Professional Sportsbetting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZenKinG

Without your mouth, you can't make a living.

---

Everyone writes tiny replies, but, KJ, still with the nutty essays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

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,

---

Not a single thing said here is true Bob Dietz.

I didn't claim I died in a robbery. Post where I claimed that? You can't because it never happened. A short time, maybe a week, I don't know after being held up at gunpoint, outside my home, in which the person demanded "my bankroll", I had a medical situation completely unrelated that resulted in my first heart value replacement. Still concerned about this robbery and potential for future specifically because of the mention of "bankroll", I came up with the (ill-conceived) "deathgate" plan, thinking it might solve the problem.

I NEVER named who the attorney was the represented me through the settlement negotiations. I challenge you to post where I did.

Can you show PROOF that the backroom incident didn't occur or that I didn't receive a settlement. (note my intentional not mentioning where as I am restricted from doing so). Show Proof!! You can't because it did happen. I still have the proof, although can't show it on a public forum without inviting a whole host of further legal problems.

Can you show PROOF that I didn't attend Villanova, Bob Dietz?

You have no proof of any of these things you claims. Nor of the bigger claim that I still am a card counter/blackjack AP.

You Bob Dietz, just like the other trolls and haters have specualation, and made up theories. Not an ounce of proof.

I/we have PROOF that singer lied in the RV fiansco (as well as the jackpot on computer screen in his daughters house).

I/we have PROOF that Mdawg lied about his gambling claims, when he on his own (or forced by Wizard) retracted 7 months and millions of dollars in winnings previously claimed.

We have proof that you were a tout and not the greatest sports bettor of the last 50 years, when Kim Lee and expert....YOUR expert showed up here and stated so based on studying the publications you claimed.

What PROOF do you or anyone have that I am not Ap who has supported myself from card counting for 22 years now. You have speculation and made up shit like male prostitution, based on some sort of dislike or jealousy. But not an ounce of proof. Not a single ounce. All you can do is attempt to smear, just like the other trolls, because THAT is what you now are Bob Dietz. You have become just another troll. Maybe you were all along and just hid it better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MHF

Everyone writes tiny replies, but, KJ, still with the nutty essays.

---

It occurs to me that these trolls don't know what the definition of Proof is.

I have given some examples. Singer in the RV at the dealership that he didn't own. Dawg retracting a statement of claims of winning millions over 7 months. Dietz finally coming around admitting that he sold picks rather than was some Billy Walters type great handicapper. These things are PROOF.

What people have on me is speculation and made up shit. That is NOT proof people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MHF

Everyone writes tiny replies, but, KJ, still with the nutty essays.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

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.

---

Aw, shucks, red. Why hasnt Druff reported seeing your credit score yet? Whats it been? A year? Do you think it got lost in the mail?

Were you lying? So it ain’t so, redietz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

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.

---

Aw, shucks, red. Why hasnt Druff reported seeing your credit score yet? Whats it been? A year? Do you think it got lost in the mail?

Were you lying? So it ain’t so, redietz.

---

We close on a newly built home, which sits in the shadow of Bristol Motor Speedway, in two weeks. Four bedrooms. When Rob makes his way to Asheville next time, he's invited to drop in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

It occurs to me that these trolls don't know what the definition of Proof is.

I have given some examples. Singer in the RV at the dealership that he didn't own. Dawg retracting a statement of claims of winning millions over 7 months. Dietz finally coming around admitting that he sold picks rather than was some Billy Walters type great handicapper. These things are PROOF.

What people have on me is speculation and made up shit. That is NOT proof people.

---

Having your ATS selections in public, every week for decades, is handicapping last I checked. And being hired by Billy Walters, well, that would suggest I have some idea what I'm doing.

I assume this was kewlJ's brilliant ploy to evoke a response. LOL. Congrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

It occurs to me that these trolls don't know what the definition of Proof is.

I have given some examples. Singer in the RV at the dealership that he didn't own. Dawg retracting a statement of claims of winning millions over 7 months. Dietz finally coming around admitting that he sold picks rather than was some Billy Walters type great handicapper. These things are PROOF.

What people have on me is speculation and made up shit. That is NOT proof people.

---

Having your ATS selections in public, every week for decades, is handicapping last I checked. And being hired by Billy Walters, well, that would suggest I have some idea what I'm doing.

I assume this was kewlJ's brilliant ploy to evoke a response. LOL. Congrats.

---

OMG! What is wrong with you Mate?

1) please let us know, if at any time, you decide to join the rest of us in the 21st century, or if you are going to live out your remaining years in the 1980's.

2) Those contests, posted in publications, served only 1 purpose. They were a tool that you and other touts used to solicit new sucker/customers. NOTHING MORE> . Stop pretending that it was some kind of proof that you were the second coming of Billy Walters.

And speaking of which....I see you name dropped him again. Exactly how long did you work for Billy Walters as a runner. Months?

If someone were to walk up to Mr Walters and mention the name Bob Dietz, what would his response be? My guess is he would say "Who"?

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 pinchingyourballs

Perhaps if you worked harder to create a coherent narrative that didn't contradict itself or defy common sense...

---

One final look at PROOF regarding this forum.

Who has attempted to "prove anything on an internet forum?

1) Rob Singer by climbing inside an RV at the RV dealership. :rolleyes:

2) Mdawg by spreading cash and chips out on a bed, as if that proves he won something. :rolleyes:

3) And Now Bob Dietz using these contests and publications from last century (which are a tool for the tout business and NOTHING more) to attempt to prove he is the second coming of Billy Walters.

NONE of these things prove what the person is pretending they do. NONE of them!

Now who doesn't attempt to "prove" anything. That would be any of the real players and APs. Mickeycrimm has NEVER attempted to prove anything. Axelwolf never that I am aware of. Neither have I, or Zenking or any other real AP/winning player. Not Here. Not on any other forum I have ever been on.

We "prove" by knowing what the fuck we are talking about, having the math work and not claiming something that defies how the industry works.

These guys attempt there phony proof because they have demonstrated they do not know what the fuck they are talking about with comments like machines indicating hot and cold cycles (Singer), 60 winning blackjack hands in a row and comments about the casinos not caring about players winning (dawg) and redeitz and his now famous EV quotes and not understand Kelly Wagering or thinking it applies to sports bettors.

No wonder these guys attempt to submit their phony proof, as they have demonstrated beyond any doubt that they haven't a clue about what they are talking about and claiming.

It is almost a "tell" at this point. If someone is trying to submit proof of what they claim, you can go ahead and write it off as fiction. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

It occurs to me that these trolls don't know what the definition of Proof is.

I have given some examples. Singer in the RV at the dealership that he didn't own. Dawg retracting a statement of claims of winning millions over 7 months. Dietz finally coming around admitting that he sold picks rather than was some Billy Walters type great handicapper. These things are PROOF.

What people have on me is speculation and made up shit. That is NOT proof people.

---

Having your ATS selections in public, every week for decades, is handicapping last I checked. And being hired by Billy Walters, well, that would suggest I have some idea what I'm doing.

I assume this was kewlJ's brilliant ploy to evoke a response. LOL. Congrats.

---

OMG! What is wrong with you Mate?

1) please let us know, if at any time, you decide to join the rest of us in the 21st century, or if you are going to live out your remaining years in the 1980's.

2) Those contests, posted in publications, served only 1 purpose. They were a tool that you and other touts used to solicit new sucker/customers. NOTHING MORE> . Stop pretending that it was some kind of proof that you were the second coming of Billy Walters.

And speaking of which....I see you name dropped him again. Exactly how long did you work for Billy Walters as a runner. Months?

If someone were to walk up to Mr Walters and mention the name Bob Dietz, what would his response be? My guess is he would say "Who"?

---

Well, we have an interesting theory presented by the KewlJ. That theory is that winning for decades with documented ATS records should not count as evidence that handicappers win. Documented plays made public well in advance of the events, or tallied by actual journalists and then published, should not be considered evidence that handicappers win.

Fascinating theory. I notice that there is no evidence that kewlJ wins...at anything. Ever.

And -- LOL -- I was not ever a runner, and specifically not ever a runner for Mr. Walters.

Now I know the kewlJ is chomping at the bit to ask me to prove I was NOT simply a runner for Mr. Walters. But the kewlJ is also bright enough to know that he doesn't really know what he's talking about, so he's not going to ask for that proof. It's actually a sweet little study in how disciplined the kewlJ is. He knows he's wrong, but I'm not blabbing about how he's wrong, so he's going to keep repeating his silly narrative until I correct him.

Well, I'm not going to correct him until (A) about the 50th time he repeats this nonsense or (B) until he wagers on it and the money is in escrow. I could not have been a runner for Mr. Walters. And the reason is pretty obvious. But I need the kewlJ to go with this story of his another 45 times or so before I actually spell it out for him. I want him to make an ass of himself another 45 times. Somebody please start the tally.

Now is KewlJ a male prostitute, as multiple posters have claimed? Well, the evidence for that, while shaky, exceeds the evidence for him making a living playing blackjack. And this is the guy claiming that ATS selections, published in advance and read by tens of thousands of people, should not be considered evidence of handicapping.

This kewlJ is an interesting dude with interesting ideas. Can't say I have ever heard arguments like his before. He feels the best evidence, evidently, is no evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Well, we have an interesting theory presented by the KewlJ. That theory is that winning for decades with documented ATS records should not count as evidence that handicappers win. Documented plays made public well in advance of the events, or tallied by actual journalists and then published, should not be considered evidence that handicappers win.

---

You continue to try to pretend that you made whatever money you made by picking winners and betting on them. YOU DIDN'T! You were a tout. You made your money by selling picks. All those contests were was a tool that touts use to solicit new sucker/customers. NOTHING MORE, Dietz!

A real professional sports bettor, makes money by betting sports. Not selling picks (That is a tout). A real sports bettor don't need other people's money, clients and/or customers...whatever you call them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

One final look

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soxfan

Wow, the kewl-groomer still squealing like a little bitch, amazing, hey hey!!!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

One final look

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

KJ lies because it fits in the drama he wishes to surround himself with.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

One final look

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

A high pitched soft whine, ever rising in frequency and volume.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

One final look

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

A lightning MDawg copy/paste versus…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gottlob1

KJ keeps trying to manually rephrase the same old nervous essays over and over. Can you imagine how much time and angst that takes?

---

In sum, there’s really no way UNKewlJ does much more than live on the internet. Of course he doesn’t claim to have ever done much either (booted out of his own familial home, high school dropout, homeless) but still, he could have at least done something with his life other than spent it trying to convince (unsuccessfully) about a dozen people over and over every day all day that he’s not lying (again).

