The Wizard's Half Point Parlay Card Threads

It's been 11 years ago that Shack started that first thread teaching everyone on WoV about the NFL half point parlay cards. He estimated it was worth at least 30% EV but actually out performed that.

The half point cards come out early in the week so he was working the discrepancies in the parlay card lines and the board lines late in the week. Everyone knows the line is sharper later in the week.

He started out trying to get $100 cards in but to much rejection so dropped down to $50 a pop and trying to get in 10 to 15 cards per week betting 5 and 6 teamers. Sometimes only successful at getting in maybe 7 or eight. However, there were weeks where he didn't bet much because there wasn't much line movement.

For the 2013 season he made about 17K in cashes on about 10K in bets.

For 2014 he made 20K in cashes for 11.6K in bets.

He didn't publish his results for 2015 but had a big year because one week he cashed every ticket for 25 or 50 for 1. All it takes is one big week.

One of the main concerns in the threads by him and his followers was how tough it was to get the books to take the bets. They had to move around getting a few tickets in here and there.

In 2016 He had one week where his picks went 7-0. Late in the season Shack was complaining about not being able to get more than a few cards in every week. He said it wasn't worth his time. So 2016 was his last year with it.

Shack got many thanks from those that followed his lead. Axel could tell us more about what happened.

2013/2014 seasons
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...-parlay-cards/

2015 season
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...s-2015-season/

2016 season:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...s-2016-season/

This is the part where I mention:

1) People have been doing this for decades.
2) Boyd was the target in the 80's and '90's, with bettors descending on the various Boyd properties simultaneously (there were a half dozen, including the Stardust).
3) I have a couple of personal stories. I did this myself, not as some big "AP" move, but because what else are you going to do once you have your seat at the Stardust and have two to three hours to kill?
4) The books are well aware of this, but there is no real self-defense other than to limit amounts (as they did with me). Now bear in mind, this was the '80's. They would actually call "key" and review my cards whenever I'd turn them in, regardless of how small the amounts. They limited me to $50 a card at the Stardust, with the manager checking me out at the windows.
5) It does no "APs" any favors to broadcast this and publicize it via websites. Why do that? It's the same kind of self-congratulatory, screw-the-other-players move as when "Stanford Wong" publicized the vulnerabilities/angles in teaser betting. All it did was screw the savvy bettors so someone could take "credit" for knowing it.
6) There is actually a somewhat more sophisticated version of doing this (still simple, though) that most folks who were doing it employed during the 80's and 90's. The sophisticated version attacked college football lines more often than NFL. That's what I did. It was better than this. I think (no, I know), that 30% profit figure is a real reach.
7) Finally, you should really not be assigning "EV" to this except in past tense, as the effectiveness of this changes year-to-year, often depending on rule changes, of which there have been many since the 80's. Trying to calculate "EV" for this going forward is a mental/psychological trap assigning more abilities and control to the bettor than actually exist. You can presume and assume, but in the real world, occasionally that gets you clobbered.

An aside -- what I just wrote in #7 above is also what limits the utility of Billy Walters' charts (employed in other of mickey's posts). Those charts use historical data. Mickey treats it as if rules haven't changed and those charts aren't specifically dated. Big hole in mickey's logic. Again, you can use them in past tense, but you have no business projecting much of anything from them. So are they useful? In a very crude, overall way for civilians maybe, but not in any current sense.

And finally, I wrote this same spiel some years back regarding the same topic, probably on WOV, which I'm sure endeared me to Shackleford greatly. Mickey must not recall. I suspect mickey's memory is not what it was. But neither is mine. Coffee helps, mickey. Coffee helps. Those $6.51 coffees from the Golden Nugget serve a purpose in our waning years.


P.S. You just learned more in this post than by reading the sum total of what Shack and mickey combined know about this subject. Unless I'm getting a serious stipend, that's it for me. My time has value.

P.S.S. I had a client/partner in the 80's, a Jewish accountant from New York, who flew to Las Vegas each week just to do this for thousands of dollars each weekend. He would actually fill out the tickets, which took a good eight hours, and then fly out. He used this and another, slightly different strategy. He was the guy who entered The Castaways (forerunner to the SuperBook contest) and who I took over for about two-thirds of the way through.

https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot...castaways.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

P.S. You just learned more in this post than by reading the sum total of what Shack and mickey combined know about this subject. Unless I'm getting a serious stipend, that's it for me. My time has value.

---

No. None of this was actionable. Although I learned about the Stardust (or whatever) and I do find such stories interesting to read on a forum, please don't kid yourself. Even you teased stories you COULD tell. haha ! But no actual story. Just a bunch of stuff trying to prove how knowledgeable you are but without actually demonstrating knowledge.

Also, please don't tell us nonsense such as your time has value. You need all that time to plan your next LV trip in a year?!?!

Mickeycrimm, do you think the fact that Shackleford is well known and easily identified worked against him? Might it have made a difference if he had someone else try to get some of his cards in?

Follow up question: If in fact the Wiz is a successful AP, why isn't he barred from play in LV casinos?

Obviously the suits in the casinos are aware of who he is.

Ever notice that redietz always jumps in and takes credit for what other people have done. And blows the shit out of his own horn telling everyone how good he iss and how he was crushing that same thing 40 years ago. He wants you to believe he's knowledgeable on the subject but he never divulges any knowledge. It's all "I did this and I did that." Idiocy.

Ditz disputes the "at least 30% edge" Shack claimed. Ditz says he absolutely knows that's to high. Yet the empirical evidence is that in the 4 years Shack did it his lowest year was 172% return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Mickeycrimm, do you think the fact that Shackleford is well known and easily identified worked against him? Might it have made a difference if he had someone else try to get some of his cards in?

---

Axel had been doing the half point parlay cards for years by 2013 when Shack decided to create a thread on it. Axel also said he had gotten down to where none of the books would take his action. He and Shack both said they would zero in on who was putting the cards in. So they would use beards to get them in. But even that got to where it wouldn't work.

And the books would disqualify teams that were "on the hot side."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Follow up question: If in fact the Wiz is a successful AP, why isn't he barred from play in LV casinos?

Obviously the suits in the casinos are aware of who he is.

---

Sometime in the last year (maybe 6 months ago) wizard mentioned to me that he used to count cards fairly regularly (which I wasn't really aware of) but that he doesn't do so much anymore.

I would guess some backoffs and countermeasures is at least a part of that along with that he prefers a bigger edge that card counting provides.


As I have been saying, table game advantage play including card counting is a different beast, because there is a whole group if humans right there in the pit that we deal with. Machines APs just don't have that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Ever notice that redietz always jumps in and takes credit for what other people have done. And blows the shit out of his own horn telling everyone how good he iss and how he was crushing that same thing 40 years ago. He wants you to believe he's knowledgeable on the subject but he never divulges any knowledge. It's all "I did this and I did that." Idiocy.

Ditz disputes the "at least 30% edge" Shack claimed. Ditz says he absolutely knows that's to high. Yet the empirical evidence is that in the 4 years Shack did it his lowest year was 172% return.

---

Nope. Never said I was "crushing it." I didn't say anything remotely close to that. It was something I did that was going to be hit or miss, and it was going to have wild variance, and I did it in a semi-serious way, but not something I took any great pride in. As I said, my limits on this thing at the Stardust were $50, if the managers were there. I never put more than $100 on these cards, regardless, which would be between $300 and $400 in today's dollars.

The fact is that oodles of people were doing this, which is why Boyd was sensitive to the idea and flagged anybody playing certain teams at the certain numbers. There were, in fact, organized teams of bettors doing this for 20 times what I was doing, hitting Boyd simultaneously at multiple locations. The cards were identical at all locations.

Facts are facts. There is little new under the sun. What the Wiz was doing had been done for at least 30 years by many people.

As to what is "actionable" as one maroon said, figure it out. Nothing in the Wizard posts is necessarily "actionable" last year or this year or next year. Unless by "actionable" you mean "I'll bet it hell or high water."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Mickeycrimm, do you think the fact that Shackleford is well known and easily identified worked against him? Might it have made a difference if he had someone else try to get some of his cards in?

---

Axel had been doing the half point parlay cards for years by 2013 when Shack decided to create a thread on it. Axel also said he had gotten down to where none of the books would take his action. He and Shack both said they would zero in on who was putting the cards in. So they would use beards to get them in. But even that got to where it wouldn't work.

And the books would disqualify teams that were "on the hot side."

---

For me, this comes back around to APs or winning players, including sports bettors need to do everything they can to protect their identity and anonymity.

How can our resident 40+ year sports betting expert not understand this? :confused:

Regardless of what you are doing, if you are a long-term winning player, the casinos want to identify you, figure out how you are winning and stop you.

I just don't understand why some here don't seem to grasp this. I really don't. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Mickeycrimm, do you think the fact that Shackleford is well known and easily identified worked against him? Might it have made a difference if he had someone else try to get some of his cards in?

---

Axel had been doing the half point parlay cards for years by 2013 when Shack decided to create a thread on it. Axel also said he had gotten down to where none of the books would take his action. He and Shack both said they would zero in on who was putting the cards in. So they would use beards to get them in. But even that got to where it wouldn't work.

And the books would disqualify teams that were "on the hot side."

---

For me, this comes back around to APs or winning players, including sports bettors need to do everything they can to protect their identity and anonymity.

How can our resident 40+ year sports betting expert not understand this? :confused:

Regardless of what you are doing, if you are a long-term winning player, the casinos want to identify you, figure out how you are winning and stop you.

I just don't understand why some here don't seem to grasp this. I really don't. :rolleyes:

---

The problem you have here, kewlJ, is that you lump opinions and outright mechanical advantages together as the same thing. Why do you think books, since time immemorial, have allowed what used to be called betting into the "outlaw line" by select players? Why do you think the Stardust allowed heavy hitters to fire into its virgin line at 6 PM every Sunday night when the first numbers were posted? Why do you think a Hall of Fame sports book manager like Jay Kornegay ("Korn Dog" in the contest) would enter something like LineMasters Bowl Contest, which is a very modest little private event? The answers are all pretty much the same.

Then you could ask why sports books would severely limit those firing at parlay cards with frozen lines or why offshores would label bonus whores and seek to shut them down? The frozen lines and bonus whores are a different type of wagering. The first in the previous paragraph, can be beneficial, overall, for sports books in the long run. The second, not so much.

Thus, obviously (a lot of logical handholding here to explain the obvious), the first category of sport book "problem" is not really a problem. No need for anonymity. In fact, technically, anonymity works against you until you get to Billy Walters level gambling, which only a handful of people do. The second category of sports book "problem" isn't something the books can benefit by in any way, so they will shut you down because it's damned obvious what the plays should be and the books need no hints regarding what the plays should be.

If you don't have an automatic recognition of this stuff, God bless you. It's as plain as dealers flipping their cards up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

Mickeycrimm, do you think the fact that Shackleford is well known and easily identified worked against him? Might it have made a difference if he had someone else try to get some of his cards in?

---

Axel had been doing the half point parlay cards for years by 2013 when Shack decided to create a thread on it. Axel also said he had gotten down to where none of the books would take his action. He and Shack both said they would zero in on who was putting the cards in. So they would use beards to get them in. But even that got to where it wouldn't work.

And the books would disqualify teams that were "on the hot side."

---

This is interesting. So Axelwolf and surely others had been doing this and starting to have trouble getting the cards in. Along comes Wizard and writes about it in detail on his forum, one of the more popular gambling forums. That couldn't of helped the case.

I get that Shackleford's website and forums were about "helping players to be better gamblers through the math". (or something like that). And although I can't point to anything specific right at the moment, I am sure I have benefited by something I read by Shack at one time or another. But this certainly brushes up against the "loose lips sinks ships" mentality.

There have been a number of times Wizard talked about things that killed plays. One the Magic 21 side bet, my brother and I were involved with in Colorado, when Mike posted about it in detail, just what it was worth. It almost instantaneously killed the play as the casinos in Colorado immediately reduced payouts.

Another the Plaza VP promotion, Mike was not going to be able to play. He was out of town or something. So he posted up just what it was worth per hours, and the casino pulled the best machines even before the promo started. (I was not playing that one).

But there is a definite history or that with this guy. Makes you question who's side he is on? :confused:

Now I talk about card counting and different things, but that is all well known. 60 years. Thousands of books. I do occasionally mention some specific techniques that I use that aren't as well know. Things that increased Ev and winnings by a good deal like tracking and immediately jumping to a second table. A couple others that I have never mentioned. :cool:

And I talk about some techniques that I do that I am certain have increased my longevity. Like spreading both ways and playing card counter's basis strategy, so as not to play many hands differently during different counts. But again, I figure my loose lips in talking about anything I do specifically, really only harms me if it harms anyone. And I haven't noticed any adverse effect of doing so.

But seriously, not to attack shackleford, but isn't there a case to be made that he harms AP's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

But seriously, not to attack shackleford, but isn't there a case to be made that he harms AP's?

---

Obviously.

I'm not the information sharing police, but it's not necessary to hype the opportunities the way he does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Ditz disputes the "at least 30% edge" Shack claimed. Ditz says he absolutely knows that's to high. Yet the empirical evidence is that in the 4 years Shack did it his lowest year was 172% return.

---

He didn't have a 72% edge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

The problem you have here, kewlJ, is that you lump opinions and outright mechanical advantages together as the same thing. Why do you think books, since time immemorial, have allowed what used to be called betting into the "outlaw line" by select players? Why do you think the Stardust allowed heavy hitters to fire into its virgin line at 6 PM every Sunday night when the first numbers were posted? Why do you think a Hall of Fame sports book manager like Jay Kornegay ("Korn Dog" in the contest) would enter something like LineMasters Bowl Contest, which is a very modest little private event? The answers are all pretty much the same.

Then you could ask why sports books would severely limit those firing at parlay cards with frozen lines or why offshores would label bonus whores and seek to shut them down? The frozen lines and bonus whores are a different type of wagering. The first in the previous paragraph, can be beneficial, overall, for sports books in the long run. The second, not so much.

Thus, obviously (a lot of logical handholding here to explain the obvious), the first category of sport book "problem" is not really a problem. No need for anonymity. In fact, technically, anonymity works against you until you get to Billy Walters level gambling, which only a handful of people do. The second category of sports book "problem" isn't something the books can benefit by in any way, so they will shut you down because it's damned obvious what the plays should be and the books need no hints regarding what the plays should be.

If you don't have an automatic recognition of this stuff, God bless you. It's as plain as dealers flipping their cards up.

---

Red, stop worrying so much about me. :D I am not trying to become a professional sports bettor. Sure I am learning some things. A lot of it from mickeycrimm, but my sports betting is a very specific side gig. It is ALL about the bonuses. And that will probably dry up at some point....maybe that has already began. :rolleyes:

I have never put in a parlay card and certainly won't now. That is NOT going to help my cause of staying anonymous, which is necessary (as much as possible) for my primary gig and income, card counting. BTW, side note: Card counting, my primary income is 3rd of 4 income streams this year at the present time. And 3rd by quite a bit. One trick pony I am. :cool:

I do however like some angles and things I am learning. Some of the angles Half Smoke posts about, (as he did today) that NFL away teams and small under dogs showed a very small profit over many years (backed by data). I love the first 2 week underdog angle that he shared last year and I played where underdogs went 11-5 both the first two weeks. Can't wait for the first two weeks in September. :D

But in the end, my profits come from the bonus and eating as little of that money as I can getting through the rollover.

Just leave me out of you obsessions and silly little forum war where you are trying to prove you are the greatest sports bettor of all time. And yet don't seem to know why a winning player needs to protect his identity and anonymity. Just Bizarre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Ever notice that redietz always jumps in and takes credit for what other people have done. And blows the shit out of his own horn telling everyone how good he iss and how he was crushing that same thing 40 years ago. He wants you to believe he's knowledgeable on the subject but he never divulges any knowledge. It's all "I did this and I did that." Idiocy.

Ditz disputes the "at least 30% edge" Shack claimed. Ditz says he absolutely knows that's to high. Yet the empirical evidence is that in the 4 years Shack did it his lowest year was 172% return.

---

Nope. Never said I was "crushing it." I didn't say anything remotely close to that. It was something I did that was going to be hit or miss, and it was going to have wild variance, and I did it in a semi-serious way, but not something I took any great pride in. As I said, my limits on this thing at the Stardust were $50, if the managers were there. I never put more than $100 on these cards, regardless, which would be between $300 and $400 in today's dollars.

The fact is that oodles of people were doing this, which is why Boyd was sensitive to the idea and flagged anybody playing certain teams at the certain numbers. There were, in fact, organized teams of bettors doing this for 20 times what I was doing, hitting Boyd simultaneously at multiple locations. The cards were identical at all locations.

Facts are facts. There is little new under the sun. What the Wiz was doing had been done for at least 30 years by many people.

As to what is "actionable" as one maroon said, figure it out. Nothing in the Wizard posts is necessarily "actionable" last year or this year or next year. Unless by "actionable" you mean "I'll bet it hell or high water."

---

It was a reference to all your back patting you do then at the end there is nothing of substance outside you trying to frame yourself as wise. All the forum sharps have wised up to your game, Red.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Perignom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

But seriously, not to attack shackleford, but isn't there a case to be made that he harms AP's?

---

Obviously.

I'm not the information sharing police, but it's not necessary to hype the opportunities the way he does.

---

You are being kind with this statement.

It is history now, but he literally pulled the rug out from under us with the Magic 21 play. We were camped out in Colorado (as were other AP's playing it) when Shackleford posted about the play and it all but ended the very next day.

AND it gets even worse. After the fact, sometime later I was communicating with another AP, who I communicate with periodically for more than a decade. He and an associate were also playing that play (unbeknownst to me at that time). The associate is personal friends with Shackleford and found out that Shackleford was about to expose the play. He pleaded with Shackleford (supposedly his friend) not to expose a play he was working on. Shacky delayed a few days and then went ahead and screwed us all. So throw any notion that Shacklefords actions were unintentional out the window.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redietz

P.S.S. I had a client/partner in the 80's, a Jewish accountant from New York, who flew to Las Vegas each week just to do this for thousands of dollars each weekend. He would actually fill out the tickets, which took a good eight hours, and then fly out. He used this and another, slightly different strategy. He was the guy who entered The Castaways (forerunner to the SuperBook contest) and who I took over for about two-thirds of the way through.
https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot...castaways.html

---

https://thumbs4.imagebam.com/73/6b/f8/MEU0E5M_t.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

He pleaded with Shackleford (supposedly his friend) not to expose a play he was working on. Shacky delayed a few days and then went ahead and screwed us all.

---

If this is true then it definitely stands to reason the Wizard was being compensated in some way for exposing the play. It could be something as simple as casinos looking the other way regarding his own plays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kewlJ

He pleaded with Shackleford (supposedly his friend) not to expose a play he was working on. Shacky delayed a few days and then went ahead and screwed us all.

---

If this is true then it definitely stands to reason the Wizard was being compensated in some way for exposing the play. It could be something as simple as casinos looking the other way regarding his own plays.

---

I don't buy this. Who would be paying him to kill the play other that the casinos involved. And if they wanted to kill the play, they didn't need Wizard to do or say anything. They could have just cut the payoff (which they eventually did).

I think is is just a case of Mike. Not caring that his revealing something hurts others. He made some kind of comment to that effect at one point. I think regarding the Plaza play. He said something like it isn't his responsibility to stay silent, even if he knows others are playing it. I really think his mindset is that if he is not playing it, fuck anyone else.

Just my opinion, but it is one thing for Mike to do a write up of a new game or side bet, including possible vulnerabilities. He is paid by the new owners to keep doing that. But when he knows players are working it, he should either hold off or be much less specific that he is when he reveals these plays. He usually goes step by step AND reveals just what the play is worth an hour. When the casino reads that.....and they do, there is only going to be one outcome. They will shut it down.

So this idea that he is helping anyone else, doesn't fly. He just can't help himself. He wants everyone to know that he knows....even if it harms other APs. The term I would use is sabotage.

How does the saying go....with friends like that.....

Or a revised version: with fellow APs on our side doing this....