Professional Sportsbetting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

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.

---

Bob Dietz likes to past post. That is tell us of picks after the fact, including "open teasers" that he never mentioned. :rolleyes:

Now he is doing that on a larger scale claiming, taking credit and trying to associating himself with computer simulations used by top experts. :confused:

But here is the bottom line Dietz. If ANY of this were true and you were even a moderately successful sports bettor/handicapper, you wouldn't have needed to sell picks and use other people's money. You wouldn't have needed to be the "tout" that you were for decades.

End of story!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

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.

---

Bob Dietz likes to past post. That is tell us of picks after the fact, including "open teasers" that he never mentioned. :rolleyes:

Now he is doing that on a larger scale claiming, taking credit and trying to associating himself with computer simulations used by top experts. :confused:

But here is the bottom line Dietz. If ANY of this were true and you were even a moderately successful sports bettor/handicapper, you wouldn't have needed to sell picks and use other people's money. You wouldn't have needed to be the "tout" that you were for decades.

End of story!

---

Right. And every investment counselor or manager in this country is also a "tout." And no "APs" should partner up because, well, if they were so good, why would they need to partner up?

The bottom line is that the games I have played for 40 years are a matter of public and private record, and there was no way to fake the results. In public, on newsstands, every week for 40 years. I won. Period. No tricks, no gimmicks.

And then you have the kewlJ, who has by his own admission died, come back from the dead, had his limb broken in a back room, has never met anyone on this forum, and who remains anonymous to enhance his credibility. Talk about anonymous bullshit and fake bottom lines, kewlJ cornered the market a long, long time ago with his thousands of posts and nada of evidence. The more he posts, the less he proves.

MDawg, please quote me on this this.

Why is it redietz never just lays out his picks to prove anything? It is always riddler this that never here is my record?

It's simply his method of trolling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Why is it redietz never just lays out his picks to prove anything? It is always riddler this that never here is my record?

---

I'm a big fan of The Riddler. He won every single time.

And I guess I'll have to be the one to introduce accounting to trendsvestites.

Counting the Titan wager as a win (it pushed most of the week and was a loser early in the week), and including the Steeler loss by one point as a 3-point fave, underdogs managed to stagger to a 6-8 ATS record Week One, with the two remaining games having flipped fave/dog roles over the course of the betting week, so I'm not sure how or why you would include them in this kind of tally. Personally, I would designate Buffalo and Chicago, the home squads, as the "true" favorites, but they are now underdogs so not sure how you want to grade that.

Denver opted to throw deep rather than attempt a 52-yard kick at the end, a curious decision, but it prevented underdogs from being 5-9. If you graded Tennessee based on opening numbers, it was a loser anyway.

Maybe Week Two will bring better results. I'll send a wire to The Riddler and see what he thinks.

KewlJ asked what I thought of the opening two-week underdog angle, and I said "not much." Someone should buy me dinner for warning readers off the idea.

You know the old saying, "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

The above is "creative accounting" by Red in an effort to root against this play that he knows I am on.

I am currently 6-6 and down some juice with 2 games remaining this week. Two games TB/Atlanta and Miami/Colts were pickem's with no betting favorites when I was making my wagers yesterday so I did not bet either as far as this 1st 2 weeks play. I did have wagers on both games, tagging along with Daly from Druff's other site. But that doesn't count towards this play.

I am 6-6 and down some juice with 2 games remaining. My two remaining wagers are Bills +1 and Bears +1.5, if you are tracking (or rooting against me) on this play.

I think I can explain the bug redeitz now has up his ass.

For years he told us he was a 40 year professional sports bettor. That this is how he made a living. Talked about a lot of contests along the way. But then he was exposed, in large part by Kim Lee, but most of us had figured out what was going on about that same time. It was Redietz, himself that shared that "perspective" he used with new "clients". Well a professional sports bettor doesn't have a "perspective" promising new clients a certain return. A TOUT DOES!

A real sports bettor bets and wins. A tout has to sell picks or services. Bob Dietz was the later. But even though he shared the actual perspective he used with clients, he didn't like this narrative that he was a tout, rather than a real professional sports bettor.

So now he just trolls and attacks real players doing anything at an advantage. Similar to degenerate losing gamblers Rob Singer and Mdawg. As a matter of fact, Redietz, has buddied up to Mdawg, wanting him to quote him, proving he is nothing but a troll now.

Look, a sports betting "tout" isn't illegal. It just isn't a professional sports bettor. I guess Dietz doesn't like that narrative. That is HIS problem.

As you probably noticed, i havent posted here in years. I have correponded with redietz, however. And just as an fyi, he has given me good knowledge and winners.

Thats the end of my participation. I have health issues that keep me from participating

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

Thats the end of my participation. I have health issues that keep me from participating

---

Are you any relation to CS Gnis?

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.

---

Ask your buddy, Munchkin, if his picks are computer generated or based on opinions. I would say report back to us but no way you would give an honest report of what Munchkin says.

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.

---

College football.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

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

---

I read it several times. The word “opinion” doesn’t appear in it.

Ditz, this is what Daven Ramsey thinks of your credit score:

https://youtube.com/shorts/ABi7piG23...1H7oJrkBihlAWE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regnis

As you probably noticed, i havent posted here in years. I have correponded with redietz, however. And just as an fyi, he has given me good knowledge and winners.

Thats the end of my participation. I have health issues that keep me from participating

---

Doesn't matter.
Nobody posting on this site is that good anyways.
Including myself.
If we were that good, we wouldn't waste a minute on this stupid site.
Feel Better Soon or Don't, gotta die eventually, that's an experience we all have to have.

.
redietz is hoping so very much that the picks will fail as if that will prove he's right. that's so very stupid - it won't prove anything - it's only 32 games - before this season I've tracked the last 500 games of the first 2 weeks and dogs have won 55%

what I've tracked is from the past - it doesn't in any way guarantee future results - it's a speculation - but a good one imo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

The bottom line is that the games I have played for 40 years are a matter of PUBLIC RECORD, and there was no way to fake the results. IN PUBLIC, ON NEWSTANDS, every week for 40 years. I won.

---

and here he brags about his PUBLIC RECORD ON NEWSTANDS

really______________? - I couldn't find his public record on Goggle or any mention of him other than on forums like this

he tries to act like he's big time______________sure he is - in his dreams

if a person was really a well known big time handicapper wouldn't something about him appear in Google________?_________I think so

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

.
redietz is hoping so very much that the picks will fail as if that will prove he's right. that's so very stupid - it won't prove anything - it's only 32 games - before this season I've tracked the last 500 games of the first 2 weeks and dogs have won 55%

what I've tracked is from the past - it doesn't in any way guarantee future results - it's a speculation - but a good one imo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

The bottom line is that the games I have played for 40 years are a matter of PUBLIC RECORD, and there was no way to fake the results. IN PUBLIC, ON NEWSTANDS, every week for 40 years. I won.

---

and here he brags about his PUBLIC RECORD ON NEWSTANDS

really______________? - I couldn't find his public record on Goggle or any mention of him other than on forums like this

he tries to act like he's big time______________sure he is - in his dreams

if a person was really a well known big time handicapper wouldn't something about him appear in Google________?_________I think so

.

---

You are incorrect. I am just demonstrating how naive your approach is. And how, if the general public (you know -- LOL -- the alleged "squares") is plugged into the latest trend, you are on the proverbial crazy train. Obviously, thousands of bettors knew exactly the angle you were talking about. How that makes you a "sharp" is beyond me.

But people like the security blanket of jargon and feeling as if you know what you are doing. It's an odd combination of trying to be part of an insider universe and the self-generated arrogance that comes with thinking you've cornered the market on jargon.

So, as Singer often says, allow me to school you.

I don't care if your angle works or fails. But plugging in some obvious public angle in service of being a "sharp" is actually pretty funny. You do realize you are being the classic "square" by doing so, right? Is there a threshold of numbers of people who know something for you to be a "sharp?" Like, if you know to cross the street when the light is red, does that make you a "pedestrian sharp?" Or do you need to do so successfully a thousand times to qualify?

So we should probably classify squares and sharps and come up with some extra categories. Like how about we rate sharps by geometric shapes? If you spend 30 minutes thinking about something and researching it, you are a "blunt sharp." If you spend two hours and have 20 years experience, you are a "sharp with some teeth." If you read four google summaries and can do freshman college math, you are a "square-ish," you know, like "Black-ish" for math people.

Now that gives me a segue to Google because it follows the same self-absorbed train of thought. "Bob Dietz doesn't show up on Google." Oh, how sad. But no context.

Did you "google" -- which you are using as a verb -- for five minutes, 30 minutes, two days, or 40 hours? You see, that's the key question. For example, this is how private investigators work -- they don't spend three minutes typing and think they have answers. PI's spend days tracking things down online. My brother-in-law is a PI, and my nephew (not his son, by the way) is pursuing a degree in online forensics at Bloomsburg. So let's have it -- how long did you spend "googling" Bob Dietz's Integrity Sports? What exactly do you define as research due diligence before you decide you know something or not?

That's funny. I type "Bob Dietz's Integrity Sports" and the first page features links to blog entries and something on medium, which is wild because I've probably done two pieces on medium in my life. So when I type that in I get 95,100 results listed. The first 10 pages are almost all blog links. At some point, I guess I'll search the 95,000 pages to see what else is there, but you get my drift. I assume the blog gets the google attention because there were 1400 views last month, which is fine because I haven't written anything in months.

Now, as to historicity, I guess being published in The Humanist or giving a paper at the National Conference on Gambling and Risk-Taking don't show up on most Google because why would they unless someone took the time to enter them? But damn, here sits the book with the published conference papers in the bookcase, and it's real. How about that? And here sits a dozen different copies of a national newsletter with my name featured, yet only 30,000 or 40,000 or so people read each one, so I guess that wasn't real.

But, and hold the fort, the anonymous musings of some alleged "APs" are oh-so-real on a God forsaken forum. Or on self-published YouTube channels.

More important, however, is what did I do, practically, with my theory to ignore the "first-two-weeks-NFL-underdog" angle? Well, the evidence lies in the Heritage Sports Race to the SB Contest, which I won about a dozen years ago. I am currently 55th out of a couple thousand because I took the chalk to win the games outright. And all the squares who think they are sharps did not.

In a week with eight toss-up games, that put me 55th out of a couple thousand. I would be doing better, much better, but I managed to lose two out of three of the featured totals.

All the "APs" can cheer me on. I won this thing about a dozen years ago and will attempt to be the first person to win it twice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

That's funny. I type "Bob Dietz's Integrity Sports" and the first page features links to blog entries and something on medium, which is wild because I've probably done two pieces on medium in my life. So when I type that in I get 95,100 results listed. The first 10 pages are almost all blog links. At some point, I guess I'll search the 95,000 pages to see what else is there, but you get my drift. I assume the blog gets the google attention because there were 1400 views last month, which is fine because I haven't written anything in months.

---

That's funny

because I just typed in "Bob Dietz's Integrity Sports" into google and got nothing - zip - except links to boards like this - no links to blog entries - nothing on medium - no 95,100 results - see link

there was a pro basketball player named Bob Dietz - don't think that's you___(-:/

I see you bragging about yourself on gamblingforums.com and linkedin - that doesn't count

why don't you copy and paste your links so we can see what you're talking about___?

but everybody gets your drift - you're really great - sure you are - and you've really convinced just about everybody here of that _(-:/

posters here really wanna hear even much, much more about how great you are_(-:/

edit - I did another search on Medium.com and I did find a Bob Dietz who does windows and doors replacements__(-:/

and btw - your "riddler" schtick is lame - from Batman - couldn't you come up with something original instead of just using someone else's famous stuff-?



https://www.google.com/search?q=Bob+...t=gws-wiz-serp

I do not see the blog entry either on the first page. I have a screenshot but too hard to post. Mostly
Mentions of the other Bob Dietz but a few of redietz.

The biggest issue here is the betting landscape has seriously changed and bearing contests decades ago doesbt mean that much. I know sports bettors and they all scaled up over the years and didn't do the tout stuff. I would expect this of redietz but it isn't what we see.

But yea I got same results at HS. I'll be honest though - I don't think it means Bob is lying as google does customize results. Local, etc.

But all this 'I have a record' is not really true by reasonable standards.

I'd rather HS bet my money though. Redietz doesn't even get why EV is a well used concept because he has bet softer contests all his life. You find the best picks and go from there. Therr is no concept of not betting because you don't have positive expectation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

I'd rather HS bet my money though. Redietz doesn't even get why EV is a well used concept because he has bet softer contests all his life. You find the best picks and go from there. Therr is no concept of not betting because you don't have positive expectation.

---

It's very possible I missed it somewhere, but has Red ever mentioned exactly how he handicaps games? No, I'm not asking for the supposed secret sauce. I'm wondering, does he use compex computer programs, power ratings, gut feelings based on years of experience, flips coins and guesses, uses a tout service?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

It's very possible I missed it somewhere, but has Red ever mentioned exactly how he handicaps games?

---

He flips a coin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

It's very possible I missed it somewhere, but has Red ever mentioned exactly how he handicaps games?

---

He flips a coin.

---

I must have mentioned how I do things half a dozen times on this forum. It has nothing to do with coin flips. It's all about a dartboard and skill and ingesting hallucinogenics before undertaking the tossing of the darts. It helps immensely to have post-its with the names of teams already inscribed on them (to put on the dartboard, of course). Barring that, I rely on stuffed animals taped to the dartboard, representing various mascots.

I was going to answer this somewhat seriously, but I mean, why? The lack of respect is comical for someone who has done this, in the public eye, published in advance, actually on newsstands. And done it well, publicly, for five decades.

As opposed to the forum "APs" who have done nothing in plain view, and been vetted by no one, and bring up novice ideas vis-a-vis sports betting as if they've stumbled onto the Golden Fleece.

Darts, and post-its, and occasionally stuffed animals. Now do I toss the darts right or left-handed, and with my eyes open or closed? Only an "AP" would know for sure.

And if anyone is counting: Week One -- Profit. Week Two -- Profit. Week Three -- Profit. Week Four -- Upcoming, but with an open teaser thanks to the Monday Night Over, off to a good start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

It's very possible I missed it somewhere, but has Red ever mentioned exactly how he handicaps games?

---

He flips a coin.

---

I must have mentioned how I do things half a dozen times on this forum. It has nothing to do with coin flips. It's all about a dartboard and skill and ingesting hallucinogenics before undertaking the tossing of the darts. It helps immensely to have post-its with the names of teams already inscribed on them (to put on the dartboard, of course). Barring that, I rely on stuffed animals taped to the dartboard, representing various mascots.

I was going to answer this somewhat seriously, but I mean, why? The lack of respect is comical for someone who has done this, in the public eye, published in advance, actually on newsstands. And done it well, publicly, for five decades.

As opposed to the forum "APs" who have done nothing in plain view, and been vetted by no one, and bring up novice ideas vis-a-vis sports betting as if they've stumbled onto the Golden Fleece.

Darts, and post-its, and occasionally stuffed animals. Now do I toss the darts right or left-handed, and with my eyes open or closed? Only an "AP" would know for sure.

And if anyone is counting: Week One -- Profit. Week Two -- Profit. Week Three -- Profit. Week Four -- Upcoming, but with an open teaser thanks to the Monday Night Over, off to a good start.

---

APs are too smart for your bullshit, brother. Thats really what is going on. And you can't deal with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

And if anyone is counting: Week One -- Profit. Week Two -- Profit. Week Three -- Profit. Week Four -- Upcoming, but with an open teaser thanks to the Monday Night Over, off to a good start.

---

say what -?

how do you have a profit for Week 2 Two and Week Three - ?

tonight is the first game of Week 2

by weeks 1, 2, and 3 do you mean the pre-season-?

then what is Week Four -? - Week One of the actual season where the games actually count - ?

you must be the only person in the world who calls Week One of the actual NFL season Week Four

but then you state Week Four is upcoming

maybe you mean Week Five is upcoming by the way you count them - idk

when in everybody else's reality Week Two is upcoming

you seem to be quite confused



.

edit - I thought I might have made a mistake - that he was posting about college - but this is only week Three upcoming for college ball starting tonight - and there was no Monday night college game this past Monday


.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

edit - I thought I might have made a mistake - that he was posting about college - but this is only week Three upcoming for college ball starting tonight - and there was no Monday night college game this past Monday
.

---

Allow me to translate for you Half Smoke. The person that Posts as redeitz, frequently calls himself "a college football specialist" or similar terminology. So his reference to weeks 1, 2 and 3 are indeed a reference to college football. Now to the rest of the college football world that first week (august 23) is NOT week 1. Officially it is week ZERO, and counted as part of week 1 (August 30). Why a college football specialist doesn't know this is odd. But the answer probably lies with Redeitz being a tout. Counting those few games on Augusts 23 weekend as a separate week, allows him to claim an extra winning week in selling to his "clients". THAT is what it is about with a tout.

Now the open teaser from Monday night football was a reference to the NFL Monday night game. BUT the problem with that open teaser and frankly ALL of Red's claims including weeks 1, 2 and 3 (by his count) is that all of those picks are past posted. THAT means never mentioned until after the game. (Same as the open teaser).

Again, this all comes back to Redeitz being a tout. THIS is what Touts do. "Hey I won this, that and the other last week, so you should buy my picks".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

It's very possible I missed it somewhere, but has Red ever mentioned exactly how he handicaps games?

---

He flips a coin.

---

I must have mentioned how I do things half a dozen times on this forum. It has nothing to do with coin flips. It's all about a dartboard and skill and ingesting hallucinogenics before undertaking the tossing of the darts. It helps immensely to have post-its with the names of teams already inscribed on them (to put on the dartboard, of course). Barring that, I rely on stuffed animals taped to the dartboard, representing various mascots.

I was going to answer this somewhat seriously, but I mean, why? The lack of respect is comical for someone who has done this, in the public eye, published in advance, actually on newsstands. And done it well, publicly, for five decades.

As opposed to the forum "APs" who have done nothing in plain view, and been vetted by no one, and bring up novice ideas vis-a-vis sports betting as if they've stumbled onto the Golden Fleece.

Darts, and post-its, and occasionally stuffed animals. Now do I toss the darts right or left-handed, and with my eyes open or closed? Only an "AP" would know for sure.

And if anyone is counting: Week One -- Profit. Week Two -- Profit. Week Three -- Profit. Week Four -- Upcoming, but with an open teaser thanks to the Monday Night Over, off to a good start.

---

I asked a legitimate question and got a bullshit answer. You can say this and that about Advantage Player's, but If you asked me and most other legitimate AP's a legitimate question about AP, I and others probably would answer. No we are not going to give away all the details of everything but it would be enough to figure out approximately the EV and how to go about it. I'll give an example later..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

BUT the problem with that open teaser and frankly ALL of Red's claims including weeks 1, 2 and 3 (by his count) is that all of those picks are past posted. THAT means never mentioned until after the game.

Again, this all comes back to Redeitz being a tout. THIS is what Touts do. "Hey I won this, that and the other last week, so you should buy my picks".

---

exactly

every other day he brags about his winning picks after the games are over

and he rarely loses, or if he does, his winnings are always much greater than his losses

it's truly amaaaaazing

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

it's truly amaaaaazing.

---

No, it's just how he's trolled you guys for years...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

I asked a legitimate question and got a bullshit answer.

---

Just to be clear...Is your grievance with Don P?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

has Red ever mentioned exactly how he handicaps games?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

He flips a coin.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

he rarely loses, or if he does, his winnings are always much greater than his losses

---

Isn't that what the APs do?

If they talk about their plays, it's after they are over.

And if/when they take a loss, they always claim overall winnings are much greater than their losses.

Where you been? When did this behavior become so amazing?

Do you expect some pros to reveal their plays, while giving others get a pass?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

BUT the problem with that open teaser and frankly ALL of Red's claims including weeks 1, 2 and 3 (by his count) is that all of those picks are past posted. THAT means never mentioned until after the game.

Again, this all comes back to Redeitz being a tout. THIS is what Touts do. "Hey I won this, that and the other last week, so you should buy my picks".

---

exactly

every other day he brags about his winning picks after the games are over

and he rarely loses, or if he does, his winnings are always much greater than his losses

it's truly amaaaaazing

.

---

Except I was monitored by third parties for decades, and my Wise Guys plays were on newsstands for, what, 30 years. Hard to fake that.

Also, and I know the local geniuses realize this, I have clients who are partners and have had them for about two decades. Now these partners know about this forum. So either I have kept everyone I've partnered with happy for decades, or they would, one would think, eventually have something to say on this forum were I bullshitting in any way, shape, or form.

For example, I won Week One, I won Week Two, I won Week Three, and I'm ahead Week Four thus far. I have clients who have had all those plays, and they all had the same plays. This isn't easy, and it's not "Trust me; I'm an AP; I win all the time" bullshit. It's skill. And knowledge. And experience.

Meanwhile, in another test of skill, I'm in 58th out of a couple thousand in the Heritage Race to the Super Bowl. I have the forum "APs," in part, to thank for that. I didn't realize so many self-anointed geniuses decided Week One and Two NFL underdogs were the way to go. I figured if the forum "APs" were doing it, every trendsvestite in the country was probably on to it. So I used them as the proverbial reverse touts. Much appreciated. Let's see if I crack the top 10 this week at Heritagesports.eu.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

BUT the problem with that open teaser and frankly ALL of Red's claims including weeks 1, 2 and 3 (by his count) is that all of those picks are past posted. THAT means never mentioned until after the game.

Again, this all comes back to Redeitz being a tout. THIS is what Touts do. "Hey I won this, that and the other last week, so you should buy my picks".

---

exactly

every other day he brags about his winning picks after the games are over

and he rarely loses, or if he does, his winnings are always much greater than his losses

it's truly amaaaaazing

.

---

Except I was monitored by third parties for decades, and my Wise Guys plays were on newsstands for, what, 30 years. Hard to fake that.

Also, and I know the local geniuses realize this, I have clients who are partners and have had them for about two decades. Now these partners know about this forum. So either I have kept everyone I've partnered with happy for decades, or they would, one would think, eventually have something to say on this forum were I bullshitting in any way, shape, or form.

For example, I won Week One, I won Week Two, I won Week Three, and I'm ahead Week Four thus far. I have clients who have had all those plays, and they all had the same plays. This isn't easy, and it's not "Trust me; I'm an AP; I win all the time" bullshit. It's skill. And knowledge. And experience.

Meanwhile, in another test of skill, I'm in 58th out of a couple thousand in the Heritage Race to the Super Bowl. I have the forum "APs," in part, to thank for that. I didn't realize so many self-anointed geniuses decided Week One and Two NFL underdogs were the way to go. I figured if the forum "APs" were doing it, every trendsvestite in the country was probably on to it. So I used them as the proverbial reverse touts. Much appreciated. Let's see if I crack the top 10 this week at Heritagesports.eu.

---

Lets hear some testimonials from your clients.

So we are talking about Dietz's claims of winning weeks 1, 2 and 3 (of which there really have only been two) and how he hasn't posted a single pick before the game, but tells us after the fact that he won or has an open teaser, and his response is "well 40 years ago.....". :rolleyes:

I am done with this dude. Yeah Dietz, you are the greatest sports bettor the world has ever seen and that's why you need "clients" and other people's money to make money. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

exactly

every other day he brags about his winning picks after the games are over

and he rarely loses, or if he does, his winnings are always much greater than his losses

it's truly amaaaaazing

.

---

Except I was monitored by third parties for decades, and my Wise Guys plays were on newsstands for, what, 30 years. Hard to fake that.

Also, and I know the local geniuses realize this, I have clients who are partners and have had them for about two decades. Now these partners know about this forum. So either I have kept everyone I've partnered with happy for decades, or they would, one would think, eventually have something to say on this forum were I bullshitting in any way, shape, or form.

For example, I won Week One, I won Week Two, I won Week Three, and I'm ahead Week Four thus far. I have clients who have had all those plays, and they all had the same plays. This isn't easy, and it's not "Trust me; I'm an AP; I win all the time" bullshit. It's skill. And knowledge. And experience.

Meanwhile, in another test of skill, I'm in 58th out of a couple thousand in the Heritage Race to the Super Bowl. I have the forum "APs," in part, to thank for that. I didn't realize so many self-anointed geniuses decided Week One and Two NFL underdogs were the way to go. I figured if the forum "APs" were doing it, every trendsvestite in the country was probably on to it. So I used them as the proverbial reverse touts. Much appreciated. Let's see if I crack the top 10 this week at Heritagesports.eu.

---

Lets hear some testimonials from your clients.

---

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

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

---

This retard doesn't gamble.

This is week 2 of the 1st 2 weeks NFL underdog play. This play has NOT lost in 15 years. (3 even years and 12 winning years). Last week I went 7-7 with two pickem games that I didn't play. this week I also have two pickem or 1 point games that I saw no advantage in playing, the Eagles/KC and Denver/colts. So after Thursday night's loss, I am 7-8 with 13 games remaining.

I bet this play heavily, in addition to maxing out my online accounts, I spread significant money at a number of sportsbooks in Vegas. I know Redeitz is desperately hoping favorites win and cover so he can make some stupid comment about it not being a winning play. But I just want to pre-emptively say that whether this play shows a small win or a loss this year changes nothing about this play for me. I believe based on 15 years of results, that it is +EV. It will take more than 1 losing year in 16 to change my mind.

It would like going out and counting cards and having a losing day and saying "see counting cards doesn't work", when we know it does.

Good luck to those playing this play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Get help.

You are a fascinating person in a lot of ways but it has nothing to do with your gambling.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

This is week 2 of the 1st 2 weeks NFL underdog play. This play has NOT lost in 15 years. (3 even years and 12 winning years). Last week I went 7-7 with two pickem games that I didn't play. this week I also have two pickem or 1 point games that I saw no advantage in playing, the Eagles/KC and Denver/colts. So after Thursday night's loss, I am 7-8 with 13 games remaining.

I bet this play heavily, in addition to maxing out my online accounts, I spread significant money at a number of sportsbooks in Vegas. I know Redeitz is desperately hoping favorites win and cover so he can make some stupid comment about it not being a winning play. But I just want to pre-emptively say that whether this play shows a small win or a loss this year changes nothing about this play for me. I believe based on 15 years of results, that it is +EV. It will take more than 1 losing year in 16 to change my mind.

It would like going out and counting cards and having a losing day and saying "see counting cards doesn't work", when we know it does.

Good luck to those playing this play.

---

Kew, you're "+EV" here is rationalized by hope and not math. In-general past results have nothing to do with what may or may not happen with dogs during individual games today. You should know better.

Use your head: the game in KC today for example--you're shying away from it because of the tiny spread. But there is good value in this game. Right now the Eagles are -1.5 favs. You bet on them and you're getting a whole lot of that +EV you like to say you know about.

KC's best two wideouts are out today, Philly destroyed KC in the SB, Kelce has famous tits & ass & billions on his mind constantly, and Mahomes has been on a downward slide for the last 2+ years. Even if Rice and Worthy were playing Philly would cover.

KewlJ tries to import math from closed mathematical systems and apply it to real-world open systems. He should probably ask Shackleford why he shouldn't do that. It's fucking idiotic.

If you're boxing someone, and he hits you in the head with his first 15 jabs, then it behooves you to prevent getting hit in the head. It really is that simple. Oddsmakers, believe it or not, are allowed to move their heads.

Also, I used KC in the Heritage Contest because the NFL is about as conducive to logical analysis (and Rob did give a fine, accurate analysis) as a 40-year-old Charlie Sheen was to marriage.

Having watched the first half, I do not see how KC can win this game, but usually that means they win the game. In any event, I teased the Eagles to +7 in a bevy of wagers so I would not be heartbroken if the Eagles won. Put some dinner money on Phila the second half at +1. I was a little surprised at the halftime line, as I thought the Eagles would be -1, not +1.

Well, if the Eagles win, I likely drop about a hundred spots in Heritage. If KC wins, I may crack the top 20.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

This is week 2 of the 1st 2 weeks NFL underdog play. This play has NOT lost in 15 years. (3 even years and 12 winning years). Last week I went 7-7 with two pickem games that I didn't play. this week I also have two pickem or 1 point games that I saw no advantage in playing, the Eagles/KC and Denver/colts. So after Thursday night's loss, I am 7-8 with 13 games remaining.

I bet this play heavily, in addition to maxing out my online accounts, I spread significant money at a number of sportsbooks in Vegas. I know Redeitz is desperately hoping favorites win and cover so he can make some stupid comment about it not being a winning play. But I just want to pre-emptively say that whether this play shows a small win or a loss this year changes nothing about this play for me. I believe based on 15 years of results, that it is +EV. It will take more than 1 losing year in 16 to change my mind.

It would like going out and counting cards and having a losing day and saying "see counting cards doesn't work", when we know it does.

Good luck to those playing this play.

---

Kew, you're "+EV" here is rationalized by hope and not math. In-general past results have nothing to do with what may or may not happen with dogs during individual games today. You should know better.

Use your head: the game in KC today for example--you're shying away from it because of the tiny spread. But there is good value in this game. Right now the Eagles are -1.5 favs. You bet on them and you're getting a whole lot of that +EV you like to say you know about.

KC's best two wideouts are out today, Philly destroyed KC in the SB, Kelce has famous tits & ass & billions on his mind constantly, and Mahomes has been on a downward slide for the last 2+ years. Even if Rice and Worthy were playing Philly would cover.

---

Since you made a reasonable, non-trollish post, I will respond Rob. What you are doing looking at who is playing and matchups is called handicapping the game. THAT is NOT how successful sports bettors operate today. They look at things like how 1.5 dogs do and that type of things. It is all numbers today and less specifically what todays game is about. If you don't beleive me ask Mickeycrimm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxPen

There's no doubt I have the right guy. Like I said, "I can pick you out of a police line up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

This is week 2 of the 1st 2 weeks NFL underdog play. This play has NOT lost in 15 years. (3 even years and 12 winning years). Last week I went 7-7 with two pickem games that I didn't play. this week I also have two pickem or 1 point games that I saw no advantage in playing, the Eagles/KC and Denver/colts. So after Thursday night's loss, I am 7-8 with 13 games remaining.

I bet this play heavily, in addition to maxing out my online accounts, I spread significant money at a number of sportsbooks in Vegas. I know Redeitz is desperately hoping favorites win and cover so he can make some stupid comment about it not being a winning play. But I just want to pre-emptively say that whether this play shows a small win or a loss this year changes nothing about this play for me. I believe based on 15 years of results, that it is +EV. It will take more than 1 losing year in 16 to change my mind.

It would like going out and counting cards and having a losing day and saying "see counting cards doesn't work", when we know it does.

Good luck to those playing this play.

---

Kew, you're "+EV" here is rationalized by hope and not math. In-general past results have nothing to do with what may or may not happen with dogs during individual games today. You should know better.

Use your head: the game in KC today for example--you're shying away from it because of the tiny spread. But there is good value in this game. Right now the Eagles are -1.5 favs. You bet on them and you're getting a whole lot of that +EV you like to say you know about.

KC's best two wideouts are out today, Philly destroyed KC in the SB, Kelce has famous tits & ass & billions on his mind constantly, and Mahomes has been on a downward slide for the last 2+ years. Even if Rice and Worthy were playing Philly would cover.

---

Since you made a reasonable, non-trollish post, I will respond Rob. What you are doing looking at who is playing and matchups is called handicapping the game. THAT is NOT how successful sports bettors operate today. They look at things like how 1.5 dogs do and that type of things. It is all numbers today and less specifically what todays game is about. If you don't beleive me ask Mickeycrimm.

---

What today's game was about:
1. Kelce almost always being distracted. CHECK.
2. KC's lack of a consistent wideout. CHECK.
3. Mahomes continued deterioration as an elite & feared accurate passer. CHECK.
4. Philly being the same superior NFL team that won the SB. CHECK.

1.5 dogs and whatever you meant?? This game had massive value from the start, because it had high +EV. It's the only game I bet on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

This is week 2 of the 1st 2 weeks NFL underdog play. This play has NOT lost in 15 years. (3 even years and 12 winning years). Last week I went 7-7 with two pickem games that I didn't play. this week I also have two pickem or 1 point games that I saw no advantage in playing, the Eagles/KC and Denver/colts. So after Thursday night's loss, I am 7-8 with 13 games remaining.

I bet this play heavily, in addition to maxing out my online accounts, I spread significant money at a number of sportsbooks in Vegas. I know Redeitz is desperately hoping favorites win and cover so he can make some stupid comment about it not being a winning play. But I just want to pre-emptively say that whether this play shows a small win or a loss this year changes nothing about this play for me. I believe based on 15 years of results, that it is +EV. It will take more than 1 losing year in 16 to change my mind.

It would like going out and counting cards and having a losing day and saying "see counting cards doesn't work", when we know it does.

Good luck to those playing this play.

---

Kew, you're "+EV" here is rationalized by hope and not math. In-general past results have nothing to do with what may or may not happen with dogs during individual games today. You should know better.

Use your head: the game in KC today for example--you're shying away from it because of the tiny spread. But there is good value in this game. Right now the Eagles are -1.5 favs. You bet on them and you're getting a whole lot of that +EV you like to say you know about.

KC's best two wideouts are out today, Philly destroyed KC in the SB, Kelce has famous tits & ass & billions on his mind constantly, and Mahomes has been on a downward slide for the last 2+ years. Even if Rice and Worthy were playing Philly would cover.

---

Since you made a reasonable, non-trollish post, I will respond Rob. What you are doing looking at who is playing and matchups is called handicapping the game. THAT is NOT how successful sports bettors operate today. They look at things like how 1.5 dogs do and that type of things. It is all numbers today and less specifically what todays game is about. If you don't beleive me ask Mickeycrimm.

---

What an idiot. The people at Playbook (and Marc Jr. is a programmer) have been doing this stuff for at least 25 years. 24/7 programs seeking the trends for every sport. There is no Golden Fleece. Sports books are capable of running the same programs, and they do.

What, you think some genius "APs" have uncovered the keys to the kingdom with the kinds of simple trends you're talking about? And you think the books aren't aware of all these trends and do not adjust for them?

See, the books are like people. If you hit them in the head 15 consecutive times, they tend to move their head. You don't get that, do you?

So basically, your "bet the dogs the first two weeks" recommendation was a complete bust. No surprise. Do it again next year. And send some lunch money to any geniuses who listened to you.

Meanwhile, The Riddler won each time he suggested something. You know, kewlJ, have you considered the "trend" that The Riddler wins?

I find it hard to believe a professional blackjack player is this dumb. Bottom line. Naive and dumb and with no blessed idea how trends have been X-rayed, categorized, and analyzed every which way for the last 20 years. It's mind-blowing that an alleged professional gambler allegedly living in Las Vegas would be this out of touch with reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Kew, you're "+EV" here is rationalized by hope and not math. In-general past results have nothing to do with what may or may not happen with dogs during individual games today. You should know better.

Use your head: the game in KC today for example--you're shying away from it because of the tiny spread. But there is good value in this game. Right now the Eagles are -1.5 favs. You bet on them and you're getting a whole lot of that +EV you like to say you know about.

KC's best two wideouts are out today, Philly destroyed KC in the SB, Kelce has famous tits & ass & billions on his mind constantly, and Mahomes has been on a downward slide for the last 2+ years. Even if Rice and Worthy were playing Philly would cover.

---

Since you made a reasonable, non-trollish post, I will respond Rob. What you are doing looking at who is playing and matchups is called handicapping the game. THAT is NOT how successful sports bettors operate today. They look at things like how 1.5 dogs do and that type of things. It is all numbers today and less specifically what todays game is about. If you don't beleive me ask Mickeycrimm.

---

What today's game was about:
1. Kelce almost always being distracted. CHECK.
2. KC's lack of a consistent wideout. CHECK.
3. Mahomes continued deterioration as an elite & feared accurate passer. CHECK.
4. Philly being the same superior NFL team that won the SB. CHECK.

1.5 dogs and whatever you meant?? This game had massive value from the start, because it had high +EV. It's the only game I bet on.

---

Rob, the team lost on a bobbled pass by a point and a half. That's not exactly lock-of-the-year material. Given all of what you said, and I agree with all of it, how do the Eagles win by just a field goal? It's actually mind-blowing that a team with no wideouts stayed in a game with the Eagles, but such is the NFL. I have no words for how the Eagles blew coverages twice in the last five minutes with a 10-point lead. That was stunning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Kew, you're "+EV" here is rationalized by hope and not math. In-general past results have nothing to do with what may or may not happen with dogs during individual games today. You should know better.

Use your head: the game in KC today for example--you're shying away from it because of the tiny spread. But there is good value in this game. Right now the Eagles are -1.5 favs. You bet on them and you're getting a whole lot of that +EV you like to say you know about.

KC's best two wideouts are out today, Philly destroyed KC in the SB, Kelce has famous tits & ass & billions on his mind constantly, and Mahomes has been on a downward slide for the last 2+ years. Even if Rice and Worthy were playing Philly would cover.

---

Since you made a reasonable, non-trollish post, I will respond Rob. What you are doing looking at who is playing and matchups is called handicapping the game. THAT is NOT how successful sports bettors operate today. They look at things like how 1.5 dogs do and that type of things. It is all numbers today and less specifically what todays game is about. If you don't beleive me ask Mickeycrimm.

---

What an idiot. The people at Playbook (and Marc Jr. is a programmer) have been doing this stuff for at least 25 years. 24/7 programs seeking the trends for every sport. There is no Golden Fleece. Sports books are capable of running the same programs, and they do.

What, you think some genius "APs" have uncovered the keys to the kingdom with the kinds of simple trends you're talking about? And you think the books aren't aware of all these trends and do not adjust for them?

See, the books are like people. If you hit them in the head 15 consecutive times, they tend to move their head. You don't get that, do you?

So basically, your "bet the dogs the first two weeks" recommendation was a complete bust. No surprise. Do it again next year. And send some lunch money to any geniuses who listened to you.

Meanwhile, The Riddler won each time he suggested something. You know, kewlJ, have you considered the "trend" that The Riddler wins?

I find it hard to believe a professional blackjack player is this dumb. Bottom line. Naive and dumb and with no blessed idea how trends have been X-rayed, categorized, and analyzed every which way for the last 20 years. It's mind-blowing that an alleged professional gambler allegedly living in Las Vegas would be this out of touch with reality.

---

You are too emotional Dietz. You are too hell bent on making this personal. It isn't. It is advantage play.

First it wasn't me that brought this "trend to light. It was Half Smoke. And he used Wizards numbers from the last 15 years.

Second, I didn't recommend or twist anyone's arm to play this play. I simply made people aware of it.

Now, last 5 years Dogs have covered 89 and not covered 68. Over 15 years it has been even more pronounced, with not a single year of favorites covering more than they lost. This may be the first. Based on those numbers this play has between a 6% and 8+% advantage, depending on how many years you look at. THAT is an advantage play, since you don't seem to have a clue about advantage play.

And if you looked at even a few of the videos mickeycrimm has linked to in recent months, you will see that this is exactly the kind of thing most of the top winning sports bettors are doing.

I didn't invent it, nor think I discovered any secret. I am just looking at an advantage that top sports bettors are using and doing likewise. Same as I didn't invent card counting. But I sure as hell have used it to my advantage for 20 years. THAT, Dietz is what advantage players do. Find an advantage and play it.

This play for me for the first two weeks is currently 11-14 with 3 games remaining. Likely first time in 16 years favorites have covered more. But whatever happens these last 3 games, this was +EV and again since you seem to have no clue.....that is what advantage players do. Find and play and advantage.

So just stop with your silliness and trying to make it personal. It isn't personal. It is advantage play. And you are just embarrassing yourself with you petty comments directed at me.

Red, the game was an advantage play to me, or I wouldn't have bet it.

It was played in KC, one of the toughest venues for visitors in the NFL. I considered that. And it's not about what the final score was. It's about expectation BEFORE the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Red, the game was an advantage play to me, or I wouldn't have bet it.

It was played in KC, one of the toughest venues for visitors in the NFL. I considered that. And it's not about what the final score was. It's about expectation BEFORE the game.

---

Rob, you are trying to Analize the game individually based on matchups and such.....just like 100 million other weekend warrior sports bettors. 99.999% will lose money long-term because of the vig. I doubt you are that 0.0001 that can will long-term.

Winning sports bettors today are using computer generated analytics based on years of results that really have little to do with the actual teams playing. And as Deitz will tell you, this isn't new. This has been going on for decades. To win long-term, you have got to get out of that mindset where you are looking at the teams playing and looking at individual matchups. That is like a blackjack player playing a game with a house edge of .5% and thinking he can win long-term just playing basic strategy. (no card counting or anything that gives him an advantage).

Now, here is another little "angle" that half smoke has mentioned based on decades of data provided by Wizard. If you play away dogs plus points, you will win a very small percentage something like 1.5% That is based on decades of data.

If you are looking for a common sense reason why this angle (along with the first two weeks dogs angle) works, it is because the public tends to over bet both favorites and home teams, making away dogs value. (slight +EV over decades).

But what you are doing Rob, is just degenerate sports bettor gambling. Have fun if that is what you want to do. But you are NOt playing at an advantage (+EV) no matter how much you think you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Red, the game was an advantage play to me, or I wouldn't have bet it.

It was played in KC, one of the toughest venues for visitors in the NFL. I considered that. And it's not about what the final score was. It's about expectation BEFORE the game.

---

Rob, you are trying to Analize the game individually based on matchups and such.....just like 100 million other weekend warrior sports bettors. 99.999% will lose money long-term because of the vig. I doubt you are that 0.0001 that can will long-term.

Winning sports bettors today are using computer generated analytics based on years of results that really have little to do with the actual teams playing. And as Deitz will tell you, this isn't new. This has been going on for decades. To win long-term, you have got to get out of that mindset where you are looking at the teams playing and looking at individual matchups. That is like a blackjack player playing a game with a house edge of .5% and thinking he can win long-term just playing basic strategy. (no card counting or anything that gives him an advantage).

Now, here is another little "angle" that half smoke has mentioned based on decades of data provided by Wizard. If you play away dogs plus points, you will win a very small percentage something like 1.5% That is based on decades of data.

If you are looking for a common sense reason why this angle (along with the first two weeks dogs angle) works, it is because the public tends to over bet both favorites and home teams, making away dogs value. (slight +EV over decades).

But what you are doing Rob, is just degenerate sports bettor gambling. Have fun if that is what you want to do. But you are NOt playing at an advantage (+EV) no matter how much you think you are.

---

Redietz might be able to understand the lessons you're giving but 0 chance with Singer. Just let it go ..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Red, the game was an advantage play to me, or I wouldn't have bet it.

It was played in KC, one of the toughest venues for visitors in the NFL. I considered that. And it's not about what the final score was. It's about expectation BEFORE the game.

---

Rob, you are trying to Analize the game individually based on matchups and such.....just like 100 million other weekend warrior sports bettors. 99.999% will lose money long-term because of the vig. I doubt you are that 0.0001 that can will long-term.

Winning sports bettors today are using computer generated analytics based on years of results that really have little to do with the actual teams playing. And as Deitz will tell you, this isn't new. This has been going on for decades. To win long-term, you have got to get out of that mindset where you are looking at the teams playing and looking at individual matchups. That is like a blackjack player playing a game with a house edge of .5% and thinking he can win long-term just playing basic strategy. (no card counting or anything that gives him an advantage).

Now, here is another little "angle" that half smoke has mentioned based on decades of data provided by Wizard. If you play away dogs plus points, you will win a very small percentage something like 1.5% That is based on decades of data.

If you are looking for a common sense reason why this angle (along with the first two weeks dogs angle) works, it is because the public tends to over bet both favorites and home teams, making away dogs value. (slight +EV over decades).

But what you are doing Rob, is just degenerate sports bettor gambling. Have fun if that is what you want to do. But you are NOt playing at an advantage (+EV) no matter how much you think you are.

---

Redietz might be able to understand the lessons you're giving but 0 chance with Singer. Just let it go ..

---

Dumb and dumber....and it's just one loner.

Kew, I have no interest in "long term" sports betting, and other than the bonus-betting I've done in the past I may place 3 or 4 bets a year--all on NFL games, and only when there's a clear advantage. It's the people who find themselves betting multiple sports almost weekly, year-round, who do "degenerate betting". In fact, because of one large parlay win I had in Tahoe maybe 10 years ago now--a bet that was also +EV by a LOT (a rarity in parlay betting) I'll never be a sports betting loser.

Once again, you took a thousand words to say something that could have been articulated in a hundred words, thoroughly exciting the old man with no family. Usually, that means you're struggling to criticize. First I was "handicapping"--then it was degenerate betting. Snap out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Rob, you are trying to Analize the game individually based on matchups and such.....just like 100 million other weekend warrior sports bettors. 99.999% will lose money long-term because of the vig. I doubt you are that 0.0001 that can will long-term.

Winning sports bettors today are using computer generated analytics based on years of results that really have little to do with the actual teams playing. And as Deitz will tell you, this isn't new. This has been going on for decades. To win long-term, you have got to get out of that mindset where you are looking at the teams playing and looking at individual matchups. That is like a blackjack player playing a game with a house edge of .5% and thinking he can win long-term just playing basic strategy. (no card counting or anything that gives him an advantage).

Now, here is another little "angle" that half smoke has mentioned based on decades of data provided by Wizard. If you play away dogs plus points, you will win a very small percentage something like 1.5% That is based on decades of data.

If you are looking for a common sense reason why this angle (along with the first two weeks dogs angle) works, it is because the public tends to over bet both favorites and home teams, making away dogs value. (slight +EV over decades).

But what you are doing Rob, is just degenerate sports bettor gambling. Have fun if that is what you want to do. But you are NOt playing at an advantage (+EV) no matter how much you think you are.

---

Redietz might be able to understand the lessons you're giving but 0 chance with Singer. Just let it go ..

---

Dumb and dumber....and it's just one loner.

Kew, I have no interest in "long term" sports betting, and other than the bonus-betting I've done in the past I may place 3 or 4 bets a year--all on NFL games, and only when there's a clear advantage. It's the people who find themselves betting multiple sports almost weekly, year-round, who do "degenerate betting". In fact, because of one large parlay win I had in Tahoe maybe 10 years ago now--a bet that was also +EV by a LOT (a rarity in parlay betting) I'll never be a sports betting loser.

Once again, you took a thousand words to say something that could have been articulated in a hundred words, thoroughly exciting the old man with no family. Usually, that means you're struggling to criticize. First I was "handicapping"--then it was degenerate betting. Snap out of it.

---

The problems with making general know-it-all betting statements are as follow. Now please note that KewlJ attempts to import the probability theory and jargon of random events and then assign them to non-random events while simultaneously stating that he can win precisely because NFL games are non-random events and have trends.

LOL. You cannot make this idiocy up.

But, anyway, here is a thumbnail list of the basic logical problems with what the kewlJ is touting vis-a-vis the NFL (see what I did there?):

1) He makes statements regarding "the public" betting this or that. There is no "the public," technically speaking. There is only money. So assigning yourself to one gnostic category ("the sharps," "APs," the in-the-know crowd) while assigning others to "the public" is not only over-stepping your expertise, it's self-aggrandizing and inaccurate.

2) Of course, if lines move, and you are betting at the bitter end and those are the numbers you use to assign wins and losses, then what you are doing is arguing that the original lines were more accurate than the closing lines. So you are allowing "the public," -- AKA the money -- to do the wrong thing, then exploiting the idea that they are doing the wrong thing. Yet this inherently suggests that injury reports and weather do not play a part in the line moves actually being correct, which is a fair position to take (especially if you think orchestrating is happening, at least on occasion). However, "the public" seems to be betting on injury reports and weather, so you must determine if "the public" is (A) stupid for betting based on injuries and weather, (B) you, the sharp, are smart for ignoring injuries and weather, or (C) games are rigged so line moves lose despite injuries and weather.

3) Obviously, the demography of sports betting changes every year based on availability, advertising, social mores, which country you are in, and so on. So the idea that there is some crystalline chunk of the population called "the public" is just wrong. The demography has changed dramatically over the last 10 years.

4) Nobody has any way of knowing who or what has moved the numbers. All you know for a fact is that money moved the lines. You can speculate, but there is no way of assigning truth value to your speculation. For example, in college football, Mr. Walters was notorious for going after mid-week Sun Belt or MAC games that he was trying to middle. He would launch on one side as soon as the lines appeared, everybody would jump on the bandwagon, he would wait and let the lines move three points or more, then whack the other side, all in pursuit of middles. Usually, my money went along for the ride.

5) Thinking what happened for 10 years is going to hold up in-the-now requires you have some sensitivity to what you are talking about. Let's assume that there are power ratings at the heart of the NFL lines, and those power rating have yielded a -7 for Team A versus Team B for 10 years. And Weeks One and Two, the underdogs have won 65% of the time ATS for those 10 years. So now what? If in 2025 you have the same power ratings for Teams A and B as you had in the past, as an oddsmaker you now assign a -5 1/2 or -6 to Team A versus Team B. The bettor who sticks with the blind idea of taking the dogs is now in the same position as the guy playing blackjack who is trying to count cards while blackjack itself pays even money, only he does not actually know blackjack itself is paying even money. He is cutting his own throat because he naively assumes lines are static.

6) The entire idea of static-ness is an issue with the kewlJ approach. If underdogs using closing lines yielded a one percent advantage for 10 years, the key question is how did faves do with opening lines? If you haven't checked this, why not?

7) Given the ubiquity of injury reports and weather and all that, if line moves in the NFL are consistently wrong, what is the logical conclusion? That "the public" -- AKA the money -- is consistently wrong? Or that injury reports and weather are irrelevant? Or that line moves yield value going the other way? Or that some of the games are manipulated so line moves become wrong?

Please send all gratuities to 1412 Forest Dale Lane, Johnson City, TN. Thanks in advance.

Isn't there a general consensus that tends to drive the money? A shared set of views outside those of the fans of either team? And would this sentiment which translates into wagered money have value in being labeled for discussions? Ie "the public"

Also if a trend wins for many years then redietz claims it will be corrected in the lines but what if the same mistakes are made by "the public" every year and the weakness in the lines helps the books in general? It does not make sense the trend would be corrected.

Let's be clear - since there seems to be more confusion. It isn't the games that have trends it is that the lines have trends. At least that seems to make more sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Please send all gratuities to 1412 Forest Dale Lane, Johnson City, TN. Thanks in advance.

---

What happened to the "new townhouse in the shadow of the Motor Speedway"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Red, the game was an advantage play to me, or I wouldn't have bet it.

It was played in KC, one of the toughest venues for visitors in the NFL. I considered that. And it's not about what the final score was. It's about expectation BEFORE the game.

---

Rob, you are trying to Analize the game individually based on matchups and such.....just like 100 million other weekend warrior sports bettors. 99.999% will lose money long-term because of the vig. I doubt you are that 0.0001 that can will long-term.

Winning sports bettors today are using computer generated analytics based on years of results that really have little to do with the actual teams playing. And as Deitz will tell you, this isn't new. This has been going on for decades. To win long-term, you have got to get out of that mindset where you are looking at the teams playing and looking at individual matchups. That is like a blackjack player playing a game with a house edge of .5% and thinking he can win long-term just playing basic strategy. (no card counting or anything that gives him an advantage).

Now, here is another little "angle" that half smoke has mentioned based on decades of data provided by Wizard. If you play away dogs plus points, you will win a very small percentage something like 1.5% That is based on decades of data.

If you are looking for a common sense reason why this angle (along with the first two weeks dogs angle) works, it is because the public tends to over bet both favorites and home teams, making away dogs value. (slight +EV over decades).

But what you are doing Rob, is just degenerate sports bettor gambling. Have fun if that is what you want to do. But you are NOt playing at an advantage (+EV) no matter how much you think you are.

---

Redietz might be able to understand the lessons you're giving but 0 chance with Singer. Just let it go ..

---

It just further highlights the difference between real advantage players, players that find an advantage and play it, resulting in LONG-TERM winning, and these degenerate, losing gamblers (gamblers in every sense of the word). The person you mentioned thinks and continues to believe that progressive wagering can overcome -EV. THAT is degenerate gambling 101.

There has always been a divide between real APs and these types of "gamblers" on this forum, dating back to the forum founder, who had many voodoo beliefs.

No wonder the casinos treat some of these guys well with comps and offers. They have proven to be long-time, long-term losing players. Just the kind of players casinos drool over. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Since you made a reasonable, non-trollish post, I will respond Rob. What you are doing looking at who is playing and matchups is called handicapping the game. THAT is NOT how successful sports bettors operate today. They look at things like how 1.5 dogs do and that type of things. It is all numbers today and less specifically what todays game is about. If you don't beleive me ask Mickeycrimm.

---

What today's game was about:
1. Kelce almost always being distracted. CHECK.
2. KC's lack of a consistent wideout. CHECK.
3. Mahomes continued deterioration as an elite & feared accurate passer. CHECK.
4. Philly being the same superior NFL team that won the SB. CHECK.

1.5 dogs and whatever you meant?? This game had massive value from the start, because it had high +EV. It's the only game I bet on.

---

Given all of what you said, and I agree with all of it

---

And yet, you said there is no such thing as EXPECTED VALUE IN SPORTS BETTING.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob.Singer

What today's game was about:
1. Kelce almost always being distracted. CHECK.
2. KC's lack of a consistent wideout. CHECK.
3. Mahomes continued deterioration as an elite & feared accurate passer. CHECK.
4. Philly being the same superior NFL team that won the SB. CHECK.

1.5 dogs and whatever you meant?? This game had massive value from the start, because it had high +EV. It's the only game I bet on.

---

Given all of what you said, and I agree with all of it

---

And yet, you said there is no such thing as EXPECTED VALUE IN SPORTS BETTING.

---

I was referring to the checklist, not the EV nonsense. The postscript below the checklist is gobbledygook. If people want to label their opinion with the phrase EV, well, God bless their arrogance.

There is no such thing as EV in sports betting, outside of bonus whoring and rebates.

Axelwolf, did I mention that I won Week One, I won Week Two, I won Week Three, and I won (seven bucks on 12K in wagers) Week Four? No, no, no need to congratulate me. It's what I do.

P.S. I hope you didn't help kewlJ with his EV calculations regarding NFL underdogs Weeks One and Two. I also hope kewlJ doesn't lose faith. He can plug in the same formula next season and explain he's accumulating value as he donates money to books based on his personal bizarro take on probability theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

P.S. I hope you didn't help kewlJ with his EV calculations regarding NFL underdogs Weeks One and Two. I also hope kewlJ doesn't lose faith. He can plug in the same formula next season and explain he's accumulating value as he donates money to books based on his personal bizarro take on probability theory.

---

Damn right I will be on this play next year. 16 years and 1 single losing year (this year) in which I went 13-15. that would be 12 winning years, 3 years that went 16-16 or 15-15 and 1 losing year. Add them all up and you STILL have a better than 6% advantage.

Dietz, you thinking that this 1 losing year of 13-15 some how proves this play isn't +EV is you not having a clue. Like I said earlier, that would be like sitting down at a blackjack table and playing for an hour counting cards, losing and declaring card counting doesn't work.

Dietz, if you REALLY believe this shit you are saying, you really are an idiot.

Just looked at the numbers for the 3 years that I have worked this 1st 2 weeks NFL underdog play.

2025 - 13-15 (4 no plays for me that were either pickem's or +/- 1 pt)
2024 - 15-13 (4 no plays for me)
2023 - 20-12

That is a total of 48-40 for the 3 years. That works out to about a 4% advantage. 4% is lower than the 6% advantage over the last 16 years, but I will take it. That is how variance works.

So tell me again, how this play isn't +EV Bob Dietz. Perhaps you can explain that in the interview that you have pushed off for 2 years and is NEVER going to happen. ;)

And yes, I will definitely be throwing my money on the underdogs + points in the first 2 weeks of 2026. Give me that 4, 5, 6 % EV and advantage. That is what advantage players do. Of course Bob Dietz wouldn't know about this. :cool:

BTW, for the last 3 years some of my wagers on this 1st 2 weeks play has been at online sports books (in addition to overflow wagers at books here in Vegas) , contributing towards the rollover requirements for my bonus play. So I have made money off that end also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Everything and anything he has ever said has come into question and years of his forum adventures in BJ and life have been labeled as fiction.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Just looked at the numbers for the 3 years that I have worked this 1st 2 weeks NFL underdog play.

2025 - 13-15 (4 no plays for me that were either pickem's or +/- 1 pt)
2024 - 15-13 (4 no plays for me)
2023 - 20-12

That is a total of 48-40 for the 3 years. That works out to about a 4% advantage. 4% is lower than the 6% advantage over the last 16 years, but I will take it. That is how variance works.

So tell me again, how this play isn't +EV Bob Dietz. Perhaps you can explain that in the interview that you have pushed off for 2 years and is NEVER going to happen. ;)

And yes, I will definitely be throwing my money on the underdogs + points in the first 2 weeks of 2026. Give me that 4, 5, 6 % EV and advantage. That is what advantage players do. Of course Bob Dietz wouldn't know about this. :cool:

BTW, for the last 3 years some of my wagers on this 1st 2 weeks play has been at online sports books (in addition to overflow wagers at books here in Vegas) , contributing towards the rollover requirements for my bonus play. So I have made money off that end also.

---

See, this is the core problem with kewlJ from an integrity standpoint. And from a consistency standpoint.

It turns out that he has absolutely no moral high ground from which to criticize MDawg for voodoo betting. How kewlJ describes sports betting, what he applies, and what he claims mathematically, are all as or more nonsensical than the worst stuff MDawg has ever written. Anybody with an ounce of math training, be it Shackleford or Dancer or Munchkin or Curtis, will flail kewlJ for his sudden new addiction to simple trendsvestitism. What kewlJ is trying to apply has been around for, oh, 40 years, and people have figured out what works, why some thing do not work, and why nothing lasts forever. And why it has almost nothing to do with probability theory or "EV."

It's pretty simple, at the heart of it. These are not coin flips. LOL.

You are dealing with an open system, not a closed system such as blackjack play. In other words, it is literally impossible to forecast even a rough "EV" when past results DO affect future results.

I'll explain it briefly, then explain why kewlJ is running a kind of intellectual scam much worse than anything MDawg has done. KewlJ should be up in arms about himself, debunking the obvious nonsense that he is putting out in public. He is misleading the public in the service of his own alleged expertise. In other words, he is misleading people for his own aggrandizement.

If you have a vulnerability in the ATS, such as first-two-weeks NFL underdogs for 10 years, then literally everyone becomes aware of it. There is literally nothing kewlJ can come up with that a bevy of programmers haven't already catalogued, including Playbook and including the bookmakers. So when you get a strong trend becoming obvious, such as the first-two-weeks-dogs, the power ratings remain the same but the lines get adjusted. How hard is that to grasp?

For a person with integrity, who isn't out to rip off the public, it is not hard to grasp. What were +7s previous seasons get shaved down to +6's and maybe even +5s by oddsmakers. The oddsmakers are not required to give you unadjusted lines. It's their fucking to job to NOT do that. Blithely betting with this historical trend, you have not only lost any presumed "edge," you are likely operating at a disadvantage. You are, according to power ratings, undoubtedly operating at a disadvantage.

And with the first-two-weeks-NFL-dogs trend, you are going to see this disadvantage, probably for at least a couple of years.

So what kewlJ is telling people to do results in people getting the worst of the numbers precisely BECAUSE underdogs have done well recently.

Now what makes this all silly is that handicappers have been dealing with basics like this for, literally, decades. The idea that the lines are crystalline from year-to-year and adhere to power ratings precisely is silly and provably wrong and has been provably wrong since Kewlj was in diapers.

So why does kewlJ try to foist this nonsense upon forum readers? I don't know, but his theories are actually worse than anything MDawg has written because this particular angle is built to lose.

MDawg -- LOL -- I have an idea. If you want to get on kewlJ's nerves, just take him up on his underdog angle and bet him next season. Bet against him every game for two weeks, for whatever he wants. Make it an adventure. I'm sure Todd would hold the money. Might even make a fine documentary, with the inimitable kewlJ off camera, like an ethereal voice.

And according to Covers.com bookkeeping, NFL underdogs went 14-18 ATS, not 13-15. So the Kewlj is tweaking reality a bit in his reporting. Never a good thing. No wonder he's always +EV.

https://www.covers.com/sport/footbal...s/seasontodate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

But good enough to say, "I won Week One. I won Week Two. I won Week Three. And I won Week Four."
And on we go.

Please send all gratuities to 1412 Forest Dale Lane, Johnson City, TN. Thanks in advance.

---

anyone wanna believe that he won't win Week 5 too (which is actually Week Four) and tell everybody that he won Week 5 after Week 5 is over without ever actually posting any picks - ?

I doubt it -

and he's also extremely likely to grab a whole lotta of new clients eager to plunge so that he can give them a fistful of winners every single Week all the way until Feb. 2026____________:)

and a great big thank you to Dan Druff for making it sooooo easy for so many to make so much easy money

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Rob, you are trying to Analize the game individually based on matchups and such.....just like 100 million other weekend warrior sports bettors. 99.999% will lose money long-term because of the vig. I doubt you are that 0.0001 that can will long-term.

Winning sports bettors today are using computer generated analytics based on years of results that really have little to do with the actual teams playing. And as Deitz will tell you, this isn't new. This has been going on for decades. To win long-term, you have got to get out of that mindset where you are looking at the teams playing and looking at individual matchups. That is like a blackjack player playing a game with a house edge of .5% and thinking he can win long-term just playing basic strategy. (no card counting or anything that gives him an advantage).

Now, here is another little "angle" that half smoke has mentioned based on decades of data provided by Wizard. If you play away dogs plus points, you will win a very small percentage something like 1.5% That is based on decades of data.

If you are looking for a common sense reason why this angle (along with the first two weeks dogs angle) works, it is because the public tends to over bet both favorites and home teams, making away dogs value. (slight +EV over decades).

But what you are doing Rob, is just degenerate sports bettor gambling. Have fun if that is what you want to do. But you are NOt playing at an advantage (+EV) no matter how much you think you are.

---

Redietz might be able to understand the lessons you're giving but 0 chance with Singer. Just let it go ..

---

It just further highlights the difference between real advantage players, players that find an advantage and play it, resulting in LONG-TERM winning, and these degenerate, losing gamblers (gamblers in every sense of the word). The person you mentioned thinks and continues to believe that progressive wagering can overcome -EV. THAT is degenerate gambling 101.

There has always been a divide between real APs and these types of "gamblers" on this forum, dating back to the forum founder, who had many voodoo beliefs.

No wonder the casinos treat some of these guys well with comps and offers. They have proven to be long-time, long-term losing players. Just the kind of players casinos drool over. :confused:

---

Kew you'll never get it because you're nothing but a low-budget degenerate gambler on the outside looking in---like a great majority of those misguided souls who live in LV and moved there expecting casinos to be their personal ATM's.

You're own "long-term" argument works against you big time, and if you had any gambling intelligence at all, you'd see it. Winners over time do receive continuing lucrative offers and comps, and it makes complete casino sense to do so. If someone came into YOUR house and kept beating you on slightly -EV games, wouldn't the smart move be to keep inviting them back in for a chance to get your money back?

Ask Bob Dancer. His claims of beating the casinos for decades and them showering him with constant gifts and comps is legendary. And it isn't much different with me. In fact, irregardless of the fact that I've mugged Atlantis for tens of thousands in profits in about 10 weeks worth of play earlier this summer--basically as I've been doing for years--their owner John Farahi called me this week thanking me for my long-term loyalty, and invited me to become a Black Diamond member. If Peppermill wasn't in such current disarray I'd expect something similar from them.

Wake up and smell the urine kew. There's a reason you're locked onto that stench, when those of us who are successful in gambling have nothing but roses lining our paths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Just looked at the numbers for the 3 years that I have worked this 1st 2 weeks NFL underdog play.

2025 - 13-15 (4 no plays for me that were either pickem's or +/- 1 pt)
2024 - 15-13 (4 no plays for me)
2023 - 20-12

That is a total of 48-40 for the 3 years. That works out to about a 4% advantage. 4% is lower than the 6% advantage over the last 16 years, but I will take it. That is how variance works.

So tell me again, how this play isn't +EV Bob Dietz. Perhaps you can explain that in the interview that you have pushed off for 2 years and is NEVER going to happen. ;)

And yes, I will definitely be throwing my money on the underdogs + points in the first 2 weeks of 2026. Give me that 4, 5, 6 % EV and advantage. That is what advantage players do. Of course Bob Dietz wouldn't know about this. :cool:

BTW, for the last 3 years some of my wagers on this 1st 2 weeks play has been at online sports books (in addition to overflow wagers at books here in Vegas) , contributing towards the rollover requirements for my bonus play. So I have made money off that end also.

---

See, this is the core problem with kewlJ from an integrity standpoint. And from a consistency standpoint.

It turns out that he has absolutely no moral high ground from which to criticize MDawg for voodoo betting. How kewlJ describes sports betting, what he applies, and what he claims mathematically, are all as or more nonsensical than the worst stuff MDawg has ever written. Anybody with an ounce of math training, be it Shackleford or Dancer or Munchkin or Curtis, will flail kewlJ for his sudden new addiction to simple trendsvestitism. What kewlJ is trying to apply has been around for, oh, 40 years, and people have figured out what works, why some thing do not work, and why nothing lasts forever. And why it has almost nothing to do with probability theory or "EV."

It's pretty simple, at the heart of it. These are not coin flips. LOL.

You are dealing with an open system, not a closed system such as blackjack play. In other words, it is literally impossible to forecast even a rough "EV" when past results DO affect future results.

I'll explain it briefly, then explain why kewlJ is running a kind of intellectual scam much worse than anything MDawg has done. KewlJ should be up in arms about himself, debunking the obvious nonsense that he is putting out in public. He is misleading the public in the service of his own alleged expertise. In other words, he is misleading people for his own aggrandizement.

If you have a vulnerability in the ATS, such as first-two-weeks NFL underdogs for 10 years, then literally everyone becomes aware of it. There is literally nothing kewlJ can come up with that a bevy of programmers haven't already catalogued, including Playbook and including the bookmakers. So when you get a strong trend becoming obvious, such as the first-two-weeks-dogs, the power ratings remain the same but the lines get adjusted. How hard is that to grasp?

For a person with integrity, who isn't out to rip off the public, it is not hard to grasp. What were +7s previous seasons get shaved down to +6's and maybe even +5s by oddsmakers. The oddsmakers are not required to give you unadjusted lines. It's their fucking to job to NOT do that. Blithely betting with this historical trend, you have not only lost any presumed "edge," you are likely operating at a disadvantage. You are, according to power ratings, undoubtedly operating at a disadvantage.

And with the first-two-weeks-NFL-dogs trend, you are going to see this disadvantage, probably for at least a couple of years.

So what kewlJ is telling people to do results in people getting the worst of the numbers precisely BECAUSE underdogs have done well recently.

Now what makes this all silly is that handicappers have been dealing with basics like this for, literally, decades. The idea that the lines are crystalline from year-to-year and adhere to power ratings precisely is silly and provably wrong and has been provably wrong since Kewlj was in diapers.

So why does kewlJ try to foist this nonsense upon forum readers? I don't know, but his theories are actually worse than anything MDawg has written because this particular angle is built to lose.

MDawg -- LOL -- I have an idea. If you want to get on kewlJ's nerves, just take him up on his underdog angle and bet him next season. Bet against him every game for two weeks, for whatever he wants. Make it an adventure. I'm sure Todd would hold the money. Might even make a fine documentary, with the inimitable kewlJ off camera, like an ethereal voice.

And according to Covers.com bookkeeping, NFL underdogs went 14-18 ATS, not 13-15. So the Kewlj is tweaking reality a bit in his reporting. Never a good thing. No wonder he's always +EV.

https://www.covers.com/sport/footbal...s/seasontodate

---

Hey now,.why don't YOU book the action next season? I'll do at least 2,500 per game that fits the criteria, I automatically default to the best line at any major casino up to 8 hour's before game time. We can agree to both get dan 40k in escrow (more than enough). Say yes,.and we can hammer out the details with Dan and even get a 2nd party for backup regarding escrow funds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Just looked at the numbers for the 3 years that I have worked this 1st 2 weeks NFL underdog play.

2025 - 13-15 (4 no plays for me that were either pickem's or +/- 1 pt)
2024 - 15-13 (4 no plays for me)
2023 - 20-12

That is a total of 48-40 for the 3 years. That works out to about a 4% advantage. 4% is lower than the 6% advantage over the last 16 years, but I will take it. That is how variance works.

So tell me again, how this play isn't +EV Bob Dietz. Perhaps you can explain that in the interview that you have pushed off for 2 years and is NEVER going to happen. ;)

And yes, I will definitely be throwing my money on the underdogs + points in the first 2 weeks of 2026. Give me that 4, 5, 6 % EV and advantage. That is what advantage players do. Of course Bob Dietz wouldn't know about this. :cool:

BTW, for the last 3 years some of my wagers on this 1st 2 weeks play has been at online sports books (in addition to overflow wagers at books here in Vegas) , contributing towards the rollover requirements for my bonus play. So I have made money off that end also.

---

See, this is the core problem with kewlJ from an integrity standpoint. And from a consistency standpoint.

It turns out that he has absolutely no moral high ground from which to criticize MDawg for voodoo betting. How kewlJ describes sports betting, what he applies, and what he claims mathematically, are all as or more nonsensical than the worst stuff MDawg has ever written. Anybody with an ounce of math training, be it Shackleford or Dancer or Munchkin or Curtis, will flail kewlJ for his sudden new addiction to simple trendsvestitism. What kewlJ is trying to apply has been around for, oh, 40 years, and people have figured out what works, why some thing do not work, and why nothing lasts forever. And why it has almost nothing to do with probability theory or "EV."

It's pretty simple, at the heart of it. These are not coin flips. LOL.

You are dealing with an open system, not a closed system such as blackjack play. In other words, it is literally impossible to forecast even a rough "EV" when past results DO affect future results.

I'll explain it briefly, then explain why kewlJ is running a kind of intellectual scam much worse than anything MDawg has done. KewlJ should be up in arms about himself, debunking the obvious nonsense that he is putting out in public. He is misleading the public in the service of his own alleged expertise. In other words, he is misleading people for his own aggrandizement.

If you have a vulnerability in the ATS, such as first-two-weeks NFL underdogs for 10 years, then literally everyone becomes aware of it. There is literally nothing kewlJ can come up with that a bevy of programmers haven't already catalogued, including Playbook and including the bookmakers. So when you get a strong trend becoming obvious, such as the first-two-weeks-dogs, the power ratings remain the same but the lines get adjusted. How hard is that to grasp?

For a person with integrity, who isn't out to rip off the public, it is not hard to grasp. What were +7s previous seasons get shaved down to +6's and maybe even +5s by oddsmakers. The oddsmakers are not required to give you unadjusted lines. It's their fucking to job to NOT do that. Blithely betting with this historical trend, you have not only lost any presumed "edge," you are likely operating at a disadvantage. You are, according to power ratings, undoubtedly operating at a disadvantage.

And with the first-two-weeks-NFL-dogs trend, you are going to see this disadvantage, probably for at least a couple of years.

So what kewlJ is telling people to do results in people getting the worst of the numbers precisely BECAUSE underdogs have done well recently.

Now what makes this all silly is that handicappers have been dealing with basics like this for, literally, decades. The idea that the lines are crystalline from year-to-year and adhere to power ratings precisely is silly and provably wrong and has been provably wrong since Kewlj was in diapers.

So why does kewlJ try to foist this nonsense upon forum readers? I don't know, but his theories are actually worse than anything MDawg has written because this particular angle is built to lose.

MDawg -- LOL -- I have an idea. If you want to get on kewlJ's nerves, just take him up on his underdog angle and bet him next season. Bet against him every game for two weeks, for whatever he wants. Make it an adventure. I'm sure Todd would hold the money. Might even make a fine documentary, with the inimitable kewlJ off camera, like an ethereal voice.

And according to Covers.com bookkeeping, NFL underdogs went 14-18 ATS, not 13-15. So the Kewlj is tweaking reality a bit in his reporting. Never a good thing. No wonder he's always +EV.

https://www.covers.com/sport/footbal...s/seasontodate

---

Hey now,.why don't YOU book the action next season? I'll do at least 2,500 per game that fits the criteria, I automatically default to the best line at any major casino up to 8 hour's before game time. We can agree to both get dan 40k in escrow (more than enough). Say yes,.and we can hammer out the details with Dan and even get a 2nd party for backup regarding escrow funds.

---

Yeah that’s really gonna happen 👍

Bob Dietz the poster that posts as redeitz, and is/was a sports bettintg "tout" for 40 years while telling everyone he was a successful winning sports better is really having a conipishit, aka meltdown.

I am going to correct his bullshit lies and mis-representations one more time and when he repeats them again like the troll that he is, I will not respond.

First, he used the word scam and has previously alluded to I told people to play this play. 100% false. I simply have made people aware of this play or opportunity each year during the first 2 weeks of NFL season. As has half smoke and others.

Second I went 13-15. I don't care what covers or any other site counts as underdogs. I don't count "pickem" games or even +1/-1 point lines, as it completely defeats the purpose of the underdog + points. The advantage is the points. and pickem or +/-1 that advantage disappears. AND I told people what games I was betting and not betting before hand. Something Bob Dietz NEVER does. All we get from him is past posting. "I won" I won".

Next, Dietz was hoping dogs went 10-22 or something. When that didn't happen, he new tactic is to say programmers have been doing this kind of thing for 40 years. Well I never claimed I came up with anything involving this play. As a matter of fact I credit (multiple times) Half Smoke for bringing it to me. And he used Wizards data.

Just the same as I didn't invent card counting or the sports betting bonus whoring, or the Las Vegas mailer bonus game that I played for a number of years. Or Grosjeans big six wheel strategy that I played successfully one year. These are ALL advantage plays that others figured out, but I played and won with. THAT is what advantage play is. Finding and playing things at an advantage.

Dietz went on to say sportsbooks would have adjusted lines since everyone knows about this play. "Everyone doesn't know about this play. There are still plenty of the old voodoo bettors (majority of bettors) that throw down their money on the favorites. So no need to adjust anything. As a matter of fact the past 16 years where Dogs + points kicked ass, so did the sports books because of these favorite bettors.

And finally the stupid person to person challenges that forums are known for. Dietz is proposing a one-on-one betting of this system with someone holding money. Why would I do that? I can just bet what I want to bet with any number of sports books. Moses wanted to do that to. wanted to play me one-on-one in blackjack. Why would I do that. I play blackjack against casinos. THAT is my advantage.

In conclusion, this Bob Dietz having been exposed as a "tout" rather than the successful sports bettor he portrayed is out to discredit me and anyone else that actually wins doing anything with sports betting. Same as there is a group of people that try to discredit anyone winning via advantage play. To all of these people, probably life long losing degenerate type gamblers I say. GET OVER IT! There are players that find and play with an advantage. They are called advantage players. Maybe you should try it instead of always donating to the casinos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keystone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

See, this is the core problem with kewlJ from an integrity standpoint. And from a consistency standpoint.

It turns out that he has absolutely no moral high ground from which to criticize MDawg for voodoo betting. How kewlJ describes sports betting, what he applies, and what he claims mathematically, are all as or more nonsensical than the worst stuff MDawg has ever written. Anybody with an ounce of math training, be it Shackleford or Dancer or Munchkin or Curtis, will flail kewlJ for his sudden new addiction to simple trendsvestitism. What kewlJ is trying to apply has been around for, oh, 40 years, and people have figured out what works, why some thing do not work, and why nothing lasts forever. And why it has almost nothing to do with probability theory or "EV."

It's pretty simple, at the heart of it. These are not coin flips. LOL.

You are dealing with an open system, not a closed system such as blackjack play. In other words, it is literally impossible to forecast even a rough "EV" when past results DO affect future results.

I'll explain it briefly, then explain why kewlJ is running a kind of intellectual scam much worse than anything MDawg has done. KewlJ should be up in arms about himself, debunking the obvious nonsense that he is putting out in public. He is misleading the public in the service of his own alleged expertise. In other words, he is misleading people for his own aggrandizement.

If you have a vulnerability in the ATS, such as first-two-weeks NFL underdogs for 10 years, then literally everyone becomes aware of it. There is literally nothing kewlJ can come up with that a bevy of programmers haven't already catalogued, including Playbook and including the bookmakers. So when you get a strong trend becoming obvious, such as the first-two-weeks-dogs, the power ratings remain the same but the lines get adjusted. How hard is that to grasp?

For a person with integrity, who isn't out to rip off the public, it is not hard to grasp. What were +7s previous seasons get shaved down to +6's and maybe even +5s by oddsmakers. The oddsmakers are not required to give you unadjusted lines. It's their fucking to job to NOT do that. Blithely betting with this historical trend, you have not only lost any presumed "edge," you are likely operating at a disadvantage. You are, according to power ratings, undoubtedly operating at a disadvantage.

And with the first-two-weeks-NFL-dogs trend, you are going to see this disadvantage, probably for at least a couple of years.

So what kewlJ is telling people to do results in people getting the worst of the numbers precisely BECAUSE underdogs have done well recently.

Now what makes this all silly is that handicappers have been dealing with basics like this for, literally, decades. The idea that the lines are crystalline from year-to-year and adhere to power ratings precisely is silly and provably wrong and has been provably wrong since Kewlj was in diapers.

So why does kewlJ try to foist this nonsense upon forum readers? I don't know, but his theories are actually worse than anything MDawg has written because this particular angle is built to lose.

MDawg -- LOL -- I have an idea. If you want to get on kewlJ's nerves, just take him up on his underdog angle and bet him next season. Bet against him every game for two weeks, for whatever he wants. Make it an adventure. I'm sure Todd would hold the money. Might even make a fine documentary, with the inimitable kewlJ off camera, like an ethereal voice.

And according to Covers.com bookkeeping, NFL underdogs went 14-18 ATS, not 13-15. So the Kewlj is tweaking reality a bit in his reporting. Never a good thing. No wonder he's always +EV.

https://www.covers.com/sport/footbal...s/seasontodate

---

Hey now,.why don't YOU book the action next season? I'll do at least 2,500 per game that fits the criteria, I automatically default to the best line at any major casino up to 8 hour's before game time. We can agree to both get dan 40k in escrow (more than enough). Say yes,.and we can hammer out the details with Dan and even get a 2nd party for backup regarding escrow funds.

---

Yeah that’s really gonna happen 👍

---

https://youtu.be/_daDMSWHhCE

And let me tell you something else, Bob Dietz, sports betting "tout". Anyone that followed along with the baseball thread discussion with "theydon'tpayontuesdays" and myself, knows that I bet overs in baseball for 6-7 weeks from late June to early August and did quite well. Not quite as well as last year when I kicked ass, but did very well this year. This angle is about weather and temperatures. Particularly games played (not in domes) in 90 degree plus temperatures. The ball jumps in hot temperatures. More homeruns, more runs.

Now not EVERY game is a play. If the temperature is 90 degrees but wind blowing in 20 MPH, well there isn't going to be more homeruns and runs. If two or even one of the top ground ball pitchers is on the mound, there isn't going to be more homeruns despite 90 degrees. You don't hit homeruns on the ground. So it wasn't every game every day, but most days most games were a play during that period. I tried to state beforehand which games I was laying off.

And this angle has worked for 2 years now resulting in a strong win for me. Not every play or angle works and wins. BUT every play or angle is at an advantage. THAT is what advantage play is about.

So while I am NOT a professional sports bettor, I am an advantage player that is and does some things with sports betting. Get over it Mr Tout.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Just looked at the numbers for the 3 years that I have worked this 1st 2 weeks NFL underdog play.

2025 - 13-15 (4 no plays for me that were either pickem's or +/- 1 pt)
2024 - 15-13 (4 no plays for me)
2023 - 20-12

That is a total of 48-40 for the 3 years. That works out to about a 4% advantage. 4% is lower than the 6% advantage over the last 16 years, but I will take it. That is how variance works.

So tell me again, how this play isn't +EV Bob Dietz. Perhaps you can explain that in the interview that you have pushed off for 2 years and is NEVER going to happen. ;)

And yes, I will definitely be throwing my money on the underdogs + points in the first 2 weeks of 2026. Give me that 4, 5, 6 % EV and advantage. That is what advantage players do. Of course Bob Dietz wouldn't know about this. :cool:

BTW, for the last 3 years some of my wagers on this 1st 2 weeks play has been at online sports books (in addition to overflow wagers at books here in Vegas) , contributing towards the rollover requirements for my bonus play. So I have made money off that end also.

---

See, this is the core problem with kewlJ from an integrity standpoint. And from a consistency standpoint.

It turns out that he has absolutely no moral high ground from which to criticize MDawg for voodoo betting. How kewlJ describes sports betting, what he applies, and what he claims mathematically, are all as or more nonsensical than the worst stuff MDawg has ever written. Anybody with an ounce of math training, be it Shackleford or Dancer or Munchkin or Curtis, will flail kewlJ for his sudden new addiction to simple trendsvestitism. What kewlJ is trying to apply has been around for, oh, 40 years, and people have figured out what works, why some thing do not work, and why nothing lasts forever. And why it has almost nothing to do with probability theory or "EV."

It's pretty simple, at the heart of it. These are not coin flips. LOL.

You are dealing with an open system, not a closed system such as blackjack play. In other words, it is literally impossible to forecast even a rough "EV" when past results DO affect future results.

I'll explain it briefly, then explain why kewlJ is running a kind of intellectual scam much worse than anything MDawg has done. KewlJ should be up in arms about himself, debunking the obvious nonsense that he is putting out in public. He is misleading the public in the service of his own alleged expertise. In other words, he is misleading people for his own aggrandizement.

If you have a vulnerability in the ATS, such as first-two-weeks NFL underdogs for 10 years, then literally everyone becomes aware of it. There is literally nothing kewlJ can come up with that a bevy of programmers haven't already catalogued, including Playbook and including the bookmakers. So when you get a strong trend becoming obvious, such as the first-two-weeks-dogs, the power ratings remain the same but the lines get adjusted. How hard is that to grasp?

For a person with integrity, who isn't out to rip off the public, it is not hard to grasp. What were +7s previous seasons get shaved down to +6's and maybe even +5s by oddsmakers. The oddsmakers are not required to give you unadjusted lines. It's their fucking to job to NOT do that. Blithely betting with this historical trend, you have not only lost any presumed "edge," you are likely operating at a disadvantage. You are, according to power ratings, undoubtedly operating at a disadvantage.

And with the first-two-weeks-NFL-dogs trend, you are going to see this disadvantage, probably for at least a couple of years.

So what kewlJ is telling people to do results in people getting the worst of the numbers precisely BECAUSE underdogs have done well recently.

Now what makes this all silly is that handicappers have been dealing with basics like this for, literally, decades. The idea that the lines are crystalline from year-to-year and adhere to power ratings precisely is silly and provably wrong and has been provably wrong since Kewlj was in diapers.

So why does kewlJ try to foist this nonsense upon forum readers? I don't know, but his theories are actually worse than anything MDawg has written because this particular angle is built to lose.

MDawg -- LOL -- I have an idea. If you want to get on kewlJ's nerves, just take him up on his underdog angle and bet him next season. Bet against him every game for two weeks, for whatever he wants. Make it an adventure. I'm sure Todd would hold the money. Might even make a fine documentary, with the inimitable kewlJ off camera, like an ethereal voice.

And according to Covers.com bookkeeping, NFL underdogs went 14-18 ATS, not 13-15. So the Kewlj is tweaking reality a bit in his reporting. Never a good thing. No wonder he's always +EV.

https://www.covers.com/sport/footbal...s/seasontodate

---

Hey now,.why don't YOU book the action next season? I'll do at least 2,500 per game that fits the criteria, I automatically default to the best line at any major casino up to 8 hour's before game time. We can agree to both get dan 40k in escrow (more than enough). Say yes,.and we can hammer out the details with Dan and even get a 2nd party for backup regarding escrow funds.

---

What does it tell you that Axelwolf is willing to take Dietz's action against this play? It tells you Axelwolf, a long time successful advantage player understands that this play is +EV. He played the play last year. I haven't heard him say whether he played it this year.

It still comes back to one thing. Advantage players find and play things at an advantage. And that includes some things involving sports. And Redietz, the phone sports betting expert (tout in reality) doesn't like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Isn't there a general consensus that tends to drive the money? A shared set of views outside those of the fans of either team (or pro bettors)? And would this sentiment which translates into wagered money have value in being labeled for discussions? Ie "the public"

Also if a trend wins for many years then redietz claims it will be corrected in the lines but what if the same mistakes are made by "the public" every year and the weakness in the lines helps the books in general? It does not follow that the trend would be corrected. It simply does not make sense to the books. Given how sharps are always being limtied/cut-off, it helps ensure that the vast majority of action is with the public. If the trends being discussed consistently help the books and hurt "the public" then why would they change it???

Let's be clear - since there seems to be more confusion. It isn't the games that have trends it is that the lines have trends. At least that seems to make more sense to me.

---

Redietz you forgot to respond to my post and your thoughts. I editted my post slightly so it makes more sense.

He didn't respond because what he said that books would adjust the lines doesn't make sense. If the general public (ie ploppies or degen sports bettors) are over betting favorites and home teams, which they absolutely do, and there is a 16 year or 30 year trend that dogs +points cover, then why would the books adjust lines. The sports books are winning with this trend. ;)

One other thing that I have touched on but want to again. This "first 2 weeks" play is only a subsection of a much larger play. Half smoke has also discussed this. Based on Wizards numbers of I believe 30 year, betting ALL away dogs for the entire season results in a slight advantage of 1 to 1.5%. And that is no small sample size. 30 years, 16 weeks, 16 games a week (probably 12 of them away teams are dogs getting points).

I will be playing this for the remainder of the NFL season. It is not something you will get rich off of, but add that to the bonus whoring, and a 1.5% profit on top of the bonus and it is a nice supplemental sports betting play. :)

And Red just hates that....an advantage player making money off a +EV sports play. Red hating it makes it even better. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AxelWolf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

See, this is the core problem with kewlJ from an integrity standpoint. And from a consistency standpoint.

It turns out that he has absolutely no moral high ground from which to criticize MDawg for voodoo betting. How kewlJ describes sports betting, what he applies, and what he claims mathematically, are all as or more nonsensical than the worst stuff MDawg has ever written. Anybody with an ounce of math training, be it Shackleford or Dancer or Munchkin or Curtis, will flail kewlJ for his sudden new addiction to simple trendsvestitism. What kewlJ is trying to apply has been around for, oh, 40 years, and people have figured out what works, why some thing do not work, and why nothing lasts forever. And why it has almost nothing to do with probability theory or "EV."

It's pretty simple, at the heart of it. These are not coin flips. LOL.

You are dealing with an open system, not a closed system such as blackjack play. In other words, it is literally impossible to forecast even a rough "EV" when past results DO affect future results.

I'll explain it briefly, then explain why kewlJ is running a kind of intellectual scam much worse than anything MDawg has done. KewlJ should be up in arms about himself, debunking the obvious nonsense that he is putting out in public. He is misleading the public in the service of his own alleged expertise. In other words, he is misleading people for his own aggrandizement.

If you have a vulnerability in the ATS, such as first-two-weeks NFL underdogs for 10 years, then literally everyone becomes aware of it. There is literally nothing kewlJ can come up with that a bevy of programmers haven't already catalogued, including Playbook and including the bookmakers. So when you get a strong trend becoming obvious, such as the first-two-weeks-dogs, the power ratings remain the same but the lines get adjusted. How hard is that to grasp?

For a person with integrity, who isn't out to rip off the public, it is not hard to grasp. What were +7s previous seasons get shaved down to +6's and maybe even +5s by oddsmakers. The oddsmakers are not required to give you unadjusted lines. It's their fucking to job to NOT do that. Blithely betting with this historical trend, you have not only lost any presumed "edge," you are likely operating at a disadvantage. You are, according to power ratings, undoubtedly operating at a disadvantage.

And with the first-two-weeks-NFL-dogs trend, you are going to see this disadvantage, probably for at least a couple of years.

So what kewlJ is telling people to do results in people getting the worst of the numbers precisely BECAUSE underdogs have done well recently.

Now what makes this all silly is that handicappers have been dealing with basics like this for, literally, decades. The idea that the lines are crystalline from year-to-year and adhere to power ratings precisely is silly and provably wrong and has been provably wrong since Kewlj was in diapers.

So why does kewlJ try to foist this nonsense upon forum readers? I don't know, but his theories are actually worse than anything MDawg has written because this particular angle is built to lose.

MDawg -- LOL -- I have an idea. If you want to get on kewlJ's nerves, just take him up on his underdog angle and bet him next season. Bet against him every game for two weeks, for whatever he wants. Make it an adventure. I'm sure Todd would hold the money. Might even make a fine documentary, with the inimitable kewlJ off camera, like an ethereal voice.

And according to Covers.com bookkeeping, NFL underdogs went 14-18 ATS, not 13-15. So the Kewlj is tweaking reality a bit in his reporting. Never a good thing. No wonder he's always +EV.

https://www.covers.com/sport/footbal...s/seasontodate

---

Hey now,.why don't YOU book the action next season? I'll do at least 2,500 per game that fits the criteria, I automatically default to the best line at any major casino up to 8 hour's before game time. We can agree to both get dan 40k in escrow (more than enough). Say yes,.and we can hammer out the details with Dan and even get a 2nd party for backup regarding escrow funds.

---

What does it tell you that Axelwolf is willing to take Dietz's action against this play? It tells you Axelwolf, a long time successful advantage player understands that this play is +EV. He played the play last year. I haven't heard him say whether he played it this year.

It still comes back to one thing. Advantage players find and play things at an advantage. And that includes some things involving sports. And Redietz, the phone sports betting expert (tout in reality) doesn't like it.

---

The chances of either of them putting up any real money are about the same as Mdawg not growing Rapunzel like hair out of his nose, ears, and back

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

He didn't respond because what he said that books would adjust the lines doesn't make sense. If the general public (ie ploppies or degen sports bettors) are over betting favorites and home teams, which they absolutely do, and there is a 16 year or 30 year trend that dogs +points cover, then why would the books adjust lines. The sports books are winning with this trend. ;)

One other thing that I have touched on but want to again. This "first 2 weeks" play is only a subsection of a much larger play. Half smoke has also discussed this. Based on Wizards numbers of I believe 30 year, betting ALL away dogs for the entire season results in a slight advantage of 1 to 1.5%. And that is no small sample size. 30 years, 16 weeks, 16 games a week (probably 12 of them away teams are dogs getting points).

I will be playing this for the remainder of the NFL season. It is not something you will get rich off of, but add that to the bonus whoring, and a 1.5% profit on top of the bonus and it is a nice supplemental sports betting play. :)

And Red just hates that....an advantage player making money off a +EV sports play. Red hating it makes it even better. :cool:

---

KJ:

here is Mike's tracking of over 2,000 games showing all away underdogs with a positive r.o.i. of 2.57%

a cautionary note - this material is dated - I'm not sure it's still that strong - but I would speculate that it will at least break even ats and be good for bonuses and such


https://wizardofodds.com/games/sports-betting/nfl/


.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

KJ:

here is Mike's tracking of over 2,000 games showing all away underdogs with an r.o.i. of 2.57%

a cautionary note - this material is dated - I'm not sure it's still that strong - but I would speculate that it will at least break even ats and be good for bonuses and such


https://wizardofodds.com/games/sports-betting/nfl/


.

---

Thank you half smoke.

Break even is fine with me, since as you know my real advantage comes from the bonus money. I mean I would like to do a little better than break even, but break even and I make good money.

If away dogs +points shows a profit, that is advantage on top of advantage. What do you think of THAT Dietz? :D