The Singer Five

[redietz]

A gambler's gambling bankroll grows by winning. How does one win more? By BETTING more. People who claim to be professional gamblers only sell things to earn the money they are unable to earn via their gambling, which is totally disingenuous. And it is 100% inappropriate for any sports betting self-described savant--of whom we've seen quite a few over the years--to claim to be special but at the same time trying to sell their picks. That gobbledegook explanation justifying the sleazy practice was just what you meant it to be: strange.

The same goes for the rest of that shameless crowd I mentioned. No one with a brain believes they've ever won anything. They remain in the selling end of the business because they have never been able to walk the walk on the gambling end.

A lot of proclamations that don't at all address what I explained. Handicappers flip the odds in their favor. It's the same as playing a positive EV video poker game. I'm not surprised you don't grasp that.

LOL. You'll have a hard time denigrating me. I work on a percent of profit, and everybody gets the same plays. Once every six to seven years, I make nothing. In fact, obviously, I lose money. Find fault with that -- good luck.

I'm not denigrating what you do specifically. The whole sports handicapping industry does it.

I don't get how handicappers flip odds. The only people who move lines are large bettors.

Jesus, man, you really don't know -- hell, I don't know how to describe it. If you don't understand what I said in that post, you really should not be gambling, period. The following explanation assumes you are indeed betting your own games.

Look, if you are betting whatever the hell you claim, $500 a game, and you win 55%, that's great. But if you "sell picks" on a pay-after-you-win basis, then the money you pick up from the winning picks changes the percentage you need to win to make a profit, depending on the income from the sales. So your 55%, if you have a couple dozen followers at some nominal fee, turns into the income equivalent of you hitting 57% or 58% or more.

The income from the people paying for your selections "flips the odds" because, instead of having to win 52.4% of the time (with normal juice), you can actually get by with hitting less than that for you yourself to make a profit. The added income from the paying subscribers can turn a 51% (losing) handicapper into a winning handicapper. It can theoretically turn a 48% handicapper into a profitable handicapper due to the added income from people paying you. You no longer have to win 52.4% to come out ahead. With the added income from your subscribers paying for winners, the "vig" you earn from your winners is more than the "vig" you are paying sports books with your losers.

You have become the favorite. You have "flipped the odds."

[Moses]

I get how handicappers flip odds. The only people who move lines are large bettors.

FWIW Rob. A $2,200 bet will move an NHL or MLB line about a dime. NBA is about 1 point. NFL, not much of an impact.

There was a big time NHL bettor a couple of years ago that loved the dogs. I'd sit back on a -165 favorite and get it for -130. That was a deal in hock.

Also worth noting, certain casinos adjust the line to stay competitive with offshore betting. Others don't give a dang.

[Rob.Singer]

A lot of proclamations that don't at all address what I explained. Handicappers flip the odds in their favor. It's the same as playing a positive EV video poker game. I'm not surprised you don't grasp that.

LOL. You'll have a hard time denigrating me. I work on a percent of profit, and everybody gets the same plays. Once every six to seven years, I make nothing. In fact, obviously, I lose money. Find fault with that -- good luck.

I'm not denigrating what you do specifically. The whole sports handicapping industry does it.

I don't get how handicappers flip odds. The only people who move lines are large bettors.

Jesus, man, you really don't know -- hell, I don't know how to describe it. If you don't understand what I said in that post, you really should not be gambling, period. The following explanation assumes you are indeed betting your own games.

Look, if you are betting whatever the hell you claim, $500 a game, and you win 55%, that's great. But if you "sell picks" on a pay-after-you-win basis, then the money you pick up from the winning picks changes the percentage you need to win to make a profit, depending on the income from the sales. So your 55%, if you have a couple dozen followers at some nominal fee, turns into the income equivalent of you hitting 57% or 58% or more.

The income from the people paying for your selections "flips the odds" because, instead of having to win 52.4% of the time (with normal juice), you can actually get by with hitting less than that for you yourself to make a profit. The added income from the paying subscribers can turn a 51% (losing) handicapper into a winning handicapper. It can theoretically turn a 48% handicapper into a profitable handicapper due to the added income from people paying you. You no longer have to win 52.4% to come out ahead. With the added income from your subscribers paying for winners, the "vig" you earn from your winners is more than the "vig" you are paying sports books with your losers.

You have become the favorite. You have "flipped the odds."

Red, when I withdraw a few thousand from my retirement savings account each month, my income goes up. The difference is, I'm not "purporting" to be a better sports bettor because of it, and I don't need other people's money to be able to say so either.

[Rob.Singer]

This week's bets have been placed. $500/game except my Lock of the Week which is $600, along with the beloved $100 parlay.

Jax +4.5 over Ten
Car -2 over Clev
NYG -3.5 over Wash
Indy +5 over Hou
Az +2.5 over Det

For the first time, I'm selling these picks for $300 each. PM me for my sleazy handicapper's weekly discount.

[redietz]

I'm not denigrating what you do specifically. The whole sports handicapping industry does it.

I don't get how handicappers flip odds. The only people who move lines are large bettors.

Jesus, man, you really don't know -- hell, I don't know how to describe it. If you don't understand what I said in that post, you really should not be gambling, period. The following explanation assumes you are indeed betting your own games.

Look, if you are betting whatever the hell you claim, $500 a game, and you win 55%, that's great. But if you "sell picks" on a pay-after-you-win basis, then the money you pick up from the winning picks changes the percentage you need to win to make a profit, depending on the income from the sales. So your 55%, if you have a couple dozen followers at some nominal fee, turns into the income equivalent of you hitting 57% or 58% or more.

The income from the people paying for your selections "flips the odds" because, instead of having to win 52.4% of the time (with normal juice), you can actually get by with hitting less than that for you yourself to make a profit. The added income from the paying subscribers can turn a 51% (losing) handicapper into a winning handicapper. It can theoretically turn a 48% handicapper into a profitable handicapper due to the added income from people paying you. You no longer have to win 52.4% to come out ahead. With the added income from your subscribers paying for winners, the "vig" you earn from your winners is more than the "vig" you are paying sports books with your losers.

You have become the favorite. You have "flipped the odds."

Red, when I withdraw a few thousand from my retirement savings account each month, my income goes up. The difference is, I'm not "purporting" to be a better sports bettor because of it, and I don't need other people's money to be able to say so either.

Nobody purports to be anything. Your record, as it stands, is your record. I have no idea if you even understand what I've said. Nobody loses if a winning handicapper "sells picks." The buyers benefit. The handicapper benefits because he accumulates a larger bankroll. If the handicapper is a loser, that's evident to the buyers, so that also serves a purpose. Right now, you're doing fine. If not for your parlays, anybody following you would be alright.

Your record right now is as publicly demonstrated here. The amounts wagered don't matter -- people can't amp up betting amounts and claim they've won this or that when their record is lousy. It's okay to value certain plays more than others. That's fine. But plays that are worth four or five times as much as others are best left as rare, certainly less than 10% of all plays.

Frankly, I don't need other people's money, either. That's why there's zero evidence for me ever soliciting you. It simply never happened. I haven't solicited anybody in years. You have no idea what I do or how I do it, and every time you have anything to say, it's pretty much a complete fabrication.

Good luck to you, Sixty. I actually hope you win this season. I'm always pulling for the dude who thinks he can.

[Moses]

This week's bets have been placed. $500/game except my Lock of the Week which is $600, along with the beloved $100 parlay.

Jax +4.5 over Ten
Car -2 over Clev
NYG -3.5 over Wash
Indy +5 over Hou
Az +2.5 over Det

For the first time, I'm selling these picks for $300 each. PM me for my sleazy handicapper's weekly discount.

Can you just bill me? IF I go the other way, will you send me $300 each. Best of luck.

[Rob.Singer]

Jesus, man, you really don't know -- hell, I don't know how to describe it. If you don't understand what I said in that post, you really should not be gambling, period. The following explanation assumes you are indeed betting your own games.

Look, if you are betting whatever the hell you claim, $500 a game, and you win 55%, that's great. But if you "sell picks" on a pay-after-you-win basis, then the money you pick up from the winning picks changes the percentage you need to win to make a profit, depending on the income from the sales. So your 55%, if you have a couple dozen followers at some nominal fee, turns into the income equivalent of you hitting 57% or 58% or more.

The income from the people paying for your selections "flips the odds" because, instead of having to win 52.4% of the time (with normal juice), you can actually get by with hitting less than that for you yourself to make a profit. The added income from the paying subscribers can turn a 51% (losing) handicapper into a winning handicapper. It can theoretically turn a 48% handicapper into a profitable handicapper due to the added income from people paying you. You no longer have to win 52.4% to come out ahead. With the added income from your subscribers paying for winners, the "vig" you earn from your winners is more than the "vig" you are paying sports books with your losers.

You have become the favorite. You have "flipped the odds."

Red, when I withdraw a few thousand from my retirement savings account each month, my income goes up. The difference is, I'm not "purporting" to be a better sports bettor because of it, and I don't need other people's money to be able to say so either.

Nobody purports to be anything. Your record, as it stands, is your record. I have no idea if you even understand what I've said. Nobody loses if a winning handicapper "sells picks." The buyers benefit. The handicapper benefits because he accumulates a larger bankroll. If the handicapper is a loser, that's evident to the buyers, so that also serves a purpose. Right now, you're doing fine. If not for your parlays, anybody following you would be alright.

Your record right now is as publicly demonstrated here. The amounts wagered don't matter -- people can't amp up betting amounts and claim they've won this or that when their record is lousy. It's okay to value certain plays more than others. That's fine. But plays that are worth four or five times as much as others are best left as rare, certainly less than 10% of all plays.

Frankly, I don't need other people's money, either. That's why there's zero evidence for me ever soliciting you. It simply never happened. I haven't solicited anybody in years. You have no idea what I do or how I do it, and every time you have anything to say, it's pretty much a complete fabrication.

Good luck to you, Sixty. I actually hope you win this season. I'm always pulling for the dude who thinks he can.

You're light years ahead of me when it comes to understanding the business. I only know how to win.

[monet]

You're light years ahead of me when it comes to understanding the business. I only know how to win.

!

[redietz]

You're light years ahead of me when it comes to understanding the business. I only know how to win.

!

Don't sweat it, monet. Rob might be telling the truth. "Knowing how to win" and actually winning are, after all, two entirely different things.

It's ironic, in a way, because that's his theme when it comes to AP's. They allegedly "know how to win," but allegedly don't actually win. That's the "Rob theme." So let's take him at his word. He "knows how to win." Maybe he just lacks the discipline to pull off the actual winning.

Projection? Inside joke? A touch of ironic self-awareness? Who knows?

[mickeycrimm]

I wonder why Rob wasted all that time playing video poker when he could've been whacking the books for much more money. Oh, and another thing. How many sportsbetting tickets were involved in his income tax returns?

[Rob.Singer]

You're light years ahead of me when it comes to understanding the business. I only know how to win.

!

Don't sweat it, monet. Rob might be telling the truth. "Knowing how to win" and actually winning are, after all, two entirely different things.

It's ironic, in a way, because that's his theme when it comes to AP's. They allegedly "know how to win," but allegedly don't actually win. That's the "Rob theme." So let's take him at his word. He "knows how to win." Maybe he just lacks the discipline to pull off the actual winning.

Projection? Inside joke? A touch of ironic self-awareness? Who knows?

To the contrary red. I never said ap's "know how to win". In fact, I've said they can only lose the way they play unless they have extraordinary good luck.

But you did contribute another corny post.

[mickeycrimm]

!

Don't sweat it, monet. Rob might be telling the truth. "Knowing how to win" and actually winning are, after all, two entirely different things.

It's ironic, in a way, because that's his theme when it comes to AP's. They allegedly "know how to win," but allegedly don't actually win. That's the "Rob theme." So let's take him at his word. He "knows how to win." Maybe he just lacks the discipline to pull off the actual winning.

Projection? Inside joke? A touch of ironic self-awareness? Who knows?

To the contrary red. I never said ap's "know how to win". In fact, I've said they can only lose the way they play unless they have extraordinary good luck.

But you did contribute another corny post.

I've had 22 straight winning years. I guess I'm extroardinarily lucky. Or maybe 22 years is a pattern. Luck runs boths ways, good and bad. Maybe it had something to do with knowledge and skill and only playing when I hold an edge. I'm somewhat perplexed by your assertions that you will lose on positive plays and win on negative plays. Seems ass backwards to me.

[Rob.Singer]

You're perplexed mickey because it doesn't fit your phony "I'm a winner" schick. As if people can't tell you have nothing else in life to make it worth even two bits, so you've been pounding this silly gambling theme into the suckers' heads.

"Is That All There Is" and "Where's The Beef?" must continuously loop thru your wasted mind.

[mickeycrimm]

You're perplexed mickey because it doesn't fit your phony "I'm a winner" schick. As if people can't tell you have nothing else in life to make it worth even two bits, so you've been pounding this silly gambling theme into the suckers' heads.

"Is That All There Is" and "Where's The Beef?" must continuously loop thru your wasted mind.

But could you explain to us why we will lose of positive plays and win on negative plays?

[monet]

This week's bets have been placed. $500/game except my Lock of the Week which is $600, along with the beloved $100 parlay.

Jax +4.5 over Ten
Car -2 over Clev
NYG -3.5 over Wash
Indy +5 over Hou
Az +2.5 over Det

You are really bad at this aren't you?

Jax +4.5 over Ten LOSE
Car -2 over Clev LOSE
NYG -3.5 over Wash WIN
Indy +5 over Hou WIN
Az +2.5 over Det LOSE


Stick to cheating at Video Poker... Wise UP.

[Rob.Singer]

This week: straight plays: 2-3. Lose: $500. Season: 15-15-1. Loss: $790

Parlays to date: 0-6. Loss: $600

COT: Loss: $1390

Expenses to date: $300

Total win/loss: -$1690

monet: if I had a winning week and were ahead overall, would you be saying "Hey, you're really good at this aren't you".

.500 so far. If I just bet my Locks I'd be making people mad.

[kewlJ]

This week: straight plays: 2-3. Lose: $500. Season: 15-15-1. Loss: $790

So your .500. Congratulations. You would be .500 flipping a coin for your picks. You are no better, No worse.

And this little exercise, small sample size that it is, is a great exercise in the mathematics of gambling. You are .500, exactly as expected and down $790 because of the vig….the house advantage. You are unable to overcome the house advantage because the vig makes this -EV play. It is working EXACTLY as the math says it should. And guess what? Even your increasing bets (progressive wagering) had no effect!

This little exercise is exactly the same as your video poker claims. You are playing a -EV game and claiming that some mystical, magical power enables you to overcome the negative expectation. It is exactly the same. Mathematically impossible! Or to quote Dan Druff....

Rob, you realize that what you're claiming is virtually impossible, right?

So thanks for PROVING our point Robbie, or Harry or whatever your name is. Progressive betting, stop limits and other voodoo concepts CAN NOT over come negative expectation. That is the pure mathematics of it. And you continue to show nothing that changes that.

Now let's wait for the Singer/troll playbook. You will attack me personally with some hateful rhetoric, trying to change the conversation, because I pointed out the math, to which you have no answer for. That is the Singer playbook.

[Moses]

I'm curious and too lazy to go back and look. But if you eliminated your parlays and focused on your locks, I think you're money ahead. More isn't necessarily better.

[redietz]

A sample of 40 to 50 plays doesn't tell you much of anything, except perhaps the style of the handicapper and what he's trying to accomplish. If Argentino goes 15-5 down the stretch, he'll hit the 60% he said he'd hit.

Since it's a game of opinion, I try to not directly apply probability to the task. "The math" doesn't say, necessarily, that Argentino will lose. He may have insights or abilities beyond the formulas used to determine the spreads. The one spot wherein math does apply, however, is in the macro-betting. In other words, the parlays. The parlays, as mickey pointed out, are a bad bet oddswise even if you have an advantage over the oddsmakers themselves. In other words, if you are indeed brighter than the formulas used to determine spreads, there is no incentive to bet parlays.

I said this a couple of times regarding parlays when the endeavor began. Betting parlays without a good reason smacks of hubris, as does the proclamation that someone will hit 60%. Betting parlays also suggests a lack of discipline and a need to have some semi-progressive big payday looming out there in never-never land. The potential for the quick bailout. In reality, there are no quick bailouts.

Interestingly, the Wise Guys contestants are doing remarkably well this season. They had a stellar weekend again. I'm 17-11 and 10-4 with best bets, and I'm nowhere close to the leaders. They are killing it.

It's tough when reality is there keeping your stats for you. No voodoo to help. No avoidance of record-keeping. Your public record is inescapable. I've been doing this for 40 years. It ain't easy.

[Moses]

The problem with this type of strategy for the average handicapper is they run out of guts or money or both. Just when that happens? Bam. It hits. There is a reason so many of these guys are wondering around rubbing their own poop on their head. lol