Professional Sportsbetting

Ok, which offshore? I looked at the 4 I deal with and didn't see that offer. Is it a public offer or only available to certain qualified players?

My problem is that I still don't have a lot of confidence in offshore books as a whole to run around looking for everything. And I don't know who has a good reputation for paying and who has a bad reputation or even is slow to pay. I deal with my 4 books, one of which I am not thrilled with and really should drop.

I had a good experience this fall playing the bonus game for a moderate amount turning a $15k profit (assuming I receive my final payment). So now, I have to decide if I want to continue and take advantage of some new decent bonuses/rollovers that I am already receiving, or do I want to expand, spend more time and effort trying to figure out which books are good and will pay?

But ah sure, share what book offers the monday night rebate and I will take a look. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I guess a poll is in order. Is $200 in free play for every Monday Night loser not "useful?" Account says it's not. He's the "AP." He's the expert.

---

I am surprised I ever said this. Put up a link or lose more credibility.

Free $200 is great but it takes time and other things. If you're not sports betting then it is even further from "free'. It all has a time requirement.

A better interpretation of your "test" would be that people don't you seriously at all. That is a fairer assessment of the outcome of your test. Given how you post there is little reason to even bother asking. The answer would have been "do your research. yap yap yap". People too smart to fuck with it.

So I'll bite - what offshore site is this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

There was a $5 8/5 Jacks or Better progressive (2% royal meter) in the high roller room at the Riverside/Laughlin. The royal started at 20K. Someone told me that if it reached 42K the change boys would be in to team play it until they hit it. So occasionally I would step into the high roller room to see where the meter was at.

So the meter got to 42K and the change boys appeared out of nowhere. I didn't know them but observed them a few minutes that day. I stopped back in the next morning. The royal had been hit and the change boys were nowhere to be seen.

One thing I know about that kind of progressive. It takes at least a 200K bankroll to even think about throwing down on it. Axel had six figure bankroll back in the 90's.

---

I'm interested in the logistics involved with this play.

Can you discuss/describe the team's approach?

Was it a single machine, or a linked bank? That's not clear, as you wrote that you observed them.

Why was it profitable at 42K for the royal, vs a lesser payoff?

What's the math behind needing a 200K bankroll?

Does that mean the team is willing to risk 200K to hit the progressive?

Since the play ends when the royal hits, is there an expected hourly loss until that happens?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Here's an actual "professional sports betting" report. I was eliminated from a "Survivor" contest at one offshore yesterday. Started with 500+; seven people are left. I wound up tying for eighth. I hated using Washington, but they were my biggest remaining favorite, so I swallowed my personal distaste and got myself eliminated by using them.

One interesting aspect is that the people who survived all had Washington available to them but refused to use them. Kudos to them. I absolutely despised going against an NFL team that had been hammered 49-17 or whatever the previous week, but I swallowed my personal opinion and did it anyway and got myself eliminated. First place is 15K.

The other interesting aspect was that this particular game was an example of a technical piece of advice from the Walters book that, if you read carefully, is one of the couple of useful tidbits that Walters (to my mind, surprisingly) mentioned. I didn't expect Walters to formally spell it out, but he did. You just have to read the charts carefully to see it. Again, it's not some big secret to actual sports gamblers, but it is not really well known to the public. Walters formalizes it in a way that's probably overly precise, but I actually agree with his ballparking number adjustment in a general sense. I was surprised he stepped out and put the generous number he did on it, but I would not have been more than half a point different had I been forced to opine.

Bottom line: I lost, and deservedly so. The people who advanced showed some balls and deserved to advance.

---

Another thing Redietz does. He ever says one thing useful outside of NFL nerd opinions.

This is more of the same. Goes to so much effort to not say anything useful but a veiled brag.

We get it Redietz, you need validation. Pathetic. Pat yourself on the back some more while everyone else realizes how clueless you are in general.

---

You know, I tested you guys recently. I reported an offshore that gave 100% free play on losses for every Monday Night game, capped at $200. It sits right there in the "Talk About Your Free Play" thread. Post #35.

The only response was semi-comedic by Dom.

I guess $200 in free play for every Monday Night loss just wasn't good enough for the VCT "APs" to appreciate. Nobody said thanks. Nobody said, "Which offshore?"

LOL. So the test worked. Either everybody here is too wealthy to bother with free money every Monday night or they have their own bizarro agendas or they don't really read.

I guess a poll is in order. Is $200 in free play for every Monday Night loser not "useful?" Account says it's not. He's the "AP." He's the expert.

---

It's a good enough promotion.
My problem is the hoops that I have to jump through.
I blow off 200 in Free Play sometimes.
I usually get my host to add it back on though, so there is that.
I appreciate you sharing the information.
My problem is that I put myself in some really good situations in the last 5 to 7 years.
I've gotten lazy and complacent.
Nostrovia!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Here's an actual "professional sports betting" report. I was eliminated from a "Survivor" contest at one offshore yesterday. Started with 500+; seven people are left. I wound up tying for eighth. I hated using Washington, but they were my biggest remaining favorite, so I swallowed my personal distaste and got myself eliminated by using them.

One interesting aspect is that the people who survived all had Washington available to them but refused to use them. Kudos to them. I absolutely despised going against an NFL team that had been hammered 49-17 or whatever the previous week, but I swallowed my personal opinion and did it anyway and got myself eliminated. First place is 15K.

The other interesting aspect was that this particular game was an example of a technical piece of advice from the Walters book that, if you read carefully, is one of the couple of useful tidbits that Walters (to my mind, surprisingly) mentioned. I didn't expect Walters to formally spell it out, but he did. You just have to read the charts carefully to see it. Again, it's not some big secret to actual sports gamblers, but it is not really well known to the public. Walters formalizes it in a way that's probably overly precise, but I actually agree with his ballparking number adjustment in a general sense. I was surprised he stepped out and put the generous number he did on it, but I would not have been more than half a point different had I been forced to opine.

Bottom line: I lost, and deservedly so. The people who advanced showed some balls and deserved to advance.

---

Another thing Redietz does. He ever says one thing useful outside of NFL nerd opinions.

This is more of the same. Goes to so much effort to not say anything useful but a veiled brag.

We get it Redietz, you need validation. Pathetic. Pat yourself on the back some more while everyone else realizes how clueless you are in general.

---

You know, I tested you guys recently. I reported an offshore that gave 100% free play on losses for every Monday Night game, capped at $200. It sits right there in the "Talk About Your Free Play" thread. Post #35.

The only response was semi-comedic by Dom.

I guess $200 in free play for every Monday Night loss just wasn't good enough for the VCT "APs" to appreciate. Nobody said thanks. Nobody said, "Which offshore?"

LOL. So the test worked. Either everybody here is too wealthy to bother with free money every Monday night or they have their own bizarro agendas or they don't really read.

I guess a poll is in order. Is $200 in free play for every Monday Night loser not "useful?" Account says it's not. He's the "AP." He's the expert.

---

Dietz has passed on hundreds of thousands of dollars in rollover money in his career.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You know, I tested you guys recently. I reported an offshore that gave 100% free play on losses for every Monday Night game, capped at $200. It sits right there in the "Talk About Your Free Play" thread. Post #35.

The only response was semi-comedic by Dom.

---

That was only because you happened to post in the middle of some Tasha. My attempted comedy was in reaction to her.

I think I already know the name of the book because you mentioned it in some other context. It's on my consideration list with your name tagged to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I guess a poll is in order. Is $200 in free play for every Monday Night loser not "useful?" Account says it's not. He's the "AP." He's the expert.

---

I am surprised I ever said this. Put up a link or lose more credibility.

Free $200 is great but it takes time and other things. If you're not sports betting then it is even further from "free'. It all has a time requirement.

A better interpretation of your "test" would be that people don't you seriously at all. That is a fairer assessment of the outcome of your test. Given how you post there is little reason to even bother asking. The answer would have been "do your research. yap yap yap". People too smart to fuck with it.

So I'll bite - what offshore site is this?

---

LOL. You just posted that I never post anything of value. It's right above. Do you not read what you post? Therefore, clearly, $200 free play for every MNF loser is of no value, according to you.

You are truly a doofus.

northbet.ag

A private sportsbook, sometimes known as a pay-per-head. redietz can get you an invite.

Signup with bonus code REDMONDAY200 and you'll be good to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

You know, I tested you guys recently. I reported an offshore that gave 100% free play on losses for every Monday Night game, capped at $200. It sits right there in the "Talk About Your Free Play" thread. Post #35.

The only response was semi-comedic by Dom.

---

That was only because you happened to post in the middle of some Tasha. My attempted comedy was in reaction to her.

I think I already know the name of the book because you mentioned it in some other context. It's on my consideration list with your name tagged to it.

---

Yes, I did, and I appreciate you mentioning it.

Whatever this play is worth in a season's time, roughly $800 (at the least) in cash for every man, woman, and child reading VCT, accountinquestion finds it of no value. Because, as he says, I never post anything of real value. As opposed, of course, to the many valuable lessons we have all gleaned from account.

Take advantage while it lasts. Last time I mentioned it publicly, for some reason I was cut off for months from such promos. But what the hell, the season's almost finished.

The reason I mentioned it in the free play thread was because not everyone likes betting sports. But everyone likes betting free play.

'Nuff said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyberbabble

northbet.ag

A private sportsbook, sometimes known as a pay-per-head. redietz can get you an invite.

Signup with bonus code REDMONDAY200 and you'll be good to go.

---

So, in other words, I was correct. I was the first to mention it here. I was being absolutely truthful and correct while being helpful to the folks to whom $200 in freeplay every week might be a useful thing.

But instead of saying that, we have cyberbabble's post above.

Have a good one. Let me know when someone posts something specific of comparable, direct value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accountinquestion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I guess a poll is in order. Is $200 in free play for every Monday Night loser not "useful?" Account says it's not. He's the "AP." He's the expert.

---

I am surprised I ever said this. Put up a link or lose more credibility.

Free $200 is great but it takes time and other things. If you're not sports betting then it is even further from "free'. It all has a time requirement.

A better interpretation of your "test" would be that people don't you seriously at all. That is a fairer assessment of the outcome of your test. Given how you post there is little reason to even bother asking. The answer would have been "do your research. yap yap yap". People too smart to fuck with it.

So I'll bite - what offshore site is this?

---

LOL. You just posted that I never post anything of value. It's right above. Do you not read what you post? Therefore, clearly, $200 free play for every MNF loser is of no value, according to you.

You are truly a doofus.

---

What? So in your book, not asking you a question that I know you won't answer means that i said a free $200 doesnt matter? I can't even recall you ever answering a question.

So are as insane as kewl.

You also have the same level of credibility

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyberbabble

northbet.ag

A private sportsbook, sometimes known as a pay-per-head. redietz can get you an invite.

Signup with bonus code REDMONDAY200 and you'll be good to go.

---

I had spoken to Red before about Northbet and the whole "invite' deal. I had forgotten about.

So here is the deal. Red now despised AP's that he thinks are moving in on his sportsbetting arena. So if we give him our name and identity, we will get an invite (so he gets credit). And then he will turn around and rat everyone out to all the different sportsbooks, saying so and so (our real identity and name) is bonus whoring. Great move, selling ourselves out for a measly $200. :D

This is even more insane and comical if it requires redietz getting our info.

Time is money. If you have to give up $400 in expectation on one play to go after $200 in expectation on another play then it has a minus value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coach belly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

There was a $5 8/5 Jacks or Better progressive (2% royal meter) in the high roller room at the Riverside/Laughlin. The royal started at 20K. Someone told me that if it reached 42K the change boys would be in to team play it until they hit it. So occasionally I would step into the high roller room to see where the meter was at.

So the meter got to 42K and the change boys appeared out of nowhere. I didn't know them but observed them a few minutes that day. I stopped back in the next morning. The royal had been hit and the change boys were nowhere to be seen.

One thing I know about that kind of progressive. It takes at least a 200K bankroll to even think about throwing down on it. Axel had six figure bankroll back in the 90's.

---

I'm interested in the logistics involved with this play.

Can you discuss/describe the team's approach?

Was it a single machine, or a linked bank? That's not clear, as you wrote that you observed them.

Why was it profitable at 42K for the royal, vs a lesser payoff?

What's the math behind needing a 200K bankroll?

Does that mean the team is willing to risk 200K to hit the progressive?

Since the play ends when the royal hits, is there an expected hourly loss until that happens?

---

Using perfect numbers: At 42K the game is just shy of 100% plus a 2% meter. So a 1.8% edge. Royal odds are 32,602. The average cost to produce the royal is 43.2K. But the meter moves 16.3K per royal cycle (32,602). So the expected value of the play is a net 15.1K profit.

The change boys come in at 42K because of competition. Another team could hit the royal....or a ploppie could hit it. On a progressive bank, the higher the meter goes the more action the bank gets, whether it's pro action or ploppie action.

So that bank at the Riverside was just two machines linked together. They want to lock up the machines and play until they hit the royal. That way they capture all the meter movement.

At 800 HPH it's 40 man hours average to hit the royal. That comes with variance. There is always the possibility they get stretched out on the play. With 4 players they can have 2 players resting while 2 players are working.

40 hours with a 15.1K earn. The play is worth $380 per man hour.

The rule of thumb on bankroll with a game that is that high in variance is 5 times the royal, or 200K. Playing on short money is a recipe for disaster. It's a thousand dollar per hour loss per machine until the royal hits.

Here's what the math looks like on Winpoker:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyberbabble

northbet.ag

A private sportsbook, sometimes known as a pay-per-head. redietz can get you an invite.

Signup with bonus code REDMONDAY200 and you'll be good to go.

---

I had spoken to Red before about Northbet and the whole "invite' deal. I had forgotten about.

So here is the deal. Red now despised AP's that he thinks are moving in on his sportsbetting arena. So if we give him our name and identity, we will get an invite (so he gets credit). And then he will turn around and rat everyone out to all the different sportsbooks, saying so and so (our real identity and name) is bonus whoring. Great move, selling ourselves out for a measly $200. :D

---

LOL. Good try, kewlJ.

I have no idea if you need a referral from an existing client to sign up or not these days. I know a few years back, when Witteles tried to sign up, he said they weren't taking any new customers. But I believe they advertised this season that they were taking on new customers. I have never referred anyone to NorthBet. If you couldn't get an account on your own, I probably offered to vouch for you if you wanted. That's about it.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Your oddsmaker.ag schtick was nonsense. You seem to think these offshores don't communicate with each other. As soon as you bonus whore one place, your name gets circulated to others. You can't just deposit, play minimum, withdraw, and go on to the next book or season and think you'll get bonuses redux.

You do that half a dozen times, as you idiotically do without assuming you'll be shut down, guess what? You'll be shut down. You're lucky they don't define you certain ways and just keep your money.

You should probably stick to blackjack fiction. Those offshore stories of yours are bizarre. You deposit, play off the bonus, withdraw all money in 60 or 90 days, then think you can do the same thing next sports season? And nobody will recognize what you're doing? And you're (allegedly) a professional gambler living in Las Vegas?

Yowza.

I know didley about blackjack. KewlJ's stories, while shaky at times, are not something I could debunk. But his sports betting tales are bizarre. He comes across as someone who really has no idea what can or can't be done on a regular basis. In that sense, the stench of his sports betting assumptions colors his blackjack narratives.

The common (bullshit) theme to kewlJ's stories is this idea that the places hosting gambling tolerate him in perpetuity, don't identify him, and he's able to make a living because he's functioning under everyone's radar...for years.

The more he waxes eloquent on sports betting, the more I lean to the theory of male escort using blackjack as a cover to explain income sources. I mean, it's an old angle. Not like it hasn't been done dozens of times by others.

But that's just me.

You just posted many details wrong Red. Not sure if that was intentional or not. Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I haven't been doing this sports betting bonus whoring for years. This was my first. I sort of figured they won't allow me to repeat, but yet I have already received two decent bonuses with reasonable (8 and 10) rollovers. Might give it another go for the final month of NFL, bleeding into basketball and hockey. Undecided as of this moment.

Kind of funny how in one post you referred to my blackjack play as fiction and the very next post minutes later, said you shouldn't comment because you don't know shit about blackjack. For what it is worth, from talking to you, you do know some about card counting.

I do take a little bit of exception to the characterization of "flying under the radar". That is absolutely NOT what I do or attempt to do. Those days are long gone. You can't "trick" computer evaluations. No matter what a player does the evaluation will conclude higher wager amounts in the more advantageous times.

What I have tried to do most of my time in Vegas is play limits that are better tolerated....that don't lead to issues that someone has to answer for. That avoid even getting to the evaluation.

I have done everything in my power to explain this and even share some of those techniques, but with people immediately jumping to "flying under the radar", I guess I have failed in explaining that. Either that or people just don't care to get it right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

You just posted many details wrong Red. Not sure if that was intentional or not. Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I haven't been doing this sports betting bonus whoring for years. This was my first. I sort of figured they won't allow me to repeat, but yet I have already received two decent bonuses with reasonable (8 and 10) rollovers. Might give it another go for the final month of NFL, bleeding into basketball and hockey. Undecided as of this moment.

Kind of funny how in one post you referred to my blackjack play as fiction and the very next post minutes later, said you shouldn't comment because you don't know shit about blackjack. For what it is worth, from talking to you, you do know some about card counting.

I do take a little bit of exception to the characterization of "flying under the radar". That is absolutely NOT what I do or attempt to do. Those days are long gone. You can't "trick" computer evaluations. No matter what a player does the evaluation will conclude higher wager amounts in the more advantageous times.

What I have tried to do most of my time in Vegas is play limits that are better tolerated....that don't lead to issues that someone has to answer for. That avoid even getting to the evaluation.

I have done everything in my power to explain this and even share some of those techniques, but with people immediately jumping to "flying under the radar", I guess I have failed in explaining that. Either that or people just don't care to get it right.

---

That’s because you suck and don’t actually know how to execute what you read online in real life. More evidence of how big a fraud you are. Maybe this blackjack persona is your cover story to launder escort funds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

I know didley about blackjack. KewlJ's stories, while shaky at times, are not something I could debunk. But his sports betting tales are bizarre. He comes across as someone who really has no idea what can or can't be done on a regular basis. In that sense, the stench of his sports betting assumptions colors his blackjack narratives.

The common (bullshit) theme to kewlJ's stories is this idea that the places hosting gambling tolerate him in perpetuity, don't identify him, and he's able to make a living because he's functioning under everyone's radar...for years.

The more he waxes eloquent on sports betting, the more I lean to the theory of male escort using blackjack as a cover to explain income sources. I mean, it's an old angle. Not like it hasn't been done dozens of times by others.

But that's just me.

---

+1
We finally agree on something.