How much have you lost betting sports ?

[accountinquestion]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Treeshade]

I just went 9 weeks making 24k plus a week without variance.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[AxelWolf]

I just went 9 weeks making 24k plus a week without variance.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Those who can... do it for themselves... those who can't... tout(or whatever side gig they have)

[Treeshade]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[AxelWolf]

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.

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.

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%?

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.

[redietz]

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.

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.

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.

[accountinquestion]

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.

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.

[redietz]

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.

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.

[kewlJ]

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.

[mcap]

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….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.

[kewlJ]

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….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.

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.

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.

[accountinquestion]

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.

Lol schtick. I'd bet money no sharp person had any issue with me saying weak lines.

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.

[Dan Druff]

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.

[AxelWolf]

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?

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?

[kewlJ]

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.

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.

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?

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.

[AxelWolf]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[AxelWolf]

I don't know, this is hazy to me on some of these things.

When it comes to Handicapping it's always hazy.

[smurgerburger]

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?

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.