No you are not catching it correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Perignom
I haven't even called tewlj a liar in 5000 posts, and he is a proven and admitted liar.
Now you are a proven liar as well.
Printable View
No you are not catching it correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Perignom
I haven't even called tewlj a liar in 5000 posts, and he is a proven and admitted liar.
Now you are a proven liar as well.
Of course you are mistaken...you fool.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
Random means occurring by chance, done without any definite plan, purpose, or pattern.
The result of an aimed shot is not a random occurrence.
In the mathematical sense, which is the sense under discussion?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyOf course you are mistaken...you fool.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
Random means occurring by chance, done without any definite plan, purpose, or pattern.
The result of an aimed shot is not a random occurrence.
Depends on how you look at, or perceive, probability, which has come to be based into two camps, namely, frequentist, or, Bayesian.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerIn the mathematical sense, which is the sense under discussion?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyOf course you are mistaken...you fool.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
Random means occurring by chance, done without any definite plan, purpose, or pattern.
The result of an aimed shot is not a random occurrence.
I like to look at randomness as what greases the probabilities, as an unbiased lubrication of life. It's the Bayesian perspective that treats quantum coherence as already determined (deterministic), with an underlying method (mechanism) to it, that there's no smearing or other mystery to it after all - seemingly simpler, but more complicated in actuality.Quote:
In Bayesian statistics, an unknown parameter is considered a random variable to represent uncertainty, rather than a fixed, unknown value. This means that a parameter's value isn't inherently fixed but is treated as having a probability distribution that can be updated with new data. This contrasts with a purely random event, which is unpredictable and has no underlying deterministic mechanism, as in classical probability.
Certainly can't fault Coach for the popular notion of randomness.
---> Antipseudohypertantricautopyronecrotranshomopedosa domasobeastiality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garnabby
https://anagram-solver.net/Depends%2....?partial=true
You should never leave the base you started at. You still are the dumb one. Who cares you had a friend with a perfect SAT math score.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
You complete avoided any semblance of addressing the answer. Kinda funny. Smart guys usually have no problems addressing such things. For you it alternates between crickets and attacking. Never answering.
I knew that I saw this somewhere, before. Ha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garnabby---> Antipseudohypertantricautopyronecrotranshomopedosa domasobeastiality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garnabby
https://anagram-solver.net/Depends%2....?partial=true
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrimReaper---> Antipseudohypertantricautopyronecrotranshomopedosa domasobeastiality.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
https://anagram-solver.net/Another%2....?partial=true
What a "liberated" word, once dissected. Anyway, what's the point of joining a "nudist colony" (in terms of free speech, like this one) if you're not going to take off your "clothes"? I guess that I identify with "Seed", in this respect. Someone who's not afraid of his "sexuality", or whatever. It's a waste of freedom otherwise. Lol, people griping about every thing under the sun, but, in the end, all for nothing, with nothing to hope for, win, or lose. You guys are more uptight than the moderated boards.
https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...l=1#post153768
Garnabby Garnabby is online now
Platinum
Garnabby's AvatarJoin Date
Aug 2020
Posts
1,234
LOL, this is nothing new. I have been doing things since the 90s that gave casinos grounds to hijack my money.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
It's just the cost of doing business. You always attempt to calculate that into whatever you're playing while considering the risk versus the reward.
There have been multiple promotions over the years where, in theory, you should risk your entire bankroll, liquidate assets, and take as many loans as possible in order to take full advantage of the situation. I.E. A 100% UNLIMITED Loss rebate, but in reality, you know there's a good possibility shit can go wrong.
I don't know when I first started multi-accounting, but it was in the 90s when Gamblers Bonus had a cardless players system when I ramped up to 50-100 accounts. I estimate that at the time, there were over 400 locations with Gamblers' Bonus Machines.
You didn't need an ID to sign up and make an account; you would simply grab a GB sign-up form with its unique code, find a machine, enter the code on the machine's GB keypad, make an 8 number login, and a 4-digit pin(. You couldn't use the same login or pin numbers; the system would reject it.), fill out the form and hand it to the employee(bartender, 7-11 cashier, cange person at the supermarket). Your account would be semi-active right away, but it would take 2 to 10 days before you were able to redeem any bonus money. Oftentimes, you would get a free $10 just for making an account. You had to use diffrent names, DOB's, addresses, and phone numbers since an employee at GB headquarters would manually enter the information and fully activate your account. You didn't need to use real names or real information; however, that could pose a problem if they suspected that was the case and they locked your account.
Getting the accounts was the easy part, but remembering the 8-digit+ login and PIN numbers while at the gaming locations without looking at notes was the hard part. I just used an alphanumeric system associated with the names of football teams, superheroes, states, and other easy-to-remember things.
Why so many accounts? Many GB locations had a play X amount and get that amount added to your account. Some places were daily, some places were 2 times a week, some places were once a week. There were other good bonuses, but that's a story for a diffrent time.
The most common was to play $25 and get $25, the 2nd most common was $50 for $50, but some locations would have $100 - $200. At some locations, the EV was worth full value as they had over 100% Video Poker. Even the places that didn't have full pay machines, you may have only been giving up 1%. Of course, you wanted to over-tip, ensuring that the employees turned a blind eye if they noticed you were multi-accounting. It wasn't hard for them to figure out you were multi-accounting, since whenever you logged on, their printer printed out a small receipt with the person's first name on it. They could also see the person's name in some of the systems. Fortunately for me, I seemed to know a lot of John Smiths.
You could play at multiple locations and get multiple bonuses added. You could cash out your bonus money at any location. One of the problems was that you could only redeem $25 per day on low-level accounts. High-level accounts were up to $150. Even with multiple accounts, you could end up with quite a bit of extra money that would take multiple days to cash out.
Another hard part, and the most important part, was finding the locations that were running the play X get X promotion. As I said before, I estimate there are over 400 locations spread throughout the town there may have only been 25 different locations that were running the promotion, if that, it could have been much less.
Some places would stop running the promotion, while others would start up. Some places went for years, some places only did it during the holiday season.
So what was this worth at the peak? Well, I guess it depended on how many accounts you had and what levels they were at, and how much they were giving.
I remember one period where I was solo, focusing only on GB bonuses, where they were running a lot of $50 for 50's during the holiday season. I had approximately 10k in EV and made approximately 10k during that week. It lasted a few weeks, and by the end, I did fairly well. Of course, there was extra time spent collecting bonus money.
With driving time, it took about 30 hours per week. No, that's not groundbreaking money, but to me, it was enjoyable like a treasure hunt and basically free money.
What does this have to do with getting your money and accounts hijacked? Occasionally, Gamblers Bonus would do a purge of accounts at a particular location once they figured out that location was getting hit hard with multiple accounts. Of course, some of my accounts would get locked, and I would lose out on thousands of dollars. The cost of earning that money was negligible; it just sucked, and you shrugged it off.
I had no control over that, as there would be guys who would come in and play multiple accounts on the same machine, one after another, and even stiff the bartender afterwards. In my case, Im sure some of the bartenders knew what I was doing, and yet they all comped my food and didn't seem to care as I tipped well and didn't make what I was doing obvious; therefore, the bartenders could also claim ignorance. Some of the bartenders would tell me about other locations that were also doing the promotions.
Do you think it's possible to calculate your approximate +EV (or-EV) while betting non-random events?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Example: Let's say we have live betting on a pool tournament. A skilled pool player has been tracked on 5000 shots, making a particular shot 50% of the time. So far, on this day that player has been playing up to his standard of play.
That particular shot situation has come up for this player. Some ploppys bet heavily on the no, he will not make the shot, thus moving the line to +115 on the yes, he will make the shot. Do you believe you(or someome) can confidently calculate their approximate EV on betting the yes?
Why the fuck would you ask that trolling retard anything?
---> WP: List of really really stupid article ideas that you should not create.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garnabby
https://anagram-solver.net/Holy%20fu....?partial=true
WP = Well Played, or, Wrong Person. Ha.
This discussion gets stupider and stupider from the anti-APers end. That would be redietz, coach belly and Garnabby and his multiple personalities.
Advantage players find and play things at an advantage (+EV) using math, including some things involving sports betting.
The anti-APers claim it can't be done.
So you have one group actually doing something while the other is just talking, saying it can't be done. :rolleyes:
I have only been doing what I am doing, the old bonus whore play for a couple years. But you have some APs, like axelwolf, that have successfully done it for decades.
So who are you going to believe: The people that have successfully done it for decades or a few anti-APers with a bug up their ass that refuse to believe it can be done.
It always boils down to one thing. These anti-APers are losing degen type gamblers, that hate that there are players that win using math and finding advantaegous situtations.....so they just refuse to believe it. They would rather live in denial.
Sure, man, we all believe that you made millions from blackjack. So, what now? Ha.
Oh, I suck at typing. I probably use four hovering fingers in a hunting Peck manner, I don't know, I haven't really paid attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garnabby---> WP:List of really really stupid article ideas that you should not create.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garnabby
https://anagram-solver.net/Holy%20fu....?partial=true
WP = Well Played, or, Wrong Person. Ha.
A lot of my early posts on WOV were made with an on-screen keyboard, quickly clicking one letter at a time. I remember traveling with RS on a play, and he saw me making a post via that method, and he's like Are you fucking kidding me? How is that even possible?
Oftentimes, I just use speech-to-text as in this case; it consistently fucks up, but I don't care. It didn't take me long at all, but whatever the case, it doesn't matter since it's raining out today, I don't feel like doing anything, and I'm auto-playing a bonus at an online casino in the background.
The game is replete with random fumbles, random interceptions and random ball bounces. A few inches can decide games. If there were no randomness in the game you would know the exact score before the game starts. Repeat. The exact score. Not something close. The exact score.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerQuote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Wow. If this is part of the "AP" argument, there is no point in responding. Ever. Just wow.
It's so weird. I just assume people talking about probability while assigning themselves an "AP" label have at least taken a course or two or have some basic sense of terms, like "random." The idea that someone could say what smurgerburger just did and actually gamble for decent amounts of money is bizarre and frightening.
I wonder if kewlJ and Axelwolf have similar views. Just wow. I always do this. You'd think I would learn. Because I'm not a mathematician, and because I had a dear friend who scored perfect on math SATs, I start with the base idea that I'm the dumb or untrained one.
It's like I always say, if you're the smartest guy in the room, you're in the wrong room. As far as sports betting goes, I appear to be in the wrong room.
You know what's funny? The Riddler made a profit with every play for two years here. Every single play. I gave away half a teaser in the Sports Betting thread last week (my first giveaway ever). It won four minutes into the third quarter. I didn't get an acknowledgement, much less a thanks. These guys are classic.
What is the meaning you understand by "random" when you write of "the math of random events"?
I don't know if I have made millions (plural) from blackjack. I would have to check my records, some of which I don't even have for the early years. I know I am well above 2 million in total advantage play winnings, but blackjack alone, could be on either side of that milestone. I think it is over, but honestly would have to check.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garnabby
But BillYung, you are proving what I just said. You hate people that actually win, when apparently with all your brain power you can't and haven't. For one the supervised facility you are in, probably won't allow you near a casino.
I have way more than demonstrated that I know the math of what I do (card counting math is not that hard), and more importantly, have learned and know how to play to be welcome to play (longevity). Anyone that is in denial and doesn't want to believe that, believe whatever you like. Hey the earth is flat right?
But really, why am I responding to this doofus with multiple personality disorder that clearly goes on and off his meds.
If an orange belt in karate went up to a black belt in Judo and BJJ and told them they don't know anything about martial arts they would think the orange belt dude is retarded. And they'd be right.
redietz is the orange belt
I have a theory about Bob Dietz that I haven't expressed before. He KNOWS almost everything he says about online sports betting is bullshit. He knows because he has done much of this stuff himself for many years. He is trying to deflect others from doing it.
BUT Dietz is such small potatoes, literally nickel and dime, that he makes peanuts at it (pretty much what Kim Lee concluded). It is a big deal to this guy if he can make a few hundred in a year. And that is why he gets so damn excited about coming close in some free Thursday night contest where he could win a few hundred dollars. THAT is big money to him. And he needs it because without a few hits like that he has trouble paying the taxes on the little house his late wife bought for him.
Garnabby is the Mark Sanchez of VCT.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfOh, I suck at typing. I probably use four hovering fingers in a hunting Peck manner, I don't know, I haven't really paid attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garnabby
I thoroughly enjoyed your story.
Even coin flipping is based on the randomness of the motion in flipping the coin. Nothing is completely random outside of mathematical constructs. This doesn't mean the word random loses utility in gambling.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmThe game is replete with random fumbles, random interceptions and random ball bounces. A few inches can decide games. If there were no randomness in the game you would know the exact score before the game starts. Repeat. The exact score. Not something close. The exact score.Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerQuote:
Originally Posted by redietz
What is the meaning you understand by "random" when you write of "the math of random events"?
Anyone who says throwing a football is that different probably doesn't understand things as well.
I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
The outcomes of individual occurrences within a sports contest are not random.
Fumbles and interceptions are a function of skill, not randomness.
The non-random qualities of the participants...skill, strategy and choices inherent in the game...determines the outcome.
That is why the exact score is not known before the game starts.
Players cannot impose their will upon cards, wheels and reels.
The outcomes of random casino events are mathematically convergent, so those games are solvable.
LOL...you might as well make a case for dice influencing.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
There is no motion in a fair coin flip that influences the random outcome of the event.
Random means occurring by chance, done without any definite plan, purpose, or pattern.
A football throw is not random.
Why do half the totals go over and half go under?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyI disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
The outcomes of individual occurrences within a sports contest are not random.
Fumbles and interceptions are a function of skill, not randomness.
The non-random qualities of the participants...skill, strategy and choices inherent in the game...determines the outcome.
That is why the exact score is not known before the game starts.
Players cannot impose their will upon cards, wheels and reels.
The outcomes of random casino events are mathematically convergent, so those games are solvable.
The anagrams with gematria are perfectly random, when the words with meaning don't reappear in the first and/or last solution(s). The reason thatQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Perfecting madness, one step at a time. Ha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don PerignomGarnabby is the Mark Sanchez of VCT.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfOh, I suck at typing. I probably use four hovering fingers in a hunting Peck manner, I don't know, I haven't really paid attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garnabby
Garnabby Garnabby is online now
Platinum
Garnabby's AvatarJoin Date
Aug 2020
Posts
1,237----------------------> (19 + 600 - 1 + 600 + 9 + 10) ---> 1961_1691
4424 = [555^2 - (550 + 5^0)^2] ---> 555_555
No, because their confidence will be mitigated by the possibility that the "no" bettors have more information than past results.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
These comments are of a person thinking short-term, small sample size. The concept of EV is based on long-term or large sample size. Also known as the law of large numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Because sportsbooks have been highly effective at setting lines that accurately predict total scoring.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
And this would make it approach being random; therefore, you can now calculate your approximate EV based on whatever information you have.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyBecause sportsbooks have been highly effective at setting lines that accurately predict total scoring.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Do you believe there would be an advantage to be had betting the yes over and over in this same situation?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyNo, because their confidence will be mitigated by the possibility that the "no" bettors have more information than past results.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
I'll respond to clear up your misunderstanding you babbling old fool.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyLOL...you might as well make a case for dice influencing.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
There is no motion in a fair coin flip that influences the random outcome of the event.
Random means occurring by chance, done without any definite plan, purpose, or pattern.
A football throw is not random.
I am not saying a person can manipulate a coin flip. I am saying the coin flip is dependent upon the flipper's flip. Just like throwing the football is dependent on the thrower. In theory it is likely a person could engineer a coin-flipper that would not be 50/50 on an otherwise unbiased coin using the repeatability of a mechanical device. Same thing with a football. Just to different degrees. Sorry this goes over your head.
I was just taking your argument to its logical conclusion. I also think dice are random and dependent on the thrower, yes.
I've lost at life for the day responding to you, loser. Claim your victory.
It's not clear to me what you mean by "it". Would make what approach being random?Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Are you asking if a yes bet is +EV?Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Welcome to the club. :rolleyes: Every time any of us answer one of these trolls/haters/anti-APers, we have lost. These clowns are bat-shit crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Yet another bat-shit crazy asshole, nothing-but-a-troll heard from. :cool:
Theorizing about mechanical devices to flip coins or throw passes is not relevant in a logical discussion about whether the results of football games are random.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
The clown doesn't know what analogies are apparently.
Like I said - it goes over his head. His whole point on these forums is to try and make people as miserable as himself by being as insufferable as possible.
You lose when you respond to him. Everyone does. lol
A few people never have a redeeming moment on this forum ...
Picking the over or under against the spread.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyIt's not clear to me what you mean by "it". Would make what approach being random?Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Yes, in the situation I described, do you believe that if one were to bet the yes, that he would have an advantage/+EV?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyAre you asking if a yes bet is +EV?Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Quote:
Originally Posted by PunkCity
This retard is a closeted homosexual.
You've gotten yourself so twisted up, that you've apparently forgotten your original point....Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Theoretical analogies aren't appropriate, we have millions of actual events available to use for evaluation.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Human coin flips are random to 2 decimal places, football passes are not random.
If you plotted the accuracy of millions of football passes to the intended target, the result would essentially be a point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Quote:
Originally Posted by coach belly
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
No, I don't stipulate to that being correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
You are referring to information about one specific game, the concept of EV is based on long-term or large sample size.
I'm still laughing at kew constantly being agitated (oh what fun!) by mdawg and myself being winners at gambling, while he and his inimitable mathematical wisdom believing everyone who plays mostly -EV games automatically loses over time.
May his nightmares continue... :)
No, I don't believe that he would have an advantage betting the yes over and over again.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
The action involved in resolving the bet is not random, there's no expectation of random results in the future, I wouldn't characterize the yes bet as advantageous or +EV.
The idiot that looks like Leo the dry cleaner from Get Shorty Movie thinks that "special" LESS OPTIMAL plays, playing negative EV equals a winning strategy. ;):D:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
There is a reason why people like Singer and Dawg get good offers from the casinos. Does anyone think that reason is because they are big winners? :confused: Or is it that the casinos can't wait to get them back on property to lose some more money. :rolleyes:
Seriously, who is fooling who here?
The day isn't over so I'll finish this out.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyYou've gotten yourself so twisted up, that you've apparently forgotten your original point....Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Theoretical analogies aren't appropriate, we have millions of actual events available to use for evaluation.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Human coin flips are random to 2 decimal places, football passes are not random.
If you plotted the accuracy of millions of football passes to the intended target, the result would essentially be a point.
Let me start off by saying - You're such an annoying idiot. I know you're proud of this.
If you plot the value of a coin flip it'll be a point too. Randomness converges.
What are you even talking about plotting accuracy of a football? It is called an "average". Huh? Like you take a gun and shoot a target, it will converge to the bullseye in the same way. That doesn't mean it isn't "random". Having biases doesn't mean something isn't random. If something is 95% skill and 5% random it is still random even if skillful. It is just that the random element has a far lesser effect than the skill component.
You talk about getting twisted up.. you never even had anything to twist up, buddy.
Just go away. Have some pride for once and show some shame and walk away from the keyboard.
So if you don't believe betting skill player shooting 50/50 over 5k trials while paying +115 is an Advantage/+EV, why do you think someome like Red has an advantage betting college football? I can guarantee you he doesn't come close to what should be a 15% edge.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyNo, I don't believe that he would have an advantage betting the yes over and over again.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
The action involved in resolving the bet is not random, there's no expectation of random results in the future, I wouldn't characterize the yes bet as advantageous or +EV.
Not absolutely. The net number of wins, or loses, may approach as many as you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
That is incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
You are confusing the results, for when each trial is a series of coin flips, and the plotted values are the proportion of heads (or tails) for the trial, with the results when the trial (and plotted values) are individual flips.
If there are only 2 possible outcomes for a random trial (heads or tails) then what point would the outcomes converge to?
For a non-random event (such a football pass) there are a number (greater than 2) of possible outcomes for the distance between the pass and the target.
If you plot the outcomes of individual trials, for 80% of the passes, the distance will be zero...the pass hits the target.
That's not a random distribution.
For the remaining 20% the accuracy won't resemble a random distribution either.
The plotted values will cluster such that the representation appears to be a point.
That won't happen with fair coin flips, the results will not converge to a point.
Throwing a pass is not a random act, there is no representation of random elements involved that can reasonably characterize the act as random over a large number of trials.
I haven't stipulated that Red has an advantage betting college football.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
But I wouldn't evaluate Red's advantage based on the hypothesis of your if/then pool shot scenario, I don't consider that relevant.
Are you asserting that the future results of the pool shot will be, or should be, random, such that a +115 betting opportunity is advantageous?
Coach, you should look into prop betting.
The result of a pass is a good example of something not ordinarily described as random but clearly random in the sense of "the mathematics of randomness".
You would wind up with a scatter plot concentrated around the exact intended spot, from which data points you could calculate the standard deviation and likely calculate quite accurately (across the entire class of throws) how likely a throw is to be off by 1 inch or more, 2 inches or more, etc.
And if you wanted more accurate predictions you would subdivide the data set by distance from target and if you had enough data individual throwers. Or left handed vs right handed or whatever.
(There might be a practical problem of determining the exact intended target accurately but this would be true of coach belly's hypothetical as well).
The point I think redietz wants to make but has had difficulty expressing is that the historical data you use in such an analysis is not as reliable as the data for something like a coin flip would be, because of the problem of exogenous variables (for example the possibility of the NFL changing the dimensions of the ball, or for an individual player the possibility that he slightly changes his technique, or gets a very minor unreported hand injury that affects his throws but doesn't take him out of the game).
But that's a problem that exists in many fields that routinely employ statistics, for example finance and insurance. It doesn't render "the mathematics of random events" useless.
+115 on a 50/50 is not a 15% edge. This is a Wendy's.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Very good, sir. 57.5 for 7.5%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Perignom+115 on a 50/50 is not a 15% edge. This is a Wendy's.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Not to be outdone by the "“Burger King Power Chip”. Ha.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfVery good, sir. 57.5 for 7.5%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Perignom+115 on a 50/50 is not a 15% edge. This is a Wendy's.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Quote:
This series, the rules include something called the “Burger King Power Chip.” Or as I have come to think of it “The Abomination Unto the Lord Power Chip.” Each player gets one BKPC per game and the BKPC allows them to swap out one card per game for the next card in the shoe. So for example if they get dealt K-5 they can ditch the 5 and hope for a better draw.
What about a prop bet of over/under 21 pass completions in a game by a certain quarterback? Is it non random whether it goes over or under?Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyThat is incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
You are confusing the results, for when each trial is a series of coin flips, and the plotted values are the proportion of heads (or tails) for the trial, with the results when the trial (and plotted values) are individual flips.
If there are only 2 possible outcomes for a random trial (heads or tails) then what point would the outcomes converge to?
For a non-random event (such a football pass) there are a number (greater than 2) of possible outcomes for the distance between the pass and the target.
If you plot the outcomes of individual trials, for 80% of the passes, the distance will be zero...the pass hits the target.
That's not a random distribution.
For the remaining 20% the accuracy won't resemble a random distribution either.
The plotted values will cluster such that the representation appears to be a point.
That won't happen with fair coin flips, the results will not converge to a point.
Throwing a pass is not a random act, there is no representation of random elements involved that can reasonably characterize the act as random over a large number of trials.
So with the bonus whoring that I do, it is all about volume betting. I use a number of different methods to make my picks, simulations, tagging along with certain people, some of my own strategies. And as I am sure many of you are that have signed up with offshore sports books, I receive many emails, texts and snail mail from different sports picking services, wanting me to subscribe to their services.
So last week I had one offering a weeks worth of picks for $10. (insert joke about getting what you pay for). So for fun I signed up for a week. The service is Insider Sports report. They break their picks down to 3 star, 4 star and rare 5 star picks that you are supposed to weigh accordingly. Well I didn't do that, I just max bet their picks at all 5 of my books.
They are currently 8-5 with one final days picks to go. Todays 4 star pick is Louisiana Tech -3.5 and a 3 star NBA pick which I have disregarded being that the NBA season starts today. Interestingly enough their lone 5 star pick for the week, Denver Broncos -7.5 lost. Never had a chance in a game Denver trailed by 26 in the fourth quarter. Even though Denver rallied and won by a point, there was NEVER a chance this game would cover.
8-5 is not bad. Not enough picks for a volume better, but just added it to my other sources.
That's 61.5% winners.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Is that good enough to get rich without selling the picks?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N57SxyxUhTQQuote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyThat's 61.5% winners.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Is that good enough to get rich without selling the picks?
Everybody loves a "volume bettor." LOL. This kewlJ makes Fred Flintstone look like a disciplined Shaolin master.
I just hope no one is taking what this character says seriously. Please do not. His whole approach, AP or not, will run you into the ground while opening you up to having your accounts frozen. It's about the most irresponsible blueprint I have ever seen. Right out of the Gomez Addams playbook.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z66TbXzro2Y
Show me where I ever said anyone, should do what I am doing, sports betting, or blackjack or anything else? EVER!!
Don't disappear on me, Dietz...show me.
LOL. You are a joke. I said none of that.
I said people should not use you as a blueprint. That you set a horrendous example. That your "AP" recommendations will get people crushed. That your way of wagering on sports will create addicts, get flagged by sports books all the time, and will not work. That your manner of managing your accounts will result in accounts being flagged and withheld. That you are a bad, bad example.
So that raises the question -- again LOL. How are you different from MDawg?
MDawg never tells people to do as he does. He just does it. And you have spent years blabbing about how terrible that is for readers.
Here you are, not knowing "the math," doing stupid shit, and if I were the kewlJ, I guess I should be doing what? Exactly. Warning people off your bullshit style of betting sports, which is -- in my expert opinion -- likely to result in not just them losing money, but getting their accounts flagged and them becoming addicts.
I'm just following the kewlJ warn-them-off-MDawg blueprint. Don't let the evil blowhards con the unsuspecting into doing as the blowhards claim they do.
First of all.....NO he doesn't do it. NOT what he claims, AS he claims it.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
More importantly here is how I am different than Mdawg or Singer, or anyone that I challenge what they say. The math of what I do works! The math of what they claim does NOT work. They need "special plays" or some kind of voodoo thing like "betting into hot streaks" ect.
I have never challenged or questioned any player that claimed anything where the math works. Well, maybe Moses, but that is because, while the math worked, no player can or could do what he claimed playing primarily Reno for long. So it wasn't the math that didn't work with Moses's claims....it was the location.
Give it up Deitz. You wanted the narrative to be that you are the ONLY person that can do anything with sports betting, when the fact are that there are many advantage players and just players doing some stuff with sports betting at an advantage.
And if you had been able to do ANY of what you claimed, you wouldn't have needed to be a Tout. Just like Axelwolf and Kim lee said, you would have bet your own money and never looked back.
You really are just retarded dude. That isn't just some bust. You are freaking nuts....if you believe half of what you now troll at me and other.
Did your clients become addicts. Or were they already addicts? Were you working their addiction for a profit?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Bump
Ditz keeps going on and on about flipping coins on non random events. Nobody is doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
If it's non random then an astute sports bettor, that knows the math (that excludes redietz), should be able to beat this kind of prop bet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmBump
Ditz keeps going on and on about flipping coins on non random events. Nobody is doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
If it's non random then an astute sports bettor, that knows the math (that excludes redietz), should be able to beat this kind of prop bet.
Mickey:
1) Go find those things you claim I unequivocally said. Take your time.
2) Use whatever forum you like.
3) Use whatever time frame you like.
4) Collect your 10K.
Or:
1) Buy me a cup of coffee.
2) Admit you lied.
Either you lied or you did not lie.
Pick one.
And this is the guy on Gambling with an Edge half a dozen times.
Sad.
Ditz says math plays no role in sports betting.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmBump
Ditz keeps going on and on about flipping coins on non random events. Nobody is doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
If it's non random then an astute sports bettor, that knows the math (that excludes redietz), should be able to beat this kind of prop bet.
Mickey:
1) Go find those things you claim I unequivocally said. Take your time.
2) Use whatever forum you like.
3) Use whatever time frame you like.
4) Collect your 10K.
Or:
1) Buy me a cup of coffee.
2) Admit you lied.
Either you lied or you did not lie.
Pick one.
And this is the guy on Gambling with an Edge half a dozen times.
Sad.
I am going to copy these posts of yours and next time I have lunch with Munchkin, I'll hand over a copy of them and discuss them.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmDitz says math plays no role in sports betting.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Mickey:
1) Go find those things you claim I unequivocally said. Take your time.
2) Use whatever forum you like.
3) Use whatever time frame you like.
4) Collect your 10K.
Or:
1) Buy me a cup of coffee.
2) Admit you lied.
Either you lied or you did not lie.
Pick one.
And this is the guy on Gambling with an Edge half a dozen times.
Sad.
When you get caught blatantly lying in public, it's not a boost to one's credibility. It tarnishes everyone who gave you a platform.
Munch, ditz said math plays no role in sports betting. He also said he did not turn you down for a GWAE interview.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzI am going to copy these posts of yours and next time I have lunch with Munchkin, I'll hand over a copy of them and discuss them.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmDitz says math plays no role in sports betting.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
When you get caught blatantly lying in public, it's not a boost to one's credibility. It tarnishes everyone who gave you a platform.
This is to assist any of you wannabee "ap pro sports bettors" who made the mistake of moving to LV for a "better life" among the degenerates, losers and freaks in that POS city: Redeem yourself tonight! Put it all (and of course, if you're a gambling addict living in LV -- and WHO isn't) on the Dodgers to make it look pretty easy tonight.
Last night's game had an amazing ending. If LA were gonna lose this series it would've been last night. THIS was their game 7. Toronto did what all overmatched/over-achieving teams do in the World Series: they failed to take advantage of tremendous opportunities.
When Boston lost to the Mets in '86 game 6 in NY that was the Mets' game 7. Buckner blew his play and the Mets made the Red Sox pay. Game 7 was a mere formality after that.
And now, LA has the best player ever to put on a uniform in MLB history. And he'll prove it tonight.
This just in---only one guy here listened to me and "put it all" on LA tonight. Kew of course. I live in his head.
He's now $40 richer. :):):)