Coach Belly thinks I am confused. ;):D:D:D:DQuote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Printable View
Coach Belly thinks I am confused. ;):D:D:D:DQuote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
This is actually pretty funny. And VERY revealing.
Coach belly, long time troll on this and other forums, challenges people, calling them liars when he has no fucking clue what they are even doing. I always suspected that. :rolleyes:
Likewise RoB Singer has always doubted my blackjack play, when I KNOW he has no clue about card counting.
And Mdawg, He has never demonstrated any knowledge of advantage play....never been able to say how he might get an advantage, but still trolls many real advantage players, like Belly apparently not understanding what he is challenging.
Dietz at least knows a little bit.
What fucktards!!!! Just bitter degenerate losing players as I have always said!
No I didn't...I multiplied 6 books x 4 cycles a year per book...just like your post said.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
6 books x 4 cycles a year per book = 24 total cycles per yearQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
$60K bonus per year / 24 cycles per year = $2500 bonus per cycle each book
4 cycles per year each book @ $2500 bonus per cycle each book = $10K bonus per year each book
6 books @ $2500 bonus per cycle = $15K total bonus per cycle for all books
4 cycles @ $15K total bonus per cycle = $60K total bonus per year
I can't speak for blackjack. I assume you are expert. But I also know you know almost nothing about sports betting, yet feel obligated to post incessantly about something you know nothing about. Your math background is also, at the least, very suspect. You clearly took no probability courses at Villanova.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
So it's possible if I knew something about blackjack, I would also find your claims suspect. This is one of those situations, which one encounters sporadically at academic conferences, where you are impressed with a particular speaker until that speaker begins to expound regarding your specialty, and then you realize maybe he doesn't really know anything about anything, and you were going on faith when it came to this speaker talking about things you know nothing about.
I am done with you belly. I have been far more tolerant of you than I ever should have. You have just proven you know nothing about what you are talking about. You call people a liar while having zero clue what they are even doing.
But feel free to mumble among you fellow clueless troll friends.
You didn't answer the question...but I'll try a different way.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
You have $50 in your deposited money (regular) account, and $100 in your free play account.
You bet $100 from your free play account and win, and the winnings go into the regular account.
How much money do you have in your regular account?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Dietz, I am going to answer you. PLEASE don't make me regret it, like I regret wasting the last 90 minutes on Belly.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I don't believe you when you say you can't speak to blackjack. You don't have to be a professional blackjack player to have at least a basic understanding of blackjack card counting. When I first came to this forum, you seemed to have at least a basic understanding of card counting, and repeatedly opined that I knew what I was talking about. Now all of the sudden, you can't speak to blackjack because you don't like what I have said about sports betting and your "tout" career.
The title of this thread is "Professional Sports betting". Well guess what? I am not a professional sports bettor. I am not trying to be a professional sports bettor. I am doing one very specific advantage play with sports betting. The old bonus whoring play (for however long it lasts).
Bob Dietz, the most telling thing about you is how you flipped on numerous members, all APs once you learned they were doing anything involving sports betting. Like you have some bug up your ass of "how dare we". Sports betting is your private "touting" territory. It is NOT!! There are players doing things more complicated than me. Anything to gain an advantage. THAT, Bob Dietz is what advantage players are and do. Get the fuck over it.
You know damn well everything I say about card counting is true and real. And I am sure some techniques you haven't heard of. But now all of the sudden you can't speak to card counting, which mathematically couldn't be simpler.
Oh really?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
If you bet a regular $100 chip from your stack on a hand of blackjack, plus a $100 matchplay chip...and win, how much does the dealer pay you?
If you are afraid to answer, I will answer for you...he pays you $200...$100 for your chip, and $100 for the match play chip.
So explain why you think that the match pay chip is only worth $50, when the dealer just paid you $100 for winning with it.
I am sorry. You are correct. I was thinking of the free play chip for my example. You bet your one play free bet chip and win, you get the winnings and they take the chip. THAT is exactly how the free play works at all but 1 of my sportsbooks. Making it worth half the face value just like the free bet chip in blackjack.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyOh really?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
If you bet a regular $100 chip from your stack on a hand of blackjack, plus a $100 matchplay chip...and win, how much does the dealer pay you?
The reason they do it this way in both cases is because they can make it look like they are giving you more than they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJDietz, I am going to answer you. PLEASE don't make me regret it, like I regret wasting the last 90 minutes on Belly.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I don't believe you when you say you can't speak to blackjack. You don't have to be a professional blackjack player to have at least a basic understanding of blackjack card counting. When I first came to this forum, you seemed to have at least a basic understanding of card counting, and repeatedly opined that I knew what I was talking about. Now all of the sudden, you can't speak to blackjack because you don't like what I have said about sports betting and your "tout" career.
The title of this thread is "Professional Sports betting". Well guess what? I am not a professional sports bettor. I am not trying to be a professional sports bettor. I am doing one very specific advantage play with sports betting. The old bonus whoring play (for however long it lasts).
Bob Dietz, the most telling thing about you is how you flipped on numerous members, all APs once you learned they were doing anything involving sports betting. Like you have some bug up your ass of "how dare we". Sports betting is your private "touting" territory. It is NOT!! There are players doing things more complicated than me. Anything to gain an advantage. THAT, Bob Dietz is what advantage players are and do. Get the fuck over it.
You know damn well everything I say about card counting is true and real. And I am sure some techniques you haven't heard of. But now all of the sudden you can't speak to card counting, which mathematically couldn't be simpler.
The ridiculousness grows. There is nothing kewlJ and the "APs" do vis-a-vis sports that sports bettors haven't been doing for decades. But now kewlJ has decided, probably because his blackjack narrative is becoming increasingly unlikely and unbelievable, that he will honor us with his brilliant insights regarding sports betting from the Leonardo Da AP perspective.
And he doesn't even know what he's doing. His adoption of an "AP" angle known to, I'm being conservative here, 50,000 sports bettors in this country, and his touting of same, are evidence of his inexperience and naivete. He thinks he's discovered the golden goose, and literally everybody has seen the goose for years.
The clincher is that he thinks he's protecting inexperienced readers from the stories of MDawg. Who protects inexperienced readers from the brain dead insights of kewlJ? Anyone betting his first-two-weeks-dogs angle was getting hosed somewhere between a point to two points a game, but the kewlJ thinks it's all like flipping a coin all the time. When he posts anything regarding sports betting, he's literally a danger to himself and anyone reading it.
That makes him exactly what he claims he's warning everyone about.
He hasn't explained what initial deposit is required to make $60K in bonus available.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
He claims to have been winning enough to beat the vig for 2 years by betting trends, and preserve his "principal".
Under those circumstances, not sure why his bonus cash balance wouldn't remain stable as well, no matter what the rollover terms are.
I do know that he does not understand basic arithmetic...so there's that.
You keep cycling back to this comment, Deitz.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Where did I EVER say I was doing something new or that I invented or try to take credit for. I don't care if something id 500 years old, if it is something I can gain an advantage doing.... I do it.
I mean card counting certainly isn't new. been around since Thorp's book in the early 60's and really even longer as the 4 dudes in the Army published a paper with a crude version of card counting 10 years before Thorp. Probably others that were doing some version of card counting and kept it to themselves.
I am NOT trying to take credit for anything. I just find something that I can do at an advantage. So stop with that shit Dietz.
And even then…often gets it wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPen
When you don’t really play and are just reciting theory you read about, it’s easy to get mixed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyOh really?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Nickel and dime unrated players never get any promo or free bet chips anyway, have only read about them. Of course the UNKewl story often shifts. One day she’s never played rated, next she’s getting comped rooms.
UNKewlJ should stick to what she knows…male prostitution, extortion and retaining her status asQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I wouldn't treat Redietz seriously. Look, he's probably break-evenish. Given that he probably gets 5-20k from a few people every year but they don't care because it is all entertainment for them while Redietz takes it seriously. If you expect Redietz to be break even the real question is whether he is trustworthy and I'd feel comfortable giving him very low 5 figures if I knew him. It could be fun. This doesn't mean he's particularly successful. If so - he wouldn't be taking on investor money at his age. I'm really not sure what his deal is but Kim Lee probably pegged it pretty close. I've known a few professional sports bettors and none of them are even similar to Redietz.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJYou keep cycling back to this comment, Deitz.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Where did I EVER say I was doing something new or that I invented or try to take credit for. I don't care if something id 500 years old, if it is something I can gain an advantage doing.... I do it.
I mean card counting certainly isn't new. been around since Thorp's book in the early 60's and really even longer as the 4 dudes in the Army published a paper with a crude version of card counting 10 years before Thorp. Probably others that were doing some version of card counting and kept it to themselves.
I am NOT trying to take credit for anything. I just find something that I can do at an advantage. So stop with that shit Dietz.
When I pointed out in simple and straight-forward terms how he is wrong - he has now ignored the question more times than I can count on my fingers. I should give up but his arrogance is top-notch and goads me on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJYou keep cycling back to this comment, Deitz.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Where did I EVER say I was doing something new or that I invented or try to take credit for. I don't care if something id 500 years old, if it is something I can gain an advantage doing.... I do it.
I mean card counting certainly isn't new. been around since Thorp's book in the early 60's and really even longer as the 4 dudes in the Army published a paper with a crude version of card counting 10 years before Thorp. Probably others that were doing some version of card counting and kept it to themselves.
I am NOT trying to take credit for anything. I just find something that I can do at an advantage. So stop with that shit Dietz.
Here is what you are doing, in blackjack lingo. You are telling people you have won for 10 years at a particular shop doing particular things. You are recommending others do the same.
Meanwhile, the shop has changed their rules, but you don't know the rules. You have no sense of them. You don't grasp that the previously 3-2 blackjack payouts are now even money. But you keep recommending the shop. And you are baffled when, this visit, you lose. You vow to come back next year and try it again. All the while, you have no idea that you are dealing with odds that have been cut. But you publicly tout (see what I did there?) the shop and you publicly recommend it.
That is how naive you are.
You have basically become a menace to any gambler who thinks you know what you are doing. In a sense, you are worse than a "tout." You have become what we like to call a "reverse tout." That's when the value lies in doing the opposite of what you recommend, a kind of George Costanza label. The difference is George eventually figured it out.
REDietz does what he claims to do. He is in fact a sports handicapper.
Whereas “FraudJ” as MaxPen named her, does not. She’s just a male prostitute “pretending to be some hero AP,” as you put it, AccountinQuestion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionI wouldn't treat Redietz seriously. Look, he's probably break-evenish. Given that he probably gets 5-20k from a few people every year but they don't care because it is all entertainment for them while Redietz takes it seriously. If you expect Redietz to be break even the real question is whether he is trustworthy and I'd feel comfortable giving him very low 5 figures if I knew him. It could be fun. This doesn't mean he's particularly successful. If so - he wouldn't be taking on investor money at his age. I'm really not sure what his deal is but Kim Lee probably pegged it pretty close. I've known a few professional sports bettors and none of them are even similar to Redietz.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJYou keep cycling back to this comment, Deitz.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Where did I EVER say I was doing something new or that I invented or try to take credit for. I don't care if something id 500 years old, if it is something I can gain an advantage doing.... I do it.
I mean card counting certainly isn't new. been around since Thorp's book in the early 60's and really even longer as the 4 dudes in the Army published a paper with a crude version of card counting 10 years before Thorp. Probably others that were doing some version of card counting and kept it to themselves.
I am NOT trying to take credit for anything. I just find something that I can do at an advantage. So stop with that shit Dietz.
When I pointed out in simple and straight-forward terms how he is wrong - he has now ignored the question more times than I can count on my fingers. I should give up but his arrogance is top-notch and goads me on.
Well, if your assessment is correct, I guess Billy Walters hired me for my looks. Or are you arguing that Mr. Walters lacks the ability to track down handicappers' historical records, interview people who know them, evaluate the handicappers via conversations, vet them, and figure out if they know what they are doing? Is that your argument, that he lacks the sophistication and wherewithal that you, account, would certainly bring to the table?
LOL.
You are, as ever, a maroon.
Sir, THIS is a blatant lie. NEVER EVER on any forum, in my probably 100k posts have I ever recommended or suggested that anyone do the same or follow in my footsteps regarding either blackjack, or any other advantage play that I was participating in. NEVER!Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
FYI, I have known people who wanted certain people for their sports picks just so they could take the opposite of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionI wouldn't treat Redietz seriously. Look, he's probably break-evenish. Given that he probably gets 5-20k from a few people every year but they don't care because it is all entertainment for them while Redietz takes it seriously. If you expect Redietz to be break even the real question is whether he is trustworthy and I'd feel comfortable giving him very low 5 figures if I knew him. It could be fun. This doesn't mean he's particularly successful. If so - he wouldn't be taking on investor money at his age. I'm really not sure what his deal is but Kim Lee probably pegged it pretty close. I've known a few professional sports bettors and none of them are even similar to Redietz.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
When I pointed out in simple and straight-forward terms how he is wrong - he has now ignored the question more times than I can count on my fingers. I should give up but his arrogance is top-notch and goads me on.
Well, if your assessment is correct, I guess Billy Walters hired me for my looks. Or are you arguing that Mr. Walters lacks the ability to track down handicappers' historical records, interview people who know them, evaluate the handicappers via conversations, vet them, and figure out if they know what they are doing? Is that your argument, that he lacks the sophistication and wherewithal that you, account, would certainly bring to the table?
LOL.
You are, as ever, a maroon.
How do we know why or what Billy Walters actually hired you for? Is there any record or details on this? I have no clue, I'm not disputing your claims, I'm just asking.
If someone had access to Billy Walters and was able to ask, would eve Billy Walters even know or acknowledge Who You Are?
The cool thing about the Wolf is that while he frequently gives credit where credit might be due, he's also not shy about stepping back to make his position clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
A mid 7 figure mansion.
Playing blackjack with Montreal Canadians when they were quarantined in Canada.
$100- $5000 bet spread playing double deck blackjack for 10 hours at the sweatiest casino on strip.
7 months worth of daily reports totaling a million dollars (retracted in one sentence)
This past January daily reports of winning 1.3 million dollars when you actually lost.
All the fucking other claims of winning when you high end comps practically prove you are a long-time losing player.
Dawg your lying is about you very claim of being a winning player. Any lies I have told are about minor details not associated with my actual claim of who I am. And I told these lies because yes, I sometimes reveal too much and there are sleazy little haters like you looking to out, dox and harm me.
Your ENTIRE claim of who you are and any winning you have done is a lie!
When I talk about blackjack and card counting and what I do, anyone that knows anything about card counting KNOWS or should know that I am telling the truth. When you talk about your gambling we get "betting into streaks" and that you are rainman. :rolleyes:
I know you wanted and tried to have some glamourous tale of a winning high roller. But EVERYTHING you say and claim fails the math and way casinos work test. You REALLY should have picked a different kind of forum where there weren't real players that play for a living and know how things work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfFYI, I have known people who wanted certain people for their sports picks just so they could take the opposite of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Well, if your assessment is correct, I guess Billy Walters hired me for my looks. Or are you arguing that Mr. Walters lacks the ability to track down handicappers' historical records, interview people who know them, evaluate the handicappers via conversations, vet them, and figure out if they know what they are doing? Is that your argument, that he lacks the sophistication and wherewithal that you, account, would certainly bring to the table?
LOL.
You are, as ever, a maroon.
How do we know why or what Billy Walters actually hired you for? Is there any record or details on this? I have no clue, I'm not disputing your claims, I'm just asking.
If someone had access to Billy Walters and was able to ask, would eve Billy Walters even know or acknowledge Who You Are?
You should probably ask him. Dial him up.
Now here's what I love. You have an anonymous "AP," the illustrious Axelwolf. You have me, who has not said one incorrect or even exaggerated thing on this forum in more than 10 years -- much less one wrong thing regarding my personal history -- and I'm posting under my own name and address.
And Axelwolf's theory is that I'm bullshitting while posting under my real name, thereby opening myself up to being factually disproven by anyone reading this who has interacted with me in my life.
Axelwolf, here's what I recommend. You're supposed to be tight with Mr. Flowers. Ask him if he knows what the deal is supposed to be with me. Or ask Munchkin, who has sources beyond what he advertises. He and my superior half have some, shall we say, institutions in common. Or dial up Playbook and ask Marc Lawrence.
But you won't. Because you'd rather do some anonymous speculating about whether I'm a public liar, even though there is not a soul who will report that I have lied or exaggerated on this forum or any forum.
This is just laziness on Axelwolf's part. He is one of those guys who claims to "have googled something" as if that demonstrates some actual research. And then you ask him if he read the google results for two minutes, 10 minutes, a day, or a week, and he has no answer. Personally, I think he was insulted when I declined his offers to go to the Super Bowl parties, but that's just my speculative opinion.
I love Axelwolf's communication style, by the way. He thinks it's okay to do the "Oh wait, Axelwolf, did you beat your wife multiple times when you were drunk? I googled it and there's nothing about you not being a wife beater."
It's obvious kew doesn't realize the number of times he contradicts his own claims & statements. It's also obvious how he immediately turns to denials about himself at those points, then spews more lies about those who've exposed him--in some sort of girly-man retaliation, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
And even then…often gets it wrong.
When you don’t really play and are just reciting theory you read about, it’s easy to get mixed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyOh really?Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Nickel and dime unrated players never get any promo or free bet chips anyway, have only read about them. Of course the UNKewl story often shifts. One day she’s never played rated, next she’s getting comped rooms.
UNKewlJ should stick to what she knows…male prostitution, extortion and retaining her status asQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
The kind of doofus only a mother could love....except that she threw him out of the house long ago.
Too funny. You have no way to respond so you fall back to having briefly worked for a man decades ago. What I typed tracks pretty fucking close and you have yet again ignored my attempts at a real conversation via questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionI wouldn't treat Redietz seriously. Look, he's probably break-evenish. Given that he probably gets 5-20k from a few people every year but they don't care because it is all entertainment for them while Redietz takes it seriously. If you expect Redietz to be break even the real question is whether he is trustworthy and I'd feel comfortable giving him very low 5 figures if I knew him. It could be fun. This doesn't mean he's particularly successful. If so - he wouldn't be taking on investor money at his age. I'm really not sure what his deal is but Kim Lee probably pegged it pretty close. I've known a few professional sports bettors and none of them are even similar to Redietz.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
When I pointed out in simple and straight-forward terms how he is wrong - he has now ignored the question more times than I can count on my fingers. I should give up but his arrogance is top-notch and goads me on.
Well, if your assessment is correct, I guess Billy Walters hired me for my looks. Or are you arguing that Mr. Walters lacks the ability to track down handicappers' historical records, interview people who know them, evaluate the handicappers via conversations, vet them, and figure out if they know what they are doing? Is that your argument, that he lacks the sophistication and wherewithal that you, account, would certainly bring to the table?
LOL.
You are, as ever, a maroon.
When you can't answer you go to crickets or Billy waters or Marc lawnremce's (a computer programmer btw) out of print booklet.
All facts
Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Evidently truth, like politics, makes strange bedfellows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionToo funny. You have no way to respond so you fall back to having briefly worked for a man decades ago. What I typed tracks pretty fucking close and you have yet again ignored my attempts at a real conversation via questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Well, if your assessment is correct, I guess Billy Walters hired me for my looks. Or are you arguing that Mr. Walters lacks the ability to track down handicappers' historical records, interview people who know them, evaluate the handicappers via conversations, vet them, and figure out if they know what they are doing? Is that your argument, that he lacks the sophistication and wherewithal that you, account, would certainly bring to the table?
LOL.
You are, as ever, a maroon.
When you can't answer you go to crickets or Billy waters or Marc lawnremce's (a computer programmer btw) out of print booklet.
All facts
So let me get this correct. If Billy Walters hired me, because it was decades ago, whatever reasons he hired me for are not currently applicable. Okay, that would make me past tense. That's a reasonable argument.
Let me also get this correct. If I had the best or second best ATS record in The Wise Guys for a span of 20+ years, competing against a bevy of well-known handicappers and, in the case of Southern Comfort, pure gamblers, and I retired from that three years ago, then the intervening three years makes me dated. Okay, fair enough.
But I thought this was all about having sufficient data to go on? You know, years and years of plays and all that before anyone can evaluate someone's ability to make money betting sports.
Evidently, accountinquestion thinks not.
But that's okay. I won Week One this season, and Week Two, and Week Three, and Week Four. But I did lose Week Five.
I guess Week Five is what counts, according to account's professional evaluation.
Really, I'm a loser. I lost last week, and that's the evidence for it. I should retire (wait, I am retired). Well, I should double-retire then.
Thanks, account. I needed your clear thinking and AP insights to enable me to see the light. I appreciate it.
Meanwhile, how 'bout them Red Raiders? LOL. Not sure how long they'll last. They lost their QB last week.
I said nothing about any week. I don't care. I don't follow you closely. You and your riddle nonsense. Kim Lee seems far more sensible than you and his commentary tracked. I don't care about those publications. All the sports bettors I've known didn't either. Sure there are some big contests that people play kinda like WSOP and that definitely gives them bragging rights but outside of that? Who cares. Money speaks. All professional gamblers know this. The fact is you've been in this for decades and still asking for investment money. Something here is missing.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionToo funny. You have no way to respond so you fall back to having briefly worked for a man decades ago. What I typed tracks pretty fucking close and you have yet again ignored my attempts at a real conversation via questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
When you can't answer you go to crickets or Billy waters or Marc lawnremce's (a computer programmer btw) out of print booklet.
All facts
So let me get this correct. If Billy Walters hired me, because it was decades ago, whatever reasons he hired me for are not currently applicable. Okay, that would make me past tense. That's a reasonable argument.
Let me also get this correct. If I had the best or second best ATS record in The Wise Guys for a span of 20+ years, competing against a bevy of well-known handicappers and, in the case of Southern Comfort, pure gamblers, and I retired from that three years ago, then the intervening three years makes me dated. Okay, fair enough.
But I thought this was all about having sufficient data to go on? You know, years and years of plays and all that before anyone can evaluate someone's ability to make money betting sports.
Evidently, accountinquestion thinks not.
But that's okay. I won Week One this season, and Week Two, and Week Three, and Week Four. But I did lose Week Five.
I guess Week Five is what counts, according to account's professional evaluation.
Really, I'm a loser. I lost last week, and that's the evidence for it. I should retire (wait, I am retired). Well, I should double-retire then.
Thanks, account. I needed your clear thinking and AP insights to enable me to see the light. I appreciate it.
Meanwhile, how 'bout them Red Raiders? LOL. Not sure how long they'll last. They lost their QB last week.
Again - since you managed to duck the below 6 times and counting - let me ask them again.
Why do we always hear about how Billy Waters hired you and never why he fired you?Quote:
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.
I've actually told the Walters story while being interviewed by my filmmaker friend. We are saving it for a podcast because it's a good story with many gambling lessons and implications. Munchkin, surprisingly, while interviewing Walters for his Gambling Wizards book, came away with many of the same observation vis-a-vis Walters as I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionI said nothing about any week. I don't care. I don't follow you closely. You and your riddle nonsense. Kim Lee seems far more sensible than you and his commentary tracked. I don't care about those publications. All the sports bettors I've known didn't either. Sure there are some big contests that people play kinda like WSOP and that definitely gives them bragging rights but outside of that? Who cares. Money speaks. All professional gamblers know this. The fact is you've been in this for decades and still asking for investment money. Something here is missing.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
So let me get this correct. If Billy Walters hired me, because it was decades ago, whatever reasons he hired me for are not currently applicable. Okay, that would make me past tense. That's a reasonable argument.
Let me also get this correct. If I had the best or second best ATS record in The Wise Guys for a span of 20+ years, competing against a bevy of well-known handicappers and, in the case of Southern Comfort, pure gamblers, and I retired from that three years ago, then the intervening three years makes me dated. Okay, fair enough.
But I thought this was all about having sufficient data to go on? You know, years and years of plays and all that before anyone can evaluate someone's ability to make money betting sports.
Evidently, accountinquestion thinks not.
But that's okay. I won Week One this season, and Week Two, and Week Three, and Week Four. But I did lose Week Five.
I guess Week Five is what counts, according to account's professional evaluation.
Really, I'm a loser. I lost last week, and that's the evidence for it. I should retire (wait, I am retired). Well, I should double-retire then.
Thanks, account. I needed your clear thinking and AP insights to enable me to see the light. I appreciate it.
Meanwhile, how 'bout them Red Raiders? LOL. Not sure how long they'll last. They lost their QB last week.
Again - since you managed to duck the below 6 times and counting - let me ask them again.
Why do we always hear about how Billy Waters hired you and never why he fired you?Quote:
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.
If you don't understand the basic nature of bookmaking, buy a book. You got the process reversed or backwards in the post above. It's kind of scary that you think you know what you're talking about.
Sharps -- LOL -- do you wear a shirt that says "I'm a Sharp?" Do you carry Sharpies in your pocket protectors, you know, like an in-signal like hookers in LV wearing pink?
Read Munchkin's Gambling Wizards book, and you'll get a hint why, in general, people who win do not get cut off. Now we may get our bonuses slashed and promos cut, but very rarely will we actually be told to hit the dusty trail unless we are betting 50K a game or more. And sometimes we are told to hit the trail and then invited back.
People who win get cut off all the time. You just don't even know real pro sports bettors. I've sat around guys talking about having an action junky sports bettor as a friend and how that account has so much value. I've heard it so many times. You live in some weird-ass state of sports betting from 30 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzI've actually told the Walters story while being interviewed by my filmmaker friend. We are saving it for a podcast because it's a good story with many gambling lessons and implications. Munchkin, surprisingly, while interviewing Walters for his Gambling Wizards book, came away with many of the same observation vis-a-vis Walters as I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionI said nothing about any week. I don't care. I don't follow you closely. You and your riddle nonsense. Kim Lee seems far more sensible than you and his commentary tracked. I don't care about those publications. All the sports bettors I've known didn't either. Sure there are some big contests that people play kinda like WSOP and that definitely gives them bragging rights but outside of that? Who cares. Money speaks. All professional gamblers know this. The fact is you've been in this for decades and still asking for investment money. Something here is missing.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Again - since you managed to duck the below 6 times and counting - let me ask them again.
Why do we always hear about how Billy Waters hired you and never why he fired you?Quote:
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.
If you don't understand the basic nature of bookmaking, buy a book. You got the process reversed or backwards in the post above. It's kind of scary that you think you know what you're talking about.
Sharps -- LOL -- do you wear a shirt that says "I'm a Sharp?" Do you carry Sharpies in your pocket protectors, you know, like an in-signal like hookers in LV wearing pink?
Read Munchkin's Gambling Wizards book, and you'll get a hint why, in general, people who win do not get cut off. Now we may get our bonuses slashed and promos cut, but very rarely will we actually be told to hit the dusty trail unless we are betting 50K a game or more. And sometimes we are told to hit the trail and then invited back.
I'd like to say if you're not being cut-off then you're not doing it right however that is clearly not true. I think a proper statement would be "if you've never been cut off nor are your associates being cut off then you're probably not sharp". ;)
Still avoided the questions with fake bravado. Always "read this book. go do your research".
Sucha clown.
Why would sports books allow people to just beard it up and only pick their weak lines? Of course they're not going to allow that. 50k. hahahaha I like it how you're trying to sound like a big shot when everyone knows you're broke in some buster house in bumfuck TN. Sure but nice trees and a small town. ;)
It baffles me that you're so lacking in common sense. If books don't kick off winning sports bettors then they'll just keep doing it in parallel. I mean, I suppose the books can look for anyone trying to hide their location and kick them off for that .. but most likely they're looking at results and the prices people get.
It is far easier for a book to tell you're sharp by the bets you take than your w/l record. Anyway, I always found that interesting because it isn't readily apparent to most of us. You probably don't even know that......
I asked you a while ago if and what I could ask Anthony Curtis about you etc. I got Crickets.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfFYI, I have known people who wanted certain people for their sports picks just so they could take the opposite of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
How do we know why or what Billy Walters actually hired you for? Is there any record or details on this? I have no clue, I'm not disputing your claims, I'm just asking.
If someone had access to Billy Walters and was able to ask, would eve Billy Walters even know or acknowledge Who You Are?
You should probably ask him. Dial him up.
Now here's what I love. You have an anonymous "AP," the illustrious Axelwolf. You have me, who has not said one incorrect or even exaggerated thing on this forum in more than 10 years -- much less one wrong thing regarding my personal history -- and I'm posting under my own name and address.
And Axelwolf's theory is that I'm bullshitting while posting under my real name, thereby opening myself up to being factually disproven by anyone reading this who has interacted with me in my life.
Axelwolf, here's what I recommend. You're supposed to be tight with Mr. Flowers. Ask him if he knows what the deal is supposed to be with me. Or ask Munchkin, who has sources beyond what he advertises. He and my superior half have some, shall we say, institutions in common. Or dial up Playbook and ask Marc Lawrence.
But you won't. Because you'd rather do some anonymous speculating about whether I'm a public liar, even though there is not a soul who will report that I have lied or exaggerated on this forum or any forum.
This is just laziness on Axelwolf's part. He is one of those guys who claims to "have googled something" as if that demonstrates some actual research. And then you ask him if he read the google results for two minutes, 10 minutes, a day, or a week, and he has no answer. Personally, I think he was insulted when I declined his offers to go to the Super Bowl parties, but that's just my speculative opinion.
I love Axelwolf's communication style, by the way. He thinks it's okay to do the "Oh wait, Axelwolf, did you beat your wife multiple times when you were drunk? I googled it and there's nothing about you not being a wife beater."
You DO REALIZE that professional sports bettors ARE PART of the AP community, don’t you? Maybe you don’t.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
There are so many logical problems in what you just wrote that it boggles the mind. It would take me an hour to deconstruct that post above, and frankly I won't bother to do it here.
But all that aside, you realize all you are doing is aggrandizing personal opinions by slapping some "EV" labels on them and doing some pretend expertise dance? And expecting people "outside the 'community'" -- I'm running out of apostrophes for this stuff -- to buy what you're selling because you know grade school math and use some jargon. You don't even have records of results, and if you did, you'd explain the losing by importing some "aw shucks, it was variance killed the beast." That was a line from the end of King Kong, by the way.
It's amazing you're not all flat broke, but keep with the sports betting. You'll get there.
P.S. I have to add this. You do realize that the "sports betting community" dwarfs the "AP community" by a factor of what I'll generously say is 10 but could be a hundred. And literally everybody knew about the underdog-first-two-week-NFL-schtick. So you have a perverted and inverted view of your gnostic knowledge. You were in the ignorant minority compared to the "sports betting community" when it came to this particular angle. There were likely 50,000 people who were aware of this before kewlJ ever put finger to keyboard.
The arrogance of you dudes is friggin' amazing.
Why do you think I used an anti-angle for the Heritage contest and all other similar contests the first week? Because everyone was doing what you were doing. This is not rocket science, and you guys are not Einstein.
Sportsbettor: I made a million dollars working rollover.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJDamn right I have an angle. It is the 150% to 200% bonus that I get for every deposit. Then all I have to do is get through the rollover amounts without eating all the bonus money. And the sooner I do that (volume betting) the sooner I am through that cycle and onto the next cycle with a new bonus.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Multiply by 6 books at 3 or 4 cycles a year per book and here we are.
Truly amazing. Nothing like working grandma and the third cousin for those sports book bonuses.
Yep, that thar "volume betting" is the ticket to bonus perpetuity and living on the Las Vegas strip.
Redietz: You shouldn’t do that. You’ll get banned by the books.
Sportsbettor: That would make me cry all the way to the bank.
He obviously doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmYou DO REALIZE that professional sports bettors ARE PART of the AP community, don’t you? Maybe you don’t.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
There are so many logical problems in what you just wrote that it boggles the mind. It would take me an hour to deconstruct that post above, and frankly I won't bother to do it here.
But all that aside, you realize all you are doing is aggrandizing personal opinions by slapping some "EV" labels on them and doing some pretend expertise dance? And expecting people "outside the 'community'" -- I'm running out of apostrophes for this stuff -- to buy what you're selling because you know grade school math and use some jargon. You don't even have records of results, and if you did, you'd explain the losing by importing some "aw shucks, it was variance killed the beast." That was a line from the end of King Kong, by the way.
It's amazing you're not all flat broke, but keep with the sports betting. You'll get there.
P.S. I have to add this. You do realize that the "sports betting community" dwarfs the "AP community" by a factor of what I'll generously say is 10 but could be a hundred. And literally everybody knew about the underdog-first-two-week-NFL-schtick. So you have a perverted and inverted view of your gnostic knowledge. You were in the ignorant minority compared to the "sports betting community" when it came to this particular angle. There were likely 50,000 people who were aware of this before kewlJ ever put finger to keyboard.
The arrogance of you dudes is friggin' amazing.
Why do you think I used an anti-angle for the Heritage contest and all other similar contests the first week? Because everyone was doing what you were doing. This is not rocket science, and you guys are not Einstein.
Real sport bettors are Advantage Player's who AP sports and ANYTHING +EV.
I can Guarantee you most PRO Sports Bettor who are publicly known nowadays such as.Frank B, Randy, Munchin,.Curtis ALL engange in slot, VP, BJ,Table games etc +EV plays.
Anyone can claim to be a sports handicapper.Quote:
Originally Posted by MDawg
Walters fired you after one season.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionI wouldn't treat Redietz seriously. Look, he's probably break-evenish. Given that he probably gets 5-20k from a few people every year but they don't care because it is all entertainment for them while Redietz takes it seriously. If you expect Redietz to be break even the real question is whether he is trustworthy and I'd feel comfortable giving him very low 5 figures if I knew him. It could be fun. This doesn't mean he's particularly successful. If so - he wouldn't be taking on investor money at his age. I'm really not sure what his deal is but Kim Lee probably pegged it pretty close. I've known a few professional sports bettors and none of them are even similar to Redietz.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
When I pointed out in simple and straight-forward terms how he is wrong - he has now ignored the question more times than I can count on my fingers. I should give up but his arrogance is top-notch and goads me on.
Well, if your assessment is correct, I guess Billy Walters hired me for my looks. Or are you arguing that Mr. Walters lacks the ability to track down handicappers' historical records, interview people who know them, evaluate the handicappers via conversations, vet them, and figure out if they know what they are doing? Is that your argument, that he lacks the sophistication and wherewithal that you, account, would certainly bring to the table?
LOL.
You are, as ever, a maroon.
It comes back to one thing. Dietz is NOT a winning sports better. He may bet a little on sports. But so do about a billion other degen -Ev people every Saturday and Sunday. Redietz IS and made his money as a tout. That is somebody selling something. It so happens he is/was selling sports picks. But he might just as well have been selling used cars or time shares.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfHe obviously doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Real sport bettors are Advantage Player's who AP sports and ANYTHING +EV.
I can Guarantee you most PRO Sports Bettor who are publicly known nowadays such as.Frank B, Randy, Munchin,.Curtis ALL engange in slot, VP, BJ,Table games etc +EV plays.
Here is a modern day example. The gamblers on Youtube. Lets say you have someone that plays blackjack regularly on youtube. Blackjack lady or someone similar. Their blackjack play results in an overall loss. BUT they make more money than they lost by being on youtube (however that works). Are they a professional blackjack player? Of course not.
And Dietz wasn't a winning sports bettor. He was a tout selling pick.
Are you assuming that all or most sports bettors AP ANYTHING +EV...or just the real ones?Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
How about APs, do all or most APs bet sports?
I think redietz is distinguishing between most sports bettors, and APs who may or may not bet sports.
His point is that there are 10x (or maybe 100x) more sports bettors who do not AP ANYTHING +EV, than the community that includes the publicly known players that you listed.
Don't you agree that he is correct?
Do sportsbooks ban winning sports bettors?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
AI Overview
Yes, sportsbooks can and do ban or limit winning bettors, though it is usually based on how a person wins rather than simply having a winning record. Sportsbooks are for-profit businesses and use risk management to protect their bottom line, so they often restrict "sharp" players who consistently beat them, while welcoming "square" or recreational players who are more likely to lose over time.
Reasons for being banned or limited:
Consistently beating the closing line value (CLV): This is a key metric sportsbooks use to identify sharp bettors. If you place a bet at odds that are more favorable than the final odds, you are getting CLV. Consistently doing this signals to the book that you have an edge.
Betting on "soft" or obscure markets: Sportsbooks often have weaker lines and less information on less-popular events, such as certain player props or less-watched sports. Taking advantage of these markets consistently will attract attention and lead to restrictions.
Arbitrage betting: This is a strategy of placing bets on all possible outcomes of an event across different sportsbooks to guarantee a profit, regardless of the result. Sportsbooks explicitly prohibit this and will quickly ban players caught doing it.
Betting errors or "palpable errors": Occasionally, a sportsbook will post an egregiously incorrect line, known as a "palp". If you frequently and aggressively bet on these error lines, you will be flagged as an advantage player and restricted.
Unusual betting patterns: Wagering very specific amounts (e.g., $117) or placing bets right before a game starts can signal that a bettor is following a sophisticated model rather than betting casually.
Exploiting promotions: Sportsbooks offer promotions to attract new, typically less-experienced bettors. Consistently winning big by using promotional offers, or "bonus hunting," can lead to limits.
Consequences for winning players. When a sportsbook flags a winning player, it can impose restrictions in a few ways:
Lowered betting limits: This is the most common action. Your maximum wager on certain types of bets will be drastically reduced, making it difficult to turn a significant profit.
Reduced access to markets: The sportsbook may restrict you from betting on specific markets, particularly proposition bets, live betting, or other niche areas.
Outright account closure: In the most severe cases, the sportsbook may ban you entirely and close your account. They will still pay out any money owed to you.
Inter-book information sharing: Although not officially confirmed, many bettors believe sportsbooks share information about sharp players. A restriction at one book could make you more likely to be restricted at another.
WHAT SPORTS BOOKS BAN WINNING PLAYERS?
AI Overview
No sportsbook explicitly advertises that it bans winning bettors, as this is a negative business practice they try to conceal. However, many sportsbooks have been reported to ban or limit customers who consistently win, particularly those perceived as "sharp" or professional bettors. In contrast, some sportsbooks are more welcoming of professional action.
DraftKings: Known to limit winning bettors, sometimes extremely heavily, especially those who exhibit patterns of profitable betting.
FanDuel: While sometimes considered less harsh with limitations than DraftKings, it has still been reported to reduce limits on winning accounts.
BetMGM: Some professional bettors report that after a winning streak, their betting limits were drastically slashed.
William Hill (now Caesars): Historically known for banning winning bettors in Nevada and the U.K.
PrizePicks: Considered one of the worst sportsbooks for sharp or profitable players.
Yep which throws the whole brag into questionable value. What did Walters uhhh not see in redietz?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmWalters fired you after one season.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Well, if your assessment is correct, I guess Billy Walters hired me for my looks. Or are you arguing that Mr. Walters lacks the ability to track down handicappers' historical records, interview people who know them, evaluate the handicappers via conversations, vet them, and figure out if they know what they are doing? Is that your argument, that he lacks the sophistication and wherewithal that you, account, would certainly bring to the table?
LOL.
You are, as ever, a maroon.
AI is not inherently factual and should not be blindly trusted. AI models can generate misinformation and false content, a phenomenon often called "hallucinations". AI produces what it calculates to be the most probable response based on patterns in its training data, not based on a genuine understanding of truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Why AI is not inherently factual
Data dependency: The accuracy of AI is limited by the quality of the data it was trained on. If the data is biased, incomplete, or contains inaccuracies, the AI's output will reflect these flaws.
No true understanding: Unlike humans, AI lacks genuine comprehension, common sense, or reasoning. It does not "know" if its answer is correct. It merely follows programmed rules and identifies patterns to generate responses.
Fabricated information: AI can confidently invent facts, people, events, and citations that do not exist. A prominent example occurred in 2023 when two lawyers were sanctioned for filing a legal brief that cited six fabricated case summaries generated by ChatGPT.
Outdated information: AI models are trained on data collected up to a specific point in time. Because the world is constantly changing, an AI can provide information that is no longer current or accurate.
Hidden biases: AI can inadvertently absorb and amplify human biases present in its training data. This has led to unfair outcomes in areas like healthcare algorithms and hiring tools.
You're saving it for a podcast? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzI've actually told the Walters story while being interviewed by my filmmaker friend. We are saving it for a podcast because it's a good story with many gambling lessons and implications. Munchkin, surprisingly, while interviewing Walters for his Gambling Wizards book, came away with many of the same observation vis-a-vis Walters as I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionI said nothing about any week. I don't care. I don't follow you closely. You and your riddle nonsense. Kim Lee seems far more sensible than you and his commentary tracked. I don't care about those publications. All the sports bettors I've known didn't either. Sure there are some big contests that people play kinda like WSOP and that definitely gives them bragging rights but outside of that? Who cares. Money speaks. All professional gamblers know this. The fact is you've been in this for decades and still asking for investment money. Something here is missing.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Again - since you managed to duck the below 6 times and counting - let me ask them again.
Why do we always hear about how Billy Waters hired you and never why he fired you?Quote:
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.
If you don't understand the basic nature of bookmaking, buy a book. You got the process reversed or backwards in the post above. It's kind of scary that you think you know what you're talking about.
Sharps -- LOL -- do you wear a shirt that says "I'm a Sharp?" Do you carry Sharpies in your pocket protectors, you know, like an in-signal like hookers in LV wearing pink?
Read Munchkin's Gambling Wizards book, and you'll get a hint why, in general, people who win do not get cut off. Now we may get our bonuses slashed and promos cut, but very rarely will we actually be told to hit the dusty trail unless we are betting 50K a game or more. And sometimes we are told to hit the trail and then invited back.
I should have clarified, real PRO sports bettors.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyAre you assuming that all or most sports bettors AP ANYTHING +EV...or just the real ones?Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
How about APs, do all or most APs bet sports?
I think redietz is distinguishing between most sports bettors, and APs who may or may not bet sports.
His point is that there are 10x (or maybe 100x) more sports bettors who do not AP ANYTHING +EV, than the community that includes the publicly known players that you listed.
Don't you agree that he is correct?
I'm well aware of the pitfalls of AI. But in this case, at the start of this thread, I profiled several famous professional sports bettors who all have been limited by books to chickenfeed bets because of winning. You can go back and read all about them right here in this thread. Redietz is plain up full of shit about winning bettors not getting limited. If you do your homework you will find hundreds of stories about it online.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyAI is not inherently factual and should not be blindly trusted. AI models can generate misinformation and false content, a phenomenon often called "hallucinations". AI produces what it calculates to be the most probable response based on patterns in its training data, not based on a genuine understanding of truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Why AI is not inherently factual
Data dependency: The accuracy of AI is limited by the quality of the data it was trained on. If the data is biased, incomplete, or contains inaccuracies, the AI's output will reflect these flaws.
No true understanding: Unlike humans, AI lacks genuine comprehension, common sense, or reasoning. It does not "know" if its answer is correct. It merely follows programmed rules and identifies patterns to generate responses.
Fabricated information: AI can confidently invent facts, people, events, and citations that do not exist. A prominent example occurred in 2023 when two lawyers were sanctioned for filing a legal brief that cited six fabricated case summaries generated by ChatGPT.
Outdated information: AI models are trained on data collected up to a specific point in time. Because the world is constantly changing, an AI can provide information that is no longer current or accurate.
Hidden biases: AI can inadvertently absorb and amplify human biases present in its training data. This has led to unfair outcomes in areas like healthcare algorithms and hiring tools.
https://www.espn.com/sports-betting/...harp-customers
https://www.9news.com/article/money/...5-9f5160162d19
https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/won-sp...ry?id=57307967
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/s...DcS792YA%3D%3D
Restricting sports bettors in Tennessee where redietz lives is so bad that they are writing editorials about it:
https://www.tennessean.com/story/opi...s/69850772007/
How many real PRO sports bettors are there, and where do they live?Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmI'm well aware of the pitfalls of AI. But in this case, at the start of this thread, I profiled several famous professional sports bettors who all have been limited by books to chickenfeed bets because of winning. You can go back and read all about them right here in this thread. Redietz is plain up full of shit about winning bettors not getting limited. If you do your homework you will find hundreds of stories about it online.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyAI is not inherently factual and should not be blindly trusted. AI models can generate misinformation and false content, a phenomenon often called "hallucinations". AI produces what it calculates to be the most probable response based on patterns in its training data, not based on a genuine understanding of truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Why AI is not inherently factual
Data dependency: The accuracy of AI is limited by the quality of the data it was trained on. If the data is biased, incomplete, or contains inaccuracies, the AI's output will reflect these flaws.
No true understanding: Unlike humans, AI lacks genuine comprehension, common sense, or reasoning. It does not "know" if its answer is correct. It merely follows programmed rules and identifies patterns to generate responses.
Fabricated information: AI can confidently invent facts, people, events, and citations that do not exist. A prominent example occurred in 2023 when two lawyers were sanctioned for filing a legal brief that cited six fabricated case summaries generated by ChatGPT.
Outdated information: AI models are trained on data collected up to a specific point in time. Because the world is constantly changing, an AI can provide information that is no longer current or accurate.
Hidden biases: AI can inadvertently absorb and amplify human biases present in its training data. This has led to unfair outcomes in areas like healthcare algorithms and hiring tools.
https://www.espn.com/sports-betting/...harp-customers
https://www.9news.com/article/money/...5-9f5160162d19
https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/won-sp...ry?id=57307967
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/s...DcS792YA%3D%3D
Restricting sports bettors in Tennessee where redietz lives is so bad that they are writing editorials about it:
https://www.tennessean.com/story/opi...s/69850772007/
You are missing the point. Nothing new. Go read Gambling Wizards by Munchkin.
You are a broken record. I already read it a few times. You are referring to Bob Martin. Yeah, I know, he used info from sharp bettors. But he is not the entire industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmI'm well aware of the pitfalls of AI. But in this case, at the start of this thread, I profiled several famous professional sports bettors who all have been limited by books to chickenfeed bets because of winning. You can go back and read all about them right here in this thread. Redietz is plain up full of shit about winning bettors not getting limited. If you do your homework you will find hundreds of stories about it online.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
https://www.espn.com/sports-betting/...harp-customers
https://www.9news.com/article/money/...5-9f5160162d19
https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/won-sp...ry?id=57307967
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/s...DcS792YA%3D%3D
Restricting sports bettors in Tennessee where redietz lives is so bad that they are writing editorials about it:
https://www.tennessean.com/story/opi...s/69850772007/
You are missing the point. Nothing new. Go read Gambling Wizards by Munchkin.
Refer to your friend Munchkin about bettors getting restricted. He will tell you.
Read the articles above. They even had hearings in Massachusetts about the books restricting winning bettors.
Restricting winning bettors is so well known these days that you look like an idiot by denying it.
Yet another thing he has completely ridiculed me for not knowing what I was talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmI'm well aware of the pitfalls of AI. But in this case, at the start of this thread, I profiled several famous professional sports bettors who all have been limited by books to chickenfeed bets because of winning. You can go back and read all about them right here in this thread. Redietz is plain up full of shit about winning bettors not getting limited. If you do your homework you will find hundreds of stories about it online.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyAI is not inherently factual and should not be blindly trusted. AI models can generate misinformation and false content, a phenomenon often called "hallucinations". AI produces what it calculates to be the most probable response based on patterns in its training data, not based on a genuine understanding of truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Why AI is not inherently factual
Data dependency: The accuracy of AI is limited by the quality of the data it was trained on. If the data is biased, incomplete, or contains inaccuracies, the AI's output will reflect these flaws.
No true understanding: Unlike humans, AI lacks genuine comprehension, common sense, or reasoning. It does not "know" if its answer is correct. It merely follows programmed rules and identifies patterns to generate responses.
Fabricated information: AI can confidently invent facts, people, events, and citations that do not exist. A prominent example occurred in 2023 when two lawyers were sanctioned for filing a legal brief that cited six fabricated case summaries generated by ChatGPT.
Outdated information: AI models are trained on data collected up to a specific point in time. Because the world is constantly changing, an AI can provide information that is no longer current or accurate.
Hidden biases: AI can inadvertently absorb and amplify human biases present in its training data. This has led to unfair outcomes in areas like healthcare algorithms and hiring tools.
https://www.espn.com/sports-betting/...harp-customers
https://www.9news.com/article/money/...5-9f5160162d19
https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/won-sp...ry?id=57307967
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/s...DcS792YA%3D%3D
Restricting sports bettors in Tennessee where redietz lives is so bad that they are writing editorials about it:
https://www.tennessean.com/story/opi...s/69850772007/
You're a crybaby and a fag...a whiny blabbermouth bitch, just like tewlj.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
This retard has never posted a single thing of value in this forum.
I'm emulating you, Dandry and twpot.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaewoo
Thanks for reading, and your prompt reply, Mr. retardwoo primarioo.
Coach posted up that bit about Redietz not paying the taxes on "his" house. And, much more, but, to show a "single thing". Ha.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyI'm emulating you, Dandry and twpot.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaewoo
Thanks for reading, retardwoo primarioo.
Got this right, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyYou're a crybaby and a fag...a whiny blabbermouth bitch, just like tewlj.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
In fact, I've never had a problem with Coach, who stays in his own lane. Unlike the eternal dork, AiQ, who keeps talking about stuff, but, never does anything about it, anyway.
That's because you are a brilliant judge of character, and possess exceptional reading comprehension and a sophisticated sense of humor...compared to most of the slugs around here, anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomasHClines
Now excuse me while I get back to the MNF game...I have 170 bets working on this game alone.
What are your blabbinger on now? We didn't miss you. Did you steal the keys to your looney asylum cell again?Quote:
Originally Posted by TomasHClinesCoach posted up that bit about Redietz not paying the taxes on "his" house. And, much more, but, to show a "single thing". Ha.
Got this right, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyYou're a crybaby and a fag...a whiny blabbermouth bitch, just like tewlj.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
In fact, I've never had a problem with Coach, who stays in his own lane. Unlike the eternal dork, AiQ, who keeps talking about stuff, but, never does anything about it, anyway.
Call it whining if you want but I'm not sure how that is the case. I don't think I'm a victim of Redietz due to him not believing me - I'm not kewl. So I'm not sure what I'm whining about. What I am pointing out is how wrong Redietz is about common everyday cash sports betting stuff.
Coach has a hard-on against anyone who professes having the knowledge to beat gambling. You're a nutter and thus not on his radar.
The catch about the property taxes though - we have to give CB credit for that. lol. poor redietz. All he has to do is not be so arrogant and just talk about stuff from 30 years ago when he was a young man about town having his coffee downtown as he surveyed the latest tipsters and gypsters and yadda yadda. But nope - he has to ridicule people for what are now WIDELY ACCEPTED occurances and terminology and even an understanding of sports betting.
That's right fag, send your beard my way and she'll be wanting to marry ME!Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
That's just it. This site has been up for around 15 years, but still not a shred of proof of anyone making any decent money, let alone the obvious downside. On the contrary, the truly physically and mentally ill likes of KJ, Redietz, Singer, Axel, and dare I say it, MickeyCrimm. Never a truly normal person, but always a non-starter good for nothing but the internet. Why is this? No big mystery.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Who gives a fuck what you believe about it? You’re irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomasHClinesThat's just it. This site has been up for around 15 years, but still not a shred of proof of anyone making any decent money, let alone the obvious downside. On the contrary, the truly physically and mentally ill likes of KJ, Redietz, Singer, Axel, and dare I say it, MickeyCrimm. Never a truly normal person, but always a non-starter good for nothing but the internet. Why is this? No big mystery.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Just curious, what kind of proof would one want or need? Pictures of gold, silver, and cash? Must we let you come to our houses and log into all of our trading accounts, bank accounts, sports/casino accounts, crypto accounts, show you property deeds, and give you access to safe deposit boxes? And all for what, just to convince the few anti-APers who will never benefit you whatsoever, of something?Quote:
Originally Posted by TomasHClinesThat's just it. This site has been up for around 15 years, but still not a shred of proof of anyone making any decent money, let alone the obvious downside. On the contrary, the truly physically and mentally ill likes of KJ, Redietz, Singer, Axel, and dare I say it, MickeyCrimm. Never a truly normal person, but always a non-starter good for nothing but the internet. Why is this? No big mystery.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
None of that seems very smart, and most certainly it would be -EV.
People with AP knowledge can figure out what's what fairly quickly when it comes to other Advantage Players after having a conversation with them about various plays and information, and asking around.
The only forum member, across all three of these forums, who has been verified or provided proof in any way, is MDawg.
https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...l=1#post173701
On the other hand, there is no forum member who has been proven to have lied so many times, as UNKewlJ, the forum clown. :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Is that how it must be....all or nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Deliberately being a retard is retarded.
Your parents were retarded. You're a fruit of the poisoned tree.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaewoo
Why is this retard posting in a professional sports betting thread? The retard can't afford to bet on sports.
I bet your mother that my dog could knock her up, then 9 months later you were born.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaewoo
You are a sick bastard you fucking cockroach. But most of us already knew that. You are just proving it far beyond any doubt.
Why does anyone respond to that guy. He lives for it. I've heard about him/his life in DMs. A true sad old lonely fool. Singer probably has an awful wife who was desperate enough for a broke-ass Monty Burns look-alike but I have little doubt about him having an actual wife. It isn't hard if you both have low standards.
... Unless of course you're coach belly.
You haven't heard shit about me you mutt.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Take your trick's cock out of your mouth before you try typing again, you make no sense..Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I don't have to be relevant to make a simple observation.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmWho gives a fuck what you believe about it? You’re irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomasHClinesThat's just it. This site has been up for around 15 years, but still not a shred of proof of anyone making any decent money, let alone the obvious downside. On the contrary, the truly physically and mentally ill likes of KJ, Redietz, Singer, Axel, and dare I say it, MickeyCrimm. Never a truly normal person, but always a non-starter good for nothing but the internet. Why is this? No big mystery.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
I don't have to be anti-AP to make a simple observation.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfJust curious, what kind of proof would one want or need? Pictures of gold, silver, and cash? Must we let you come to our houses and log into all of our trading accounts, bank accounts, sports/casino accounts, crypto accounts, show you property deeds, and give you access to safe deposit boxes? And all for what, just to convince the few anti-APers who will never benefit you whatsoever, of something?Quote:
Originally Posted by TomasHClinesThat's just it. This site has been up for around 15 years, but still not a shred of proof of anyone making any decent money, let alone the obvious downside. On the contrary, the truly physically and mentally ill likes of KJ, Redietz, Singer, Axel, and dare I say it, MickeyCrimm. Never a truly normal person, but always a non-starter good for nothing but the internet. Why is this? No big mystery.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
None of that seems very smart, and most certainly it would be -EV.
People with AP knowledge can figure out what's what fairly quickly when it comes to other Advantage Players after having a conversation with them about various plays and information, and asking around.
You guys subjected us to years of relatively personal details, but without the simple bits of non-invasive proof along the way.
TomasHClines TomasHClines is online now
Silver
TomasHClines's AvatarJoin Date
Jun 2023
Posts
42 --------------------> From fantasy, to reality.
Again, just curious, what kind of simple proof would one want or need?Quote:
Originally Posted by TomasHClines
If I posted up 10's of thousands of dollars in Jackpot pics, would that be good enough?
Legit Pictures of cash, comps, suits, gold, silver watches, BTC?
If I posted up the details of a good plays worth 10's of thousands and an explanation of how I played it, and had multiple witnesses with W2g's, would that be enough?
If I start with zero on an Online casino, and I guarantee I will make at least X amount by X date, with a deposit and allow someome to view the money in/out accounting, would that be enough?
No one gives a shit dudeQuote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfAgain, just curious, what kind of simple proof would one want or need?Quote:
Originally Posted by TomasHClines
If I posted up 10's of thousands of dollars in Jackpot pics, would that be good enough?
Legit Pictures of cash, comps, suits, gold, silver watches, BTC?
If I posted up the details of a good plays worth 10's of thousands and an explanation of how I played it, and had multiple witnesses with W2g's, would that be enough?
If I start with zero on an Online casino, and I guarantee I will make at least X amount by X date, with a deposit and allow someome to view the money in/out accounting, would that be enough?
Or are you trying to be like MPussy or Singer, running around trying to impress 8 dudes(probably half of them elderly homos) on a half baked gambling website?
I don't think Axelwolf has any intention of posting ANY of what he just said. If he wanted to do any of that and had the need to impress people, he would have done so long ago.
I believe he is just trying to prove a point that NOTHING, no amount of proof, would be sufficient for these trolls and haters.
You were born half-baked, an underdeveloped brain, microcephaly, and you still suffer from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone
Anything would be a start...anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
If what you listed are all simple proof, then how about throw them all against the wall and see what sticks?
I didn’t include you in the 1/2 that were elderly homos….didnt see the need….we just assumed by how you post and portray yourself that you take it up the ass :)Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyYou were born half-baked, an underdeveloped brain, microcephaly, and you still suffer from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone
Never mind portray, you are expressing actual thoughts about men taking it up the ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone
That means that you are a fag.
So now go away, we don't want any fags around here.
You suck off little boys, are you still a fag???Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyNever mind portray, you are expressing actual thoughts about men taking it up the ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone
That means that you are a fag.
So now go away, we don't want any fags around here.
You really are kinda cute running around calling people fags with your bald head and 5’4 frameQuote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyNever mind portray, you are expressing actual thoughts about men taking it up the ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keystone
That means that you are a fag.
So now go away, we don't want any fags around here.
Now run along before I start slapping that cue ball head like Benny Hill
You think about sucking off little boys. Does that make you a fag? Yes it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveDandry