Whoopeeeeee!!!!!!!!! New gamble game coming to Montana. Montana Tavern Association is a strong lobby. I think the state will give this a go.
Whoopeeeeee!!!!!!!!! New gamble game coming to Montana. Montana Tavern Association is a strong lobby. I think the state will give this a go.
"More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ
Thanks, mickey.
I love the attitude. The statement about sports betting being a traffic generator but not a huge profit generator is exactly the correct approach, I think, as opposed to Pennsylvania, where the state legislature is talking 25% tax on profits and half a million as a franchise fee for each location. Pennsylvania can suck an egg.
They seem to have great faith in the electronic fence abilities of the kiosks. Please let us know if you hear anything regarding which sports books are under consideration or appear to be frontrunners.
I think readers will understand why this belongs in the Retro Road Trip thread. I recently scouted futures in Las Vegas, and reported on that trip here. This post, however, deals with ghosts of futures past. Does anyone believe in ghosts?
Fool's Gold -- Part Two
I was cleaning out the garage the other day. It's quite a mess, with many boxes and plastic bins, most of them filled with books. Anyway, I stumbled onto a box of junk that belonged to my late cousin, E.R. Dietz. I rooted through the cobwebbed box and found photocopies E.R. had made of old futures tickets from Las Vegas. I'll post just the first sheet here. As you can tell by the way the tickets are jumbled and jammed, there was more than one sheet, but I think for our purposes the first is enough to make my point.
Without context, one might automatically assume that E.R. had made a haul on futures that year. I won't bore you with the results, as you can look them up. Anyway, as I emphasized in Part One of Fool's Gold, it would be a logical error to just assume E.R. had made a nice chunk.
Last edited by redietz; 06-15-2018 at 07:56 PM.
The sheets are proof of nothing. So what questions should we ask him if he were still alive? How could we figure out the truth of what had happened? Had he actually won anything?
Well, I would start by asking him if he lost money hedging. Did he hedge the Super Bowl or NFC title game? Those hedges could represent substantial losses.
I then, however, came upon a second set of futures for the same season, but these were from the AFC. So aha! E.R. had not bet just the single winning future. I'll post that second sheet below. Here's where I admit E.R. earned some of my respect. The other set of futures, from the AFC, also put a team in the Super Bowl. So he had both teams playing each other, eliminating the need for some of the hedging.
Last edited by redietz; 06-15-2018 at 07:57 PM.
I still suspected that E.R. had blown hedging money, but when I checked, the underdog in the NFC title game had covered, although E.R.'s team advanced. So a hedge would have made him money. Pretty impressive. And any Super Bowl hedging on the underdog would have, at worst, been a push, so no damage there, and if he got the line very, very early, another profit from the hedging itself.
Superficially, it looked fabulous. But we still need to be hard core skeptics. Just because there were no futures sheets for other teams in that box does not mean E.R. didn't take other teams. So all of this "evidence of wagering," no matter the apparent expertise, has limited probative value. Just because a guy nailed a 100-300 to 1 shot versus a 40-75 to 1 shot in the SB does not mean that he made money.
So how could we ever verify that E.R. bet just these two teams? We can't. Of course, if he were still alive, and he offered to take a polygraph, that would have a little influence on our evaluation. But we could never be 100% sure.
Last edited by redietz; 06-16-2018 at 08:39 AM.
n
"More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ
Thanks so much for making them readable, mickey. E.R. would really appreciate it!
I would have to agree with Redietz that his cousin likely had other future bets that were not included on these sheets. The odds to singularly pick the winning teams from the both the AFC and NFC at long odds would be miraculous.
I have to give credit though. The 1999 St Louis Rams had one of the longest odds ever for a NFL champion at 300-1 preseason odds. As a comparison, the longest odds at the moment for this coming years Super Bowl is 100-1.
I wonder is extreme odds may be a thing of the past. The European bookmakers learned a hard lesson when they instituted a 5,000-1 odds on Leicester City in the Premier Soccer League a few years ago. There are 20 teams in the league. No one was betting on Leicester City. They wanted chump money, hence the extreme odds.
Many individuals will spend $10 on keno or lottery tickets with bad odds. A loyal Leicester City fan would not hesitate to spend $10 on the ole town squad. I believe the English bookmakers lost $15 million on this one.
Originally Posted by Deech
Deech, you are correct. After the Rams, odds were conservatized. You won't get many plus 100-1 in the NFL any longer. The one thing E.R. always said about why he took the Rams -- speed is never a mirage. He recognized the remarkable collection of speed on offense as a real thing right off the bat, and he took advantage.
Redietz, here's a link to I. Nelson Rose's opinion on the recent SCOTUS decision on sportsbetting:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...SIcZH9U75FaaVJ
"More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Excellent article, mickey. It touches on many of the key upcoming issues. Different states will have different criteria for the licensing, and some will demand much more than others.
The two key points that interested me: (1) I agree with the author that Nevada will take a hit. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, that may (eventually) force Nevada books to offer better odds and comps than what is available now, and (2) I don't necessarily agree with the idea that fantasy sports will take a huge hit, as the big fantasy companies are trying to incorporate picking games as a new competitive element of what they do. So it's possible that fantasy sports will pay the states fees to be able to offer point spread competitions of their own. These will be contests, obviously, as opposed to betting.
I suggest you post this article everywhere you can. it covers a lot of ground.
Many years ago when I started dabbling a little in gaming law to assist my friends who encountered issues after the casinos opened here, I bought Rose's book. He also was kind enough to assist me on a couple matters at no charge. I have always appreciated both that and just his writing in general. He does summarize the issues pretty well here.
I found a lot of useful information in Las Vegas attorney Bob Nersesian's book "The Law For Gamblers."
What, Me Worry?
I will get the e-book. Thanks
Because certain posters requested it, I hereby present "The Gambling Personality: An Interactional Approach."
Page Two.
Page Three
More of Jeffrey Gray's personality theories.
Finally, to some of the good stuff.
Sociobiology is not so fashionable these days, but it's a necessary perspective.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote