Rufus Peabody of Unabated published before the game that Michigan should be favored by 9 points, -400 on the money line.
Printable View
Rufus Peabody of Unabated published before the game that Michigan should be favored by 9 points, -400 on the money line.
My buddy, Randy McKay cashed in both Circa and Survivor:
https://twitter.com/RR39/status/1744246170979852302
I didn't know it but Randy has been giving up 3 NFL picks a week on a podcast called Sports Bettors Paradise. He appears to be an opinion bettor like redietz. He was 29-19 thru week 16:
https://youtu.be/qJoVfZCBQHw
Randy is a smart guy (A nice guy as well) I can assure you whatever he is doing is +EV regardless if his picks are good or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Randy did well in the handicapping contests this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfRandy is a smart guy (A nice guy as well) I can assure you whatever he is doing is +EV regardless if his picks are good or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
He tied for 1st in a Draft Kings 50K buy-in contest, cashing for 400K. He went 51-29/63.7%.
In the Circa contests he finished 14th for a 33.5K cash. He went 57-31-2. And did 48th in their other contest.
https://twitter.com/RR39/status/1745113617819664806
Here's Fezzik's record in the contests:
https://twitter.com/FezzikSports/sta...67270513684659
Fezzik is (arguably) the best NFL contest player of all time. There are a couple of people who "ran the gauntlet" (in local contest-speak) some years before Fezzik, but I'm not sure they have the sustained, consistent results of Fezzik. So I'd have to vote Fezzik as the top NFL contest player.
Having said that, I must also mention that he publicly swore off actually betting NFL sides about 10 years ago in a public mea culpa that appeared, I believe, in the LV Review Journal. One can draw whatever conclusions are appropriate.
I also find it somewhat humorous that the LMS results are couched with the "as an investor" phrase. Mickey posted it, so I'm sure he can explain the implications and ramifications of that. Personally, I interpret it as a bald-faced caveat -- don't enter LMS contests for serious money because there's always a bigger dog in the fight, regardless of what the rules state. There's always a way around "the rules," so to speak. Everybody knows that but hope springs eternal. Mickey can spell it out for the studio audience.
Yeas, I'll spell it all out for you. You brag about yourself and your friend in these contests. Except you guys are chickenshit as hell. You play small potatoes contests and act like you are bigshots while doing it. MY FRIEND, plays in 50K buy-in contests... and YOU are a scuffler.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Scufflin' Bob Dietz
Here is a question for you mickey, since you have read and learned a great deal about the sportsbetting racket in the last year or so. Is there anyone left that just picks games, hitting 54, 55% for a profit anymore? It seems all the top sportsbettors are either winning their money from playing contests or seklling their picks and service.
Remember the final line in the movie Casino where after the bombing, the Robert Dinero character said he went back to picking games. He said something like "in the end, I could always pick winners". Is there no one like that left....that just picks winners at a 55% or better clip and wins money?
I am in my second stint of bonus whoring in the last 6 months. But my advantage is strictly from those bonuses. Without that, I am underwater, as I always have been. :rolleyes:
Red, you can answer as well. Anyone left that just handicaps games and picks winners?
Let me know the next time you see a 50K college football contest with one entry per person.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmYeas, I'll spell it all out for you. You brag about yourself and your friend in these contests. Except you guys are chickenshit as hell. You play small potatoes contests and act like you are bigshots while doing it. MY FRIEND, plays in 50K buy-in contests... and YOU are a scuffler.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Scufflin' Bob Dietz
Some of us, alas, are not Leonardo Da APs.
I love adjectives, by the way. Scufflin' sounds good. Kind of like "Battlin' Murdock," for those Daredevil fans. And what might your adjective be, mickey? "Not-Scufflin' Mickey, the King of Montana?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
You're missing the whole point, kewlJ. If you win 55% of your games, but you are a specialist (which almost all winners are), then you have a limited pool of games. Selling your games, say, on a pay-after-you-win premise, just pads the odds for you. It's an obvious advantage play. If you pad every win with a bonus from selling the play, then you eventually get to the point, if you have enough followers, where you can make money while winning 48% or 50% of your plays. You have essentially flipped the odds in your favor, a la being a bookmaker but not being a bookmaker.
I mean, this is obvious as hell. I don't see why "APs" find this strange, when it's a simple, obvious way of turning a house advantage upside down.
Red, Why do you talk down to and take shots at AP's (you just did again), when you just admitted you are APing? That your winnings isn't coming from being a good handicapper or sports picker but from AP contents like selling picks and playing contests?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Like I just said, I am in my second stint of making some money from sports betting bonus whoring. But that money I am making is 100% from the bonus play. I am underwater just going by my picks. Can I call myself a great handicapper or sports bettor? :D
I guess I am just a little surprised. I though there were some legitimate players that won by handicapping games and winning better than 53% needed to overcome the juice. Based on mickey's research and even your comments, I guess not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJRed, Why do you talk down to and take shots at AP's (you just did again), when you just admitted you are APing? That your winnings isn't coming from being a good handicapper or sports picker but from AP contents like selling picks and playing contests?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Like I just said, I am in my second stint of making some money from sports betting bonus whoring. But that money I am making is 100% from the bonus play. I am underwater just going by my picks. Can I call myself a great handicapper or sports bettor? :D
I guess I am just a little surprised. I though there were some legitimate players that won by handicapping games and winning better than 53% needed to overcome the juice. Based on mickey's research and even your comments, I guess not.
See, talking to you is largely a waste. Have you even understood what "Tipsters or Gypsters?" was? Or Handicappers' Report Card? Or The Sports Monitor? Or a publication called The Absolute Truth? Mickey even posted pages from "Tipsters or Gypsters?" on this site.
You don't really listen. There are people who actually win long-term. They are mostly specialists, and most of the winning takes place in college sports. The Walters' book is notable for NOT mentioning how he does what in which sports, by the way. There have always been college hoops savants. Some have lasted for years. The nature of college hoops, however, has constantly changed. The rules have changed. How those rules are officiated has changed (points of emphasis and all that). Shot clock has changed. What wins for a stretch for three or four years is no guarantee going forward when rules change. The three point line distance changes, for example. Sometimes nine inches means a lot, as opposed to six (LOL, Singer). The shot clock, for example. The degree to which NBA-style officiating bleeds down to lower levels.
All you have to do to figure out whether anybody wins long-term is dig up old "Tipsters or Gypsters?" and check the multi-year stats. Those stats actually UNDERreport the efficacy of handicappers because they are locked into lines in 24 to 48 hour periods prior to games. Shopping lines 24/7 would puff those stats up by 1 to 2 percent. Or dig up old Wise Guy Contest results. The cumulative numbers won't show much, but for some people, the college football numbers were pretty good for a span of 30 years. And again, those are not shopped numbers; they are locked numbers, so efficacy is actually higher than the results.
I talk down to "APs" because they think they're "sharps." LOL. They think they're part of the cool club, when there is literally nothing they are doing sports-wise that hasn't been done by handicappers for 40 years. It's the equivalent of listening to people brag about being able to make half their free throws, and then they give lessons.
The misperception of the "size of the clubs" is also funny. The number of people who have applied themselves to sports handicapping; the resources aimed at sports handicapping, and the expertise, have always dwarfed in number and resources applied the entire population of alleged AP players. And now, because sports gambling has become legal, "APs" think they are bringing something new to the table because they can what? Exploit bonuses? Been done for 50 years. Arbitrage? Been done for 50 years. Middles shooting? Been done for 50 years. Do simple math? Puh-lease. How 'bout them parlay calculators?
And here's the beauty of it. Because most know very little about the history of sports betting, the 'APs" think they are the experts! It's Dunning-Kruger to the nth.
Where Red? Where are these APs claiming or thinking they are experts?
On this forum, the APs that seem to be doing some sports betting have said just the opposite. Axelfolf has repeatedly said he doesn't know much about or watch sports. I have repeatedly said that I am a losing recreational sports bettor. The winning I am doing now is strictly because of the bonuses (AP play), not because I am picking winners. Mickeycrimm hasn't said what he is doing, but you can bet it is +EV or an AP play.
Who else? Druff, monet, Half Smoke or a couple others that sometimes make public picks? Never heard anyone say they were an expert at anything about sports betting. They are doing something AP-wise that makes their play +EV.
It is only you that claims to be some great handicapper who has made a living exclusively from sports picking for decades. And now you take offense at anyone applying anything +EV that makes a little money.
Where Red?
Lol at the scuffler.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmYeas, I'll spell it all out for you. You brag about yourself and your friend in these contests. Except you guys are chickenshit as hell. You play small potatoes contests and act like you are bigshots while doing it. MY FRIEND, plays in 50K buy-in contests... and YOU are a scuffler.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Scufflin' Bob Dietz
He isn't chickenshit. He is clearly too broke. Don't hold it against him. Let the man have his fun capping his losses $300 a pop over the course of a few months.
Not everyone on here is a real gambler.
You try 10x to convince others about APs than they ever try to.convince others. As if APs share any particular trait. From a psychological prospective, why do you do this ?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJRed, Why do you talk down to and take shots at AP's (you just did again), when you just admitted you are APing? That your winnings isn't coming from being a good handicapper or sports picker but from AP contents like selling picks and playing contests?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Like I just said, I am in my second stint of making some money from sports betting bonus whoring. But that money I am making is 100% from the bonus play. I am underwater just going by my picks. Can I call myself a great handicapper or sports bettor? :D
I guess I am just a little surprised. I though there were some legitimate players that won by handicapping games and winning better than 53% needed to overcome the juice. Based on mickey's research and even your comments, I guess not.
See, talking to you is largely a waste. Have you even understood what "Tipsters or Gypsters?" was? Or Handicappers' Report Card? Or The Sports Monitor? Or a publication called The Absolute Truth? Mickey even posted pages from "Tipsters or Gypsters?" on this site.
You don't really listen. There are people who actually win long-term. They are mostly specialists, and most of the winning takes place in college sports. The Walters' book is notable for NOT mentioning how he does what in which sports, by the way. There have always been college hoops savants. Some have lasted for years. The nature of college hoops, however, has constantly changed. The rules have changed. How those rules are officiated has changed (points of emphasis and all that). Shot clock has changed. What wins for a stretch for three or four years is no guarantee going forward when rules change. The three point line distance changes, for example. Sometimes nine inches means a lot, as opposed to six (LOL, Singer). The shot clock, for example. The degree to which NBA-style officiating bleeds down to lower levels.
All you have to do to figure out whether anybody wins long-term is dig up old "Tipsters or Gypsters?" and check the multi-year stats. Those stats actually UNDERreport the efficacy of handicappers because they are locked into lines in 24 to 48 hour periods prior to games. Shopping lines 24/7 would puff those stats up by 1 to 2 percent. Or dig up old Wise Guy Contest results. The cumulative numbers won't show much, but for some people, the college football numbers were pretty good for a span of 30 years. And again, those are not shopped numbers; they are locked numbers, so efficacy is actually higher than the results.
I talk down to "APs" because they think they're "sharps." LOL. They think they're part of the cool club, when there is literally nothing they are doing sports-wise that hasn't been done by handicappers for 40 years. It's the equivalent of listening to people brag about being able to make half their free throws, and then they give lessons.
The misperception of the "size of the clubs" is also funny. The number of people who have applied themselves to sports handicapping; the resources aimed at sports handicapping, and the expertise, have always dwarfed in number and resources applied the entire population of alleged AP players. And now, because sports gambling has become legal, "APs" think they are bringing something new to the table because they can what? Exploit bonuses? Been done for 50 years. Arbitrage? Been done for 50 years. Middles shooting? Been done for 50 years. Do simple math? Puh-lease. How 'bout them parlay calculators?
And here's the beauty of it. Because most know very little about the history of sports betting, the 'APs" think they are the experts! It's Dunning-Kruger to the nth.
Sports bettors are a subset if APs. Nothing more. I've never even seen anyone brag about discovering anything in regards to sports betting.
We crack on Redietz for relatively low EV endeavors. Redietz being true to himself brings up strawmen to viciously (lol) attack. He realized bragging about Monk shoes and being able to snap pay a 500 tax bill isn't going anywhere.
At the end of the day Redietz endlessly brags about some sort of low-end media project while clearly being too scared to actually do anything where he could give his views. 'Nuf said.
How does old ""Tipsters or Gypsters?" was? Or Handicappers' Report Card? Or The Sports Monitor? Or a publication called The Absolute Truth?" Help anyone make money on sports in 2024?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJRed, Why do you talk down to and take shots at AP's (you just did again), when you just admitted you are APing? That your winnings isn't coming from being a good handicapper or sports picker but from AP contents like selling picks and playing contests?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Like I just said, I am in my second stint of making some money from sports betting bonus whoring. But that money I am making is 100% from the bonus play. I am underwater just going by my picks. Can I call myself a great handicapper or sports bettor? :D
I guess I am just a little surprised. I though there were some legitimate players that won by handicapping games and winning better than 53% needed to overcome the juice. Based on mickey's research and even your comments, I guess not.
See, talking to you is largely a waste. Have you even understood what "Tipsters or Gypsters?" was? Or Handicappers' Report Card? Or The Sports Monitor? Or a publication called The Absolute Truth? Mickey even posted pages from "Tipsters or Gypsters?" on this site.
You don't really listen. There are people who actually win long-term. They are mostly specialists, and most of the winning takes place in college sports. The Walters' book is notable for NOT mentioning how he does what in which sports, by the way. There have always been college hoops savants. Some have lasted for years. The nature of college hoops, however, has constantly changed. The rules have changed. How those rules are officiated has changed (points of emphasis and all that). Shot clock has changed. What wins for a stretch for three or four years is no guarantee going forward when rules change. The three point line distance changes, for example. Sometimes nine inches means a lot, as opposed to six (LOL, Singer). The shot clock, for example. The degree to which NBA-style officiating bleeds down to lower levels.
All you have to do to figure out whether anybody wins long-term is dig up old "Tipsters or Gypsters?" and check the multi-year stats. Those stats actually UNDERreport the efficacy of handicappers because they are locked into lines in 24 to 48 hour periods prior to games. Shopping lines 24/7 would puff those stats up by 1 to 2 percent. Or dig up old Wise Guy Contest results. The cumulative numbers won't show much, but for some people, the college football numbers were pretty good for a span of 30 years. And again, those are not shopped numbers; they are locked numbers, so efficacy is actually higher than the results.
I talk down to "APs" because they think they're "sharps." LOL. They think they're part of the cool club, when there is literally nothing they are doing sports-wise that hasn't been done by handicappers for 40 years. It's the equivalent of listening to people brag about being able to make half their free throws, and then they give lessons.
The misperception of the "size of the clubs" is also funny. The number of people who have applied themselves to sports handicapping; the resources aimed at sports handicapping, and the expertise, have always dwarfed in number and resources applied the entire population of alleged AP players. And now, because sports gambling has become legal, "APs" think they are bringing something new to the table because they can what? Exploit bonuses? Been done for 50 years. Arbitrage? Been done for 50 years. Middles shooting? Been done for 50 years. Do simple math? Puh-lease. How 'bout them parlay calculators?
And here's the beauty of it. Because most know very little about the history of sports betting, the 'APs" think they are the experts! It's Dunning-Kruger to the nth.
I never said I don't watch sports, I absolutely love watching football, MMA and boxing. I'm just not a fanatic about it. I know guys that dedicate entire days to watching Sports and making bets right on schedule. I used to religiously watch football. But nowadays, I'm good for a couple of games a week at most.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I rarely stop what I'm doing or go out of my way just to watch an event unless it's something special. I do bet on lots of different things that I don't watch.
At the start of this football season, I was planning to do a lot more sports betting and sports watching while taking advantage of + EV bonuses online.
I did do some of that, but I didn't watch anywhere near what I thought I would be watching(that reminds me to cancel ESPN Plus)
I did end up wagering somewhere in the neighborhood of $300,000. The problem is that I have too many irons in the fire to concentrate on the sports stuff and dedicate enough time. Especially when I feel that I'm handicapped in sports betting when it comes to finding +EV value on the games continually and at that point, I'm just flipping coins. I ended up giving up some EV and made a side deal to lock up some profits and to relieve myself of the obligation.
I can't imagine a time when I won't be betting on sports or looking for some +EV betting situations and watching some along the away.
Bobbie Dietz is a chameleon. Yesterday he was Scufflin' Bob Dietz. Today he's Strawman Bob Dietz. He just invents something that someone didn't say then proceeds to debunk what the person didn't say.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by kewlJRed, Why do you talk down to and take shots at AP's (you just did again), when you just admitted you are APing? That your winnings isn't coming from being a good handicapper or sports picker but from AP contents like selling picks and playing contests?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Like I just said, I am in my second stint of making some money from sports betting bonus whoring. But that money I am making is 100% from the bonus play. I am underwater just going by my picks. Can I call myself a great handicapper or sports bettor? :D
I guess I am just a little surprised. I though there were some legitimate players that won by handicapping games and winning better than 53% needed to overcome the juice. Based on mickey's research and even your comments, I guess not.
See, talking to you is largely a waste. Have you even understood what "Tipsters or Gypsters?" was? Or Handicappers' Report Card? Or The Sports Monitor? Or a publication called The Absolute Truth? Mickey even posted pages from "Tipsters or Gypsters?" on this site.
You don't really listen. There are people who actually win long-term. They are mostly specialists, and most of the winning takes place in college sports. The Walters' book is notable for NOT mentioning how he does what in which sports, by the way. There have always been college hoops savants. Some have lasted for years. The nature of college hoops, however, has constantly changed. The rules have changed. How those rules are officiated has changed (points of emphasis and all that). Shot clock has changed. What wins for a stretch for three or four years is no guarantee going forward when rules change. The three point line distance changes, for example. Sometimes nine inches means a lot, as opposed to six (LOL, Singer). The shot clock, for example. The degree to which NBA-style officiating bleeds down to lower levels.
All you have to do to figure out whether anybody wins long-term is dig up old "Tipsters or Gypsters?" and check the multi-year stats. Those stats actually UNDERreport the efficacy of handicappers because they are locked into lines in 24 to 48 hour periods prior to games. Shopping lines 24/7 would puff those stats up by 1 to 2 percent. Or dig up old Wise Guy Contest results. The cumulative numbers won't show much, but for some people, the college football numbers were pretty good for a span of 30 years. And again, those are not shopped numbers; they are locked numbers, so efficacy is actually higher than the results.
I talk down to "APs" because they think they're "sharps." LOL. They think they're part of the cool club, when there is literally nothing they are doing sports-wise that hasn't been done by handicappers for 40 years. It's the equivalent of listening to people brag about being able to make half their free throws, and then they give lessons.
The misperception of the "size of the clubs" is also funny. The number of people who have applied themselves to sports handicapping; the resources aimed at sports handicapping, and the expertise, have always dwarfed in number and resources applied the entire population of alleged AP players. And now, because sports gambling has become legal, "APs" think they are bringing something new to the table because they can what? Exploit bonuses? Been done for 50 years. Arbitrage? Been done for 50 years. Middles shooting? Been done for 50 years. Do simple math? Puh-lease. How 'bout them parlay calculators?
And here's the beauty of it. Because most know very little about the history of sports betting, the 'APs" think they are the experts! It's Dunning-Kruger to the nth.
"I've never heard an AP tell anyone he's a "sharp."
"AP's think they are bringing something new to sports betting." Absolutely not, Dietz. AP's are just using the simple techniques that were developed by the old school guys decades ago. But, you gotta get that strawman shit working, don't you.
"AP's think they are experts at sportsbetting." No one on here has ever said they are a sportsbetting expert except Bob Dietz. All AP's are doing is working big fat edges provided by the bonus money. It's a simple AP technique.
You don't have anything to worry about, Dietz. When the bonus money is gone the AP's will be gone. Playing without the extras is thin edge at best. AP's understand that, without the extras, they don't have the expertise to even get a thin edge at sports betting. Repeat. AP's understand they don't have the expertise to beat thin edge sports betting.
When the extras are gone then the AP's will be gone. See ya! Wouldn't want to be ya!
What I find amazing is while AP's took all that easy money from the new legal start up books, you just twiddled your thumbs. WTF? I thought you were an expert at this shit. That was not an expert move, Strawman.
It's never going to dry up as long as there are online casinos with sports betting, it's been 20 years or more. Sure, there are going to be lulls and changes, but there are always going to be new/different opportunities if you know what you're doing and you're willing to put in the time and effort.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I'm sure Red was telling us Bonuses were dead long before the resurgence where people made a s*** ton of money.
I think handicapping will go by the wayside long before bonuses do.
Keep an eye out for Canada, if they ever go full-blown Sports Online.