Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 103

Thread: Responses to Anti-Sports Gambling Op-Ed

  1. #21
    I'll check them out to the extent of seeing what their guarantee is, if I remember. I'm obviously not going to buy any of their picks.

    Would, "Flip the odds," be a charitable way of putting, "Partial free roll," or would, "Partial free roll," be an uncharitable way of putting, "Flip the odds?"

  2. #22
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    someone who doesn't even watch football could easily out pick me in 32 games.
    Do you that's why the ditz didn't accept Singer's challenge...because he could lose?

  3. #23
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    The difference seems to be price.
    You will neither sell him picks nor post any pre-game picks, free or otherwise, so there is no difference.

    But problem past-posting, no difference either...everybody's an expert when all they do is past-post.

  4. #24
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    someone who doesn't even watch football could easily out pick me in 32 games.
    Do you that's why the ditz didn't accept Singer's challenge...because he could lose?

    Coach, you're such a sharp dude, it's amazing. I wish you were doing my taxes.

    LOL. I don't even take 32 NFL sides in a year. I may have taken 32 NFL sides the last two years -- not sure. Certainly the last three.

    Mission, I've explained this before. You basically flip yourself from an 11/10 underdog to an 11/10 favorite if you get enough followers and you're betting the games yourself. So a 55% handicapper, depending on number of subscribers, needs to hit 50 or 51% to turn a profit if people are paying him after they win. It's an odds flip. If subscribers are long-term losers, they benefit. The handicapper benefits. If the clients can win on their own, then they don't benefit. Simple concept.

  5. #25
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    Why sell Picks as opposed to bet more on them? You've got me, man. I have no idea.
    Because you can profit from selling your picks, but not from betting on your picks.

    Isn't that the touts' business model?

  6. #26
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    I don't even take 32 NFL sides in a year.
    LOL. So what? You're the "pro". How many NFL sides does Singer take in a year?

  7. #27
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    someone who doesn't even watch football could easily out pick me in 32 games.
    Do you that's why the ditz didn't accept Singer's challenge...because he could lose?

    Coach, you're such a sharp dude, it's amazing. I wish you were doing my taxes.

    LOL. I don't even take 32 NFL sides in a year. I may have taken 32 NFL sides the last two years -- not sure. Certainly the last three.

    Mission, I've explained this before. You basically flip yourself from an 11/10 underdog to an 11/10 favorite if you get enough followers and you're betting the games yourself. So a 55% handicapper, depending on number of subscribers, needs to hit 50 or 51% to turn a profit if people are paying him after they win. It's an odds flip. If subscribers are long-term losers, they benefit. The handicapper benefits. If the clients can win on their own, then they don't benefit. Simple concept.
    If the subscribers are long-term losers, then the only thing most would benefit from is not betting on sports anymore.

    Even ignoring the subsets of the Picks they are buying in terms of W/L ratio, as variance is always going to be a factor, if your argument is that the odds are flipped in favor of the handicappers by selling picks, then the odds against the buyers are increased as compared to what they would normally be.

    Specifically, assuming that they are buying the Picks for something then they are going to, at a minimum, need variance not to be against them over a given sample since they have a bigger hill to climb.

    You make an interesting comparison, so I will do the same:

    Let's pretend we have one handicapper who hits 54% on an average line of -110 who has one person who buys the picks at $10/apiece...but only has to pay if it wins.

    (100 * 100/110) + 10) * .5) - (100 * .5) = 0.45454545454

    What does that mean? What it means is, in this scenario, he doesn't even have to hit 50% to have an expectation of profit. The reason why for that is because the amount he is selling the pick for does more than enough to overcome the expected vig on his bet because he only pays the vig on the bet if he wins and the amount the pick is being sold for more than covers that possibility.

    On the other side, we have the guy who paid $10 for the same pick. Just to keep it fair, we're going to have him still bet the full $100:

    (100 * 100/110) = 90.9090909091

    Okay, so that's the return if he wins. Let's go ahead and give the win probability 54% and apply:

    (90.9090909091 * .54) -10)) - (100 * .46) = -6.90909090909

    Oh no! What happened?

    Oh, that's right. He only wins $80.91 if his pick is a winner because he has to pay the ten dollars for the winning pick. Even if we assume that the handicapper hits 54% long-term, and that none of it is variance, our player is still losing...and is, in fact, worse off...because he's not betting enough relative to what he has to pay on his winning picks. However:

    (100 * 100/110 * .5) - (100 * .5) = -4.54545454545

    He could reduce his expected loss by doing what he was doing before---betting $100, eating the vig and taking his long-term expected win probability of 50%.

    Now, there are a few caveats to all of this:

    1.) The touts are actually probably better off because, if they are smart, they are not betting 1000% of what they are charging their clients (in total) if the picks win. Depending on the ratio of what they are betting compared to how much extra they stand to get from clients on their winning picks, they wouldn't even have to sniff 50% over the course of an individual season to be profitable.

    It must be nice for them not to be able to lose absent betting too high in proportion to the customer funds coming in or just having a truly abysmal year.

    2.) This assumes that the client IS betting 1000% of what he has to potentially pay for his winning picks.

    But, do they disclose that? Do any of them tell the clients what their average bet is going to need to be, and what winning percentage will need to be hit, before the client is betting sufficiently to at least be as well off as he would be on his own...assuming the win rate will even be hit...but also how much the client needs to be betting to overcome not only the vig, but also the added juice of paying for winners?

    (200 * 100/110) = 181.81818182

    (181.8181818182 -10) * .54) - (200 * .46) = 0.78181818182

    Flip the odds. My ass. It's a goddamn free roll is what it is. The seller doesn't even have to hit 50% to be profitable as long as he keeps his amount bet roughly at or under 1000% of what the client pays him upon a win while the client has to bet roughly 2000% of what he has to pay the seller upon a win assuming that the 54% is actually maintained throughout the entire time he buys the picks.

    The buyer is more reliant on the tout's continued success than the tout is. The tout's juice goes away and the client's juice is increased.

    Hey, maybe a tout hits 54% long-term and a client is betting 2000%+ of whatever he is paying on winning picks. Maybe he's betting 10,000% of that. I'm not saying that none of the buyers benefit; I'm saying that most of the buyers do not understand the conditions that would actually have to come to pass for them to benefit, much of the time.
    Last edited by Mission146; 01-13-2022 at 11:58 AM.

  8. #28
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    Why sell Picks as opposed to bet more on them? You've got me, man. I have no idea.
    Because you can profit from selling your picks, but not from betting on your picks.

    Isn't that the touts' business model?
    No, you can definitely also profit from making picks. Over 671 decisions, I'd be profitable if I had been betting on my picks. I just have no interest in doing that because the variance is too much to justify the thinness of what my margins would be and I have no interest in ever selling picks.

    What Redietz is saying is that the touts can sell their picks and improve the margins on the bets they do make at the same time, which I just provided an example for. So much so, in fact, that while they may be long-term winners, they don't even need to be net winning over the course of a single season in order to profit.

  9. #29
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    I don't even take 32 NFL sides in a year.
    LOL. So what? You're the "pro". How many NFL sides does Singer take in a year?
    That's his point. If you're in the mood to be even the slightest bit objective, then even you would have to admit it's too small a sample size to conclusively demonstrate anything. Of course he could lose; anyone could against anyone else in that sample. The analysis is no different than it would be of comparing a slightly biased coin to a neutral coin with each being flipped 32 times...if that helps.

  10. #30
    What the fuck Red. Come on man.

  11. #31
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    it's too small a sample size to conclusively demonstrate anything
    What difference does it make if it can't or won't conclusively demonstrate anything?

    Neither does a game of HORSE...a challenge the ditz would undoubtedly accept from Singer.

    What's the risk that he's avoiding in the NFL challenge?

  12. #32
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    it's too small a sample size to conclusively demonstrate anything
    What difference does it make if it can't or won't conclusively demonstrate anything?

    Neither does a game of HORSE...a challenge the ditz would undoubtedly accept from Singer.

    What's the risk that he's avoiding in the NFL challenge?
    Because losing is detrimental to his reputation as a picker (in the eyes of people who don't know anything) and beating Singer in the contest is of no benefit to him at all?

  13. #33
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    it's too small a sample size to conclusively demonstrate anything
    What difference does it make if it can't or won't conclusively demonstrate anything?

    Neither does a game of HORSE...a challenge the ditz would undoubtedly accept from Singer.