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

One final look

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I have never created a sock account trying to deceive anyone or pretend I was someone else

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

One final look

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

https://media.tenor.com/NJhHW2zwnqsA...rrow-shawn.gif

---

Look Dietz, I know you went to Pennsylvania Farmer's college or whatever the original name was, so I will try to explain this so even YOU can understand.

A professional gambler, gambles for a living. That means places real money wager on outcomes of events, casino games, sporting events, what have you. They have to win more than they lose, winning more money than they lose. If they lose more than they win, they lose money and won't last long as a professional gambler (unless they have a family that just keeps giving them money :rolleyes:)

So you Bob Dietz, do NOT meet this criteria is any way. You make you money by selling a service. You are a salesmen. It just so happens that service is related to sports in the form of picks. But You make your money from sales. Might just as well be condo as sports picks.

Unlike a professional gambler you don't lose money if your picks don't win. Oh you may claim you place a few sheckles on some bets, but the majority of your money comes from sales and isn't effected win or lose the wagers.

You Got it so far, PA farmers college boy?

Now you hold out these contests and publications of contest as some sort of proof that they are not. Those things are a tool that touts use to solicit new customers. And everyone knows it. And even that, if you do poorly in a contest, it costs you nothing, moneywise. except maybe you can't hold out that particular contest when soliciting new suckers. You are going to have to re-use some of the older ones that you did better in. In YOUR case, I guess that is 1983. :D

So stop with this nonsense. Just like Singer in the Newell at the dealership and Dawg with his cash and chips on the bed, your proof doesn't prove what you are trying to claim it does. And you just aren't fooling anyone.

THAT is the offensive part. That you people think you can come to a gambling forum (I know this barely qualifies), where there are real professional gamblers and player that play for a living, and think you can pull this shit. It is insulting dude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

One final look

---

.
.
.
https://i.imgur.com/3nmNeg9m.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozzy

I don't whine like a fairy and have my panties in a bunch, like a repetitive whining UNKOOL poster.

---

The crazy Canadian Garnabby wants shorter posts. So here goes.

Bob Dietz, you are NOT a professional gambler/sports bettor. You don't understand EV, variance, or Kelly wagering. YOU make your money by selling a service not from gambling. You are a salesman. That service just happens to involve sports. End of story!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

One final look

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

UNKewlJ is like a cerebral palsy victim who knows he can't walk straight and is stumbling all over the place, but can't do anything about it because that's the way he's wired.

Try as he might, he can't help sputtering and stumbling and drooling all over himself whenever someone posts anything about him (or MDawg, or Rob, or REDietz), as his hands hit the keyboard and pound out, manically,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gottlob1

the same old nervous essays over and over.

---

He's as bad as jungwoo or K.Stone, coming out like a prize fighter at the bell! whenever MDawg makes a post, desperate to be heard.

And while MDawg's automated copy/pastes just spit out a response in seconds, these fellows, especially UNKewlJ, spend up to hours crafting their posts every day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gottlob1

Can you imagine how much time and angst that takes?

---

---

But really looking forward to this interview that will never happen Dietz. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Look Dietz, I know you went to Pennsylvania Farmer's college or whatever the original name was, so I will try to explain this so even YOU can understand.

A professional gambler, gambles for a living. That means places real money wager on outcomes of events, casino games, sporting events, what have you. They have to win more than they lose, winning more money than they lose. If they lose more than they win, they lose money and won't last long as a professional gambler (unless they have a family that just keeps giving them money :rolleyes:)

So you Bob Dietz, do NOT meet this criteria is any way. You make you money by selling a service. You are a salesmen. It just so happens that service is related to sports in the form of picks. But You make your money from sales. Might just as well be condo as sports picks.

Unlike a professional gambler you don't lose money if your picks don't win. Oh you may claim you place a few sheckles on some bets, but the majority of your money comes from sales and isn't effected win or lose the wagers.

You Got it so far, PA farmers college boy?

Now you hold out these contests and publications of contest as some sort of proof that they are not. Those things are a tool that touts use to solicit new customers. And everyone knows it. And even that, if you do poorly in a contest, it costs you nothing, moneywise. except maybe you can't hold out that particular contest when soliciting new suckers. You are going to have to re-use some of the older ones that you did better in. In YOUR case, I guess that is 1983. :D

So stop with this nonsense. Just like Singer in the Newell at the dealership and Dawg with his cash and chips on the bed, your proof doesn't prove what you are trying to claim it does. And you just aren't fooling anyone.

THAT is the offensive part. That you people think you can come to a gambling forum (I know this barely qualifies), where there are real professional gamblers and player that play for a living, and think you can pull this shit. It is insulting dude.

---

Well, it's good to know I don't gamble. Thank God.

You know your account at Oddsmaker? That little boutique book? I bet more than half a million there, all on record of course, and it's one of more than a dozen accounts. But it is one of my accounts with the least action. You know me, no 50 bets a day in pursuit of a bonus, thinking the site, God bless them, won't catch on. I'm just not clever enough to do that stuff.

But I digress. You gotta love someone who claims the best evidence is a lack of evidence. How does that line go, according to some posters? KewlJ is known for saying that some people blow what they're talking about, and some people are just talking? Something like that.

Nobody on this forum, other than MrV (who actually is among the least knowledgeable) thinks kewlJ actually gambles. It's pretty funny. The guy who has convinced the least posts the most. I guess this forum desperately needs more people to blow what they're talking about. Or something like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You know your account at Oddsmaker? That little boutique book?

---

For the hundredth time, I Don't have an account at oddsmaker.

I did, but they were the very first to cut me off (shitty bonuses and rollover requirements) after I transitioned from rec sports bettor to bonus APing. The VERY first well over a year ago. I knew they were never going to be able to handle the volume of wagers and money I was betting, so it was no surprise.

No go ahead and bring up YouWager next. Another sports book that I no longer play. They were the second to cut me off by stiffing me bonus money after I had achieved rollover.

Dietz, you don't know shit about me or what I do. You Bob Dietz are the very definition of a "poser". Not surprising you have latched on to other posers like you have. Is there a secret "Poser" handshake?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

One final look

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KewlJ

this will be my final post here and on any site throughout the gaming/AP community.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

The reason he posts so much is because he never feels as if his lies are getting across to anyone, and that bothers him. Someone who lives such a concocted virtual life on internet gaming forums just CANNOT have that

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You know your account at Oddsmaker? That little boutique book? I bet more than half a million there, all on record of course, and it's one of more than a dozen accounts. .

---

WHO'S MONEY DID YOU BET?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You know your account at Oddsmaker? That little boutique book? I bet more than half a million there, all on record of course, and it's one of more than a dozen accounts. .

---

WHO'S MONEY DID YOU BET?

---

Interesting question. Would you be more impressed if I (A) bet all my own money or (B) was entrusted by other people to bet theirs?

Assuming people are generally halfway bright, I would be more impressed with (B). It would mean I had a long-term reputation with a group of individuals who knew each other and felt comfortable plopping down five digits plus in my custody to do with as I pleased.

Now you might have a different response, but frankly I see (B) as much more impressive. Betting half a million yourself at a particular site just means you have half a million to bet. Betting half a million at a site with it being other people's money means the person betting must either (A) have some kind of verifiable track record that would entice them to do so, (B) they would theoretically be so experienced in the business that they have no qualms handing off the money, or (C) I'm able to hypnotize wealthy people to give me money to play with.

Axelwolf, do you really think that was some kind of gotcha question? Have you been imbibing this evening?

And if you're going to capitalize shit, either take a freshman English class or turn on a spell-checker. Christ, Alan Mendelson is turning over right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You know your account at Oddsmaker? That little boutique book? I bet more than half a million there, all on record of course, and it's one of more than a dozen accounts. .

---

WHO'S MONEY DID YOU BET?

---

I've bet 100k in an hour on a machine and I'm a putz in the AP world. This guy probably betting some sort of bullshit frequent players points. Notice how red didn't say what he actually bet - just half a million. Lol wtfever. Clowns abound

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You know your account at Oddsmaker? That little boutique book?

---

For the hundredth time, I Don't have an account at oddsmaker.

I did, but they were the very first to cut me off (shitty bonuses and rollover requirements) after I transitioned from rec sports bettor to bonus APing. The VERY first well over a year ago. I knew they were never going to be able to handle the volume of wagers and money I was betting, so it was no surprise.

No go ahead and bring up YouWager next. Another sports book that I no longer play. They were the second to cut me off by stiffing me bonus money after I had achieved rollover.

Dietz, you don't know shit about me or what I do. You Bob Dietz are the very definition of a "poser". Not surprising you have latched on to other posers like you have. Is there a secret "Poser" handshake?

---

You keep telling red how it actually is when you're not playing off wife/associate money.

I used to say the best poker skill is the gift of the borrow. I believe that to be analogous here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You know your account at Oddsmaker? That little boutique book? I bet more than half a million there, all on record of course, and it's one of more than a dozen accounts. .

---

WHO'S MONEY DID YOU BET?

---

Interesting question. Would you be more impressed if I (A) bet all my own money or (B) was entrusted by other people to bet theirs?

Assuming people are generally halfway bright, I would be more impressed with (B). It would mean I had a long-term reputation with a group of individuals who knew each other and felt comfortable plopping down five digits plus in my custody to do with as I pleased.

Now you might have a different response, but frankly I see (B) as much more impressive. Betting half a million yourself at a particular site just means you have half a million to bet. Betting half a million at a site with it being other people's money means the person betting must either (A) have some kind of verifiable track record that would entice them to do so, (B) they would theoretically be so experienced in the business that they have no qualms handing off the money, or (C) I'm able to hypnotize wealthy people to give me money to play with.

Axelwolf, do you really think that was some kind of gotcha question? Have you been imbibing this evening?

And if you're going to capitalize shit, either take a freshman English class or turn on a spell-checker. Christ, Alan Mendelson is turning over right now.

---

Betting half a million doesn't mean you have half a million to bet. Get back to playing basketball with people who hopefully can understand this.

Yes, I can work with this. Ha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

The crazy Canadian Garnabby wants shorter posts. So here goes.

---

--->

Don't Go Near the Water (The Beach Boys song). [First thus solution.]

Say Goodbye (Chris Brown song). [Last thus solution.]

https://anagram-solver.net/The%20cra....?partial=true

Quote:

---

The statement did not disclose a cause of death. Wilson had suffered from dementia and was unable to care for himself after his wife Melinda Wilson died in early 2024, prompting his family to put him under conservatorship ...9 hours ago

---

Quote:

---

Music groups: The Beach Boys (Since 1961), California Music (Since 1974 = (2 + 40)*(10 + 37) ---> 241_137).

---

https://youtu.be/ruKCw797JM4

.
I posted this earlier in the thread:

"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"

and just now I found this info re Fezzik's betting who Red has mentioned - although the bets he's referring to here are not props

quite interesting - he takes this to extremes that I never have and never will - still I recognize him as an expert and his words have value

here are some quotes from him and then the link:

"NCAA basketball favorites of between 22 and 24½ points have won 449 of 454 games since 2006, according to boydbets.com, for a winning percentage of 98.9. That equates to a -9,090 money line, while a 98.0 win percentage equates to -4,999.

So Fezzik believes he has an edge when he can lay less than -5,000 in those games. He said he routinely lays -4,000 and will do so again in the NCAA Tournament.

“I bet $40,000 all the time to win $1,000. But it’s something you probably shouldn’t be doing unless you’re a guy with a documented track record and strong math history,” he said. “The real key number is when you get a favorite above 22 points and I can lay -4,000. That would be the sweet spot.”

Fezzik told me that he actually bet $38,000 to win $1,000 on the Wildcats, who were as high as 24½-point favorites over the Blue Demons, who went 0-20 in the conference in the regular season.


https://forum.bookmakersreview.com/t...ong-run.50748/


.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

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.

---

Aw, shucks, red. Why hasnt Druff reported seeing your credit score yet? Whats it been? A year? Do you think it got lost in the mail?

Were you lying? So it ain’t so, redietz.

---

We close on a newly built home, which sits in the shadow of Bristol Motor Speedway, in two weeks. Four bedrooms. When Rob makes his way to Asheville next time, he's invited to drop in.

---

Hell, one can buy a house with a 4% down payment if they've got a 600 credit score.

Quit trying to move the goalposts, ditz. You said you would send your proven credit score to Druff because you wouldn't show it here. Something about it being to easy to post a phony score, you said.

You started this shit because you thought that no way possible AP's would have good credit scores. So you challenged us. You fucked around and found out. We produced our credit scores. YOU ABSCONDED with posting yours saying you would send it to Druff to verify. Well so far ain't nothing been verified.

If you don't show your score then you cheated your own challenge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MHF

Yes, I can work with this. Ha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

The crazy Canadian Garnabby wants shorter posts. So here goes.

---

--->

Don't Go Near the Water (The Beach Boys song). [First thus solution.]

Say Goodbye (Chris Brown song). [Last thus solution.]

https://anagram-solver.net/The%20cra....?partial=true

---

Quote:

---

The Santa Barbara Police Department has released the cause and manner of death of former professional surfer Chris Brown.

According to a press release released on Wednesday, Brown died as a result of drowning due to blunt force injuries. On January 19 ---> 911, Brown fell from a cliffside at Hendry’s Beach and suffered serious injuries that made him unable to remove himself from the surfline. Brown drowned below the cliffside where he fell.

Toxicology reports also state that Brown was under the influence of a high level of methamphetamine at the time of his death. It’s unclear if this played a role in his death, but Brown had experienced Acute Methamphetamine Intoxication.

The manner of death certified by the coroner is listed as “undetermined.” The death was not a result of foul play according to investigators.

---

https://youtu.be/GJ26gAc7BtU

Steve Fezzik heaps high praise on Plus EV Analytics who has been featured in this thread. How about that? A sports bettor named "Plus EV? And Fezzik thinks the guy is great? Didn't someone say EV has nothing to do with sports betting?

https://x.com/fezziksports/status/19...TlRn3nbq5DLvlw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Steve Fezzik heaps high praise on Plus EV Analytics who has been featured in this thread. How about that? A sports bettor named "Plus EV? And Fezzik thinks the guy is great? Didn't someone say EV has nothing to do with sports betting?

https://x.com/fezziksports/status/19...TlRn3nbq5DLvlw

---

Well, technically, I say that "EV" is fine when used to describe past results and summaries. Where people run into trouble is when they try to import a term best left to random events and apply it to non-random events going forward as if it has some actual precision, which is not the case. Now the argument, I suppose, can be made that it has SOME precision, but realistically, the only way it's useful is if the person doing the wagering going forward is completely at sea and has no real idea what he/she is doing, in which case I suppose any "ballpark precision" -- I love that as an oxymoronic phrase -- has some utility as opposed to having no idea whatsoever what you're doing.

I'm not saying anything that Wikipedia or a freshman math text doesn't make pretty clear.

I actually love this topic because it segues into a host of gambling discussions regarding the social psychology of human beings and classic psych studies. Hopefully, any interview with me will broach the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Steve Fezzik heaps high praise on Plus EV Analytics who has been featured in this thread. How about that? A sports bettor named "Plus EV? And Fezzik thinks the guy is great? Didn't someone say EV has nothing to do with sports betting?

https://x.com/fezziksports/status/19...TlRn3nbq5DLvlw

---

Well, technically, I say that "EV" is fine when used to describe past results and summaries. Where people run into trouble is when they try to import a term best left to random events and apply it to non-random events going forward as if it has some actual precision, which is not the case. Now the argument, I suppose, can be made that it has SOME precision, but realistically, the only way it's useful is if the person doing the wagering going forward is completely at sea and has no real idea what he/she is doing, in which case I suppose any "ballpark precision" -- I love that as an oxymoronic phrase -- has some utility as opposed to having no idea whatsoever what you're doing.

I'm not saying anything that Wikipedia or a freshman math text doesn't make pretty clear.

I actually love this topic because it segues into a host of gambling discussions regarding the social psychology of human beings and classic psych studies. Hopefully, any interview with me will broach the subject.

---

God fucking damn. After the results are known it is no longer expected. It is the goddam known value. You thick skulled nimrod.

My guess is you should talk to Dennison more as he seems to be looking after you trying to keep you from embarrassing yourself.
.

That's my point.

Technically, and this goes into the use of tenses when it comes to gambling as was discussed during the late Alan Mendelson's contribution to the classic dice-under-a-cup problem, saying "the EV was" refers to the advocate's estimation of "the EV" in past tense at the point in time in the past the advocate was doing the estimation. It's not mathematically appropriate, but it's linguistically and logically appropriate. In other words, it's subjective and references the advocate making the statement, which most people would consider inappropriate for a math term. But linguistically and logically, it's fine. If somebody wants to reference themselves, which I assume is what you're doing when you make an estimation outside of random events based on your personal opinion, then you say, "The EV was." That frames you as the person who made the estimation, with subjectivity baked in. You are taking ownership of your opinion. It's not a math term at that point; it's an opinion term.

I thought this was obvious. That's why I kept saying you should swap it out for "my opinion is" or "my opinion of the EV was."

Garnabby, you want to explain this? I know I was unfamiliar with the language spelled out regarding tenses in the dice-under-a-cup problem. I wasn't savvy regarding the use of language for that topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

That's my point.

Technically, and this goes into the use of tenses when it comes to gambling as was discussed during the late Alan Mendelson's contribution to the classic dice-under-a-cup problem, saying "the EV was" refers to the advocate's estimation of "the EV" in past tense at the point in time in the past the advocate was doing the estimation. It's not mathematically appropriate, but it's linguistically and logically appropriate. In other words, it's subjective and references the advocate making the statement, which most people would consider inappropriate for a math term. But linguistically and logically, it's fine. If somebody wants to reference themselves, which I assume is what you're doing when you make an estimation outside of random events based on your personal opinion, then you say, "The EV was." That frames you as the person who made the estimation, with subjectivity baked in. You are taking ownership of your opinion. It's not a math term at that point; it's an opinion term.

I thought this was obvious. That's why I kept saying you should swap it out for "my opinion is" or "my opinion of the EV was."

Garnabby, you want to explain this? I know I was unfamiliar with the language spelled out regarding tenses in the dice-under-a-cup problem. I wasn't savvy regarding the use of language for that topic.

---

Walters didnt bet opinions. He bet statistics. Statistics are from the past. His power ratings corresponded to the lines. If team A had a power rating of 7 and Team B had a power rating of 4 then his line was Team A -3. He compared it to the bookies line. He needed the line to be 1.5 different from his in order to make a minimum bet. He didn’t care if Team A was -1.5 or Team B was +4.5, just that the line was 1.5 different than his. And the bigger the difference between his line and the bookies line the more he bet. Why? Because it had bigger Expected Value, of course.

Didnt you guys discuss that at the Johnson City book club? Because thats what Walters wrote.

At 28:00 Krack talks about the 2-leg baseball parlays the books wont let him bet anymore

https://youtu.be/ko0g9hb7Gn4?si=Tq7oc8tox7cFoZC5

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You know your account at Oddsmaker? That little boutique book? I bet more than half a million there, all on record of course, and it's one of more than a dozen accounts. .

---

WHO'S MONEY DID YOU BET?

---

Interesting question. Would you be more impressed if I (A) bet all my own money or (B) was entrusted by other people to bet theirs?

Assuming people are generally halfway bright, I would be more impressed with (B). It would mean I had a long-term reputation with a group of individuals who knew each other and felt comfortable plopping down five digits plus in my custody to do with as I pleased.

Now you might have a different response, but frankly I see (B) as much more impressive. Betting half a million yourself at a particular site just means you have half a million to bet. Betting half a million at a site with it being other people's money means the person betting must either (A) have some kind of verifiable track record that would entice them to do so, (B) they would theoretically be so experienced in the business that they have no qualms handing off the money, or (C) I'm able to hypnotize wealthy people to give me money to play with.

Axelwolf, do you really think that was some kind of gotcha question? Have you been imbibing this evening?

And if you're going to capitalize shit, either take a freshman English class or turn on a spell-checker. Christ, Alan Mendelson is turning over right now.

---

Neither A nor B. I have bet millions of my own money and have been entrusted with 100's of thousands of team money since my 20s.


Bull shit, you don't need a half of million dollars to put into action millions of dollars. I would sometimes put 100s of thousands of action in per day, starting with much less than 100k.

Again, I ask whose money were you betting? OPM or your own?

There's enough evidance in the gambling world that can show losing and or untrustworthy gamblers can sucker/hypnotize wealthy people to give them money to play with. >>> Sports touts are still in buissness along with various non-sports related gambling BS.

I say, SHOW ME THE MATH OF THE +EV <<<That's what matters. Whenever I engage in a play with partners, for myself, when I hire people, invest in, offer action or whatever, I can show the EV via math and logic. There isn't much guessing. IE, the math shows a 130% edge with an avrage betting size of X with X expected number of trials/bets and an apprximate hourly rate or total estimated earn. That 130% might be off 5% either way, but one can still see there's a high EV, low risk(sometimes high risk), that can be calculated.

Show us your calculations and logic that back up the fact that you are a +EV sports bettor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jce102jz

Axelwolf was drunk 80% of the time I worked with him. He used to have me order his drinks for him, so that he could have two drinks at the same time. Always captain morgan.

Axelwolf's decision making skills were affected by his drinking, no question. He would be drunk, then make poor decisions, which in the end costed team money.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

That's my point.

Technically, and this goes into the use of tenses when it comes to gambling as was discussed during the late Alan Mendelson's contribution to the classic dice-under-a-cup problem, saying "the EV was" refers to the advocate's estimation of "the EV" in past tense at the point in time in the past the advocate was doing the estimation. It's not mathematically appropriate, but it's linguistically and logically appropriate. In other words, it's subjective and references the advocate making the statement, which most people would consider inappropriate for a math term. But linguistically and logically, it's fine. If somebody wants to reference themselves, which I assume is what you're doing when you make an estimation outside of random events based on your personal opinion, then you say, "The EV was." That frames you as the person who made the estimation, with subjectivity baked in. You are taking ownership of your opinion. It's not a math term at that point; it's an opinion term.

I thought this was obvious. That's why I kept saying you should swap it out for "my opinion is" or "my opinion of the EV was."

Garnabby, you want to explain this? I know I was unfamiliar with the language spelled out regarding tenses in the dice-under-a-cup problem. I wasn't savvy regarding the use of language for that topic.

---

Wow greatest post of bullshit you have ever made.

It seems you still don't get my point. You're just trying to sound smart but too dumb to know how bad you failed. What nutty shit.

I'm not going to repeat what every pro bettor knows but after the event occurs you still don't know what the EV was. You know what the value is.

I'm betting no sane person will understand or agree with whatever the point is you're trying to make. Talk about word salad. Holy fuck.

I don't get what Dietz is saying or trying to say. :confused:

Is he saying that the EV, which is figured before the wager somehow changes after the results are known? I can't imagine even he would think that, but I just can't come up with any other explanation for what he is mumbling at this point. Can anyone help me?

All I can say is the very obvious. EV is not an opinion. EV is the math of the wager or play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

If kewlJ IS a male escort, the whole blackjack schtick is an excellent cover story to explain income to the IRS AND facilitate meeting wealthy dudes at casino tables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

That is precisely what he does. He's been observed at the tables by a host of people including MaxPen and AxelWolf, in the presence of an obvious sugar daddy type, pushing around low level red and green chips as obvious cover.

---

---

Opinion = Just guessing without an overall advantage/ flipping coins with vig.

Of course, someone who is getting a free roll from their investors has an advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Opinion = Just guessing without an overall advantage/ flipping coins with vig.

Of course, someone who is getting a free roll from their investors has an advantage.

---

When I was heavy into poker I always thought one of the greatest yet unmentioned skills in poker is the gift of borrowing money and specifically without shame.

fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Opinion = Just guessing without an overall advantage/ flipping coins with vig.

Of course, someone who is getting a free roll from their investors has an advantage.

---

When I was heavy into poker I always thought one of the greatest yet unmentioned skills in poker is the gift of borrowing money and specifically without shame.

fact.

---

The easiest thing to do in poker is loan money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Opinion = Just guessing without an overall advantage/ flipping coins with vig.

Of course, someone who is getting a free roll from their investors has an advantage.

---

When I was heavy into poker I always thought one of the greatest yet unmentioned skills in poker is the gift of borrowing money and specifically without shame.

fact.

---

The easiest thing to do in poker is loan money.

---

I used to loan money to dealers, poker management, and regs all the time. I only got stiffed by one guy, Buck, a black dealer from the Horseshoe/Binions. It was only $200, and he never seemed to have it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

When I was heavy into poker I always thought one of the greatest yet unmentioned skills in poker is the gift of borrowing money and specifically without shame.

fact.

---

The easiest thing to do in poker is loan money.

---

I used to loan money to dealers, poker management, and regs all the time. I only got stiffed by one guy, Buck, a black dealer from the Horseshoe/Binions. It was only $200, and he never seemed to have it.

---

Better policy to never do it but if you know how to pick your spots for small amounts then it isn't such a big deal. Or even big amounts if you pick your spots. I know a few guys I'll loan a few K to in a room. Now a days all the regs seem to use cash apps.

Although I probably don't appreciate the benefits from helping people out.

Just curious...when you poker guys loan money to players what are the "terms?"

Loaning money to poker players - A formula for happiness & success.

Almost as good as loaning money to slot players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Just curious...when you poker guys loan money to players what are the "terms?"

---

I have no clue what other people's terms were. In my case, it varied; there were many times it was just good for the game. Chances are, if someome is desperate enough to be borrowing money at a poker game, it's probably because they're on tilt and playing very badly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Just curious...when you poker guys loan money to players what are the "terms?"

---

I have no clue what other people's terms were. In my case, it varied; there were many times it was just good for the game. Chances are, if someome is desperate enough to be borrowing money at a poker game, it's probably because they're on tilt and playing very badly.

---

Last year, I loaned out 30k to someone, and for each 6 months, I'll get an extra 3k. It's been a year so far.

I'm 100% positive I'll get paid back anytime I call in the loan, unless of course, God forbid, the person passed away, there are things in place in case that were to happen, but who knows on that aspect, I'm not 100% confident.

And if something were to happen to me, it would go to my wife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Just curious...when you poker guys loan money to players what are the "terms?"

---

I have no clue what other people's terms were. In my case, it varied; there were many times it was just good for the game. Chances are, if someome is desperate enough to be borrowing money at a poker game, it's probably because they're on tilt and playing very badly.

---

Last year, I loaned out 30k to someone, and for each 6 months, I'll get an extra 3k. It's been a year so far.

I'm 100% positive I'll get paid back anytime I call in the loan, unless of course, God forbid, the person passed away, there are things in place in case that were to happen, but who knows on that aspect, I'm not 100% confident.

And if something were to happen to me, it would go to my wife.

---

How are you so certain you will ever be repaid? Do you vet these borrowers....is this a secured loan of some sort? Do you utilize notarized documents that ensure your wife gets repaid if something happens to you?

Trusting gamblers who need money? Doesn't sound "AP-ish".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

I have no clue what other people's terms were. In my case, it varied; there were many times it was just good for the game. Chances are, if someome is desperate enough to be borrowing money at a poker game, it's probably because they're on tilt and playing very badly.

---

Last year, I loaned out 30k to someone, and for each 6 months, I'll get an extra 3k. It's been a year so far.

I'm 100% positive I'll get paid back anytime I call in the loan, unless of course, God forbid, the person passed away, there are things in place in case that were to happen, but who knows on that aspect, I'm not 100% confident.

And if something were to happen to me, it would go to my wife.

---

How are you so certain you will ever be repaid? Do you vet these borrowers....is this a secured loan of some sort? Do you utilize notarized documents that ensure your wife gets repaid if something happens to you?

Trusting gamblers who need money? Doesn't sound "AP-ish".

---

That's a good question. The money isn't for degenerate gambling; it's for Big Boy AP sports betting(Not some penny-annie stuff like Red does), whereas they need as much money as they can get their hands on. They have a lot more money than I do, and I've known them since the '90s. They can actually calculate their +EV.

They didn't approach me and ask, I just asked if anybody was willing to pay some interest on a loan.

FYI if I mentioned to Mickey and a few others who it was they would probably say that's a hell of a safe bet.

It's the degenerates that hit you up for chump change. Flip 'em a 20 and you'll never see them again. The worst are the ones you just met, known maybe two hours and all of a sudden they need a loan. I get to laugh in their face when that happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

It's the degenerates that hit you up for chump change. Flip 'em a 20 and you'll never see them again. The worst are the ones you just met, known maybe two hours and all of a sudden they need a loan. I get to laugh in their face when that happens.

---

Yeah, how desperate people must be to hit up "casino friends" they barely know for money to gamble with.

Just a sick addiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

That's my point.

Technically, and this goes into the use of tenses when it comes to gambling as was discussed during the late Alan Mendelson's contribution to the classic dice-under-a-cup problem, saying "the EV was" refers to the advocate's estimation of "the EV" in past tense at the point in time in the past the advocate was doing the estimation. It's not mathematically appropriate, but it's linguistically and logically appropriate. In other words, it's subjective and references the advocate making the statement, which most people would consider inappropriate for a math term. But linguistically and logically, it's fine. If somebody wants to reference themselves, which I assume is what you're doing when you make an estimation outside of random events based on your personal opinion, then you say, "The EV was." That frames you as the person who made the estimation, with subjectivity baked in. You are taking ownership of your opinion. It's not a math term at that point; it's an opinion term.

I thought this was obvious. That's why I kept saying you should swap it out for "my opinion is" or "my opinion of the EV was."

---

Redietz says EV can't be measured for future sports betting events as if he is the final authority. He's not. But many other pro sports bettors say EV can be measured and they use the term in future tense. So instead of saying "EV can't be measured in sports betting" redietz should say "MY OPINION is EV can't be measured in sports betting."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Redietz says EV can't be measured for future sports betting events as if he is the final authority. He's not. But many other pro sports bettors say EV can be measured and they use the term in future tense. So instead of saying "EV can't be measured in sports betting" redietz should say "MY OPINION is EV can't be measured in sports betting."

---

Expected Value can only be used in future tense. Maybe it is the initials that are throwing Dietz for a loop. Maybe he spelled out the words expected value each time, it would make more sense to him that it is an expectation of future results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

The UNKewl one, just as he false name dropped before, made up that he knew or had anything to do with attorney Bob Nersesian.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Redietz says EV can't be measured for future sports betting events as if he is the final authority. He's not. But many other pro sports bettors say EV can be measured and they use the term in future tense. So instead of saying "EV can't be measured in sports betting" redietz should say "MY OPINION is EV can't be measured in sports betting."

---

Expected Value can only be used in future tense. Maybe it is the initials that are throwing Dietz for a loop. Maybe he spelled out the words expected value each time, it would make more sense to him that it is an expectation of future results.

---

If you want me to discuss this further, call into the radio show. You missed the whole point of the tense discussion. My fault; Garnabby can probably explain it to you.

"EV" should be a probabilistic term applied to random event projections. Oh hell, I'm not going to make you guys appear smarter than you are by tipping off the spiel. Call in and argue your points.

I love you guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Redietz says EV can't be measured for future sports betting events as if he is the final authority. He's not. But many other pro sports bettors say EV can be measured and they use the term in future tense. So instead of saying "EV can't be measured in sports betting" redietz should say "MY OPINION is EV can't be measured in sports betting."

---

Expected Value can only be used in future tense. Maybe it is the initials that are throwing Dietz for a loop. Maybe he spelled out the words expected value each time, it would make more sense to him that it is an expectation of future results.

---

If you want me to discuss this further, call into the radio show. You missed the whole point of the tense discussion. My fault; Garnabby can probably explain it to you.

"EV" should be a probabilistic term applied to random event projections. Oh hell, I'm not going to make you guys appear smarter than you are by tipping off the spiel. Call in and argue your points.

I love you guys.

---

You brought up the book, Gambling Wizards. Here's an excerpt. The Computer Group fed statistics from thousands of games into software to determine how to bet. No opinions involved.