Professional Sportsbetting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

In addition to gaining an actual possible slight long-term advantage, this would be a damn good strategy for working through rollover eating into it minimally or maybe not at all. :)

Obviously if betting favorites the best lines you will see are early in the week and if betting dogs, closer to game time (unless the public has really gone bonkers with the favorite and there is a late adjustment by sharps).

BUT what about when taking advantage of some promotion like half juice Fridays. I would think the advantage of half vig, overrides maybe not getting the absolute best (last) lines.

---

Final piece of advice.

There are no "sharps." There are no "squares." If you think you are a "sharp," you probably ain't.

There is only money.

Relying on self-boosting jargon to tuck yourself in at night is less masturbatory than clinging to personal "EV" estimates of open systems, but it's still pretty much Linus with his security blanket. Jargon does nothing positive for you except to bond with other jargoneers.

---

Deitz, you have been around sports betting for decades.....as a tout. So I have no doubt you know some things like jargon used (if you think that is important). I do however have great doubts about your ability to pick winners (long-term) and/or do ANYTHING +EV with sports betting. If you did, you wouldn't have been a tout all those years and needed other people's money to bet.

So you will forgive me if I don't put much stock in anything you say or claim anymore. Especially as you continue to talk down to people, you arrogant asshole. A guy who was a "tout" (salesman) for 40 years is talking down to people. :rolleyes:

---

LOL. The guy who won't/can't meet up (even once) with his honorable, inestimable comrades-in-APing and who has not presented one verifiable shred of evidence regarding anything he has done is lecturing someone who has a public ATS record stretching back decades and who has been in the public eye for the entirety of his career. And who, it might be added, worked strictly on a percent of profit basis the last 15 years of his career, which is not being a tout any more than AP partnering is being a tout. And who, for the entirety of his career, was not referred to as a "tout" by anyone in the tout business.

And this is why I have zero reason to post here. You have a faux blackjack player who lies about everything, including his own death, and who multiple people have identified as a prostitute. Now I don't know about anyone else who has explored the forum circuit for years, but I have never run into an alleged blackjack player who has been identified as a male prostitute before. I guess I lead a sheltered life. And more than one person has sworn to it. Think about that. How many times in your life have you encountered a gambling poster who nobody ever meets but who multiple people have tagged as a male prostitute? It's funny as hell that he parades around as the soul of legitimate gambling. It's a joke.

To paraphrase Singer, kewlJ cries and argues that people are identifying him as a prostitute because he's gay. Now think about what's more likely. People have identified him as a prostitute because he's gay, OR

Kewlj publicly identifies as gay on forums precisely because he's a prostitute.

Deep thoughts. Pretty obvious stuff when you frame it the logical way.

Have a good football season gentlemen.

And MDawg, please quote me. List my email address if you like, so folks can check up on me or contact me. Integritysports@aol.com. Carry on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You would do all APs, and all serious gamblers, a huge favor by just breaking your own fingers so you stop all this incessant, brutal lying-while-typing bullshit.

Your schizophrenic posts and wall-to-wall lies get old.

---

Uh-oh....kew's not gonna like that....Get the popcorn ready for more lie-filled attempts at convincing!!

(Isn't that what all true AP's do??)

Uh-oh....kew's not gonna like that....Get the popcorn ready for more lie-filled attempts at convincing!!

(Isn't that what all true AP's do??) And it was worth posting twice :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Final piece of advice.

There are no "sharps." There are no "squares." If you think you are a "sharp," you probably ain't.

There is only money.

Relying on self-boosting jargon to tuck yourself in at night is less masturbatory than clinging to personal "EV" estimates of open systems, but it's still pretty much Linus with his security blanket. Jargon does nothing positive for you except to bond with other jargoneers.

---

Deitz, you have been around sports betting for decades.....as a tout. So I have no doubt you know some things like jargon used (if you think that is important). I do however have great doubts about your ability to pick winners (long-term) and/or do ANYTHING +EV with sports betting. If you did, you wouldn't have been a tout all those years and needed other people's money to bet.

So you will forgive me if I don't put much stock in anything you say or claim anymore. Especially as you continue to talk down to people, you arrogant asshole. A guy who was a "tout" (salesman) for 40 years is talking down to people. :rolleyes:

---

LOL. The guy who won't/can't meet up (even once) with his honorable, inestimable comrades-in-APing and who has not presented one verifiable shred of evidence regarding anything he has done is lecturing someone who has a public ATS record stretching back decades and who has been in the public eye for the entirety of his career. And who, it might be added, worked strictly on a percent of profit basis the last 15 years of his career, which is not being a tout any more than AP partnering is being a tout. And who, for the entirety of his career, was not referred to as a "tout" by anyone in the tout business.

And this is why I have zero reason to post here. You have a faux blackjack player who lies about everything, including his own death, and who multiple people have identified as a prostitute. Now I don't know about anyone else who has explored the forum circuit for years, but I have never run into an alleged blackjack player who has been identified as a male prostitute before. I guess I lead a sheltered life. And more than one person has sworn to it. Think about that. How many times in your life have you encountered a gambling poster who nobody ever meets but who multiple people have tagged as a male prostitute? It's funny as hell that he parades around as the soul of legitimate gambling. It's a joke.

To paraphrase Singer, kewlJ cries and argues that people are identifying him as a prostitute because he's gay. Now think about what's more likely. People have identified him as a prostitute because he's gay, OR

Kewlj publicly identifies as gay on forums precisely because he's a prostitute.

Deep thoughts. Pretty obvious stuff when you frame it the logical way.

Have a good football season gentlemen.

And MDawg, please quote me. List my email address if you like, so folks can check up on me or contact me. Integritysports@aol.com. Carry on.

---

Redietz has a solid point yet again. Redietz sits around in Circus Circus inviting people to come see him. Kewl won't go near anyone after being on the gambling inet for well well over 10 years. Funny how opposite these 2 are and I have to say, Kewl.. he makes a solid point as to why to not listen to you.

2 points.

#1 Do you know where the whole "KJ is a male prostitute" things came from? It wasn't seedvalue. It wasn't Mdawg. They just repeated it. It was redietz who said this a number of time. Redietz said it! Others repeated it. And now he dares say "he has been identified as..."

#2 As to a solid point as to why people shouldn't listen to me: When did I ever ask anyone to. I say what I want to say. Share what I want to share. I don't give a rat's ass who listens, who believes. You know why? Because I am not selling anything. Uh can Bob Deitz say the same? He is a tout. Touts make money by selling. :cool:

.
what I posted is an opinion on finding a good bet - not a guarantee - there are no guarantees in sports betting

imo it has some value - which is why I posted it - anybody who thinks it has no value is free to ignore it

some updated info on just the last 10 years :



the home fave has has lost more games than the away underdog in 7 of the last 10 seasons

the away underdog has won 52.2% in the last 10 seasons - less than the wizard found (53.75) - see link

no edge - but just about break even - still good for earning bonuses and free play

in the last 10 seasons the most the away underdog lost was 54.7% in any one season - the most the away underdog won was 59.3% in any one season


https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nfl-game-odds/

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

.
what I posted is an opinion on finding a good bet - not a guarantee - there are no guarantees in sports betting

imo it has some value - which is why I posted it - anybody who thinks it has no value is free to ignore it

some updated info on just the last 10 years :



the home fave has has lost more games than the away underdog in 7 of the last 10 seasons

the away underdog has won 52.2% in the last 10 seasons - less than the wizard found (53.75) - see link

no edge - but just about break even - still good for earning bonuses and free play

in the last 10 seasons the most the away underdog lost was 54.7% in any one season - the most the away underdog won was 59.3% in any one season


https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nfl-game-odds/

.

---

I take it the away underdog who is getting 4pts or less has not changed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

I'm going to have to now even jump on the belief that he really is a low level card counter that had a sugar daddy like most of the AP community believes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

Besides making perfect sense, seedvalue's investigation established it, and MaxPen and others' sightings of UNKewlJ in the presence of a sugar daddy type affirmed it.

Plus, perhaps the greatest affirmation of all, soon after the truth with all its back up broke UNKewlJ disavowed the existence of his deceased soul male sugar daddy. When have we known UNKewlJ to disavow (such as when he claimed he was not even gay, admitted that he lied about the lawsuit, changed around his OSN database story, altered details of the $50. freeplay $100K hit, changed his college dropout story, etc.) other than when the heat is on and the hounds have him by the tail.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

A lot has been said about you. I find it telling that you only focus on a few things. Especially the male prostitute thing. I am inclined to believe the things you focus in on refuting are the one's that hit closest to home.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

A lot has been said about you. I find it telling that you only focus on a few things. Especially the male prostitute thing. I am inclined to believe the things you focus in on refuting are the one's that hit closest to home.

---

---

KJ can you give this faggot your phone number already?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

.
what I posted is an opinion on finding a good bet - not a guarantee - there are no guarantees in sports betting

imo it has some value - which is why I posted it - anybody who thinks it has no value is free to ignore it

some updated info on just the last 10 years :



the home fave has has lost more games than the away underdog in 7 of the last 10 seasons

the away underdog has won 52.2% in the last 10 seasons - less than the wizard found (53.75) - see link

no edge - but just about break even - still good for earning bonuses and free play

in the last 10 seasons the most the away underdog lost was 54.7% in any one season - the most the away underdog won was 59.3% in any one season


https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nfl-game-odds/

.

---

I take it the away underdog who is getting 4pts or less has not changed?

---

sorry, I don't remember posting anything about that

if you can find a post by me related to that maybe I can respond better

I couldn't find anything out about that in a google search - I wouldn't have done that much work to track only certain games

.

[QUOTE=redietz;200408][QUOTE=kewlJ;200401]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

LOL. The guy who won't/can't meet up (even once) with his honorable, inestimable comrades-in-APing and who has not presented one verifiable shred of evidence regarding anything he has done is lecturing someone who has a public ATS record stretching back decades and who has been in the public eye for the entirety of his career. And who, it might be added, worked strictly on a percent of profit basis the last 15 years of his career, which is not being a tout any more than AP partnering is being a tout. And who, for the entirety of his career, was not referred to as a "tout" by anyone in the tout business.on.

---

So by paying you....your clients pay double juice? Triple juice? What percentage do you have to win for your clients to break even? 55%? 57%? 60%?

Do you promise to refund them 100% if you have a losing year?

Carry over their losses to the next season? Or do you get to start out fresh every year?

Your clients are innocent fucks but dumb. The risk vs. reward is horrible.

But Ive got to hand it to you. Not even Billy Walters could operate in the public eye, showing everyone his track record year after year for forty years, and still be allowed to bet in all those books. He had to use beards. You and mdawg have a lot in common. You both beat the shit out of the casinos and they love you for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

.
what I posted is an opinion on finding a good bet - not a guarantee - there are no guarantees in sports betting

imo it has some value - which is why I posted it - anybody who thinks it has no value is free to ignore it

some updated info on just the last 10 years :



the home fave has has lost more games than the away underdog in 7 of the last 10 seasons

the away underdog has won 52.2% in the last 10 seasons - less than the wizard found (53.75) - see link

no edge - but just about break even - still good for earning bonuses and free play

in the last 10 seasons the most the away underdog lost was 54.7% in any one season - the most the away underdog won was 59.3% in any one season


https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nfl-game-odds/

.

---

I take it the away underdog who is getting 4pts or less has not changed?

---

sorry, I don't remember posting anything about that

if you can find a post by me related to that maybe I can respond better

I couldn't find anything out about that in a google search - I wouldn't have done that much work to track only certain games

.

---

Perhaps it was just the first 2 weeks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monet

The greatest AP Wolf on all Gambling Forums sure does have a hard time remembering all the time.
Must be all that Captain Morgan or just all the bullshit stories you keep mixing up.
Poser!

---

This retard doesn't gamble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

.Perhaps it was just the first 2 weeks?

---

yes, I posted that last season and it won by a small %

I will post again with all the details before the first game of this season

Edit - might as well post it now

all underdogs first 2 weeks of the season

a year ago I speculated that will all the new players coming in and all of the older players now a year older there would be much unpredictability that favors the dogs since they are getting points

I've now tracked the last 500 games of the first 2 weeks of several seasons and the underdogs have won 55% which equates to about 5% profit for anybody who had bet on all of them

yesterday, I searched google and found they confirmed the idea:



"AI Overview

In the early parts of the NFL season, underdogs have demonstrated a surprising ability to perform well against the spread (ATS) and even secure outright victories.

Based on recent trends and betting analysis, there's evidence suggesting that underdogs in the NFL tend to perform well in the early part of the season, particularly against the spread.

Here's why this trend is observed and some considerations for betting on underdogs early in the NFL season:

Uncertainty and Value: Early in the season, the true strength of teams is still relatively unknown, leading to more uncertainty in setting betting lines. This uncertainty can create value for bettors in identifying underestimated
underdog teams that might have a higher chance of performing better than expected, especially against the spread."


https://www.google.com/search?q=unde...hrome&ie=UTF-8





.

.
maybe pretty obvious but just to be sure there's no confusion the picks for the first 2 weeks are against the spread

I overlooked putting that in my op and it's too late to edit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

.
maybe pretty obvious but just to be sure there's no confusion the picks for the first 2 weeks are against the spread

I overlooked putting that in my op and it's too late to edit

---

Half Smoke, I'm mentioning this as a public service to you, which connects to why I previously asked the leading question about opening versus closing lines. You are looking at a schedule where at least eight of the NFL games Week One have spreads of two or under AS OPENING LINES. Since you do not know who the actual favorite will be as a closing line (it could be all eight or -- unlikely but possible -- none), and since the historical stats you are using to guide you use CLOSING LINES as their metric, this means you must WAIT until minutes before kickoff to actually wager on this theory.

As an aside, Marc Lawrence's Playbook has been running programs for decades pinning down the historical trends similar to what was mentioned in your AI quote. Lawrence's son is a programmer and has always taken this AI kind of approach to handicapping.

I mentioned this stuff since it seems to have slipped everyone else's mind. LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

.Perhaps it was just the first 2 weeks?

---

yes, I posted that last season and it won by a small %

I will post again with all the details before the first game of this season

Edit - might as well post it now

all underdogs first 2 weeks of the season

a year ago I speculated that will all the new players coming in and all of the older players now a year older there would be much unpredictability that favors the dogs since they are getting points

I've now tracked the last 500 games of the first 2 weeks of several seasons and the underdogs have won 55% which equates to about 5% profit for anybody who had bet on all of them

yesterday, I searched google and found they confirmed the idea:



"AI Overview

In the early parts of the NFL season, underdogs have demonstrated a surprising ability to perform well against the spread (ATS) and even secure outright victories.

Based on recent trends and betting analysis, there's evidence suggesting that underdogs in the NFL tend to perform well in the early part of the season, particularly against the spread.

Here's why this trend is observed and some considerations for betting on underdogs early in the NFL season:

Uncertainty and Value: Early in the season, the true strength of teams is still relatively unknown, leading to more uncertainty in setting betting lines. This uncertainty can create value for bettors in identifying underestimated
underdog teams that might have a higher chance of performing better than expected, especially against the spread."


https://www.google.com/search?q=unde...hrome&ie=UTF-8

.

---

A couple thoughts from my own experience. Last year was the first year I bet this first 2 weeks angle heavily. As you (Half Smoke) said, it was a small or moderate win. The first week was a losing week. I think for me it was 6-9 with a push. Others may have had a slightly different result, especially if they got a half point more or less on that push line. But the second week was a slightly bigger winning week, for a modest profit.

Anyone looking for a reason to back up this now decade trend, I would suggest it lies within the preseason. Starters play very little in the preseason and I believe just aren't really ready. And now with only 3 preseason games it is even more pronounced. Additionally, the shift to only 3 preseason games has created a "bye" week between the last preseason game and the first NFL week. And there is data dating back even further that suggests teams coming off a bye week are rusty. So in this case, EVERYONE is coming off a bye week and that favors the underdog.


I wonder if betting the dog + points on the half time line might be even more profitable for this play. It is a little harder to go back and check past results for half time line.

Anyway, I am really gearing up for this play this year. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

Ultimate idiot? Well you know, the UNKewl one is a nervous poodle who has never done much of anything with his life, so how could you expect him to be anything other than nervous and 'fraid when playing.

Uneducated, overweight, afraid, that's no way to be.

---

This retard doesn't gamble.

.
this is what faves did ats in the first 2 weeks for the last 5 years per the link ignoring pushes:


2024________ 14-17

2023_________11-19

2022_________16-16

2021_________11-21

2020_________16-16


faves didn't have a single winning year ats in the first 2 weeks out of the last 15 years__________and maybe beyond that____________the link was moving too slow for me to wanna go further than that

summation - faves ats went 68-89 in the last 5 years_________they won just a little over 43%

this comes close to matching the % I got for the last 500 games of the first 2 weeks of many seasons


https://www.sportsoddshistory.com/nf...season/?y=2024

.

Regnis, this is for you, buddy. And any idiots who don't think I could handle a radio show.

First, a quick summary. If you are wondering how the mix-and-match transferring affected college football, and the shortening of the games, and the brandy-new coaches proliferating at the Sun Belt/MAC/Conference USA level, well, the last three days, Unders are 54-37. The highest profile games, Texas/Ohio State and LSU/Clemson, were studies in how NFL first round QBs can get stuck in quicksand running college offenses in the first games of the season.

If you do not know what you are looking at, you will be lost this season. This is a completely different distribution of power ratings and personnel than anyone has ever seen, only you won't be able to see it clearly until the season is at least two-thirds done, at which point it'll be too late because a third of the skill position players will be looking to transfer and will cease putting themselves at risk during games.

Brave New World.

Regnis, I have not bet any futures yet, but I have one I will PM you in the next 48 hours. It's off-the-wall, but radical times call for radical investments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Regnis, this is for you, buddy. And any idiots who don't think I could handle a radio show.

First, a quick summary. If you are wondering how the mix-and-match transferring affected college football, and the shortening of the games, and the brandy-new coaches proliferating at the Sun Belt/MAC/Conference USA level, well, the last three days, Unders are 54-37. The highest profile games, Texas/Ohio State and LSU/Clemson, were studies in how NFL first round QBs can get stuck in quicksand running college offenses in the first games of the season.

If you do not know what you are looking at, you will be lost this season. This is a completely different distribution of power ratings and personnel than anyone has ever seen, only you won't be able to see it clearly until the season is at least two-thirds done, at which point it'll be too late because a third of the skill position players will be looking to transfer and will cease putting themselves at risk during games.

Brave New World.

Regnis, I have not bet any futures yet, but I have one I will PM you in the next 48 hours. It's off-the-wall, but radical times call for radical investments.

---

It was never my objective to see if you can handle a radio show. My objective was to expose your opinion to a mass audience that EV cannot be measured in any way, shape or form in sports betting. I was after touching off a public debate on the issue to see where pros stood on this issue. I already know of some pros who adhere to measuring EV in sports betting, Unabated for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Regnis, this is for you, buddy. And any idiots who don't think I could handle a radio show.

First, a quick summary. If you are wondering how the mix-and-match transferring affected college football, and the shortening of the games, and the brandy-new coaches proliferating at the Sun Belt/MAC/Conference USA level, well, the last three days, Unders are 54-37. The highest profile games, Texas/Ohio State and LSU/Clemson, were studies in how NFL first round QBs can get stuck in quicksand running college offenses in the first games of the season.

If you do not know what you are looking at, you will be lost this season. This is a completely different distribution of power ratings and personnel than anyone has ever seen, only you won't be able to see it clearly until the season is at least two-thirds done, at which point it'll be too late because a third of the skill position players will be looking to transfer and will cease putting themselves at risk during games.

Brave New World.

Regnis, I have not bet any futures yet, but I have one I will PM you in the next 48 hours. It's off-the-wall, but radical times call for radical investments.

---

It was never my objective to see if you can handle a radio show. My objective was to expose your opinion to a mass audience that EV cannot be measured in any way, shape or form in sports betting. I was after touching off a public debate on the issue to see where pros stood on this issue. I already know of some pros who adhere to measuring EV in sports betting, Unabated for sure.

---

LOL. I'm sorry, Mr. Crimm. Please specifically locate (1) where I said EV "cannot be measured in any way, shape, or form in sports betting" and (2) why I should care where "pros" stand on the matter.

The problem, as I said to Munchkin, is that you (as a generic know-it-all APs) think that labeling a permeable, real-world situation with tags from a (for the most part) impermeable formal probability world makes sense. It does not. If you sub in "my opinion of what I think the EV is" for "THE EV," then you are not calculating "THE EV." You are expressing your opinion.

And as we all know, everyone has an opinion.

This stuff gets old. Talk to some probability professors. Even Shackleford will find it necessary to agree with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Regnis, this is for you, buddy. And any idiots who don't think I could handle a radio show.

First, a quick summary. If you are wondering how the mix-and-match transferring affected college football, and the shortening of the games, and the brandy-new coaches proliferating at the Sun Belt/MAC/Conference USA level, well, the last three days, Unders are 54-37. The highest profile games, Texas/Ohio State and LSU/Clemson, were studies in how NFL first round QBs can get stuck in quicksand running college offenses in the first games of the season.

If you do not know what you are looking at, you will be lost this season. This is a completely different distribution of power ratings and personnel than anyone has ever seen, only you won't be able to see it clearly until the season is at least two-thirds done, at which point it'll be too late because a third of the skill position players will be looking to transfer and will cease putting themselves at risk during games.

Brave New World.

Regnis, I have not bet any futures yet, but I have one I will PM you in the next 48 hours. It's off-the-wall, but radical times call for radical investments.

---

It was never my objective to see if you can handle a radio show. My objective was to expose your opinion to a mass audience that EV cannot be measured in any way, shape or form in sports betting. I was after touching off a public debate on the issue to see where pros stood on this issue. I already know of some pros who adhere to measuring EV in sports betting, Unabated for sure.

---

LOL. I'm sorry, Mr. Crimm. Please specifically locate (1) where I said EV "cannot be measured in any way, shape, or form in sports betting" and (2) why I should care where "pros" stand on the matter.

The problem, as I said to Munchkin, is that you (as a generic know-it-all APs) think that labeling a permeable, real-world situation with tags from a (for the most part) impermeable formal probability world makes sense. It does not. If you sub in "my opinion of what I think the EV is" for "THE EV," then you are not calculating "THE EV." You are expressing your opinion.

And as we all know, everyone has an opinion.

This stuff gets old. Talk to some probability professors. Even Shackleford will find it necessary to agree with me.

---

You have changed your view on this subject considerably.

So the only point here is that you don't understand sharper gamblers all understand that "the opinion of EV ..." is implied with the usage of EV when it comes to sports betting. Like EVERYONE ELSE who is sharp knows that and doesn't think it is worth mentioning. It is implied because it is literally that apparent.

So where does that leave you?

You have to judge whose opinion it is. This is why we use the word sharps to discuss ourselves. We understand your whole point and have since the beginning. So then it just becomes an exercise in evaluating the person who gives something an EV value. Thats literally it.

You're just not a math/numbers guy so it makes you incomfortable when people have a numbers based approach to betting outside of how many "units". So you mocked it. You want to tout your depth and knowledge of football which is probably 2nd to no one on this forum. In a different time and place you could probably be an originator and crush but not anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

It was never my objective to see if you can handle a radio show. My objective was to expose your opinion to a mass audience that EV cannot be measured in any way, shape or form in sports betting. I was after touching off a public debate on the issue to see where pros stood on this issue. I already know of some pros who adhere to measuring EV in sports betting, Unabated for sure.

---

LOL. I'm sorry, Mr. Crimm. Please specifically locate (1) where I said EV "cannot be measured in any way, shape, or form in sports betting" and (2) why I should care where "pros" stand on the matter.

The problem, as I said to Munchkin, is that you (as a generic know-it-all APs) think that labeling a permeable, real-world situation with tags from a (for the most part) impermeable formal probability world makes sense. It does not. If you sub in "my opinion of what I think the EV is" for "THE EV," then you are not calculating "THE EV." You are expressing your opinion.

And as we all know, everyone has an opinion.

This stuff gets old. Talk to some probability professors. Even Shackleford will find it necessary to agree with me.

---

You have changed your view on this subject considerably.

So the only point here is that you don't understand sharper gamblers all understand that "the opinion of EV ..." is implied with the usage of EV when it comes to sports betting. Like EVERYONE ELSE who is sharp knows that and doesn't think it is worth mentioning. It is implied because it is literally that apparent.

So where does that leave you?

You have to judge whose opinion it is. This is why we use the word sharps to discuss ourselves. We understand your whole point and have since the beginning. So then it just becomes an exercise in evaluating the person who gives something an EV value. Thats literally it.

You're just not a math/numbers guy so it makes you incomfortable when people have a numbers based approach to betting outside of how many "units". So you mocked it. You want to tout your depth and knowledge of football which is probably 2nd to no one on this forum. In a different time and place you could probably be an originator and crush but not anymore.

---

Good to know you are a sharp. Pays the bills. Probably gets you on Carson, along with Uri Geller.

The original use of the term EV, which is still in use in a tight manner by Bob Dancer, and a somewhat looser but identifiable way by Munchkin, is that it served as a mathematical term, a predictor sans subjectivity.

As soon as you begin inserting opinions into a math term, it becomes an excuse to aggrandize yourself, as if you know what you're doing when you do not.

Nobody in the real world cares what sad labels alleged APs slap on themselves to make themselves feel like they have control of situations when they have no clue what they're doing. It's all just Fred Flintstone triggering (B-B-Bet-Bet-Bet!) to think EV should be a personal opinion, and (of course) your personal opinion is best.

It's self-aggrandizing bullshit with no utility to doing it. If 100 different "APs" are presented with a situation and come up with a hundred different EV's, well, it's not a math term in that given situation, now is it? And yet, in video poker, or actual poker, or slot play, it is. It's sad, pitiful really, to distort a definition to make you feel as if you have some expertise in something of which you are more or less ignorant.

I love the fact that freshman probability class and a handful of gambling jargon makes one a "sharp."

More power to you...and Uri Geller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

LOL. I'm sorry, Mr. Crimm. Please specifically locate (1) where I said EV "cannot be measured in any way, shape, or form in sports betting" and (2) why I should care where "pros" stand on the matter.

The problem, as I said to Munchkin, is that you (as a generic know-it-all APs) think that labeling a permeable, real-world situation with tags from a (for the most part) impermeable formal probability world makes sense. It does not. If you sub in "my opinion of what I think the EV is" for "THE EV," then you are not calculating "THE EV." You are expressing your opinion.

And as we all know, everyone has an opinion.

This stuff gets old. Talk to some probability professors. Even Shackleford will find it necessary to agree with me.

---

You have changed your view on this subject considerably.

So the only point here is that you don't understand sharper gamblers all understand that "the opinion of EV ..." is implied with the usage of EV when it comes to sports betting. Like EVERYONE ELSE who is sharp knows that and doesn't think it is worth mentioning. It is implied because it is literally that apparent.

So where does that leave you?

You have to judge whose opinion it is. This is why we use the word sharps to discuss ourselves. We understand your whole point and have since the beginning. So then it just becomes an exercise in evaluating the person who gives something an EV value. Thats literally it.

You're just not a math/numbers guy so it makes you incomfortable when people have a numbers based approach to betting outside of how many "units". So you mocked it. You want to tout your depth and knowledge of football which is probably 2nd to no one on this forum. In a different time and place you could probably be an originator and crush but not anymore.

---

Good to know you are a sharp. Pays the bills. Probably gets you on Carson, along with Uri Geller.

The original use of the term EV, which is still in use in a tight manner by Bob Dancer, and a somewhat looser but identifiable way by Munchkin, is that it served as a mathematical term, a predictor sans subjectivity.

As soon as you begin inserting opinions into a math term, it becomes an excuse to aggrandize yourself, as if you know what you're doing when you do not.

Nobody in the real world cares what sad labels alleged APs slap on themselves to make themselves feel like they have control of situations when they have no clue what they're doing. It's all just Fred Flintstone triggering (B-B-Bet-Bet-Bet!) to think EV should be a personal opinion, and (of course) your personal opinion is best.

It's self-aggrandizing bullshit with no utility to doing it. If 100 different "APs" are presented with a situation and come up with a hundred different EV's, well, it's not a math term in that given situation, now is it? And yet, in video poker, or actual poker, or slot play, it is. It's sad, pitiful really, to distort a definition to make you feel as if you have some expertise in something of which you are more or less ignorant.

I love the fact that freshman probability class and a handful of gambling jargon makes one a "sharp."

More power to you...and Uri Geller.

---

I'm talking about a specific subset of APs which you weirdly know little about. That is the world of solid winning professional cash sports bettors. (as opposed to touts) They talk about it in the same way I do. And they think exactly like the way I am describing. Everyone who is sharp gets your point and doesn't find it worth discussing. I've said this before - but the only question they'd ask is "how are you determing EV?".

The fact is that you don't get the point that pro sports bettors/pro gamblers understand that sports EV is not a specific mathematical function and is objective and therefore an opinion. They all get that, brother. All of them. So who are you arguing with? It isnt' just me who uses EV all over the place when talking about betting sports and understand the limits of the term. I suspect it is because you haven't been around them much. You hang out impressing people who are clueless in Johnson City.

Anyway, good luck Redietz. Always glad to see you post.

https://youtu.be/TCTVxLBRpTg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

You have changed your view on this subject considerably.

So the only point here is that you don't understand sharper gamblers all understand that "the opinion of EV ..." is implied with the usage of EV when it comes to sports betting. Like EVERYONE ELSE who is sharp knows that and doesn't think it is worth mentioning. It is implied because it is literally that apparent.

So where does that leave you?

You have to judge whose opinion it is. This is why we use the word sharps to discuss ourselves. We understand your whole point and have since the beginning. So then it just becomes an exercise in evaluating the person who gives something an EV value. Thats literally it.

You're just not a math/numbers guy so it makes you incomfortable when people have a numbers based approach to betting outside of how many "units". So you mocked it. You want to tout your depth and knowledge of football which is probably 2nd to no one on this forum. In a different time and place you could probably be an originator and crush but not anymore.

---

Good to know you are a sharp. Pays the bills. Probably gets you on Carson, along with Uri Geller.

The original use of the term EV, which is still in use in a tight manner by Bob Dancer, and a somewhat looser but identifiable way by Munchkin, is that it served as a mathematical term, a predictor sans subjectivity.

As soon as you begin inserting opinions into a math term, it becomes an excuse to aggrandize yourself, as if you know what you're doing when you do not.

Nobody in the real world cares what sad labels alleged APs slap on themselves to make themselves feel like they have control of situations when they have no clue what they're doing. It's all just Fred Flintstone triggering (B-B-Bet-Bet-Bet!) to think EV should be a personal opinion, and (of course) your personal opinion is best.

It's self-aggrandizing bullshit with no utility to doing it. If 100 different "APs" are presented with a situation and come up with a hundred different EV's, well, it's not a math term in that given situation, now is it? And yet, in video poker, or actual poker, or slot play, it is. It's sad, pitiful really, to distort a definition to make you feel as if you have some expertise in something of which you are more or less ignorant.

I love the fact that freshman probability class and a handful of gambling jargon makes one a "sharp."

More power to you...and Uri Geller.

---

I'm talking about a specific subset of APs which you weirdly know little about. That is the world of solid winning professional cash sports bettors. (as opposed to touts) They talk about it in the same way I do. And they think exactly like the way I am describing. Everyone who is sharp gets your point and doesn't find it worth discussing. I've said this before - but the only question they'd ask is "how are you determing EV?".

The fact is that you don't get the point that pro sports bettors/pro gamblers understand that sports EV is not a specific mathematical function and is objective and therefore an opinion. They all get that, brother. All of them. So who are you arguing with? It isnt' just me who uses EV all over the place when talking about betting sports and understand the limits of the term. I suspect it is because you haven't been around them much. You hang out impressing people who are clueless in Johnson City.

Anyway, good luck Redietz. Always glad to see you post.

---

You conflated "objective" with "subjective" in your post. LOL. Which is exactly my point. You probably proofread your writing about as often as you proofread your thinking.

Nobody who actually is part of real, honest-to-goodness, working-with-Billy-Walters, long-term-winning sports betting should be using "EV" as a substitute for "my opinion of the 'EV' is." Why would you do that? Well, probably to (1) pat yourself on the back for using jargon, (2) give yourself a sense of intellectual security blanket-ism that doesn't exist, (3) pretend that you know what you're doing in some precise way, when you don't.

When Bob Dancer talked about "EV" in video poker, he was being precise in a way that is not applicable to sports gambling AT ALL. When Munchkin and other blackjack luminaries discuss "EV" playing blackjack, they are talking about closed mathematical systems yielding the same estimates no matter who is doing the calculating.

When your folks estimate "EV" for sports betting, you will get a hundred different estimates done by a hundred different people. That is not "EV." That is subjective opinion, which is not precise enough to be worth slapping some label on as if it's more than an opinion. If you want to aggrandize opinions with math labels, be my guest.

But do not expect anybody who actually bets sports for decades to buy your jargon, your hyping of personal opinions, or your love of pretending you know what you're doing.

You're actually whiffing on the whole point. Are you one of those poker players who pretends they are "positive EV" because they know jargon, everybody uses the jargon, and nobody actually keeps score of the wins/losses?

I mean - LOL -- think about it. You have a population of pseudo-sports bettors flexing their subjective interpretations of "EV." It's comical. How many do you think are ahead lifetime? Probably about the same percentage of tournament poker players who are ahead lifetime. As Daniel Negreanu says, about as many as birds with teeth.

All the jargon, and clubbishness, and rolling "the EV is" off your tongue is no substitute for documented ATS win/loss records. Without actual records, it's just people talking. And mostly bullshitting.

Billy Walters measured EV with statistics. No opinions. He used plain statistical models. Deetz is a quack. Which his last post clearly shows. Arguing with a quack is an exercise in futility.

.
the poster Soopoo at Wov gets +EV (not an opinion, definitely +EV) by using bonuses, and boosts from the various books he uses - sometimes betting opposite sides of the same game on 2 different books

he's been doing this for years

he admits he couldn't gain an edge without all the extras

of course, they limit the size of his bets - they need to be smallish, although that might mean different things at different books - but they're not gonna let anybody make serious bucks doing this

still, pretty interesting that he's been able to to do this for so long - others might be interested in doing the same thing for fun

I wonder what the books get out of this__? - basically nothing - why do they still send him offers like this__? - idk - maybe they think he will eventually get frustrated and plunge - but I don't think so - he's very disciplined



here is what he posted today:


"But now on to what I really do. LOTS of these type offers pouring in. Using bonuses/boosts/etc…. Got Cowboys +700, Eagles -410. Got Barkley over 89.5 at +134, Barkley under 95.5 at -113. Guaranteed small win with chance for a middle winning both. Had a NRFI +118, YRFI -115. That’s a free latte for me. Freebet turned into $40 cash.
I am limited of course on these offers to now often quite low amounts. But it’s fun, and free $$ is well, free $$!"

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Billy Walters measured EV with statistics. No opinions. He used plain statistical models. Deetz is a quack. Which his last post clearly shows. Arguing with a quack is an exercise in futility.

---

He was right that I conflated subjective and objective lol. He still
Understood my point. Dietz claims ev in betting is purely subjective when it can be mostly objective. Even Wikipedia disagrees with him. So do most winning sports bettors.

Redietz is kinda stupid too. He then later says ats is all that counts but whose fucking spread are you beating? That's why he mocks weak vs strong lines because he doesn't understand enough to differentiate. ATS records don't measure much without specifically saying the source of the spread and determining how solid of a prediction it is.

We should let him go off and be a big shot amongst Tennessee hillbillies at his local book club.

The NFL season begins tonight, meaning the 1st Two week underdog play brought to us by Half Smoke is here. Just a reminder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Billy Walters measured EV with statistics. No opinions. He used plain statistical models. Deetz is a quack. Which his last post clearly shows. Arguing with a quack is an exercise in futility.

---

He was right that I conflated subjective and objective lol. He still
Understood my point. Dietz claims ev in betting is purely subjective when it can be mostly objective. Even Wikipedia disagrees with him. So do most winning sports bettors.

Redietz is kinda stupid too. He then later says ats is all that counts but whose fucking spread are you beating? That's why he mocks weak vs strong lines because he doesn't understand enough to differentiate. ATS records don't measure much without specifically saying the source of the spread and determining how solid of a prediction it is.

We should let him go off and be a big shot amongst Tennessee hillbillies at his local book club.

---

This is classic. I couldn't do better than this if I were writing an anti-AP screed.

I love weak versus strong lines. Resonates with the heyday of Rob's posting when he preached weak versus strong players.

Let me guess. Weak lines are the ones you beat. Strong lines are the ones you do not beat. Oh, wait, wait, weak lines are early-week lines with no money anchoring them. Strong lines are lines when all of the sharps have launched their money, but before the squares have bet, or maybe I have that backwards. LOL. Or maybe strong lines are late in the week when everyone has launched the money, including the Asian high roller who decided to bet all dog nicknames this week. He'd be a square, unless you like dogs, or unless he wins, in which case he's a sharp, until next week.

The post above is so classic I will be printing and distributing copies at the next pre-book club lunch with academics, which is tomorrow.

Account, you are going to have a following. Thanks for the post. If you decide to include your real name and email, I'm sure some of the lunch folk would enjoy thanking you. You can post your email here or PM me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Billy Walters measured EV with statistics. No opinions. He used plain statistical models. Deetz is a quack. Which his last post clearly shows. Arguing with a quack is an exercise in futility.

---

He was right that I conflated subjective and objective lol. He still
Understood my point. Dietz claims ev in betting is purely subjective when it can be mostly objective. Even Wikipedia disagrees with him. So do most winning sports bettors.

Redietz is kinda stupid too. He then later says ats is all that counts but whose fucking spread are you beating? That's why he mocks weak vs strong lines because he doesn't understand enough to differentiate. ATS records don't measure much without specifically saying the source of the spread and determining how solid of a prediction it is.

We should let him go off and be a big shot amongst Tennessee hillbillies at his local book club.

---

This is classic. I couldn't do better than this if I were writing an anti-AP screed.

I love weak versus strong lines. Resonates with the heyday of Rob's posting when he preached weak versus strong players.

Let me guess. Weak lines are the ones you beat. Strong lines are the ones you do not beat. Oh, wait, wait, weak lines are early-week lines with no money anchoring them. Strong lines are lines when all of the sharps have launched their money, but before the squares have bet, or maybe I have that backwards. LOL. Or maybe strong lines are late in the week when everyone has launched the money, including the Asian high roller who decided to bet all dog nicknames this week. He'd be a square, unless you like dogs, or unless he wins, in which case he's a sharp, until next week.

The post above is so classic I will be printing and distributing copies at the next pre-book club lunch with academics, which is tomorrow.

Account, you are going to have a following. Thanks for the post. If you decide to include your real name and email, I'm sure some of the lunch folk would enjoy thanking you. You can post your email here or PM me.

---

Ok, so now we have something we can question you about at least.

It really shouldn't be that hard of a concept but I will explain.

Yes there is clearly randomness in a sports game.
In a different universe you could have the players play this game a million times over with every thing else being more or less the same.
The results will have an average.
If the line is strong - The line will be really close to what this theoretical line is. If it is strong enough and the vig is big enough then it simply is not possible to beat.

The line that is literally impossible to determine just like EV - HOWEVER we know this line exists. (Or at least we should - unless yer dum but I'm talking to marginally sharp peopel I'm hoping)

A weak line is the opposite of strong lines.

I'm sure you can try and gizmo talk about all early and closing lines and all that but yes closing lines will definitely be stronger. I mean that's not a given but in general it should be.

This stuff is obvious to most sharp bettors. Just like the idea that EV is not and never is precise and is dependent on who is giving their opinion of EV. But when they're talking among themselves and not having to spell out everything - they leave off the "opinion" disclaimer. But then again, that is sharp bettors talking amongst their peers and not a tout asking for $.

REDIETZ- EVERYONE ELSE IN THE FUCKING ROOM UNDERSTANDS THIS EXCEPT YOU !

I'm happy for you to show this post to people. Please do. You're far too much of a creep to give you my real name. Perhaps if you were a profesional gambler and not a tout then it'd be different. You seem fairly honest in lots of ways but also fairly creepy in others. But I can assure you - I have nothing to be embarassed about outside of misuing objective and subjective once. LOL

I mean, I'd much rather make that mistake than be the combination of pompous and wrong that you are.

I'd pay everyone in his book club $20 if they'd read the last 3 posts between us 2. LOL

Anyway, keep being you, Redietz.

Quick question for our resident sports betting "expert", Bob Dietz : do you think this 1st 2 weeks NFL play, backed by 15 years of data (still somewhat small sample size) is + EV? (According to whatever strange definition you come up with for +EV)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

What we DO know about UNKewlJ is that he is just as much of a

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

thieving lying low down no good varmint.

---

in person as he is online.

His own family booted him from the familial household, what does that tell you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

Is there anyone on these forums more universally despised than the UNKewl one? Doubtful.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I love weak versus strong lines.

Let me guess.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

I will explain...

In a different universe...

This stuff is obvious

---

Oh, obviously...in a different universe...do tell.

I'll tell you what's obvious...you're a looney.

https://youtu.be/yqKFPWC9RYI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quick question for our resident sports betting "expert", Bob Dietz : do you think this 1st 2 weeks NFL play, backed by 15 years of data (still somewhat small sample size) is + EV? (According to whatever strange definition you come up with for +EV)

---

I think you are conflating being a trendsvestite with knowing what you're doing.

And I can't take any credit at all for the word "trendsvestite." Mike McCusker, who published summaries of sports service handicapping results for years in Las Vegas, coined the term in the 80's. McCusker was a former Seattle Times reporter who charted the results of more than a hundred professional handicappers for years and published the results annually. His publication included summaries of two, three, four, and five-year records.

The idea that you can import the phrase "EV" from the world of random probability and apply it to non-random events, based on your opinion, and leave out the little detail that it's "your" expected value, not THE EV, is the height of narcissism. It's ridiculous.

The post above is that of a jackass. It really is! Redeitz, what the fuck happened to you?

Dietz, you are so hell bent on trying to discredit and put down anyone doing things differently that you.

Get over it!

There are many ways to gain an edge in sports betting. Many ways to skin the cat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Dietz, you are so hell bent on trying to discredit and put down anyone doing things differently that you.

Get over it!

There are many ways to gain an edge in sports betting. Many ways to skin the cat.

---

Programmers have been doing analyses of handicapping trends for 50 years. Welcome to 1975.

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.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quick question for our resident sports betting "expert", Bob Dietz : do you think this 1st 2 weeks NFL play, backed by 15 years of data (still somewhat small sample size) is + EV? (According to whatever strange definition you come up with for +EV)

---

I think you are conflating being a trendsvestite with knowing what you're doing.

And I can't take any credit at all for the word "trendsvestite." Mike McCusker, who published summaries of sports service handicapping results for years in Las Vegas, coined the term in the 80's. McCusker was a former Seattle Times reporter who charted the results of more than a hundred professional handicappers for years and published the results annually. His publication included summaries of two, three, four, and five-year records.

The idea that you can import the phrase "EV" from the world of random probability and apply it to non-random events, based on your opinion, and leave out the little detail that it's "your" expected value, not THE EV, is the height of narcissism. It's ridiculous.

---

Read Wikipedia article on EV.

All those extreme narcissists - editing these wiki articles about third parties using mathematical concepts.

The nerve!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Dietz, you are so hell bent on trying to discredit and put down anyone doing things differently that you.

Get over it!

There are many ways to gain an edge in sports betting. Many ways to skin the cat.

---

Programmers have been doing analyses of handicapping trends for 50 years. Welcome to 1975.

---

Look goofball, if programmers identified trends 50 years ago, in 1975...power to them. But that does me, nor anyone else any good today does it?

I asked your opinion of a current identified trend or play, based on how the game is played TODAY with only 3 preseason games and starters playing very little.

That is all. I asked your opinion. And you couldn't answer that simple question without some completely irrelevant comment about something from 50 years ago.

And THAT is redietz in a nutshell.

.
this is from google, AI - it's not just me that has noticed this - I posted some of this earlier - this post has some more info


"AI Overview

Betting on every NFL underdog during the first two weeks of the season is a high-risk strategy that has historically been profitable against the spread (ATS), but often results in losses on moneyline bets. The strategy is based on the premise that betting lines are most uncertain at the beginning of the season, leading to frequent upsets and covers by less-favored teams.

Against the spread (ATS)

Blindly betting on underdogs against the spread in the NFL has often been a profitable strategy, particularly in the opening weeks of the season. In the first few weeks, large underdogs (6 points or more) have been especially successful at covering the spread.

Greater uncertainty: The first few weeks of the NFL season have higher uncertainty. Bettors and oddsmakers are still determining which teams are good, which are bad, and what personnel changes mean for performance. This ambiguity can lead to less accurate spreads, which creates opportunities for underdogs to outperform expectations. "




https://www.google.com/search?q=bett...hrome&ie=UTF-8
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Dietz, you are so hell bent on trying to discredit and put down anyone doing things differently that you.

Get over it!

There are many ways to gain an edge in sports betting. Many ways to skin the cat.

---

Programmers have been doing analyses of handicapping trends for 50 years. Welcome to 1975.

---

Look goofball, if programmers identified trends 50 years ago, in 1975...power to them. But that does me, nor anyone else any good today does it?

I asked your opinion of a current identified trend or play, based on how the game is played TODAY with only 3 preseason games and starters playing very little.

That is all. I asked your opinion. And you couldn't answer that simple question without some completely irrelevant comment about something from 50 years ago.

And THAT is redietz in a nutshell.

---

One of my partners is in high stakes LMS contests. His modus operandi is that early-season NFL favorites are all just guesses. So he buys multiple entries and splits early toss-up games instead of committing to a favorite. By splitting toss-up games, he saves the best teams for later and avoids taking favorites whose money lines are largely based from the previous year.

As to the game last night, I would never bet ON a SB-winning team in their opener the following season. Plus there was a one-point line move on the game, and I never bet an NFL team with a one-point move on them. Simple rules.

In addition, I use a basic value system that assesses public support for teams that also vetoed taking the Eagles last night. It suggested, marginally, the Cowboys.

Now, did I want the Cowboys? No, I did not. Too much money likes the Cowboys, so the line in a season-opener is usually shaded in such a way that betting on them results in an unfair line. What should the line have been with a SB winner at home facing a losing team suddenly minus their best player? Well, not seven. Was it, as Todd likes to say, a sucker line? I don't know. Maybe at seven it was.

So what happens? It turns into your basic NFL freak show. The best defender on the field decides he's not on camera for the first Monday Night game and plants a phlegm ball on Prescott, and an official happens to walk up to them just as he does so. Looked like blocking for a Broadway play. Then you have a hundred yards in penalties (half of which were questionable) assessed on the Eagles IN A HALF. Then you have a lightning delay. Complete zoo.

And that's why 85% of my total wagering is on college football.

Now, did I make money on the game? Yes, i did, and I have the receipts. One of your favorite sites, YouWager, suddenly strong-armed me to close all my open teasers, so i did by taking the Eagles on half and the Cowboys on half. I wasn't happy about it, but Ka-ching. And I put lunch money (breakfast money, really) on Shipley to have more than 11 1/2 yards rushing.

And you have misinterpreted my trendsvestite degree-of-disdain. Some trends exist because there are good reasons why they exist. Others are, as statisticians like to say, artifacts. If you can't discern reasons, that doesn't mean there aren't any (obviously).

There was a stretch in the 90's and early 2000's where SEC teams had awful non-conference ATS records. Well, there were reasons for that. And Bill Yeoman, back when he coached the Houston Cougars, had terrible non-conference records to open seasons. Well, there were reasons for that.

Would I bulk bet underdogs to open this NFL season? No I would not. Half the games have lines where the favorite is barely a favorite, and the label could switch, as I posted weeks ago. And the Monday Night favorite did switch, so what are you supposed to bet? The opening line underdog, the Vikings, or the current underdog, the Bears?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

so what are you supposed to bet? The opening line underdog, the Vikings, or the current underdog, the Bears?

---

this has already been discussed

the data is based on the closing line most common to most of the books

if a bettor doesn't get the exact line from closing it may hurt him or it may help him - and even more likely it didn't matter at all - no way to tell and not at all likely to make any real difference in the long run

but everybody gets it - you don't like the strategy - that's cool - when it comes to betting sports everybody won't agree on everything

btw for what it's worth - based on the comments from you that I've read - I do think you know a great deal about handicapping, particularly football -

I also agree with mickey's points that computer modeling (such as what Billy Walters has done) is superior to what any individual can accomplish, even a very informed individual, betting or recommending bets based on his opinion

computer modeling combined with the vast amounts of statistical data that was compiled and analyzed easily identified a great many more plays than any well informed individual could possible uncover


.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

so what are you supposed to bet? The opening line underdog, the Vikings, or the current underdog, the Bears?

---

this has already been discussed

the data is based on the closing line most common to most of the books

if a bettor doesn't get the exact line from closing it may hurt him or it may help him - and even more likely it didn't matter at all - no way to tell and not at all likely to make any real difference in the long run

but everybody gets it - you don't like the strategy - that's cool - when it comes to betting sports everybody won't agree on everything

btw for what it's worth - based on the comments from you that I've read - I do think you know a great deal about handicapping, particularly football -

I also agree with mickey's points that computer modeling (such as what Billy Walters has done) is superior to what any individual can accomplish, even a very informed individual, betting or recommending bets based on his opinion

computer modeling combined with the vast amounts of statistical data that was compiled and analyzed easily identified a great many more plays than any well informed individual could possible uncover


.

---

Well, how do you know the closing line of "most books?" And how do you get action in on that "closing" line when it may exist for all of 10 seconds, if that? That's silly. How do you do that in the real world?

By using true "closing lines" for your definition, you are using a line that is not available 99.99% of the time leading up to it. There's not much utility to that.

In addition, haven't you ever seen "closing lines" as listed by vegasinsider or whomever that do not actually match the in-the-moment closing lines at the brick-and-mortar sports book? It happens. Occasionally, the real location gets action at the end, and the "closing" number featured online is not the actual closing number on property. When Computer Sports World published their data bases, the closing numbers they listed, for example, were not exact matches for the on site closing lines.

You are kind of missing the point with Billy Walters. He hired literally dozens of handicappers over time, some with competing and different programs and some without. If the models don't agree, and they usually do not, then what do you do?

Discussing this stuff with you guys is senseless. You simply have no lay of the actual land. You do realize Playbook has been doing ongoing 24/7 comprehensive data base stat searches for literally 40 years? And Marc Lawrence Jr. trained specifically for this and is a programmer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Well, how do you know the closing line of "most books?" And how do you get action in on that "closing" line when it may exist for all of 10 seconds, if that? That's silly. How do you do that in the real world?

---

one more time and I'm done

you can see the lines of a great many books on the internet very close to closing time - BUT YOU ALREADY KNEW THAT BEFORE YOU MADE THE COMMENT - as does anybody who follows NFL betting

if you don't get the exact closing line every single time sometimes it may help you, sometimes it may hurt you, but most of the time it won't matter - and is very unlikely to make a difference in the long run

i.e. - the Cowboys game yesterday - the closing line might have been + 8 or 8.5 for the Boys depending on the book - idk - covers.com quoted both 8 and 8.5 - I didn't actually follow it -

it wouldn't have mattered either way if you bet the dog and that is quite common

I'm not trying to compete with Marc Lawrence Jr. - I have no doubt he has a lot more data than me and a lot more useful info than me -

KJ asked you for a current trend - what was your answer - something from the 90s and 2000s - nothing for now - oh yeah, I almost forgot - something about Bill Yeoman who retired in 1986

wow________!!!________thanks very much for that useful info__________________(-:/

you also bragged about the bets you won - AFTER THE GAME IS OVER - no use to anybody now -

how about giving everybody your picks for this Sunday and Monday BEFORE THE GAMES START - not gonna happen - no chance

or hows about some trends relevant to Sunday and Monday's games - not gonna happen - no chance

oh, wait, I almost forgot - you want money to give out your picks - good luck with that -

I'm outta here - feel free to get the last word - I just don't care anymore

don't wanna communicate with you anymore - never should have started - my bad - won't happen again

.

I am betting more on this"trend" than my accounts at online books have in them, so the overflow is at multiple Vegas books. I bet The Cowboys (almost killed me) @ only +7 and chargers@ +3 before I left Vegas for a week. Now heading home to bet the remainingfirst week games at several books tomorrow.

I asked Redeitz, his opinion, but really wasn'tt that interested. I though he would probably poo poo this whole 1st two week play. I am convinced it is +EV and hitting it hard despite what the great Red says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

I am betting more on this"trend" than my accounts at online books have in them, so the overflow is at multiple Vegas books. I bet The Cowboys (almost killed me) @ only +7 and chargers@ +3 before I left Vegas for a week. Now heading home to bet the remainingfirst week games at several books tomorrow.

I asked Redeitz, his opinion, but really wasn'tt that interested. I though he would probably poo poo this whole 1st two week play. I am convinced it is +EV and hitting it hard despite what the great Red says.

---

good luck with that KJ

some more AI from Google indicating that faves tend to get bet down late - that works well with the strategy of getting the best underdog line as close to gametime as possible:


"AI Overview

In general, NFL favorites tend to get bet down late in the week as casual bettors, or "the public," place their wagers closer to game time. The money from these late, public bets often pushes the point spread higher for the favored team.

Bet underdogs late: If you want to bet on the underdog, you should wait until closer to game time to get a more attractive point spread after the public has moved the line in your favor.

How betting patterns influence line movement

Public vs. "Sharp" money: There is a distinction in the sports betting world between the money placed by the public and by sharp bettors, who are seasoned, professional gamblers.
Early vs. late action: The first bets placed on a game, often from sharp bettors, are placed early in the week. By contrast, the majority of bets from the casual public are placed later in the week, closer to game time.
Line balancing: Sportsbooks aim to "balance their books" by having a relatively equal amount of money wagered on both sides of a bet. When heavy public action comes in late on a favorite, sportsbooks may move the line to encourage betting on the underdog and reduce their financial liability.

"Fading the public": Savvy bettors often "fade the public"—betting against the popular side—to take advantage of inflated lines. By betting an underdog late, a sharp bettor can get a more favorable point spread after the public has driven up the line for the favorite. "


https://www.google.com/search?q=do+n...hrome&ie=UTF-8

Thanks HS. I appreciate that you shared this play last year. And have been waiting to hit it hard.

My rough calculations show about a 9% advantage over the 15 years. Now maybe this will be one of the 3 16-16 years that have occurred and will lose vig. Or maybe this will be the first actual losing year. But I am convinced it is +EV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Thanks HS. I appreciate that you shared this play last year. And have been waiting to hit it hard.

My rough calculations show about a 9% advantage over the 15 years. Now maybe this will be one of the 3 16-16 years that have occurred and will lose vig. Or maybe this will be the first actual losing year. But I am convinced it is +EV.

---

unfortunately the r.o.i. from the past 500 games in the first 2 weeks ats that I tracked is not that large

underdogs won about 55% which equates to an r.o.i. of about 5%

also, you mentioned betting the games tomorrow which is Saturday - if you don't mind a suggestion - would you consider waiting until about noon on Sunday__? - or maybe the Vegas books are too busy then idk - I'm not a Vegas guy - - the ploppies tend to bet the faves down late per my previous post - just a thought

.

That is fine. I might have calculated for the last 5 years. No matter. We are heading for a 19-13 or 20-12 year this year that will be worth 15-20 k to me. (Wishful prediction) :)

One big difference in me and the great Red. No past posting from me. I tell people what angle I am playing, whether overs in baseball for 6-8 weeks late June through early/ mid August. Or this 1st 2 weeks NFL play. Things I believe are +EV. I might win. I might lose. But I believe my wagers are +EV and I say what I am betting beforehand.

The great Red comes up with "I made money on open ended teasers after the fact. Never mentioning anything before the game. I guess that is a "tout" trick.

Good luck to anyone betting the first 2 weeks road dog play this year. I don't have time to mess with it.

As allways, Line shop, Line Shop, line shop. I didn't have time last year and that 1/2 point cost me thousands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Good luck to anyone betting the first 2 weeks road dog play this year. I don't have time to mess with it.

As allways, Line shop, Line Shop, line shop. I didn't have time last year and that 1/2 point cost me thousands.

---

Yeah I got burned a bit on that too. Forget the details but I think I had a game each week that some bets pushed and some lost on same game and second week some won and some pushed.

That is going to happen. Like HS says might work for you. Might work against. Evens out in the end. Now if you have the time....by all means...line shop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

so what are you supposed to bet? The opening line underdog, the Vikings, or the current underdog, the Bears?

---

this has already been discussed

the data is based on the closing line most common to most of the books

if a bettor doesn't get the exact line from closing it may hurt him or it may help him - and even more likely it didn't matter at all - no way to tell and not at all likely to make any real difference in the long run

but everybody gets it - you don't like the strategy - that's cool - when it comes to betting sports everybody won't agree on everything

btw for what it's worth - based on the comments from you that I've read - I do think you know a great deal about handicapping, particularly football -

I also agree with mickey's points that computer modeling (such as what Billy Walters has done) is superior to what any individual can accomplish, even a very informed individual, betting or recommending bets based on his opinion

computer modeling combined with the vast amounts of statistical data that was compiled and analyzed easily identified a great many more plays than any well informed individual could possible uncover


.

---

With the proper resoruces and computer training, you could train models off of existing video footage and get far more detail. There are tons of little statistics that a human can't really take all in but if broken up properly and fed to an AI/LLM algo then it might take the modeling to the next level and find weak spots in lines. Kinda like how having a finer granularity on horse racing was used at some point to get an edge on the existing bettors of the time. With football though there are far more variables one could plot/measure via a video footage.. (as compared to horses)

Anyway, just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Discussing this stuff with you guys is senseless. You simply have no lay of the actual land. You do realize Playbook has been doing ongoing 24/7 comprehensive data base stat searches for literally 40 years? And Marc Lawrence Jr. trained specifically for this and is a programmer?

---

Very excellent point.

Lets not forget tipsters and hipsters while we are at it.

But they had an actual real live programmer... wow.. There are only like 100 of them in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

some won and some pushed.

That is going to happen. Like HS says might work for you. Might work against. .

---

That makes zero sense. How can line shopping ever "might work against" you? You are either going to get a better number or the same number as everywhere else, unless you are line shopping for a worse number for some odd reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

That makes zero sense.

---

That doesn't matter to tewlj.

He'll say anything, whether it makes sense or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

some won and some pushed.

That is going to happen. Like HS says might work for you. Might work against. .

---

That makes zero sense. You are either going to get a better number or the same number as everywhere else, unless you are line shopping for a worse number for some odd reason.

---

what he meant and what I meant was:

if you try to get the best line as late as possible and you got +3.5 but the line closed at 3 and the fave won by 3 you were helped even though you didn't get the closing line (when betting on the underdog)

if you got the best latest line you could at + 2.5 but it closed at 3 and the fave won by 3 you were hurt by not getting the final closing line (when betting on the underdog)

this stuff doesn't happen that often, and should even out in the long run, and shouldn't affect the long term viability of the play -

i.e. - the first 2 games of this season it didn't matter if you got the best closing line or not


line shopping is a great strategy, but it the bettor is shopping on a Saturday for a Sunday game he can't know that he wouldn't have gotten a better line if he had waited

line shopping as close as possible to gametime for underdogs (if you want to bet the underdog) is imo the best strategy

for betting the fave, the google AI stuff that I posted indicated that sharps look for soft lines on faves very early - when the betting opens

there is a downside to that - they may not have all the info that will later become available - again, that could hurt them or help them - and it will prolly even out in the long run

.

Looking in on prediction markets, this is Robinhood brokerage:



I think sports are sourced from Kalshi.

You're looking at Denver Broncos for tomorrow's game. Robinhood assesses a 2% commission on the payout, and a bid-ask spread on the unit price which is the probability.

Running the math, I calculated -456 (American) odds on the YES bet as shown. Betting the NO, my odds would be +317 after imposed costs.

Another example, Indianapolis is a toss-up against Miami. The Indy YES bet carries -108 odds, and the NO is -113.

In summary, the house edge is just as bad as the state-regulated sportsbooks. And you can only bet full-game moneylines, plus futures such as Super Bowl winner.

This is not a recipe for success using my tactics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

That makes zero sense. How can line shopping ever "might work against" you? You are either going to get a better number or the same number as everywhere else, unless you are line shopping for a worse number for some odd reason.

---

What I was saying is that there were 2 games last year that fell on or close to the line, 1/2 point depending. I benefited by one, winning some bets and pushing some, and the other the opposite, losing some bets and pushing on others. Sure, had I the time to be running around line shopping I may have won both. But I didn't have that time. I was more concerned with getting down the overflow amounts (more than I could bet at my sports books) and was running around trying to do that.

Coach Belly...fuck off. You knew exactly what I was saying.

Eiether you are showing your stupidity or showing what a little nit-picking asshole-ish troll you are.....AGAIN. You tell us?

Don't bother...everyone knows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Dietz, you are so hell bent on trying to discredit and put down anyone doing things differently that you.

Get over it!

There are many ways to gain an edge in sports betting. Many ways to skin the cat.

---

Programmers have been doing analyses of handicapping trends for 50 years. Welcome to 1975.

---

If they've been doing it for 50 years since 1975, welcome to 2025. But yes, you ARE stuck in 1975.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

You knew exactly what I was saying.

---

Not possible...I didn't even read your post.

I replied to this post...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

That makes zero sense.

---

My remarks were a reflection upon your posting history in general.

The little guy commented that your latest notion made zero sense...which is typical of anything you write, including the quote at the top of this reply that you are reading right now.

What I'm saying is that I bet at locations where I was picking up free play or along the way at places that had convinces far as parking and EZ access to the sports book. I didn't look online and find the locations with the best line(LINE SHOPPING) iE.. I made a few bets on key numbers where I could have gotten an extra half point if I would have just looked online and went to a different casino and bet it. LiNE SHOPPING =FINDING THE BEST LINE POSSIBLE. 7 and most books but one place has it at 7.5 therfore you go to the place thats giving you 7.5 instead of taking only 7 point's. = LINE SHOPPING.

I was once chastised for replying to coach belly by a regular on here. It was valid criticism.

Do better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You are kind of missing the point with Billy Walters. He hired literally dozens of handicappers over time, some with competing and different programs and some without. If the models don't agree, and they usually do not, then what do you do?

---

In his book Billy Walters published the one and only computer model he used to bet football games. He showed in great detail every kind of statistic that they collected. And he told where the computer model came from and how successful it was for 40 years. He never said anything about other computer models, just the one he started with.

Krack is talking about the 100K entry fee Circa Grandissimo that he and Randy McKay are playing. Randy has come a long way from the Laughlin days in the late 90's. He was betting sports back then. I don't know how well he did in sports then but he's taken it to the top of the sports betting world:

https://youtu.be/oRSLF7qiBOo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You are kind of missing the point with Billy Walters. He hired literally dozens of handicappers over time, some with competing and different programs and some without. If the models don't agree, and they usually do not, then what do you do?

---

In his book Billy Walters published the one and only computer model he used to bet football games. He showed in great detail every kind of statistic that they collected. And he told where the computer model came from and how successful it was for 40 years. He never said anything about other computer models, just the one he started with.

---

You should try actually reading the book sometime. Just a suggestion.

Mickey has, for some reason, started bullshitting. Don't take my word for it. Read the book. All of mickey's paraphrasing is wrong at best and purposefully misleading at worst. And mickey being wrong here is not some secret. Anybody who talked with/worked with Mr. Walters at all would completely disagree with what mickey just wrote.

I think even Mr. Walters would chuckle at mickey's paraphrasing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You are kind of missing the point with Billy Walters. He hired literally dozens of handicappers over time, some with competing and different programs and some without. If the models don't agree, and they usually do not, then what do you do?

---

In his book Billy Walters published the one and only computer model he used to bet football games. He showed in great detail every kind of statistic that they collected. And he told where the computer model came from and how successful it was for 40 years. He never said anything about other computer models, just the one he started with.

---

You should try actually reading the book sometime. Just a suggestion.

Mickey has, for some reason, started bullshitting. Don't take my word for it. Read the book. All of mickey's paraphrasing is wrong at best and purposefully misleading at worst. And mickey being wrong here is not some secret. Anybody who talked with/worked with Mr. Walters at all would completely disagree with what mickey just wrote.

I think even Mr. Walters would chuckle at mickey's paraphrasing.

---

In a recent episode of Unscripted, Krackomberger was asked who the most successful handicapper of all time was. He named Michael Kent’s computer as the best of all time, having made hundreds of millions of dollars. Of course, Kent was the inventor. That’s the computer Billy Walters used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

In his book Billy Walters published the one and only computer model he used to bet football games. He showed in great detail every kind of statistic that they collected. And he told where the computer model came from and how successful it was for 40 years. He never said anything about other computer models, just the one he started with.

---

You should try actually reading the book sometime. Just a suggestion.

Mickey has, for some reason, started bullshitting. Don't take my word for it. Read the book. All of mickey's paraphrasing is wrong at best and purposefully misleading at worst. And mickey being wrong here is not some secret. Anybody who talked with/worked with Mr. Walters at all would completely disagree with what mickey just wrote.

I think even Mr. Walters would chuckle at mickey's paraphrasing.

---

In a recent episode of Unscripted, Krackomberger was asked who the most successful handicapper of all time was. He named Michael Kent’s computer as the best of all time, having made hundreds of millions of dollars. Of course, Kent was the inventor. That’s the computer Billy Walters used.

---

That's the "series of programs" Walters used at the time. If the programs had continued to work, he would have continued using them. Instead, he went out and assembled round tables of experts for each sport, the majority of whom (but by no means all) were programmers with their own programs and emphases.

Walters does NOT state in the book which sport at which he was most successful. Each sport would have its own experts, programs, and programmers. Instead, Walters mentions how much he bet on NFL, not which sports or sports yielded the most profit or best ROI. There are reasons certain info is presented as it is, and which info is absent. Anyone with a little common sense can figure out the reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You should try actually reading the book sometime. Just a suggestion.

Mickey has, for some reason, started bullshitting. Don't take my word for it. Read the book. All of mickey's paraphrasing is wrong at best and purposefully misleading at worst. And mickey being wrong here is not some secret. Anybody who talked with/worked with Mr. Walters at all would completely disagree with what mickey just wrote.

I think even Mr. Walters would chuckle at mickey's paraphrasing.

---

In a recent episode of Unscripted, Krackomberger was asked who the most successful handicapper of all time was. He named Michael Kent’s computer as the best of all time, having made hundreds of millions of dollars. Of course, Kent was the inventor. That’s the computer Billy Walters used.

---

That's the "series of programs" Walters used at the time. If the programs had continued to work, he would have continued using them. Instead, he went out and assembled round tables of experts for each sport, the majority of whom (but by no means all) were programmers with their own programs and emphases.

Walters does NOT state in the book which sport at which he was most successful. Each sport would have its own experts, programs, and programmers. Instead, Walters mentions how much he bet on NFL, not which sports or sports yielded the most profit or best ROI. There are reasons certain info is presented as it is, and which info is absent. Anyone with a little common sense can figure out the reasons.

---

Your shit don't fly, ditz. You're just a pompous arrogant small time bettor with an outsized ego. My friend, Randy McKay, is playing the 100K buy-in Circa Grandissimo. That's what the real sportsbettors are doing while you try to knock off another low roller contest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

In a recent episode of Unscripted, Krackomberger was asked who the most successful handicapper of all time was. He named Michael Kent’s computer as the best of all time, having made hundreds of millions of dollars. Of course, Kent was the inventor. That’s the computer Billy Walters used.

---

That's the "series of programs" Walters used at the time. If the programs had continued to work, he would have continued using them. Instead, he went out and assembled round tables of experts for each sport, the majority of whom (but by no means all) were programmers with their own programs and emphases.

Walters does NOT state in the book which sport at which he was most successful. Each sport would have its own experts, programs, and programmers. Instead, Walters mentions how much he bet on NFL, not which sports or sports yielded the most profit or best ROI. There are reasons certain info is presented as it is, and which info is absent. Anyone with a little common sense can figure out the reasons.

---

Your shit don't fly, ditz. You're just a pompous arrogant small time bettor with an outsized ego. My friend, Randy McKay, is playing the 100K buy-in Circa Grandissimo. That's what the real sportsbettors are doing while you try to knock off another low roller contest.

---

Exactly.

He's always trying to play it off like he is the smart one in the room when he doesn't even appear to be in the top half.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

That's the "series of programs" Walters used at the time. If the programs had continued to work, he would have continued using them. Instead, he went out and assembled round tables of experts for each sport, the majority of whom (but by no means all) were programmers with their own programs and emphases.

Walters does NOT state in the book which sport at which he was most successful. Each sport would have its own experts, programs, and programmers. Instead, Walters mentions how much he bet on NFL, not which sports or sports yielded the most profit or best ROI. There are reasons certain info is presented as it is, and which info is absent. Anyone with a little common sense can figure out the reasons.

---

Your shit don't fly, ditz. You're just a pompous arrogant small time bettor with an outsized ego. My friend, Randy McKay, is playing the 100K buy-in Circa Grandissimo. That's what the real sportsbettors are doing while you try to knock off another low roller contest.

---

Exactly.

He's always trying to play it off like he is the smart one in the room when he doesn't even appear to be in the top half.

---

Sorry, gentlemen. I'm obviously telling it exactly like it is. Ask anyone who has hung out with Mr. Walters, or ask Mr. Walters himself.

For people who know nothing, you guys have remarkable opinions.