    What's the risk that he's avoiding in the NFL challenge?
    Because losing is detrimental to his reputation as a picker (in the eyes of people who don't know anything) and beating Singer in the contest is of no benefit to him at all?
    Well, I don't enter contests for the fun of it, would be one reason. I mean, really, I just checked, and I haven't played 32 NFL straight sides over the last two years. So this contest would be the same as me picking curling or women's lacrosse or Olympic archery. What's the point?

    You do realize I get these kinds of challenges quite often. Usually, the guy on the other side wants to do it for money. The majority of the time their plan is to use the plays of a handicapper who either is having a good year or who has a reputation.

  14. #34
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    Why sell Picks as opposed to bet more on them? You've got me, man. I have no idea.
    Because you can profit from selling your picks, but not from betting on your picks.

    Isn't that the touts' business model?
    No, you can definitely also profit from making picks. Over 671 decisions, I'd be profitable if I had been betting on my picks. I just have no interest in doing that because the variance is too much to justify the thinness of what my margins would be and I have no interest in ever selling picks.

    What Redietz is saying is that the touts can sell their picks and improve the margins on the bets they do make at the same time, which I just provided an example for. So much so, in fact, that while they may be long-term winners, they don't even need to be net winning over the course of a single season in order to profit.

    Well, you said it better than I did, so thanks. That lays it out pretty clearly.

  15. #35
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post

    Do you that's why the ditz didn't accept Singer's challenge...because he could lose?

    Coach, you're such a sharp dude, it's amazing. I wish you were doing my taxes.

    LOL. I don't even take 32 NFL sides in a year. I may have taken 32 NFL sides the last two years -- not sure. Certainly the last three.

    Mission, I've explained this before. You basically flip yourself from an 11/10 underdog to an 11/10 favorite if you get enough followers and you're betting the games yourself. So a 55% handicapper, depending on number of subscribers, needs to hit 50 or 51% to turn a profit if people are paying him after they win. It's an odds flip. If subscribers are long-term losers, they benefit. The handicapper benefits. If the clients can win on their own, then they don't benefit. Simple concept.
    If the subscribers are long-term losers, then the only thing most would benefit from is not betting on sports anymore.

    Even ignoring the subsets of the Picks they are buying in terms of W/L ratio, as variance is always going to be a factor, if your argument is that the odds are flipped in favor of the handicappers by selling picks, then the odds against the buyers are increased as compared to what they would normally be.

    Specifically, assuming that they are buying the Picks for something then they are going to, at a minimum, need variance not to be against them over a given sample since they have a bigger hill to climb.

    You make an interesting comparison, so I will do the same:

    Let's pretend we have one handicapper who hits 54% on an average line of -110 who has one person who buys the picks at $10/apiece...but only has to pay if it wins.

    (100 * 100/110) + 10) * .5) - (100 * .5) = 0.45454545454

    What does that mean? What it means is, in this scenario, he doesn't even have to hit 50% to have an expectation of profit. The reason why for that is because the amount he is selling the pick for does more than enough to overcome the expected vig on his bet because he only pays the vig on the bet if he wins and the amount the pick is being sold for more than covers that possibility.

    On the other side, we have the guy who paid $10 for the same pick. Just to keep it fair, we're going to have him still bet the full $100:

    (100 * 100/110) = 90.9090909091

    Okay, so that's the return if he wins. Let's go ahead and give the win probability 54% and apply:

    (90.9090909091 * .54) -10)) - (100 * .46) = -6.90909090909

    Oh no! What happened?

    Oh, that's right. He only wins $80.91 if his pick is a winner because he has to pay the ten dollars for the winning pick. Even if we assume that the handicapper hits 54% long-term, and that none of it is variance, our player is still losing...and is, in fact, worse off...because he's not betting enough relative to what he has to pay on his winning picks. However:

    (100 * 100/110 * .5) - (100 * .5) = -4.54545454545

    He could reduce his expected loss by doing what he was doing before---betting $100, eating the vig and taking his long-term expected win probability of 50%.

    Now, there are a few caveats to all of this:

    1.) The touts are actually probably better off because, if they are smart, they are not betting 1000% of what they are charging their clients (in total) if the picks win. Depending on the ratio of what they are betting compared to how much extra they stand to get from clients on their winning picks, they wouldn't even have to sniff 50% over the course of an individual season to be profitable.

    It must be nice for them not to be able to lose absent betting too high in proportion to the customer funds coming in or just having a truly abysmal year.

    2.) This assumes that the client IS betting 1000% of what he has to potentially pay for his winning picks.

    But, do they disclose that? Do any of them tell the clients what their average bet is going to need to be, and what winning percentage will need to be hit, before the client is betting sufficiently to at least be as well off as he would be on his own...assuming the win rate will even be hit...but also how much the client needs to be betting to overcome not only the vig, but also the added juice of paying for winners?

    (200 * 100/110) = 181.81818182

    (181.8181818182 -10) * .54) - (200 * .46) = 0.78181818182

    Flip the odds. My ass. It's a goddamn free roll is what it is. The seller doesn't even have to hit 50% to be profitable as long as he keeps his amount bet roughly at or under 1000% of what the client pays him upon a win while the client has to bet roughly 2000% of what he has to pay the seller upon a win assuming that the 54% is actually maintained throughout the entire time he buys the picks.

    The buyer is more reliant on the tout's continued success than the tout is. The tout's juice goes away and the client's juice is increased.

    Hey, maybe a tout hits 54% long-term and a client is betting 2000%+ of whatever he is paying on winning picks. Maybe he's betting 10,000% of that. I'm not saying that none of the buyers benefit; I'm saying that most of the buyers do not understand the conditions that would actually have to come to pass for them to benefit, much of the time.

    Again, Mission, if we are talking about people who bet substantial amounts (my old clients were betting dimes, generally, or more), then paying the $10 for the plays isn't doing much damage to them if they were itinerant losers. Now if you're betting $50 a game, then it's just flat-out stupid to use a $10 per game service, even if it's pay after you win.

  16. #36
    I made one mistake above and can't edit anymore, so the post should read:


    If the subscribers are long-term losers, then the only thing most would benefit from is not betting on sports anymore.

    Even ignoring the subsets of the Picks they are buying in terms of W/L ratio, as variance is always going to be a factor, if your argument is that the odds are flipped in favor of the handicappers by selling picks, then the odds against the buyers are increased as compared to what they would normally be.

    Specifically, assuming that they are buying the Picks for something then they are going to, at a minimum, need variance not to be against them over a given sample since they have a bigger hill to climb.

    You make an interesting comparison, so I will do the same:

    Let's pretend we have one handicapper who hits 54% on an average line of -110 who has one person who buys the picks at $10/apiece...but only has to pay if it wins.

    (100 * 100/110) + 10) * .5) - (100 * .5) = 0.45454545454

    What does that mean? What it means is, in this scenario, he doesn't even have to hit 50% to have an expectation of profit. The reason why for that is because the amount he is selling the pick for does more than enough to overcome the expected vig on his bet because he only pays the vig on the bet if he wins and the amount the pick is being sold for more than covers that possibility.

    On the other side, we have the guy who paid $10 for the same pick. Just to keep it fair, we're going to have him still bet the full $100:

    (100 * 100/110) = 90.9090909091

    Okay, so that's the return if he wins. Let's go ahead and give the win probability 54% and apply:

    (80.9090909091 * .54) - (100 * .46) = -2.30909090909

    Oh no! What happened?

    Oh, that's right. He only wins $80.91 if his pick is a winner because he has to pay the ten dollars for the winning pick. Even if we assume that the handicapper hits 54% long-term, and that none of it is variance, our player is still losing, but after making a correction in my formula, he's just not losing as much as he would be betting $100 straight up at a 50% win rate:

    (90.9090909091 * .5) - (100 * .5) = -4.54545454545

    Now, there are a few caveats to all of this:

    1.) The touts are actually probably better off because, if they are smart, they are not betting 1000% of what they are charging their clients (in total) if the picks win. Depending on the ratio of what they are betting compared to how much extra they stand to get from clients on their winning picks, they wouldn't even have to sniff 50% over the course of an individual season to be profitable.

    It must be nice for them not to be able to lose absent betting too high in proportion to the customer funds coming in or just having a truly abysmal year.

    2.) This assumes that the client IS betting 1000% of what he has to potentially pay for his winning picks.

    But, do they disclose that? Do any of them tell the clients what their average bet is going to need to be, and what winning percentage will need to be hit, before the client is betting sufficiently to at least be as well off as he would be on his own...assuming the win rate will even be hit...but also how much the client needs to be betting to overcome not only the vig, but also the added juice of paying for winners?

    (200 * 100/110) = 181.81818182

    (171.8181818182 * .54) - (200 * .46) = 0.78181818182

    Flip the odds. My ass. It's a goddamn free roll is what it is. The seller doesn't even have to hit 50% to be profitable as long as he keeps his amount bet roughly at or under 1000% of what the client pays him upon a win while the client has to bet roughly 2000% of what he has to pay the seller upon a win assuming that the 54% is actually maintained throughout the entire time he buys the picks.

    The buyer is more reliant on the tout's continued success than the tout is. The tout's juice goes away and the client's juice is increased.

    Hey, maybe a tout hits 54% long-term and a client is betting 2000%+ of whatever he is paying on winning picks. Maybe he's betting 10,000% of that. I'm not saying that none of the buyers benefit; I'm saying that most of the buyers do not understand the conditions that would actually have to come to pass for them to benefit, much of the time.


    So, it's not as bad, but it flips the odds for both sides. As we can see, using $10 (pay per win) and a $100 bet as a base, the tout can hit 50% and expects to profit $0.45454545454 every time. (Can still profit even sub-50%) and the client expects to lose -2.30909090909 every bet if he is only betting $100 every time and the tout actually hits 54%.

    The client betting $200 flips the expectation of profit for the client to $0.78181818182 every time, but again, that assumes the tout actually wins at the 54% clip over the sample. Essentially, the tout transfers both risk and vig over to the client...and requires the client to bet substantially more than the tout, and hit at a much higher percentage, to be expected to profit.

  17. #37
    I think what some people overlook with this is that I never mentioned my sports handicapping until Singer started giving terrible sports gambling advice. You can check it out. I have 6000 posts here. I went about 2500 here without ever saying what I did. Then Singer started with some parlay braggadocio, and that I just couldn't stomach. He was just wrong.

    So to those who think this is all self-promotion, well, I went 2500 posts saying nothing. Most of my blathering is a response to stupidity, which I feel needs to be corrected. You know, stop losses, machine telepathy, win goals, parlays that aren't open, parlays at one shop, just dunderhead stuff that Alan was clueless about.

  18. #38
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post

    Well, you said it better than I did, so thanks. That lays it out pretty clearly.
    Yeah, you're welcome. They make money if they win and they make money if they don't lose too badly. They also sell the notion that their past performances are indicative of expected future results, which they may well sometimes be, but the sample size needed to know that for sure is ridiculous. It's more than 671 decisions, to be sure. I think some guys sell on fewer than that, yes?

  19. #39
    And Mission, my clients included CEO's and presidents of companies and accountants and financial consultants. In general, they understood the logistics pretty well.

    If someone was monitored, "Tipsters or Gypsters?" The Sports Monitor, Handicappers Report Card, National Handicappers' Bowl (in Pro Football Weekly), and so on, it's not like people were buying unknown handicappers without track records in black and white. These were not "Trust me based on nothing" scenarios.

  20. #40
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post

    Again, Mission, if we are talking about people who bet substantial amounts (my old clients were betting dimes, generally, or more), then paying the $10 for the plays isn't doing much damage to them if they were itinerant losers. Now if you're betting $50 a game, then it's just flat-out stupid to use a $10 per game service, even if it's pay after you win.
    I agree with all of that. What I would like to see, if it's absolutely necessary for someone to sell picks at all, is a disclosure of the probability that their results just stem from variance and what percentage of people would be doing better than they are over the sample touted just by picking randomly.

    Furthermore, based on their lifetime winning percentage and whatever amount they are charging clients per win, when that is indeed the basis, I would like to see them disclose to the clients what the average bet would need to be in order for the client just to breakeven AFTER accounting for each win being accompanied by a fee. "Based on my lifetime winning percentage and the fee, you will breakeven if you bet $187 every game and my winning percentage holds, more than that, and you will be profitable if my winning percentage holds," that sort of thing.

    But, they're not going to do that, are they? And, why not? Because they are going to take the fucking money whether or not the service even has a chance of helping the clients.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Anti gambling, anti casinos
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 151
    Last Post: 04-06-2019, 06:36 PM
  2. Anti Facial Recognition
    By ZenKinG in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-03-2019, 10:07 AM
  3. A Theory About Anti-AP Posters
    By redietz in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 01-17-2018, 04:48 AM
  4. Estimating Responses to the Dice Question
    By redietz in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 06-05-2015, 05:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •