Mission, you know not whereof you speak. You are assuming things that are not correct. If you re-read, you should catch the gist. Just because I explain the rationale for certain things handicappers do, does not mean that I am doing them. That's an incorrect assumption.
Also, note that "do nothing to negatively influence their gambling habits" can be read two ways. Are you saying you do nothing to reduce their (presumably bad) gambling "habit," or are you saying you do nothing to detract from their (presumably profitable) gambling "habit?" Not really clear, especially to a civilian to whom all gambling "habits" are presumed "bad."
Why are you defending yourself against someone who is not criticizing you? My point in that post was, if Monet is complaining that YOU make money as a result of other peoples' gambling, then I couldn't possibly complain about that on the grounds that I do the same exact thing.
I understand that you are not doing the same exact thing that other handicappers are doing. I never said that you were. I used the $10/pick in my example only because that was an example number that you originally threw out there.
That said, when your clients make bets, you stand to make more money off of sports betting than you otherwise would if you made the same amount in bets personally and did not have any clients---yes or no?
I do nothing that would cause an individual person to make one particular bet or another, much less get paid by them, under any set of conditions, to do so. I mathematically analyze propositions, then they can decide whether or not they want to do that and they do not have to pay anything to read my take on it. If they ask questions, then I sometimes answer them.
My signature on WoV links to a post that says:
Well, to the extent that the subject is gambling—-I only kind of contribute.
I do, but let’s not pretend that it matters. They will, one and all, continue to play negative expectation games and they will, one and all, lose.
They will not play the games any better than they would have prior to talking to me, because they care neither about the math, my advice not to play it in the first place absent an advantage or anything else that I do say or could ever say.
Three times this with betting system players who, worse than not being concerned with the math, are religiously opposed to the math. So, they will all try their systems and they will, one and all, lose all of their money.
So, I, ‘Contribute,’ but it’s not like that changes anything.
You can look at a certain CM whose name I will not even be responsible for putting on this website. Let’s do a comparison:
CM:
Says you can win with systems.
Could not pass third grade math.
Charges to be part of his group.
Charges for private, ‘Lessons,’ on using the systems.
Mission146:
Says you WILL LOSE, system or otherwise.
Is slightly better than the average person at math.
Does not charge to answer questions.
Will refuse to gamble with you in a casino.
But, they are not going to listen to me because I am saying, “If you gamble enough, you WILL lose.” They don’t want to hear that.
They want to hear that you can win.
Most people cannot win.
Even if they could, or cared to learn how, they would just lose all winnings and more on something different anyway.
They don’t want to win. They want to gamble. Negative progression systems, not that they would know it, are designed to create the perception that they can gamble LONGER…which is really what it is they really want to do. Why would a person be willing to risk up to 10k+ in total, on a -EV game, all for the purpose of MAYBE temporarily being ahead $100 and trying again?
They want to gamble.
And, deep down, somewhere so deep in the mind that they can’t even access it—-they WANT to lose.
Any other questions?
I have nowhere near the expertise and longevity of Redietz, but one of my former jobs for several years was as the primary handicapper for a well known tout sheet/service. Unlike Redietz, this was not an honorable company and did give out both sides of games. My termination from them was based upon my refusal to give out both sides. I also was a stickman for this fine group of gentlemen. When it came to "Lock" games or similar games of the week and the like, they would choose the game and I would have to formulate an opinion as it was rarely a game that I actually liked.
It seems that Redietz ran or runs an honest operation unlike what I was involved in.
We charged a fee for weekly, monthly, annual, etc., or just for a key game. "Locks" were a larger fee. I think I recall Redietz saying that he gets paid a % of profit, but he can explain if he desires.
lolz
"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
Gotcha!! LOL.
Coach, you should stick to free play analysis. Seriously. You are so far out in left field on this, you may as well be on Mars. I mean, c'mon, man, go back and read what I wrote about working on a percent of profit basis. You must have Integrity Sports confused with:
Instead of trying to be the "King of Gotcha," why don't you try thinking things through? At least a little bit, once in a while. Now how would a guy who has run something called Integrity Sports for 40 years operate on a percent of profit basis? How would he live up to the name?
Well, this is what I love. Obviously, mcap could have (A) tried to track me down (since I don't know who he is) and hired me in some way, shape or form. And then after hiring me, he could have used the Madoff quip and exposed me as a bald-faced liar. Or not.
Or (B) he could just skip the reality-testing part and use a Madoff quip anyway.
Since he chose (B), that suggests to me he knew how (A) would have turned out.
Last edited by redietz; 01-13-2022 at 08:06 PM.
The only handicapper that tops the Comrade is Kyle Prescott.........almost forgot bumbling Kevin Davis !
I don't really read Bloomberg Opinion. I have read stuff by O'Brien, who is a fine writer and usually a decent researcher. But this is one of those deals when somebody does something in your wheelhouse, and you know it's a barely researched piece with a limited view, then you have to think, "Hey, all those things I thought were well-researched, maybe I was wrong."
I have that happen with academic lectures -- you presume somebody's a friggin' genius, then they write about something you know a lot about and they muck it up, so then you wonder, what about all the stuff at which I'm not expert? Do they muck that up, too, and I just don't know enough to notice?
I think that's a postulation that we often don't keep in the back of our minds enough, but probably should. Excellent observation.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)