in professional sports betting. Not buster scamdicappers. You have no interest in learning about anything, all you want to do is beg about trying to gain respect on here with your stale-ass knowledge from decades ago and need to worship scumbag mafia.

I'm not some busted ass loser who has to prove themselves by incessant name dropping in every post while simultaneously being wrong and mocking those who have established records. Your bullshit might fly in bumfuck TN pizza parlor bathroom get togethers but it won't on here. Deal with it.

*You* diagnosing others with dementia is peak redietz. If I was half the asshole I am, I wouldn't point this out but I'm full-on asshole.

Go take another picture with another man's car and post it so I can use that to also ridicule you. Chump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

I understand how books can easily pick off people that beat CLV or whatever but it never occurred to me that they can also look at the timestamps of your bets to find sharps. We were just having a discussion and I admitted to some level of ignorance. Who gives a fuck but you? I've never put myself out there as anything NEAR a professional sports bettor.

---

Same here. I try to achieve basic proficiency at multiple endeavors, but I've rarely considered myself an expert at anything. I've rarely if ever felt comfortable with my assessments of "cover." I've played casino machine games for a couple of decades, and I still don't know with any reliability what it takes to generate mail and remain welcome.

Commenting further on attacking line moves in sports, let's say an injury or other news is announced, and the Maggots suddenly shift from a prevailing line of +150 to +120. If I have real-time alerts, I'll see maybe 5 or 6 remaining books still sitting at +150. If I immediately bet into those books, I fear bad things may happen. Now fast-forward 10 minutes, and only 1 or 2 books remain with the stale line. At this point, I figure I have a green light because the line is either intentional or incompetent.

/not an expert

.

lost pick above

today - Wyler Abreu under 1.5 hits, runs and RBIs - 135______________Orioles vs. Red Sox

he's had only 2 hits, zero runs and zero RBIs in his last 7 games

.

.
lost pick above

I'm 6-4 on my picks here

only about 9% profit because some paid out less than the common -110

gonna take a break - it's a lot of work looking at these props - maybe I'll post some in the future

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

This just comes back to that this UNKewl one is INcapable of keeping his mouth shut. As well as INcapable of staying away from these forums for even just a few days notwithstanding his (claimed) resolve.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

This just comes back to that this UNKewl one is INcapable of keeping his mouth shut. As well as INcapable of staying away from these forums for even just a few days notwithstanding his (claimed) resolve.

---

---

He hasn’t posted here in a few weeks. If you want to blow him so bad, sent him a private message, you obsessed, camel stroking homo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

.
lost pick above

I'm 6-4 on my picks here

only about 9% profit because some paid out less than the common -110

gonna take a break - it's a lot of work looking at these props - maybe I'll post some in the future

.

---

Honestly, cross-referencing props 24/7 for the week leading up to the SB for that contest was the most pain-in-the-ass thing I've ever done, including delivering milk for a penny a quart when I was nine. You gotta juggle numbers in your head, try to figure out where they are likely to go, stay on top of everything, and then make decisions you can live with, knowing the timing for at least a third of them will be non-optimal.

.
I stopped posting here but I started up again at WOV

I went 14-5 on my 19 picks there starting on May 25 in the "sports betting chatter" thread - my last pick was yesterday

a few of them only paid out close to 1/2 but I was way, way up in profitability

but I've gotten tired of it - I don't need or really even want the $$$ (I have way, way more than enough and I don't hunger for material possessions) and it took a lot of time for me to come up with just ONE pick I liked

there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I can beat sports if I want to - my way is to form an opinion - not to crunch tons of numbers - of course, I'm not knocking those who do - they will get way, way more picks than I would

my profitability in my picks had nothing to do with free play or bonus $ which is of course a great thing

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

.
I stopped posting here but I started up again at WOV

I went 14-5 on my 19 picks there starting on May 25 in the "sports betting chatter" thread - my last pick was yesterday

a few of them only paid out close to 1/2 but I was way, way up in profitability

but I've gotten tired of it - I don't need or really even want the $$$ (I have way, way more than enough and I don't hunger for material possessions) and it took a lot of time for me to come up with just ONE pick I liked

there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I can beat sports if I want to - my way is to form an opinion - not to crunch tons of numbers - of course, I'm not knocking those who do - they will get way, way more picks than I would

my profitability in my picks had nothing to do with free play or bonus $ which is of course a great thing

.

---

Howdy HS. I followed along with your picks and tagged along with some. I am not crazy about laying big odds like you did on some picks so I didn't tag along on all, but some. Not to influence your decision to stop, as you seem to have valid reasons, but just wanted to let you know, your efforts were appreciated.

If you read my other thread, you know I am coming to an end with my bonus whoring plays as well. The bonus have dropped to a point that it just isn't worth the time I am putting in. Still making a little profit, but just not worth the time. That time could be put to better use (for me in the AP world).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcap

You’re going into these elaborate logic chains that aren’t ALL that different from saying you couldn’t possibly count cards for a living in Las Vegas for over a decade….

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

.
I stopped posting here but I started up again at WOV

I went 14-5 on my 19 picks there starting on May 25 in the "sports betting chatter" thread - my last pick was yesterday

a few of them only paid out close to 1/2 but I was way, way up in profitability

but I've gotten tired of it - I don't need or really even want the $$$ (I have way, way more than enough and I don't hunger for material possessions) and it took a lot of time for me to come up with just ONE pick I liked

there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I can beat sports if I want to - my way is to form an opinion - not to crunch tons of numbers - of course, I'm not knocking those who do - they will get way, way more picks than I would

my profitability in my picks had nothing to do with free play or bonus $ which is of course a great thing

.

---

Howdy HS. I followed along with your picks and tagged along with some. I AM NOT CRAZY ABOUT LAYING BIG ODDS LIKE YOU DID on some picks so I didn't tag along on all, but some. Not to influence your decision to stop, as you seem to have valid reasons, but just wanted to let you know, your efforts were appreciated.

If you read my other thread, you know I am coming to an end with my bonus whoring plays as well. The bonus have dropped to a point that it just isn't worth the time I am putting in. Still making a little profit, but just not worth the time. That time could be put to better use (for me in the AP world).

---

I overlooked posting the main reason I believe sports is more easily beatable now - the reason is props - and a few of them every single day are obviously mispriced - but wow - what an effort it takes to find them

one of the main reasons these props are mispriced is because so many are shaded so that the bettor who wants the big payout gets screwed and so few bettors (such as yourself) are willing to plunge for smaller payouts which are very often a much better deal

it hasn't been documented in sports betting (to the best of my knowledge) but it has in horse racing

because of longshot lovers bettors betting only faves in racing will lose less than the takeout (but not nearly enough to be profitable because the takeout is so huge)

those who bet extreme longshots in racing will get totally crushed in the long run - losing much, much more than the takeout

I found it quite amusing - a pro racing writer estimated the true odds of the horses at the Belmont Stakes

the horse Uncaged who went off at 19/1 - he estimated the fair odds as being 200/1______________:)

he estimated the horse Heart of Honor who went off at 20/1 as having fair odds of 106/1____________________:)

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

The truth is … UNKewlJ hasn’t spent 20 years playing blackjack. He’s spent 20 years trying to convince people that he’s been playing blackjack.

---

And now going on a year trying desperately to establish that he's ever placed a sports bet in his tunnel dwelling life.

---

Why isn't this retard out pretending to be a high roller?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

.
I stopped posting here but I started up again at WOV

I went 14-5 on my 19 picks there starting on May 25 in the "sports betting chatter" thread - my last pick was yesterday

a few of them only paid out close to 1/2 but I was way, way up in profitability

but I've gotten tired of it - I don't need or really even want the $$$ (I have way, way more than enough and I don't hunger for material possessions) and it took a lot of time for me to come up with just ONE pick I liked

there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I can beat sports if I want to - my way is to form an opinion - not to crunch tons of numbers - of course, I'm not knocking those who do - they will get way, way more picks than I would

my profitability in my picks had nothing to do with free play or bonus $ which is of course a great thing

.

---

Howdy HS. I followed along with your picks and tagged along with some. I AM NOT CRAZY ABOUT LAYING BIG ODDS LIKE YOU DID on some picks so I didn't tag along on all, but some. Not to influence your decision to stop, as you seem to have valid reasons, but just wanted to let you know, your efforts were appreciated.

If you read my other thread, you know I am coming to an end with my bonus whoring plays as well. The bonus have dropped to a point that it just isn't worth the time I am putting in. Still making a little profit, but just not worth the time. That time could be put to better use (for me in the AP world).

---

I overlooked posting the main reason I believe sports is more easily beatable now - the reason is props - and a few of them every single day are obviously mispriced - but wow - what an effort it takes to find them

one of the main reasons these props are mispriced is because so many are shaded so that the bettor who wants the big payout gets screwed and so few bettors (such as yourself) are willing to plunge for smaller payouts which are very often a much better deal

it hasn't been documented in sports betting (to the best of my knowledge) but it has in horse racing

because of longshot lovers bettors betting only faves in racing will lose less than the takeout (but not nearly enough to be profitable because the takeout is so huge)

those who bet extreme longshots in racing will get totally crushed in the long run - losing much, much more than the takeout

I found it quite amusing - a pro racing writer estimated the true odds of the horses at the Belmont Stakes

the horse Uncaged who went off at 19/1 - he estimated the fair odds as being 200/1______________:)

he estimated the horse Heart of Honor who went off at 20/1 as having fair odds of 106/1____________________:)

.

---

I think there is a key, significant difference between "easily beatable" and "profitable."

The phrase "easily beatable" means you can rifle-shoot the occasional alleged error for a prop, which is usually based on a certain historical block of results that can be rendered dated by things (in the NBA) as obvious as a transition from ass-grabbing regular season to semi-serious playoffs or a change in coaches, even assistant coaches. In baseball, it can be something as simple and obvious as a dramatic change in batting order. But the problem with trying to actually make money from the "easily beatable" rarity is that the limits are low. So you can get three or four or five consecutive "easily beatables" correct and make very little money, even sprinkling it around at half a dozen different books (assuming everyone isn't on red alert simultaneously for it, which is what usually occurs).

So if you're constrained by $300 or $500 limits on particular sites for smaller props, this is a lot of spinning of one's wheels and investing of time to find $300 or $500 wagers where you are laying -115 for half of them.

To bring in a Kim Lee/KewlJ angle, this is why when Fezzik "retired" publicly and said he would restrict himself to props going forward, the announcement was so jarring. It basically meant he was transitioning from high-rolling mega-bets to pouring over hundreds of props while betting a a twentieth or less of what he had been betting. It suggested strongly that something had really gone wrong.

The other key and obvious aspect to this is that the prop volatility is generally higher than other forms of betting, which relates some to the low limits. But the point is that monitoring ALL of the props ALL of the time is a full-time job. Since the props numbers change so frequently that getting the optimal number and/or optimal price requires threading the proverbial time/place needle, it becomes an ongoing, every hour-of-the-day project. Now whether $300 and $500 limit props are worth that kind of personal investment is not something everyone is going to agree on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

To bring in a Kim Lee/KewlJ angle, this is why when Fezzik "retired" publicly and said he would restrict himself to props going forward, the announcement was so jarring.

---

What exactly is the KewlJ connection here? I don't know Fezzik, or know very little about him. I have heard the name that's about it as he was way before my time. I gather that he is someone that saw through your bullshit and called you out. Is THAT the connection?

Mate you get weirder and weirder with each passing day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

To bring in a Kim Lee/KewlJ angle, this is why when Fezzik "retired" publicly and said he would restrict himself to props going forward, the announcement was so jarring.

---

What exactly is the KewlJ connection here? I don't know Fezzik, or know very little about him. I have heard the name that's about it as he was way before my time. I gather that he is someone that saw through your bullshit and called you out. Is THAT the connection?

Mate you get weirder and weirder with each passing day.

---

You need to keep better tabs on your stories. Kim Lee already reported working with Fezzik, and that was reported here after a video review. Fezzik is not "before your time." Far from it.

You should drop the act and stop bothering real people with your bullshit.

I'm not going to address your nonsense any more. You clearly are some whackjob who is out to waste people's time. Pointing out each and every time you bullshit would be a multiple-person, full-time endeavor. Let MDawg do it.

MDawg, if you keep a running tally of kewlj's bullshit, I can review the posts all at once. I'll be in LV August 5-9. And if you get a bullshit backlog from him, let me know and maybe once a month I can do some kind of video chat and debunk a good chunk of it.

Responding to him is stupid. KewlJ is an anonymous proven liar, and because I'm a real person with a real history, it's expected that I'll respond each and every time the anonymous idjit lies. It's the old asymmetric warfare schtick. But I think his lack of credibility overwhelms anything he types, so I'm not going to bother to respond to him until it's time to respond to him, if you get my drift.

I mean, does anyone think this bullshitting doofus is really making a living playing blackjack? He'd have to be the dumbest blackjack player in history to piss off the people he's pissed off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

To bring in a Kim Lee/KewlJ angle, this is why when Fezzik "retired" publicly and said he would restrict himself to props going forward, the announcement was so jarring.

---

What exactly is the KewlJ connection here? I don't know Fezzik, or know very little about him. I have heard the name that's about it as he was way before my time. I gather that he is someone that saw through your bullshit and called you out. Is THAT the connection?

Mate you get weirder and weirder with each passing day.

---

You need to keep better tabs on your stories. Kim Lee already reported working with Fezzik, and that was reported here after a video review. Fezzik is not "before your time." Far from it.

---

Again...this has what to do with me? :confused:

Ok, I think I am getting it. You had a feud with this Fezzik....decades ago (long before I was around) . Kim Lee was friends with or knew Fezzik....decades ago. (before I was a round). And I am friends with Kim Lee currently. (decades later)

like I said...you just keep getting weirder and weirder Mr. Bob Dietz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

I communicated directly with the real "Kim Lee." He denies being UNKewlJ, yes - he refers to the bum just like that, as "UNKewlJ" but does not deny that UNKewlJ might have been feeding him things to say, which we already knew anyway.

---

More of a de facto sock than a de jure.

---

Redietz, you really shouldn't comment about blackjack at all or what it might take to make a living as a blackjack AP, as it is obvious you don't know shit about any of that.

But you DO like to talk about shit you don't know about. Hey maybe you have a friend who has a brother that knows someone. OR maybe you played basketball at lunch time with someone 50 years ago that knows someone.

I will let you in on a misconception that some of you on this forum that have no clue about blackjack card counting/AP, believe or have talked yourself into believing. That no one can count cards on a regular basis in Las Vegas anymore. NOTHING is further from the truth. The math works exactly the same as it has for 60 years. EXACTLY!!! The only thing that has changed is how a player has to play. You can't just sit down at one table for 8 hours (like people telling stories claim). You have to play shorter sessions, move a round and play a larger rotation of casinos, so you are NOT seen at any place more than once or twice a months. Shorter sessions (and things like exiting after showing spread) also increase longevity by not having as many of the really big wins that draw attention and scrutiny. For the most part you will have many more smaller wins, which no one has to answer for and are easier on the player to cash out.

And finally, you people, the clueless KJ haters that know nothing about what they are making up, think I am the only one still grinding out blackjack for a living in Las Vegas. There are a number of players still doing so. THAT number isn't in the hundreds like it was a few decades ago, when so many AP were playing blackjack before moving on to higher advantage play. It is more like 10, or maybe 20-30, if you count the part-timers supplementing rather than playing exclusively for a living. But there are still some, because despite what you knuckleheads keep telling yourselves the math still works. You just have to be a little more creative in how you play to achieve some longevity.

Hell, I am NOT the only player in my family and my brother and I are not the only player in the community where we live. Digest that you goofy, "can't count cards in Las Vegas anymore" loony tunes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

One thing you can tell, when UNKewlJ makes with the all bold sentences one after another something has really gotten to him. You can practically see the hand cocked onto his side, the bent elbow and the high pitched whiny voice complaining, "Now wayyyyt a minute, Misterrrrr."

---

The Dracula, South Point break-my-arm, Nersesian-on-speed dial goof ball.

Here's a tree-falling-in-the-forest question:

If KewlJ were real, and read what kewlJ posted on this forum (and others) regarding coming back from death and arm-breaking and Nersesian-is-my-friend, would a real Kewlj actually believe the VCT KewlJ?

I pondered this a moment, and the answer has to be "certainly not." So one would think a real Kewlj would be embarrassed beyond belief at the sheer nonsense the VCT KewlJ has spat into the internet ether.

But there are always giveaways as to credibility. The fact KewlJ feels it necessary to summarize or paraphrase other's comments demonstrates how averse he is to actually reporting real words. It's curious -- MDawg uses exact quotes to make his case about this and that. KewlJ never does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

But there are always giveaways as to credibility.

---

Not keeping the property tax payments on one's home current is a giveaway, as is filing bankruptcy, as is claiming to own a seven figure LV mansion and then retracting the statement.

Then again how can there really be much credibility on an internet discussion forum?

What Red and a few others can't seem to figure out on their own is that for real AP's that share anything on forums, there is a danger. That danger has only grown in recent years as we battle not only the casino industry, but must outwit some trolls and hater, who will think nothing of actually contacting casinos to rat APs out that they troll and hate (jealous).

The smart AP's have all but stopped participating on forum and sharing anything at all. Those of us that have a little bit of troll in us and like to fight back, we have to deflect, more and more.

It used to be we could just share an experience, maybe not in real time, but with some delay. Now we have to mis-direct and change details to mis-direct.

So where we used to be able to say I was walking down the strip wearing a red shirt and blue sketchers, played 2 sessions at 2 different casinos, winning both for a nice win of $2500 vs expectation of $475.

So now we will change up some of the minor unrelated to the actual claim facts and say "I was wearing a green shirt and a new pair of New Balance shoes and a Dodgers baseball cap".

The gambling claim part of the story is the same, as it is real. The players has changed the shirt color and footwear description and completely made up the baseball cap. And the trolls and haters freak out! "Oh my God he lied". Completely oblivious as to why real players need to do so. :confused:

So on this forum just comparing a few people we have a guy who lies about his gambling winnings everyday! Every single day he reports winnings when actual records show him in the red. :rolleyes:

We have a guy claiming a casino rolled a specific machine into a storage are room, where he won 1.5 million dollars. :rolleyes: (among other ridiculous claims)

We have a guy who told us he was one of the greatest sports bettor in the last 50 years, when in actuality he was a tout selling picks.

And we have a guy that changes minor details surrounding his actual claim. Not the claim, but minor details to throw not only casino personnel off, but the trolls that will report to the casinos.

And Redietz, can't seem to distinguish between these? :confused: Tell us again how freaking smart you are...smarter than everyone else. How high your IQ is. You freaking moron!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Then again how can there really be much credibility on an internet discussion forum?

---

Try relevancy.

Even if KJ gave away free sandwiches, and beer, no one would come to his blackjack workshops. The nowhere man going nowhere.

On the other hand, I'm sure that the MDawg leads quite a structured, full life, and, with evermore doors yet to open.

An afternoon with the MDawg, or, with KJ? No comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

as is claiming to own a seven figure LV mansion and then retracting the statement.

Then again how can there really be much credibility on an internet discussion forum?

---

What cracks me up about your "pooch" friend MrV, isn't all the lying about his actual claims of winning (which is rather easily disproven), but this weird need to have everyone think he is some successful person in life....a high end attorney, no less.

The guys spends many hours every day trolling on internet forums. Is that really what a high-end lawyer does? I get that there may be some down time for an attorney during his day, but does he really run to an internet forum with 12 members trolling? :confused:

Anybody that believes that silliness, should steer clear of any bridge salesmen. Or even tout selling his picks for that matter. :D

And for God sakes steer clear of a guy trying to sell you an RV that just happens to be sitting in the lot of a dealership. Never mind THAT. The guys really owns the RV. And he will provide a handwritten bill of sale as proof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

as is claiming to own a seven figure LV mansion and then retracting the statement.

Then again how can there really be much credibility on an internet discussion forum?

---

What cracks me up about your "pooch" friend MrV, isn't all the lying about his actual claims of winning (which is rather easily disproven), but this weird need to have everyone think he is some successful person in life....a high end attorney, no less.

The guys spends many hours every day trolling on internet forums. Is that really what a high-end lawyer does? I get that there may be some down time for an attorney during his day, but does he really run to an internet forum with 12 members trolling? :confused:

Anybody that believes that silliness, should steer clear of any bridge salesmen. Or even tout selling his picks for that matter. :D

And for God sakes steer clear of a guy trying to sell you an RV that just happens to be sitting in the lot of a dealership. Never mind THAT. The guys really owns the RV. And he will provide a handwritten bill of sale as proof.

---

The only reason anyone writes the same words, lies, and excuses over and over again is because he fears no one believes him.

Convincing others of one's relevance is a simple act. Kew has never found it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

At some point you will realize you're dealing with a compulsive liar.

---

This Rob Singer is another interesting case study. A long term troll who's actual gambling claims were all rather easily debunked. A guy with evictions and legal actions pertaining to non-payment of rent. Bankruptcies. A guy who lived in a trailer park during the time he claims he was playing the double up bug (a claim he stole BTW). And of course, now lives out his retirement mooching off his kids, like ALL successful people do. :rolleyes:

I can no longer see what these fools are posting, only that they still are. :D

A few, like Ozzy used to celebrate Singer for being a great troll. Not something to be proud of, strive for or celebrate in my book, but whatever.

BUT NOW....this Singer, all washed up, can only manage to play second fiddle as dawgs "wingman". What would Ozzy think? Bet he is rolling over in his grave. Rest easy Oz-man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

The kewlJ(s) have no idea what they wrote months ago or yesterday. Their whole self-presentation is inconsistent and ridiculous.

There is something bizarre about a poster who persistently debunks himself and then acts as if people should believe him. It's gotta be some kind of joke.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Please tell me that this entire routine of yours is a years-long troll job. At least that I could respect.

---

Yes KJ, they / we are all flawed.

And yet we continue to hang out here: obviously something draws us back.

FWIW I've no real dislike for any of the forum members: sure I flame but it's all shits and giggles.

Perhaps you are taking it a bit too personally?

Heck, you flame and give it back to Rob and the hound and I suspect it rolls off them like water off a duck.

The more a fish rises to the bait the more he'll get trolled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Yes KJ, they / we are all flawed.

And yet we continue to hang out here: obviously something draws us back.

FWIW I've no real dislike for any of the forum members: sure I flame but it's all shits and giggles.

---

Sure it is all shit and giggles MrV. Until it isn't. :rolleyes: All shits and giggles until a Manny shoots a Vinnie or a Finny or whatever their names were because some social media/internet shit. :rolleyes:

I don't know what kind of attorney you were? Private practice or worked for a firm. But what is someone from a freaking internet forum, sent information (made up) to your firm trying to damage your career, like I have had someone send information to casinos trying to harm and damage me and my career. Would you think THAT is all shits and giggles?

What is someone said they were going to hire someone to find information and several weeks later posted that doxed information as Mdawg did, or what if someone repeatedly threatened you and to find you and after asking around for information, showed up at your home, as the late Moses did. Would you be comfortable with that? Would your wife? Just chalk it up to "shits and giggles"?

For the record, I don't start out hating or even disliking anyone either. In every case I end up having an issue with someone, my issue is with gambling claims made that defy math and the way things work. People telling stories. Same issues other real players have. because real players can spot this, 10 miles away.

It only turns personal when I challenge these claims, which I have every right to do as a real player, and the people attack back with made up stupid shit. That is when I start to have a problem with someone. Not before.

If any person, any handle, were to claim they died in a robbery, then came back from the dead,

Then claimed they had been roughed up at South Point and called Nersesian, who took the case,

Then claimed they were broke but attended Villanova,

The question would arise, if someone lies about all of these overarching major events in life, why should anyone believe the same person is being fastidiously truthful about the rest of it? You would have to be a complete loon to buy any of it.

Why some anonymous, fairy-tale inventing whackadoodle has any expectation of being believed about any of what he writes is a wonderful question. Various forms of mental illness come to mind.

Best to just ignore him/them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Yes KJ, they / we are all flawed.

---

Some of us are "perfectly flawed". hA.

Ie, nothing is for "shits, or giggles".