Printable View
Or how much more would you have if you didn’t convince yourself you had an edge sports betting
The delusions are strong with most APs. They believe they can just beat sports. Instead of Just continuing to grind at what got them the money they somehow believe they are Haralabos Voulgaris. It’s such a waste of time for 99.9 percent of you. People forget what they are good at and lose their bankroll in the process. I will never understand it
I'm homeless and have to eat my own foot due to sports betting.
Negreanu tipped out 20k off of his 3,312,000 win.
Sort of like Rob Singer.
Players gonna do what they want to do.
Not everyday you get to see a rack and a stack of 25k chips...
Some of the greatest gambling minds have crashed on the shoals of sports betting. And some of the greatest sports betting minds have crashed when they've stepped out of their sports of expertise. It's the classic pitfall for people who have actually managed to win at some specific subset. The winning isn't enough or the action isn't enough, so they expand what they do and get run over.
Todd here at least puts thought and work behind what he's doing, although I think he should be more diligent shopping. But almost nobody is as diligent as me, so maybe I coach too much. He's not going to get drilled doing things the way he does them.
Todd has some classic famous examples to demonstrate how poker expertise doesn't necessarily translate into anything in sports betting. There's Phil Ivey and Stu Ungar, who blew almost as much betting sports as they won playing poker. I should correct that. Ivey blew almost as much playing craps and sports betting as he did playing poker.
I do see sports betting as a bleed for regular APs. People just blithely assume if you apply an AP mindset, sports winning will come. That's nonsense. Once you're past the free play sign-up bonus whoring, 99% of APs will be out of their depth.
This is one reason I am so appalled and insulted when a maroon like Singer claims he won 68% ATS for two years in the NFL. The claim is a blatant joke, although he's too dumb to realize it.
Ivey was getting massive rebates putting the game over 100% for him but whatever, the way you tell the story is better and I'm guessing he prefers it that way. This a little bit of gripe about these forums because most of you don't know or realize what is going on behind the scenes. Negotiating a 5% rebate for a certain amount of action used to be a thing. I've seen other interesting deals like the Casino giving you 105k must play chips or free play that you had to run through for 100k cash. Sometimes, sports has deals and or promotions like this... you must know that!? Add on points and mail and other things and it can get fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Next time I want to wash some chips, I'll ask Daniel to do it for a cut ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
Ivey might be one of the best table game APs of all time. Who knows how much he won before the Borgata and Crockfords debacle.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I thought it was pretty common knowledge at this point that Ivey was exploiting loss rebates for craps all over town before he got busted with the edge sorting, then those rebate offers were no more.
I doubt you missed this.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
I didn't watch it and probably never will.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKnoNfajUgM
I was down $385 at the start of this weekend, for 4 weeks of pro football and 5 weeks of college. I bet baseball, this year for the first time and lost $677. I would say I average losses of $1000 a year. Had a couple winning years but also a couple years where I lost closer to 2 grand. So average $1000 to $1200 maybe.
And I have not convinced myself that anything I do with sports betting is +EV. It is purely entertainment and -EV for me. Guys that play golf once a week, what does that cost $100, probably more counting equipment, cloths, drinks afterwards. Sports betting is my golf.
AND if I have a bad weekend and lose $300-$400, I just charge the married men I service a little more that week. ;)
Monet, I'm well aware of people who laid 105 instead of 110 routinely on everything they bet when they bet it, but that was for 50K on up per game. I'm also aware of the occasional 5K in free play that could be used towards sports bets if one chose (M used to do that). I think when all is said and done, if you are completely diligent and organized, yeah, you could manage to make a profit winning 50 to 51% of your bets.Quote:
Originally Posted by monetIvey was getting massive rebates putting the game over 100% for him but whatever, the way you tell the story is better and I'm guessing he prefers it that way. This a little bit of gripe about these forums because most of you don't know or realize what is going on behind the scenes. Negotiating a 5% rebate for a certain amount of action used to be a thing. I've seen other interesting deals like the Casino giving you 105k must play chips or free play that you had to run through for 100k cash. Sometimes, sports has deals and or promotions like this... you must know that!? Add on points and mail and other things and it can get fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Where Ivey got in some trouble (and Mickelson) was hooking up with a certain high stakes sports bettor originally from my neck of the woods. That was a whole 'nother world.
I've didn't AP baccarat. The chick did for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaewooIvey might be one of the best table game APs of all time. Who knows how much he won before the Borgata and Crockfords debacle.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Have you watched any of the interviews with the woman? She was pretty forthright. Refreshing attitude. She was driving the bus, intellectually and in terms of expertise.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbjbI've didn't AP baccarat. The chick did for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaewooIvey might be one of the best table game APs of all time. Who knows how much he won before the Borgata and Crockfords debacle.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I was aware of it, but hadn't watched it yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by monetI doubt you missed this.Quote:
Originally Posted by tableplay
I didn't watch it and probably never will.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKnoNfajUgM
You can make 2% -3% knowing absolutely nothing about sports using a simple formula tracking lines that are off/line shopping. Multiple online accounts+ time and dedication and you could make a living. If you were really motivated, dedicated and added more tools such as odds boosts, bonuses, rebates promos, etc, and had lots of friends and family accounts you could do quite well. No fancy handicapping or knowledge about any of the sports. Just some math that shows you either have a +EV bet or you dont.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzMonet, I'm well aware of people who laid 105 instead of 110 routinely on everything they bet when they bet it, but that was for 50K on up per game. I'm also aware of the occasional 5K in free play that could be used towards sports bets if one chose (M used to do that). I think when all is said and done, if you are completely diligent and organized, yeah, you could manage to make a profit winning 50 to 51% of your bets.Quote:
Originally Posted by monetIvey was getting massive rebates putting the game over 100% for him but whatever, the way you tell the story is better and I'm guessing he prefers it that way. This a little bit of gripe about these forums because most of you don't know or realize what is going on behind the scenes. Negotiating a 5% rebate for a certain amount of action used to be a thing. I've seen other interesting deals like the Casino giving you 105k must play chips or free play that you had to run through for 100k cash. Sometimes, sports has deals and or promotions like this... you must know that!? Add on points and mail and other things and it can get fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Where Ivey got in some trouble (and Mickelson) was hooking up with a certain high stakes sports bettor originally from my neck of the woods. That was a whole 'nother world.
No no no, real sports bettors spend so much time obsessing over obscure handicapping contests that they have to sell their picks to actually make money.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfYou can make 2% -3% knowing absolutely nothing about sports using a simple formula tracking lines that are off/line shopping. Multiple online accounts+ time and dedication and you could make a living. If you were really motivated, dedicated and added more tools such as odds boosts, bonuses, rebates promos, etc, and had lots of friends and family accounts you could do quite well. No fancy handicapping or knowledge about any of the sports. Just some math that shows you either have a +EV bet or you dont.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzMonet, I'm well aware of people who laid 105 instead of 110 routinely on everything they bet when they bet it, but that was for 50K on up per game. I'm also aware of the occasional 5K in free play that could be used towards sports bets if one chose (M used to do that). I think when all is said and done, if you are completely diligent and organized, yeah, you could manage to make a profit winning 50 to 51% of your bets.Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
Where Ivey got in some trouble (and Mickelson) was hooking up with a certain high stakes sports bettor originally from my neck of the woods. That was a whole 'nother world.
And I'm sure smurgerburger has had someone try to buy something from me during the last 10 years. You know, him under an alias, a friend, a relative or whatever. Via email or PM or calling me, since my address, phone number, and email have all been posted here.
Wait, smurgerburger didn't do any of that? Well, gosh darn it, why would he claim that I'm "selling picks?"
Maybe he's confused. Or lazy.
As to Axelwolf's comments, for 99.9% of the population, what he's proposing is largely a myth. You'd have to be 24/7 every day evaluating numbers hours by hour, and without a sense of what numbers are likely to move where, you're going to be challenged to make money. Today is not 1990. Numbers move in unison at most books, and those where it does not move in unison are boutique books where you can't get serious money down anyway.
I happen to have known the master at this, the late Larry Fletcher (AKA Southern Comfort), who had alarm bell programs announcing odds disparities before the rest of the country had internet. Fletcher is the only sports gambler who I actually believe never had a losing year. But he was plugged into some of the biggest names in handicapping, so he wasn't flying blind. When Billy Walters hired me, it was Fletcher who provided some advice regarding Mr. Walters. Fletcher proved that what Axel suggests CAN be done, but given Fletcher's skills and work ethic (he was literally 24/7 every day for every sport), I feel comfortable saying that very, very few people could pull it off.
I notice there are a number of YouTube sports bettors advocating pure numbers shopping as a formula for success, and they are more than willing to sell you programs to aid and abet you.
And I'm sure smurgerburger has had someone try to buy something from me during the last 10 years. You know, him under an alias, a friend, a relative or whatever. Via email or PM or calling me, since my address, phone number, and email have all been posted here.
Wait, smurgerburger didn't do any of that? Well, gosh darn it, why would he claim that I'm "selling picks?"
Maybe he's confused. Or lazy.
As to Axelwolf's comments, for 99.9% of the population, what he's proposing is largely a myth. You'd have to be 24/7 every day evaluating numbers hours by hour, and without a sense of what numbers are likely to move where, you're going to be challenged to make money. Today is not 1990. Numbers move in unison at most books, and those where it does not move in unison are boutique books where you can't get serious money down anyway.
I happen to have known the master at this, the late Larry Fletcher (AKA Southern Comfort), who had alarm bell programs announcing odds disparities before the rest of the country had internet. Fletcher is the only sports gambler who I actually believe never had a losing year. But he was plugged into some of the biggest names in handicapping, so he wasn't flying blind. When Billy Walters hired me, it was Fletcher who provided some advice regarding Mr. Walters. Fletcher proved that what Axel suggests CAN be done, but given Fletcher's skills and work ethic (he was literally 24/7 every day for every sport), I feel comfortable saying that very, very few people could pull it off.
I notice there are a number of YouTube sports bettors advocating pure numbers shopping as a formula for success, and they are more than willing to sell you programs to aid and abet you.
Redeitz, are you sure, smurgerburger's comment was directed at you? Seems like just a general comment about the many guys that sell picks. Maybe there is more to it than I know.
For the record, I have never seen any evidence that Redietz is selling anything and or soliciting members. That is one of the many things Rob Singer made up with absolutely zero proof. I mean, I have shared my sportsbetting experiences, of a purely recreational guy betting sports for entertainment. AND LOSING! if ever there was a person someone selling their picks would target it would be me and I have never heard a peep from redietz.
Unrelated, Axelwolfs suggestion seems pretty valid to me. Line shopping has never been easier than it is today. Can be done right from home and a bet made in seconds before anything changes. Another thing that can be done from home is taking advantage of the 5% vig for betting early, like a Friday evening, which I do. Hasn't helped me be a winning bettor, but surely has cut vig related losses. I just am not betting sports for anything but fun and don't have or want to put in the time axelwolf is suggesting, but someone that wanted to, 2-3% sounds very doable and right from the comfort of your home. Not sure what limits you could do.
I have lost no money betting on Sports because I have never bet on Sports. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I thought you said you have some kind of investors that you provide picks for. Is that not accurate?
Also the % of the population that makes money line shopping is obviously not relevant to the fact that it is a thing people make money at. What % of the population makes money at poker, etc. etc.
ETA - And with regard to twitter luminaries who also sell sports betting platforms, there are extremely successful and skilled poker players that sell coaching services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerQuote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I thought you said you have some kind of investors that you provide picks for. Is that not accurate?
Also the % of the population that makes money line shopping is obviously not relevant to the fact that it is a thing people make money at. What % of the population makes money at poker, etc. etc.
ETA - And with regard to twitter luminaries who also sell sports betting platforms, there are extremely successful and skilled poker players that sell coaching services.
Regarding Point One: If you have no evidence that I'm selling anything, why open your mouth? And if you're not willing to try to buy something from me and see how that goes, why open your mouth?
Regarding Point Two: To paraphrase you -- Also the % of the population that makes money playing the lottery is obviously not relevant to the fact that it is a thing people make money at. What % of the population makes money at poker, etc. etc. You get my point?
Regarding Point Three: If people are selling something like these programs, which are line shopping tools extraordinaire or so they claim, they aren't too concerned about spreading the wealth. Draw your own conclusions.
1. Do you consider the claim to be a slander? Did you not say something here about having some kind of subscription email or something? Why not correct me if I have misstated something?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerQuote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I thought you said you have some kind of investors that you provide picks for. Is that not accurate?
Also the % of the population that makes money line shopping is obviously not relevant to the fact that it is a thing people make money at. What % of the population makes money at poker, etc. etc.
ETA - And with regard to twitter luminaries who also sell sports betting platforms, there are extremely successful and skilled poker players that sell coaching services.
Regarding Point One: If you have no evidence that I'm selling anything, why open your mouth? And if you're not willing to try to buy something from me and see how that goes, why open your mouth?
Regarding Point Two: To paraphrase you -- Also the % of the population that makes money playing the lottery is obviously not relevant to the fact that it is a thing people make money at. What % of the population makes money at poker, etc. etc. You get my point?
Regarding Point Three: If people are selling something like these programs, which are line shopping tools extraordinaire or so they claim, they aren't too concerned about spreading the wealth. Draw your own conclusions.
2. You have chosen a poor analogy unless you actually believe that people only make money line shopping by getting lucky. (I'm assuming you had in mind lotteries as necessarily -EV although this is not strictly true).
3. Of course the exact same retort could be directed to poker coaching, and yet the fact remains.
It all goes back to my question, which redietz wouldn't answer. If you could get a 2 point difference on every NFL line would you take it? Remember I said EVERY NFL GAME. The proposition is made before the season starts. You have to bet every game on the board every week for 17 weeks.
Consider the line closed at 15 minutes before kickoff. If the game is at -7 you can take either -5 or +9.
The last time I seen the stats for favorites and dogs covering for the last 30 years it was faves covering 49.9% of the games and dogs covering 50.1% of the games. The 2 point difference should change the math a little.
Obviously, you'd have a massive edge. The real question is why are you asking a question with such a simple answer?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
This was kind of funny...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0h_C7Ls7Xo
Joey liked it enough to put it into his stream with some self-effacing amusement.Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
NOPE! You are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
We did exactly this over a significant amount of picks(well over the SD to be lucky.) I don't remember all the details, I didn't really care I knew it was +EV and basically just collected profits.
It all came about after I offered to bank someone good at sports betting(not handycrapping). I may not be good at it myself, but I guarantee you I know it when I see it and listen to someone's reasoning logic and math. He was willing to spend the time making value bets. At some point, he wanted to do other things and took a back seat on the betting aspect after we settled up.
We wanted to continue so Member A ( Somewhat of a math guy) came up with a simple formula. Member B knew basically ZERO about sports(semi retarded J/K) and simply followed the formula. We had action on some crazy stuff like figure skating, curling, I don't remember what exactly. It didn't matter as long as it fit the criteria. We kina used a modified kelly, the better value we had the more we bet. We were running way over expectation at one point, IIRC in the neighborhood of 7-10%. FYI none of this was taking advantage of bonuses and special stuff. He didn't even have a multi-monitor single control mouse and keyboard or KVM switch set up with bluestacks or anything like that. I meant to do it, but I never got around to it. I think he was jacking around with a bunch of different phones and a few laptops. LOL
No, Member B didn't sit around all day 24/7 making bets. I doubt he spent more than 3-4 hours a day doing it... if that... I'll have to ask.
Again, I don't remember all the details, but I do know we made a decent amount of money without any BS handicrapping and expertise Bullshit.
If you took ages 14-65 and weeded out complete idiots I would say 90% of the of the population could absolutely do it after a week or so of training.
I actually think without bonuses and promotions its closer to 4%
Again, if someone really wanted to get super into it and went all out they could do very well. Heck, if there's anyone out there who is interested, I'd be willing to consider making a deal, setting everything up etc... given the right person.
We didn't use a line shopping app either. But if I had known more about them I certainly would have. Id feel more comfortable buying one if someone I knew to be knowledgeable and trustworthy recommend one. I just didn't really look into it because it was working as is.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburgerQuote:
Originally Posted by redietz
I thought you said you have some kind of investors that you provide picks for. Is that not accurate?
Also the % of the population that makes money line shopping is obviously not relevant to the fact that it is a thing people make money at. What % of the population makes money at poker, etc. etc.
ETA - And with regard to twitter luminaries who also sell sports betting platforms, there are extremely successful and skilled poker players that sell coaching services.
Regarding Point One: If you have no evidence that I'm selling anything, why open your mouth? And if you're not willing to try to buy something from me and see how that goes, why open your mouth?
Regarding Point Two: To paraphrase you -- Also the % of the population that makes money playing the lottery is obviously not relevant to the fact that it is a thing people make money at. What % of the population makes money at poker, etc. etc. You get my point?
Regarding Point Three: If people are selling something like these programs, which are line shopping tools extraordinaire or so they claim, they aren't too concerned about spreading the wealth. Draw your own conclusions.
No Axel, the only real sports bettors are the ones who do exactly what redietz does.
It doesn't matter how much money you make because there's no such thing as "EV" in sports betting. Only hunches and handicapping contests.
To update my answer, I was just going over my records for the entire year, from 3 online sportsbooks and bets made at casino sportsbooks here in Vegas and I have pulled into the black for the year @ +$235. Were is the yippie yea emoji.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
In examining my numbers I am shocked to find that I have wagered over $730,000 on sports this year. YIKES!
This has been a strange year for me, for reasons that I think everyone is aware, and I played far less blackjack than usual for the first 7 months of the year and was home far more than usual and filled some of that time betting and watching sports. A lot of college basketball and hockey in the spring, tagging along with monet's picks, which I shouldn't disclose because he will stop posting public picks if he thinks I am benefiting. ;) During the summer it was baseball. And now football, and hockey and basketball underway again.
My standard wager is $100, but I sometimes bet twice and occasionally 3 times as much on games I really like. Despite that I have pulled into the black slightly, I have no delusions that this activity is -EV for me. BUT at the moment, counting time wagering and watching games in the evenings, I am pulling in about 5 cents an hour! :cool:
Quote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
There's nothing like erudite gamblers who conflate flipping coins with predicting behaviors between organisms. God bless them, every one, you know, like Tiny Tim.
The technical response would be something like, "for sports gambling, mathematical analysis is helpful from an odds perspective but not sufficient and not even necessary to make a profit." Whereas knowing the organisms involved, while technically not sufficient (in case you're laying ridiculous odds) is necessary.
For example, I bring up the example of the Kentucky team doctor betting Indiana in LV prior to the Kentucky/Indiana game. No amount of mathematical analysis is going to do much to move the needle on which team one should bet.
Trying to assign "EV" to such events is absurd and is frankly the height of arrogance.
Sounds like something someone who doesn't actually place bets would say, insofar as every bet implies some weighted estimation of risk and reward.
Just reread my post above and I feel like I need to correct a statement. I meant to say I have no delusions that this is anything but -EV for me. Big difference from what I wrote.
I haven't a clue what all this mumbo-jumbo means. I just know it is absolutely possible to make a living betting sports without any fancy Dancy handicapping or years of experience. I wish Tom G would chime in he's really good at finding mathematical value in Las Vegas casinos. There's a thread on Wizard of Vegas where KSDJDJ oftentimes explains the math ans theory behind his methods and post's his picks/ bets BEFORE and keeps a running tally. He isn't handicapping or claiming how good he is. He just findss +EV situations and bets them. You can go back year's ago when he first started. You can see the amounts he was betting back then compared to nowadays.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by smurgerburger
There's nothing like erudite gamblers who conflate flipping coins with predicting behaviors between organisms. God bless them, every one, you know, like Tiny Tim.
The technical response would be something like, "for sports gambling, mathematical analysis is helpful from an odds perspective but not sufficient and not even necessary to make a profit." Whereas knowing the organisms involved, while technically not sufficient (in case you're laying ridiculous odds) is necessary.
For example, I bring up the example of the Kentucky team doctor betting Indiana in LV prior to the Kentucky/Indiana game. No amount of mathematical analysis is going to do much to move the needle on which team one should bet.
Trying to assign "EV" to such events is absurd and is frankly the height of arrogance.
I'm not sure if you are taking advantage of bonuses line shopping, finding new places to bet offshore etc. But just imagine how much you would be up if you were dedicated to doing all that stuff. You could easily add5k to your total.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJTo update my answer, I was just going over my records for the entire year, from 3 online sportsbooks and bets made at casino sportsbooks here in Vegas and I have pulled into the black for the year @ +$235. Were is the yippie yea emoji.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
In examining my numbers I am shocked to find that I have wagered over $730,000 on sports this year. YIKES!
This has been a strange year for me, for reasons that I think everyone is aware, and I played far less blackjack than usual for the first 7 months of the year and was home far more than usual and filled some of that time betting and watching sports. A lot of college basketball and hockey in the spring, tagging along with monet's picks, which I shouldn't disclose because he will stop posting public picks if he thinks I am benefiting. ;) During the summer it was baseball. And now football, and hockey and basketball underway again.
My standard wager is $100, but I sometimes bet twice and occasionally 3 times as much on games I really like. Despite that I have pulled into the black slightly, I have no delusions that this activity is -EV for me. BUT at the moment, counting time wagering and watching games in the evenings, I am pulling in about 5 cents an hour! :cool:
No, not bonus hunting. I am still leary of online casinos, so I have 3 that I have dealt with for a while and have paid me no issues, that I deal wirh.
I do make the majority of my wagers on Friday evening (at least the weekend bets) at 1/2 juice, so that adds something.
I have been tagging along with ksdjdj from WoV. No offense to Redeitz and his handicapping approach, but an approach based on pure mathjust makes sense to me.
Of course I listen to people handicapping also, like the daily wager show on ESPN as well as anyone just hot at the moment like our own Dan Druff and monet. Druff tends to be very streaky in both directions, so when he turns south, I won't follow for long until he "rights" himself. :eek:
I agree. I think its advantage. The reason for the question is because some people like redietz don't believe just handicapping numbers works. I know of a book where the lines move like crazy towards the favorites and overs starting a couple of hours before game time. It's because everyone standing in line is betting the favs and overs. I think pouncing in that situation when the number moves two points is advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaewooObviously, you'd have a massive edge. The real question is why are you asking a question with such a simple answer?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfYou can make 2% -3% knowing absolutely nothing about sports using a simple formula tracking lines that are off/line shopping. Multiple online accounts+ time and dedication and you could make a living. If you were really motivated, dedicated and added more tools such as odds boosts, bonuses, rebates promos, etc, and had lots of friends and family accounts you could do quite well. No fancy handicapping or knowledge about any of the sports. Just some math that shows you either have a +EV bet or you dont.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzMonet, I'm well aware of people who laid 105 instead of 110 routinely on everything they bet when they bet it, but that was for 50K on up per game. I'm also aware of the occasional 5K in free play that could be used towards sports bets if one chose (M used to do that). I think when all is said and done, if you are completely diligent and organized, yeah, you could manage to make a profit winning 50 to 51% of your bets.Quote:
Originally Posted by monet
Where Ivey got in some trouble (and Mickelson) was hooking up with a certain high stakes sports bettor originally from my neck of the woods. That was a whole 'nother world.
The people I’m talking about do none of this.
I’m also not talking about multi accounting signup bonus’s or working the online bonus / freeplay system like we do in physical casinos. I’m talking about the majority who can beat certain casino games then blow it betting on sports. It’s Just something I have been noticing lately.
I just think most APs would have more success if they tripled down on what they are good at instead of trying to master multiple disciplines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimmI agree. I think its advantage. The reason for the question is because some people like redietz don't believe just handicapping numbers works. I know of a book where the lines move like crazy towards the favorites and overs starting a couple of hours before game time. It's because everyone standing in line is betting the favs and overs. I think pouncing in that situation when the number moves two points is advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaewooObviously, you'd have a massive edge. The real question is why are you asking a question with such a simple answer?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
This is actually a complete misrepresentation of everything I do. I don't know why mickey crimm just makes stuff up, but that's who he is and where we are on this. It's stupid and silly.
If anyone has read my umpteen criticisms of parlay betting and parlay calculators, they know exactly how much I value shopping and how the absence of optimal numbers is the crux of why I argue that parlay betting is de facto a bad idea. I must have posted this stuff at least 20 times, but mickey decides I meant the opposite of what I've written 20 times.
Also, I have mentioned at least four or five times that the only sports gambler I have ever met who I truly believe did not have a losing year -- ever -- was Larry Fletcher, aka Southern Comfort. As I have described probably half a dozen times on this forum, his modus operandi was in large part numbers shopping.
Mickey generalizes from a fundamental question he asked, which was regarding NFL wagering and getting two free points per wager. He did not specify whether that was for sides or totals, which are two completely different things and yield two completely different answers. He then extrapolated to all sports, which are completely different things.
The arguments on these boards that I take issue with have to do people thinking that shopping numbers is exploitable in some easy fashion. It is not. Numbers move in unison more now than ever. In fact, the way and reasons numbers move are completely different from 30 years ago. The other problem is the idea that somehow line moves in certain sports are generally correct to some significant degree. "Sports" is not a generic thing. You have to specify which sports, for what reason the lines move, and when during a season. For example, about two-thirds of the way into a college basketball season, both college point spreads and totals are murderously accurate. Getting the best of those numbers is paramount. And getting the best of those numbers is not easy or automatic, as I detailed in my three or four mentions of Chinese programmers attacking college hoops in LV for two seasons about six years ago.
I would appreciate mickey abstaining from misinterpreting what he knows nothing about and from misreporting how I do things when he has no idea. Half the reason people have me handling their money is precisely because I have a reputation for (1) knowing the majority of the time where college football lines will move and (2) shopping in a sustained, 24/7 way.
And regarding the initial question, unless you're buying off three, getting two free points on NFL sides all year for every game and laying -110 any given year is not going to yield any enormous advantage. At all. Unless you're working off three.
Exactimundo. My phrase is "stay in your lane." People become all full of themselves. They think a little genius and narrow expertise can be applied broadband. You can't master multiple disciplines unless you're Dracula or Jesus and you've got forever to learn.Quote:
Originally Posted by SeedvalueQuote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfYou can make 2% -3% knowing absolutely nothing about sports using a simple formula tracking lines that are off/line shopping. Multiple online accounts+ time and dedication and you could make a living. If you were really motivated, dedicated and added more tools such as odds boosts, bonuses, rebates promos, etc, and had lots of friends and family accounts you could do quite well. No fancy handicapping or knowledge about any of the sports. Just some math that shows you either have a +EV bet or you dont.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
The people I’m talking about do none of this.
I’m also not talking about multi accounting signup bonus’s or working the online bonus / freeplay system like we do in physical casinos. I’m talking about the majority who can beat certain casino games then blow it betting on sports. It’s Just something I have been noticing lately.
I just think most APs would have more success if they tripled down on what they are good at instead of trying to master multiple disciplines.
A little intellectual arrogance is the quickest way to bury yourself.
I mean, really, I cannot imagine me thinking I could make a contribution to my earnings playing blackjack. LOL. I'd feel like a blithering idiot. And I could count cards 40 years ago.
I hang out with a lot of academics, and one thing they know is that it's all specialization. Say what you will about academics, but almost none of them think they are geniuses-of-all-trades.
Seed, I think the phrase "situational leadership" is helpful here. You have to recognize when you're nowhere as expert as the real experts.
Like the saying goes, "A little expertise is a dangerous thing."
Come on man. The fucking 7 is huge too (obviously not as much as the 3) and a fucking ton of the weekly slate would cross either the 3 or 7 given 2 free points. Just stop pretending a free 2 points wouldn't be a coup.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Since rules change, and we're talking about the now, I suggest charting this season and working it out yourself. Easy Peasie.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdaewooCome on man. The fucking 7 is huge too (obviously not as much as the 3) and a fucking ton of the weekly slate would cross either the 3 or 7 given 2 free points. Just stop pretending a free 2 points wouldn't be a coup.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
And you do realize there is a contradiction and inherent problem in what mickey is conflating here? Getting two free points is not per se numbers shopping, so it is a hypothetical (and mythical, therefore useless) question. "Getting the best of the number" while varying numbers exist simultaneously, is no guarantee of anything. It depends on the sport and when in the sport.
I was waiting to see if anyone did the legwork. I guess not.
Since the question is put present tense, rather than past tense, one can do with the following ballpark info what one will. I did this counting on my fingers while doing other stuff, so I'm sure I'm off by a game or two but double-check it yourselves.
As far as NFL getting two free points that take you through the number 7, there were roughly 43 opportunities this season where you would have pulled the trigger with two free points. In three of them, it would have made a difference and a loser would have become a winner. But you would have bet 40 other games to win those three.
So why would a legitimate AP want their name to be known on a forum? You haven't even given one reason.........................Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Well, there's two pretty obvious reasons, no, make that three, although the third one doesn't apply to me.
Let's see if you can guess any of them.
This is what I love. Instead of thinking for a second or two outside the box of your own life, perspective, and attitudes, you figure "the other" must be irrational or something.
I'll respond on Monday. Try to use your neurons.
The reason I'm so disdainful is that the other day (while cleaning out an old Toyota that is now a cat shelter) I stumbled onto a copy of the first interview I gave, back in '79 or '80. In the interview, I give one of the answers to your question, and I must admit, for being 21 or 22, I stated it pretty clearly and sound like I have a mind.
Put up or shut-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
There is no good reason. I'm not going to go through this. Multiple sharp people believe you are wrong. Here's a deal, if you can't come up with 1 reason you go nap it out the rest of the year on this forum
You're not buying the "getting laid" bit? I'm pretty sure ZenKing claims claiming to be an Advantage Player has the opposite effect. Whatever the case posting your real name VS a handle cannot possibly hep you get laid vs not. I think I could make an argument that having a special name could actually help you more in that area. What if your real name is Dick Face?Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionPut up or shut-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
There is no good reason. I'm not going to go through this. Multiple sharp people believe you are wrong. Here's a deal, if you can't come up with 1 reason you go nap it out the rest of the year on this forum
Based only on how ZK acts and says on this forum, I would guess any "problems" he may encounter in that area more likely are a result of him saying something bizarre and crazy and not that he may be an AP. Just a guess though. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Isn't there a rule, or saying or just good advice that you don't mix business with pleasure?
I will share a story from my early years that I have never shared before having to do with this topic. It will infuriate some of the Homophobes because of homo implications, but so what.
So it was my Atlantic City days. There was a young dealer at either Sands or Claridge, I forget (they were next to each other), who I found attractive and enjoyed playing at his table. Eventually after a little flirting we met for some fun. That is all I will say...very PG rating. As often happens in these situations, the next time I played his table things were considerably more awkward. He obviously felt uncomfortable, so I stopped playing at his table.
There were only a handful of low limit games that I could play at that time, and this had cost me one of them. So the moral of the story is the old....you don't mix business with pleasure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJBased only on how ZK acts and says on this forum, I would guess any "problems" he may encounter in that area more likely are a result of him saying something bizarre and crazy and not that he may be an AP. Just a guess though. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Isn't there a rule, or saying or just good advice that you don't mix business with pleasure?
I will share a story from my early years that I have never shared before having to do with this topic. It will infuriate some of the Homophobes because of homo implications, but so what.
So it was my Atlantic City days. There was a young dealer at either Sands or Claridge, I forget (they were next to each other), who I found attractive and enjoyed playing at his table. Eventually after a little flirting we met for some fun. That is all I will say...very PG rating. As often happens in these situations, the next time I played his table things were considerably more awkward. He obviously felt uncomfortable, so I stopped playing at his table.
There were only a handful of low limit games that I could play at that time, and this had cost me one of them. So the moral of the story is the old....you don't mix business with pleasure.
But when I pointed out you were indeed putting out to increase your edge at the table you said I was making up things. I have it on good authority that your intimate relationships with dealers got you special looks at cards and treatment. I also pointed out I didn’t have a problem with these types of things. Glad to see you have confirmed this now. Maybe we will soon get a full confession on Just how much edge you sucked out of dealers and pit bosses in Vegas. Again I don’t have a problem with what you do Just be fully transparent
comrade redietz has done nothing but make himself out to be a complete idiot in this thread. Dude is pushing one false premise after another. Get a clue, dude.
You think you are talking about professional gamblers but you are really talking about compulsive gamblers. Dudes making money on one side of the casino and blowing it on the other side of the casino has been going on as long as I've been around it.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Back in my linked bank Flush Attack days there were guys "taking shots" all day long. They knew how to grind it out on Flush Attack but blew the money playing sucker slots or blackjack or craps or sportsbetting. They used to have the printouts right on the machine with them.
They couldn't beat all those other games so they were stuck on Flush Attack for years. Would I call them professional gamblers trying to branch out. No fucking way. They were compulsive gamblers. They were "taking a shot."
redietz message is to stay away from sports betting because you don't have the expertise like he does. But he never took his own advice. At one time he was as green as they come. Didn't know shit about it. Someone probably told him to stay away because he would get killed. Did he follow their advice?
Oftentimes, it was 4 guys sharing one room some smack or crack and a love for the ponies.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
There’s only one true edge that can be systematically repeated without variance. I’m glad everyone bets sports lose everything you have on something completely out of your control. Sharp they sayQuote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfOftentimes, it was 4 guys sharing one room some smack or crack and a love for the ponies.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
I just went 9 weeks making 24k plus a week without variance. AIQ the fagor climate cuck just been posting nonstop bs making nothing. This guy had no idea about gambling or lifeQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionPut up or shut-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
There is no good reason. I'm not going to go through this. Multiple sharp people believe you are wrong. Here's a deal, if you can't come up with 1 reason you go nap it out the rest of the year on this forum
Nothing out of the ordinary with the climate the last few months either. It’s completely fucking normal just like every other year.Quote:
Originally Posted by SeedvalueI just went 9 weeks making 24k plus a week without variance. AIQ the fagor climate cuck just been posting nonstop bs making nothing. This guy had no idea about gambling or lifeQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionPut up or shut-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
There is no good reason. I'm not going to go through this. Multiple sharp people believe you are wrong. Here's a deal, if you can't come up with 1 reason you go nap it out the rest of the year on this forum
And this is the "running cards" play that DO talks about? Doesn't he also talk about 20k a week?...well he says some weeks. Running cards is the 20k a week play. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Seedvalue
And what fun is it winning with no variance. I had a big day (night) very recently (not going to be specific), winning just shy of 18k. It is the second single highest day (night) ever for me. Of course that was 90% variance because my EV for the night was about $800. What is wrong with a little variance? Beating variance makes you a man. :)
Oh and BTW, throw in a couple tricks I turned on the street corner and that was a 20K night for me. ;)
Redietz has kindly stuck to his word and is napping it out from this forum.
A little birdy gave me a GF link. Micky correcting Redietz and Redietz making up a ton of shit strawment.
He seems to think everyone is claiming bonus whoring lasts forever. He also seems to think that APs claim they can beat any book. He has no clue. He claims people are claiming shit I've never seen anyone claiming.
Anyone I consider a sharp guy on here is not claiming they can beat any book. We are claiming that with enough bonuses or weak lines then the book can be beat. If the there are no bonuses to use and the lines are too tight then there is no shot. The lesser the sum of these 2 things the lower the EV and the less reason any sharp bettor would fuck with it. Mickey is right, redietz is a buffoon.
Oh well maybe a Hollywood producer will come across his posts LMAO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Good to know there are "weak" lines and "strong" lines. I didn't know weightlifting was part of the AP portfolio.
Good to know that some folks can figure out EV on lines that are designed to balance opinion as opposed to being mathematically grounded vis-a-vis coinflips.
The world of APs is a wondrous one.
I wonder if the "weak" lines have an asterisk next to them. "Hey, bettor, look at me -- I'm a weak line!"
Or maybe the "weak" lines are printed with special ink and they hand out different 3-D glasses at the sports books. One kind for "sharps" and one kind for "squares." Only the "sharps" can spot the "weak" lines. Makes sense.
It's the club, man. The AP Club. It's like Fight Club, except there are no losers. The members are too smart to be losers. Or to use their actual names. Or show their sports book lifetime records. Or have their wins/losses publicly charted.
It's like Mensa, except for cool guys.
I'm not sure what to even say if you can't grasp what weak lines are. You do handicapping, right? Or claim to at least.... So lets say your handicapping is better than anyone's and the book's line was set at that exactly what your handicapping suggests. Not to balance action - the book just has the same lines as the best handicapper in the world. That would NOT be a weak line. A weak line would be some book that doesn't attempt to balance action and shades their line against their customer's biggest position. (Not sure how to describe it so wtfever) This would provide value on the other side and "sharps" would get that. They don't need to know handicapping - all they need to need to know is how to find outliers and figure out how much of an outlier it needs to be to beat vig. If the line is sharp and not weak, these opportunities will never present themselves. IIRC Sports Interaction was known for weak lines and people cleaned up nicely. Who knows, maybe SIA made more.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Good to know there are "weak" lines and "strong" lines. I didn't know weightlifting was part of the AP portfolio.
Good to know that some folks can figure out EV on lines that are designed to balance opinion as opposed to being mathematically grounded vis-a-vis coinflips.
The world of APs is a wondrous one.
I wonder if the "weak" lines have an asterisk next to them. "Hey, bettor, look at me -- I'm a weak line!"
Or maybe the "weak" lines are printed with special ink and they hand out different 3-D glasses at the sports books. One kind for "sharps" and one kind for "squares." Only the "sharps" can spot the "weak" lines. Makes sense.
It's the club, man. The AP Club. It's like Fight Club, except there are no losers. The members are too smart to be losers. Or to use their actual names. Or show their sports book lifetime records. Or have their wins/losses publicly charted.
It's like Mensa, except for cool guys.
I don't fuck with sports betting, but I apparently know more about it that Redietz.
BTW you're AGAIN doing the same shit I called you out for doing. You used quotes on the word strong. As if I actually used that word. Lol. Pathetic.
And any decent AP will be able to take the concepts I mention above and apply them to other things. Slots have similar concepts. House edge vs outliers. And pretty much everything else gambling related to a lesser extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionI'm not sure what to even say if you can't grasp what weak lines are. You do handicapping, right? Or claim to at least.... So lets say your handicapping is better than anyone's and the book's line was set at that exactly what your handicapping suggests. Not to balance action - the book just has the same lines as the best handicapper in the world. That would NOT be a weak line. A weak line would be some book that doesn't attempt to balance action and shades their line against their customer's biggest position. (Not sure how to describe it so wtfever) This would provide value on the other side and "sharps" would get that. They don't need to know handicapping - all they need to need to know is how to find outliers and figure out how much of an outlier it needs to be to beat vig. If the line is sharp and not weak, these opportunities will never present themselves. IIRC Sports Interaction was known for weak lines and people cleaned up nicely. Who knows, maybe SIA made more.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Good to know there are "weak" lines and "strong" lines. I didn't know weightlifting was part of the AP portfolio.
Good to know that some folks can figure out EV on lines that are designed to balance opinion as opposed to being mathematically grounded vis-a-vis coinflips.
The world of APs is a wondrous one.
I wonder if the "weak" lines have an asterisk next to them. "Hey, bettor, look at me -- I'm a weak line!"
Or maybe the "weak" lines are printed with special ink and they hand out different 3-D glasses at the sports books. One kind for "sharps" and one kind for "squares." Only the "sharps" can spot the "weak" lines. Makes sense.
It's the club, man. The AP Club. It's like Fight Club, except there are no losers. The members are too smart to be losers. Or to use their actual names. Or show their sports book lifetime records. Or have their wins/losses publicly charted.
It's like Mensa, except for cool guys.
I don't fuck with sports betting, but I apparently know more about it that Redietz.
BTW you're AGAIN doing the same shit I called you out for doing. You used quotes on the word strong. As if I actually used that word. Lol. Pathetic.
I don't think any sharp person has claimed it is easy to be an AP. I'm not an AP. I just find the stuff very interesting. I always intend to be more serious about it but life pulls me in other directions. You sound like a little butt hurt puppy dog with your flailing about.
I don’t have variance because what I do eliminates it. The variance is what you need to get the dopamine hit that you crave. Probably the same feeling you get sucking off a married man who’s in the closet. As far DO I’m quite sure he eliminates variance as well, but declines to comment on how. The game within the game is what we play it’s not apparent to the dopamine chasers. It’s Boring and methodical much like the life of AIQ but with bags of cash.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJAnd this is the "running cards" play that DO talks about? Doesn't he also talk about 20k a week?...well he says some weeks. Running cards is the 20k a week play. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Seedvalue
And what fun is it winning with no variance. I had a big day (night) very recently (not going to be specific), winning just shy of 18k. It is the second single highest day (night) ever for me. Of course that was 90% variance because my EV for the night was about $800. What is wrong with a little variance? Beating variance makes you a man. :)
Oh and BTW, throw in a couple tricks I turned on the street corner and that was a 20K night for me. ;)
Congrats on your win tho. Love to see it. At the end of the day we are all on the same team even tho we may not agree or believe each other’s methods.
By the way no Matter what the sports betting experts say you are still betting something you have no control over. Even if you manipulate the line or the line is off the outcome of the game is still in the hands of the players. Now if you have bribed a pitcher or QB then maybe you have something. Sports betting doesn’t interest me in the slightest.
If you're handycrapping you can't control anything, however, if you're doing some of the value AP sports stuff and leave the handyscamming to the touts and those types, you don't care about control or hoping your picks are/were good or that you know your stuff. You just bet and let the value do its thing. You can eliminate a ton of variance and even lock up money sports betting, heck sports betting was probably one of the first AP moves where you could lock up money. If you are good enough at handycrapping you don't/wouldn't need to sell, tout, take a commission, or whatever nonsense that makes money from others. You would just be betting as much as you could while using runners and muti accounting.Quote:
Originally Posted by SeedvalueI don’t have variance because what I do eliminates it. The variance is what you need to get the dopamine hit that you crave. Probably the same feeling you get sucking off a married man who’s in the closet. As far DO I’m quite sure he eliminates variance as well, but declines to comment on how. The game within the game is what we play it’s not apparent to the dopamine chasers. It’s Boring and methodical much like the life of AIQ but with bags of cash.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJAnd this is the "running cards" play that DO talks about? Doesn't he also talk about 20k a week?...well he says some weeks. Running cards is the 20k a week play. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Seedvalue
And what fun is it winning with no variance. I had a big day (night) very recently (not going to be specific), winning just shy of 18k. It is the second single highest day (night) ever for me. Of course that was 90% variance because my EV for the night was about $800. What is wrong with a little variance? Beating variance makes you a man. :)
Oh and BTW, throw in a couple tricks I turned on the street corner and that was a 20K night for me. ;)
Congrats on your win tho. Love to see it. At the end of the day we are all on the same team even tho we may not agree or believe each other’s methods.
By the way no Matter what the sports betting experts say you are still betting something you have no control over. Even if you manipulate the line or the line is off the outcome of the game is still in the hands of the players. Now if you have bribed a pitcher or QB then maybe you have something. Sports betting doesn’t interest me in the slightest.
Those who can... do it for themselves... those who can't... tout(or whatever side gig they have)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfIf you're handycrapping you can't control anything, however, if you're doing some of the value AP sports stuff and leave the handyscamming to the touts and those types, you don't care about control or hoping your picks are/were good or that you know your stuff. You just bet and let the value do its thing. You can eliminate a ton of variance and even lock up money sports betting, heck sports betting was probably one of the first AP moves where you could lock up money. If you are good enough at handycrapping you don't/wouldn't need to sell, tout, take a commission, or whatever nonsense that makes money from others. You would just be betting as much as you could while using runners and muti accounting.Quote:
Originally Posted by SeedvalueI don’t have variance because what I do eliminates it. The variance is what you need to get the dopamine hit that you crave. Probably the same feeling you get sucking off a married man who’s in the closet. As far DO I’m quite sure he eliminates variance as well, but declines to comment on how. The game within the game is what we play it’s not apparent to the dopamine chasers. It’s Boring and methodical much like the life of AIQ but with bags of cash.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Congrats on your win tho. Love to see it. At the end of the day we are all on the same team even tho we may not agree or believe each other’s methods.
By the way no Matter what the sports betting experts say you are still betting something you have no control over. Even if you manipulate the line or the line is off the outcome of the game is still in the hands of the players. Now if you have bribed a pitcher or QB then maybe you have something. Sports betting doesn’t interest me in the slightest.
Those who can... do it for themselves... those who can't... tout(or whatever side gig they have)
My experience betting sports involves taking the free money. 1k free bets and some a bit higher. Yes no variance in that but that’s not what the experts would call sports betting. I have that down to a science, but I have no interest in what red or others do.
Good sports bettors do it all, whatever it takes to get the money. There are so many +EV aspects without handicapping available. A good handicapper knows his edge is thin and has very few good bets, so he is going to chase all aspects of +EV bets. Would you rather make a 50k bet to get 2-3 +EV or make a 5k bet and get 25-50%?Quote:
Originally Posted by SeedvalueQuote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfIf you're handycrapping you can't control anything, however, if you're doing some of the value AP sports stuff and leave the handyscamming to the touts and those types, you don't care about control or hoping your picks are/were good or that you know your stuff. You just bet and let the value do its thing. You can eliminate a ton of variance and even lock up money sports betting, heck sports betting was probably one of the first AP moves where you could lock up money. If you are good enough at handycrapping you don't/wouldn't need to sell, tout, take a commission, or whatever nonsense that makes money from others. You would just be betting as much as you could while using runners and muti accounting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedvalue
Those who can... do it for themselves... those who can't... tout(or whatever side gig they have)
My experience betting sports involves taking the free money. 1k free bets and some a bit higher. Yes no variance in that but that’s not what the experts would call sports betting. I have that down to a science, but I have no interest in what red or others do.
Can you imagine a VP AP sticking to $5 FPDW, meanwhile there is a double 4-of-a-kind promo just down the street on $1 machines.
I guess if you have "investors" and you're freerolling a % of the profits, I can see why one might want to only encourage handicapping with big bets.
Every good sports bettor I have known does all that stuff, and they jump at the chance to get bigger edges with promotions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionI'm not sure what to even say if you can't grasp what weak lines are. You do handicapping, right? Or claim to at least.... So lets say your handicapping is better than anyone's and the book's line was set at that exactly what your handicapping suggests. Not to balance action - the book just has the same lines as the best handicapper in the world. That would NOT be a weak line. A weak line would be some book that doesn't attempt to balance action and shades their line against their customer's biggest position. (Not sure how to describe it so wtfever) This would provide value on the other side and "sharps" would get that. They don't need to know handicapping - all they need to need to know is how to find outliers and figure out how much of an outlier it needs to be to beat vig. If the line is sharp and not weak, these opportunities will never present themselves. IIRC Sports Interaction was known for weak lines and people cleaned up nicely. Who knows, maybe SIA made more.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietzQuote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Good to know there are "weak" lines and "strong" lines. I didn't know weightlifting was part of the AP portfolio.
Good to know that some folks can figure out EV on lines that are designed to balance opinion as opposed to being mathematically grounded vis-a-vis coinflips.
The world of APs is a wondrous one.
I wonder if the "weak" lines have an asterisk next to them. "Hey, bettor, look at me -- I'm a weak line!"
Or maybe the "weak" lines are printed with special ink and they hand out different 3-D glasses at the sports books. One kind for "sharps" and one kind for "squares." Only the "sharps" can spot the "weak" lines. Makes sense.
It's the club, man. The AP Club. It's like Fight Club, except there are no losers. The members are too smart to be losers. Or to use their actual names. Or show their sports book lifetime records. Or have their wins/losses publicly charted.
It's like Mensa, except for cool guys.
I don't fuck with sports betting, but I apparently know more about it that Redietz.
BTW you're AGAIN doing the same shit I called you out for doing. You used quotes on the word strong. As if I actually used that word. Lol. Pathetic.
No, strong is in quotes because there is no such thing and, as Grammarly says, "the author doesn't agree with the use of the term." That applies to "weak." When a person says "weak" lines, the implication is that there are other kinds of lines in contrast to the weak. Or why use the word "weak?"
Your jargon isn't even correct, except perhaps among AP's and "sharps."
Yeah, how exactly do you find outliers? LOL. I love you guys. "All they need to know is how to find outliers." That's beautiful. Is that "all they need to know?"
Do you have any idea how naive and flat out ridiculous that is in 2022? Is that all you need to do? All I need to do is win the lottery and hypnotize Megan Fox for next Saturday night's date.
Five years ago, a team of programmers was whacking college hoops and totals every day. The lines moved a minimum of a point and a half, often two to three points every game they took. I have a dozen offshore accounts and was physically present at the sports book that was allowing them to wager, while others delayed opening lines so other books would take the hit. Not only that, for more than a week, I was getting the games directly leaked to me a maximum of ten minutes after they were chosen, and sometimes two to three minutes after they had been chosen. It was still too slow. The lines had moved the majority of what they were going to move.
Now, can you find "weak" lines (I assume you mean slow or soft, which was the usual term) for props, especially regular season props? Yes, and good luck with that. Nothing wrong, as I always say, with free lunches and free dinners, if it's worth having well into five digits at a dozen or more books for those dinners. If lunch is free, you never go hungry, and I do it myself. But to present it as some kind of gambling strategy for serious betting is silly. You're dealing with prop limits and boutique offshores to try to snag the outliers.
I purposefully lived behind the Stardust for years because, back then, lines moved because of money. In fact, and someone like Jimmy Vacarro would probably know this off the top of his head but I do not, I believe it was a regulation (if not a law) for years that money was needed to move numbers. The Stardust, because it took large bets and had faith in its numbers, was often one of the last to move. It was like a time warp exploitation, which worked great for weather. Today, anyone can move a number for any reason. Money is not required. So there are very few "weak" or slow or delayed numbers out there anywhere, except occasionally at offshore boutique sports books.
Now I just laid out specific concrete examples of why this AP idea of exploiting "weak" numbers is immensely exaggerated. Weather is worth attacking like this, but unless it's December and football, you're pretty much out of luck.
There is one other issue. The numbers moves have to be correct for these allegedly "weak" numbers to be exploited. There is this presumption that moves are correct in some significant-edge way. That is a presumption. I do not know the numbers for sports other than football, so I'm not going to fake that I do. I think with Covid and the NBA sitting people out, Dan has the right approach for the NBA if you're lightning fast. But in football, non-weather line moves are barely an edge. As in very narrow marginally and varying immensely year-to-year. And again, to even attempt to attack slow numbers, which in football is a questionable and possibly non-existent edge, you need well into five digits scattered in a dozen places.
Go ahead, check the sides moves and totals moves in the NFL this year or for the last five years and see just how "weak" those allegedly weak numbers have been.
Yes, soft lines is the proper term. Again, I'm not a sports bettor. I'm not sure where you get strong from but you have to make up shit to save face and make an argument. I just understand this stuff at a different level, so I don't need to know insider lingo or wtfever. It just isn't that important.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Great stories Redietz. That's what you're full of. Your whole identity is wrapped up in being some wise elite sports bettor and you can't deal with the fact that some APs do that stuff at a side hustle at best and they do so with minimal heuristics. (no handicapping)
I have no clue what you're talking about with your presumption. WTFever you're getting at is as usual - WRONG.
Again, you seem to think that I believe there is value everywhere. I'm just telling you the basics of how an AP would go to see if here is value. If there isn't value then you DON'T FUCKIN BET. (unless cover plays or something weird. I'd max bet my home team when I exploited the fuck out of that book.) You give me a lecture how it is exaggerated. Who is exaggerating anything but you?
If this site is so full of posers and such then why did you ever start posting here? You're a bigger loser than anyone for doing so and trying to prove this old wiseguy handicapper hocus pocus nonsense. Give it a REST.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accountinquestionYes, soft lines is the proper term. Again, I'm not a sports bettor. I'm not sure where you get strong from but you have to make up shit to save face and make an argument. I just understand this stuff at a different level, so I don't need to know insider lingo or wtfever. It just isn't that important.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Great stories Redietz. That's what you're full of. Your whole identity is wrapped up in being some wise elite sports bettor and you can't deal with the fact that some APs do that stuff at a side hustle at best and they do so with minimal heuristics. (no handicapping)
I have no clue what you're talking about with your presumption. WTFever you're getting at is as usual - WRONG.
Again, you seem to think that I believe there is value everywhere. I'm just telling you the basics of how an AP would go to see if here is value. If there isn't value then you DON'T FUCKIN BET. (unless cover plays or something weird. I'd max bet my home team when I exploited the fuck out of that book.) You give me a lecture how it is exaggerated. Who is exaggerating anything but you?
If this site is so full of posers and such then why did you ever start posting here? You're a bigger loser than anyone for doing so and trying to prove this old wiseguy handicapper hocus pocus nonsense. Give it a REST.
I went, as I have said many times, 2500 posts without mentioning what I do, so that pretty much buries your theory here. I mentioned what I do when the inimitable Rob Singer started recommending doing really dumb things in terms of sports betting.
Your entire "weak lines" schtick is based on (1) there being consistent outliers and (2) line moves having a significant edge as opposed to original lines. In 2022, #1 just isn't true unless you're dealing with a boutique (privately owned, low limit) offshore. And (2) I don't know about much except for football. I can tell you for the NFL, outside of weather line moves, the accuracy of line moves in minimal.
I am still confused as to just what redietz's gripe is and who it is that he is so upset with, that this topic and accusations have spilled onto a second forum and multiple AP's.
I myself have a history of getting upset when people come along claiming to be AP's making a living when they show absolutely no evidence that they play with an advantage and instead cling to long disproven gambling myth and voodoo techniques. I don't think that is fair to the real AP's, nor the members who read and may buy into that load of crap and try to emulate it.
But I don't see where that has happened here, unless I missed it. There has been one person on this (and other forums) that claimed to be a professional sports better and blackjack player, the late Moses and (or Tater on other forums). I challenged his blackjack claims because they didn't make sense regarding the location he claimed to play. No one challenged his sports betting claims. I thought someone would, but no one did.
So other than that, I have seen no one claiming to be a professional sports better, other than redietz, that he should be so upset about. I guess the closest is former member here and still posting elsewhere, Rob Singer, who claims he can and has in the past picked sports at a 68% clip. THAT is typical Singer baloney and cry for attention and no need to even respond it
But what Redietz seems to be agitated about is some overall AP's whether professional or recreational, that claim to do some sports betting at an advantage. I don't think I am in that group that he finds so objectionalable, because I have been super clear, as I try to be with everything, that my sports betting is not +EV, nor am I an overall winner at it. It is a recreational activity for me
AP's are players that play with or try to play with an advantage. Some of the known AP's are saying they do some sports betting at an advantage. But it isn't the act of picking winnings at some ridiculous claim (like 68%). They are doing or taking advantage of something else that gives them an advantage. The most common, the bonuses from the online casinos. Redietz mentioned YouWager. YouWager offers sign-up bonues, loss rebates, entries into contests and 1/2 juice lines on Friday night wagers. Employing these things, ought to get a player, pretty close to at least even, just picking the normal 50%.
So I guess my question to redietz is what exactly do you find so objectionable and who is it that you find so objectionable making these claims. Obviously AccountinQuestion because you are going back and forth with him, but you have mentioned axelwolf and mickeycrimm by name on the other forum. I just don't see where anybody is claiming anything outrageous like the nutjob Rob Singer's 68% claims. These are AP's doing something else or taking advantage of something else like promotions to make their sportsbetting slightly +EV. That is what AP's do.
The world. He’s upset with the world. Imagine how you would you feel if one day you discovered you were a purple dinosaur.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
I am not sure whether your comment was made in any kind of serious context or not, but to put it in a serious vane, I have been accused by multiple people in the blackjack community of being a dinosaur, because I choose to still employ card counting, which most players have moved away from. And I have never taken offense at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcapThe world. He’s upset with the world. Imagine how you would you feel if one day you discovered you were a purple dinosaur.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
And I think some of that same thing may be part of the redietz issue. He is an old school sports better. I see nothing that he has ever claimed or said that would cause me to question that this is what he has done for 40 years. In his day, sports betters where people that picked winners. There were no bonuses and rebates from online casinos. You had to pick at what??...a 54% rate or something to overcome the juice. And line shopping was walking from one Las Vegas casino sportsbook to the next. Now players do line shopping at 100 sportsbooks from their home.
One thing I have learned from redietz is about all the different contests. I had no idea. It seems like he focuses on contests, things like McClusker (which I had never heard of) and has done well. I suppose the difference is at that point you are going against the other players rather than trying to overcome a house edge. Kind of like poker vs blackjack.
So yeah, I think there is something to the fact that what redietz does is old school and that makes him somewhat of a dinosaur. Nothing wrong with that. He has succeeded for 40 years. I would wear that as a badge rather than an insult, even if it is meant that way.
Lol schtick. I'd bet money no sharp person had any issue with me saying weak lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
It is so funny you can't stick with what I said. I don't know anything about line moves. I'm not going to go into explaining what I did hte one time I sports bet in the past 10 years. I explained it before.
You made fun of me for saying weak lines, pumping your fist in the air, but wtf does this mean? "outside of weather line moves, the accuracy of line moves in minimal." So .. if they aren't accurate then the lines are soft and that'd be something to exploit? Not sure what your point is except flailing about like a clown.
If you guys aren't following my NFL picks this year, you should. It's the first year I've actively bet on the NFL (other than the +EV teasers I used to do, which can't be done anymore, but were like free money).
I'm 35-12-1, and that includes some moneyline dogs which hit. With a 1 unit bet on each game, I'm +24.42 units. redietz has observed all of this and can vouch that there's been no past posting or funny business. It's in the sportsbetting forum.
I can't get NBA right these days, though. Down a little in that so far, and I lost last year, as well.
I'm betting the two college sports actively this year, as well, and am up, but not a ton.
You're just handicapping/guessing or do you have some +EV situation? What's the method to your madness? Winning streaks are nothing new. There's zero chance even if you have +EV it will/can account for that big of a run. Do you know your overall winning % for all your sports picks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I know there is no such thing as due to win or lose, but ill be damned, if I haven't lost just about every time I have jumped in late on someones winning streak, it's like clockwork(+EV or not). But if you have +EV bets then it shouldn't matter and I wouldn't mind following and betting on your picks. I should have a significant edge since Ill just make sure I'm using 100% bonuses.
Why is anyone dumb enough to buy, pay or engage in some type of service when Dan is 35-12-1 and giving his stuff out for free?
Has redietz done the right thing and directed his customers to your free picks?
Axelwolf, why would YOU jump on someone's picks just because they are hot? I emphasis "you" because you are pure AP. You aren't betting sports for enjoyment or entertainment, like some of us. And I appreciate that about you. I have defended both here and another forum that your sports betting is +EV because you are doing something else (probably with bonuses) that make it +EV regardless of the actual picks. So it is a little weird to hear you talk about hot and cold sports pickers, because that really is just variance.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Now only slightly related, is Dan Druff even an AP? I don't mean any offense to Druff with that question. Poker players are playing against other players, so their game doesn't have to be +EV, mathematically, they just have to be better than the other players, right? Am I looking at this wrong? :confused:
Druff has talked about some video poker play that it seems like he is playing or trying to play +EV, but the thing that he makes or made a living doing, poker, I am just hazy if that is actual advantage play.
Similarly, I am not quite sure if somebody that bets sports for a living, if there even are such people any more, not selling picks or a service, not entering contests, but just picking winners, like the Robert Dinero character in Casinos says he was back to doing at the end....I am just not sure if such a person is an advantage player. They are a winning player if they do so over time. I tend to think AP is rather black and white, someone doing something that gives them a mathematical advantage that makes their long-term play over 100% return. I don't know, this is hazy to me on some of these things. Thoughts?
BTW, my status isn't hazy to me. I am an AP concerning my blackjack and some supplemental stuff. That is how I make a living and support myself. Sports betting is something I do recreational and for entertainment. Call me a losing gambler on that. I am fine with that.
Did you read the entire post? I thought I made it clear with the questions I asked and the statements made wanting to know if he had +EV. I have only jumped in when someone had a situation wherein the person had what seemed to be +EV. I never jumped in because of a hot streak, it has been because of their hot streak had gained attention to the fact that they have an advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJAxelwolf, why would YOU jump on someone's picks just because they are hot? I emphasis "you" because you are pure AP. You aren't betting sports for enjoyment or entertainment, like some of us. And I appreciate that about you. I have defended both here and another forum that your sports betting is +EV because you are doing something else (probably with bonuses) that make it +EV regardless of the actual picks. So it is a little weird to hear you talk about hot and cold sports pickers, because that really is just variance.Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolf
Now only slightly related, is Dan Druff even an AP? I don't mean any offense to Druff with that question. Poker players are playing against other players, so their game doesn't have to be +EV, mathematically, they just have to be better than the other players, right? Am I looking at this wrong? :confused:
Druff has talked about some video poker play that it seems like he is playing or trying to play +EV, but the thing that he makes or made a living doing, poker, I am just hazy if that is actual advantage play.
Similarly, I am not quite sure if somebody that bets sports for a living, if there even are such people any more, not selling picks or a service, not entering contests, but just picking winners, like the Robert Dinero character in Casinos says he was back to doing at the end....I am just not sure if such a person is an advantage player. They are a winning player if they do so over time. I tend to think AP is rather black and white, someone doing something that gives them a mathematical advantage that makes their long-term play over 100% return. I don't know, this is hazy to me on some of these things. Thoughts?
BTW, my status isn't hazy to me. I am an AP concerning my blackjack and some supplemental stuff. That is how I make a living and support myself. Sports betting is something I do recreational and for entertainment. Call me a losing gambler on that. I am fine with that.
Dan is a smart guy, I wouldn't think he's making random bets, I assume he making bets based on some type of theory that leads him to believe he might have an advantage. I'm open to hearing his theory.
P.S. Not every bet I have made is +EV. I will put in a few bucks in a -EV machine when out with friends from out of town, I have played a little -EV UTH, craps, etc with a group of friends. I'll make a bet on a big event, I even bet Mcgregor even tho the sharps seemed to be on the other side. If I give up a few hundred per year in value for entertainment, and that's ok.
When it comes to Handicapping it's always hazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by kewlJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxelWolfYou're just handicapping/guessing or do you have some +EV situation? What's the method to your madness? Winning streaks are nothing new. There's zero chance even if you have +EV it will/can account for that big of a run. Do you know your overall winning % for all your sports picks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I know there is no such thing as due to win or lose, but ill be damned, if I haven't lost just about every time I have jumped in late on someones winning streak, it's like clockwork(+EV or not). But if you have +EV bets then it shouldn't matter and I wouldn't mind following and betting on your picks. I should have a significant edge since Ill just make sure I'm using 100% bonuses.
Why is anyone dumb enough to buy, pay or engage in some type of service when Dan is 35-12-1 and giving his stuff out for free?
Has redietz done the right thing and directed his customers to your free picks?
Brutal.