Accounting Lesson #2

[redietz]

I'm presuming, perhaps incorrectly, that account's problems with "APs" posting under their real names had something to do with the fact that I pointed out that the new fashionable thing to do, sports "arbitraging," had some issues. The issue I suggested was that if sports books exchanged information, as they do, then much of the time sports arbitragers could be identified and limited or, in the case of offshores, they'd just disqualify wagers after the fact based on them being made by a "professional." Now I'm not completely sure, but I took account to mean that someone like me should never post under my real name because those things can result.

Well, here we go with the debunking:

(1) Sports books will likely interact with people they interpret as arbitraging and people they interpret as opinion betting in very different ways. The "arbitragers" are simply taking from the sports books, and there isn't much benefit to the people running the sports books to take their action. Now, as to opinion betting, why would sports books take the action of people who win long term and that they know have won money from them? If you can't figure that one out, you should take Remedial Gambling 101 and get a little bit worldly.

(2) The fact is, books are not really out to ban anyone unless you are talking Billy Walters kinds of money, and even then it's a toss-up between do they want to know who Billy Walters is taking or do they just want no part of his wagering. I've had futures severely limited so that it's almost like banning, but so what? That's based on results, not on my name being on a forum post. I've had boutique offshores tell me I'm not "their kind of customer" and send me my money back. Then I've had them reconsider and months or a year later contact me and say they'd be glad to have my account. Again, if you can't figure out why, you shouldn't be gambling.

(3) People in general don't win long term. And they certainly don't win across multiple sports. So books will tolerate people kicking their ass in one sport for years, figuring that eventually those bettors will "age/action into" betting on many different sports and handing them their money back and then some. Meanwhile, the books can data mine the plays of those bettors for the sports in which those bettors are established winners. The books figure out how the bettors are doing it, and the bettors lack the long-term discipline to just do what they can do. The books win. They data mine to try to acquire the bettor's expertise, and many times they also acquire the bettor's money.


This post was in response to account in case he was labeling me as an "AP" who shouldn't be posting under my name. It doesn't apply to the actual APs out there banging the casinos. The fact is, having an established sports betting reputation and verifiable history is really not a reason for sports books to ban your action. In some respects, it's a rationale for them to take as much of your action as they can get. And I'll say it a third time. If you don't get the obvious mechanics of this, you shouldn't be gambling.

[accountinquestion]

I'm presuming, perhaps incorrectly, that account's problems with "APs" posting under their real names had something to do with the fact that I pointed out that the new fashionable thing to do, sports "arbitraging," had some issues. The issue I suggested was that if sports books exchanged information, as they do, then much of the time sports arbitragers could be identified and limited or, in the case of offshores, they'd just disqualify wagers after the fact based on them being made by a "professional." Now I'm not completely sure, but I took account to mean that someone like me should never post under my real name because those things can result.

Well, here we go with the debunking:

(1) Sports books will likely interact with people they interpret as arbitraging and people they interpret as opinion betting in very different ways. The "arbitragers" are simply taking from the sports books, and there isn't much benefit to the people running the sports books to take their action. Now, as to opinion betting, why would sports books take the action of people who win long term and that they know have won money from them? If you can't figure that one out, you should take Remedial Gambling 101 and get a little bit worldly.

(2) The fact is, books are not really out to ban anyone unless you are talking Billy Walters kinds of money, and even then it's a toss-up between do they want to know who Billy Walters is taking or do they just want no part of his wagering. I've had futures severely limited so that it's almost like banning, but so what? That's based on results, not on my name being on a forum post. I've had boutique offshores tell me I'm not "their kind of customer" and send me my money back. Then I've had them reconsider and months or a year later contact me and say they'd be glad to have my account. Again, if you can't figure out why, you shouldn't be gambling.

(3) People in general don't win long term. And they certainly don't win across multiple sports. So books will tolerate people kicking their ass in one sport for years, figuring that eventually those bettors will "age/action into" betting on many different sports and handing them their money back and then some. Meanwhile, the books can data mine the plays of those bettors for the sports in which those bettors are established winners. The books figure out how the bettors are doing it, and the bettors lack the long-term discipline to just do what they can do. The books win. They data mine to try to acquire the bettor's expertise, and many times they also acquire the bettor's money.


This post was in response to account in case he was labeling me as an "AP" who shouldn't be posting under my name. It doesn't apply to the actual APs out there banging the casinos. The fact is, having an established sports betting reputation and verifiable history is really not a reason for sports books to ban your action. In some respects, it's a rationale for them to take as much of your action as they can get. And I'll say it a third time. If you don't get the obvious mechanics of this, you shouldn't be gambling.

I just answered the question about sportsbettors being APs because you posed it. It also let you duck out of the one obvious reason you might give your real name as a sports bettor. IF you are selling picks.

I have no opinion on whether you should use your real name or not. My comment is only towards the expectation that people should and they're "cowards" for not doing so. So in the context of an AP on here, you've failed to give one relevant reason outside of something about life fulfillment. Which is still LOL but I suppose it works.

Honestly you seem to be way out of it. Sportsbooks limit sharp action all the time. You're bragging that it has almost never happened to you is probably not something you should share if you want people to believe in your sportsbetting prowess. I mean sure they don't ban, they just limit the account. A soft no.

What you write is nothing new to me to the extent I agree with it.

[redietz]

It's a silly response from account, who evidently knows zero about sports betting. That comment about "sharp betting" tells you what you need to know. That's jargon, account, to make people who think they know what they're doing feel good. There are no sharps and squares. That jargon is frankly ridiculous. It promulgates the nonsense that people are "sharp" or "square" across multiple sports. It's nonsensical. What, reading an injury report, scanning line moves for two minutes, and knowing some ATS history makes you a "sharp?" LOL. They should give out crayons and coloring books to everyone who thinks they're a "sharp."

You probably don't even know how college sports limits are structured at which books. You probably don't know what the limits are, or what negotiated limits can be. Or who offers what kind of reduced vig or free play rebates. If you don't know any of this, why do you insist on acting as if you know what you're talking about?

Oh yeah, right, you're an AP. 'Nuff said.

[monet]

It's a silly response from account, who evidently knows zero about sports betting. That comment about "sharp betting" tells you what you need to know. That's jargon, account, to make people who think they know what they're doing feel good. There are no sharps and squares. That jargon is frankly ridiculous. It promulgates the nonsense that people are "sharp" or "square" across multiple sports. It's nonsensical. What, reading an injury report, scanning line moves for two minutes, and knowing some ATS history makes you a "sharp?" LOL. They should give out crayons and coloring books to everyone who thinks they're a "sharp."

You probably don't even know how college sports limits are structured at which books. You probably don't know what the limits are, or what negotiated limits can be. Or who offers what kind of reduced vig or free play rebates. If you don't know any of this, why do you insist on acting as if you know what you're talking about?

Oh yeah, right, you're an AP. 'Nuff said.

Players who refer to themselves as Advantage Players or APs are using the same stupid jargon and are most likely losing or have leaks.
At least the players who refer to themselves as Vultures or Scavengers are being honest about what they do which is feeding off of dead carcass.
Not that I'm against any of it.

[accountinquestion]

It's a silly response from account, who evidently knows zero about sports betting. That comment about "sharp betting" tells you what you need to know. That's jargon, account, to make people who think they know what they're doing feel good. There are no sharps and squares. That jargon is frankly ridiculous. It promulgates the nonsense that people are "sharp" or "square" across multiple sports. It's nonsensical. What, reading an injury report, scanning line moves for two minutes, and knowing some ATS history makes you a "sharp?" LOL. They should give out crayons and coloring books to everyone who thinks they're a "sharp."

You probably don't even know how college sports limits are structured at which books. You probably don't know what the limits are, or what negotiated limits can be. Or who offers what kind of reduced vig or free play rebates. If you don't know any of this, why do you insist on acting as if you know what you're talking about?

Oh yeah, right, you're an AP. 'Nuff said.

Lol you're a full on retard. We went through something similar once before and I gave my experience sports betting in the past 10 years. I looked for a book, friend got me one, it had a promo and I beat it for 2-3% per bet after > 1k bets. I didn't know a thing about the underlying teams. I exploited their promo. I forget but the only reason I brought it up at the time was as counter-evidence to some other goofy claim you made at the time. Some claim about being a winning sports-bettor. I quit after the book kicked me off.

This idea that "sharp" was made up by the marketing departments of sportsbooks seems laughable to me.

The word sharp can and is used by anyone. It is quite obvious you want to paint this picture of being above everyone else in the vastness of your experience and knowledge. Some people will misuse the word and others won't. In general I'd guess that people who are sharp use it correctly and people who aren't tend to not so much.

No, I don't know the limits of sportsbooks and blah blah, Redietz. I'm not a sportsbettor and you can come up with a million other sportsbook specifics that I won't know.

Bro, I doubt I could name half the NFL teams and I still readily beat a sportsbook without knowing fuck all about the games. The book did kick me off - the ONE sportsbook I bet on.

I have worked with someone else a l little for some promo exploiting but I won't count those as I didn't place the bets personally.

[AxelWolf]

It's a silly response from account, who evidently knows zero about sports betting. That comment about "sharp betting" tells you what you need to know. That's jargon, account, to make people who think they know what they're doing feel good. There are no sharps and squares. That jargon is frankly ridiculous. It promulgates the nonsense that people are "sharp" or "square" across multiple sports. It's nonsensical. What, reading an injury report, scanning line moves for two minutes, and knowing some ATS history makes you a "sharp?" LOL. They should give out crayons and coloring books to everyone who thinks they're a "sharp."

You probably don't even know how college sports limits are structured at which books. You probably don't know what the limits are, or what negotiated limits can be. Or who offers what kind of reduced vig or free play rebates. If you don't know any of this, why do you insist on acting as if you know what you're talking about?

Oh yeah, right, you're an AP. 'Nuff said.

WTF are you talking about? I have been banned from a major online sportsbook and an offshore joint and I don't really put much time into betting on sports. I know multiple people who have been banned from sports betting and many have been limited. Getting limited is a huge deal when they slap you down to a few hundred dollars.

On many occasions, I have been chastised for attempting +EV parlays and told no. I was told not to come back to Hooters sports book for making parlays.

Joe asher has admitted to WH not accepting any action from some people.
-----------------------------------------
https://www.gamingtoday.com/news/wil...m-average-joe/
The full scope of the issue in the U.K. is difficult to determine, but it's believed only a small fraction of the roughly 8.5 million "punters" (the European term for bettors) are impacted. Gaming experts say sportsbooks might have closed as many as 50,000 betting accounts in recent years, and just as many punters have had their betting limits restricted to mere pittance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aitken cut his teeth in the sports gambling world at Tom Waterhouse, where he handled multimillion dollar bets and learned to differentiate between sharp and recreational action.

[accountinquestion]

It's a silly response from account, who evidently knows zero about sports betting. That comment about "sharp betting" tells you what you need to know. That's jargon, account, to make people who think they know what they're doing feel good. There are no sharps and squares. That jargon is frankly ridiculous. It promulgates the nonsense that people are "sharp" or "square" across multiple sports. It's nonsensical. What, reading an injury report, scanning line moves for two minutes, and knowing some ATS history makes you a "sharp?" LOL. They should give out crayons and coloring books to everyone who thinks they're a "sharp."

You probably don't even know how college sports limits are structured at which books. You probably don't know what the limits are, or what negotiated limits can be. Or who offers what kind of reduced vig or free play rebates. If you don't know any of this, why do you insist on acting as if you know what you're talking about?

Oh yeah, right, you're an AP. 'Nuff said.

WTF are you talking about? I have been banned from a major online sportsbook and an offshore joint and I don't really put much time into betting on sports. I know multiple people who have been banned from sports betting and many have been limited. Getting limited is a huge deal when they slap you down to a few hundred dollars.

On many occasions, I have been chastised for attempting +EV parlays and told no. I was told not to come back to Hooters sports book for making parlays.

Joe asher has admitted to WH not accepting any action from some people.
-----------------------------------------
https://www.gamingtoday.com/news/wil...m-average-joe/
The full scope of the issue in the U.K. is difficult to determine, but it's believed only a small fraction of the roughly 8.5 million "punters" (the European term for bettors) are impacted. Gaming experts say sportsbooks might have closed as many as 50,000 betting accounts in recent years, and just as many punters have had their betting limits restricted to mere pittance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aitken cut his teeth in the sports gambling world at Tom Waterhouse, where he handled multimillion dollar bets and learned to differentiate between sharp and recreational action.

I kinda feel sorry for the dietz but he could have just retracted his original thought that we're cowards for not posting under some immediately traceable name. And left it at that. Instead he gives us a bunch of insightful lessons.

I don't know much about sports betting but also know quite a bit more than many. I've been around enough sharp and semi-sharp people to know that being limited/kicked off is not a rare occurance. Infact, I was told to expect it if I was to beard for some group.

[AxelWolf]

It's a silly response from account, who evidently knows zero about sports betting. That comment about "sharp betting" tells you what you need to know. That's jargon, account, to make people who think they know what they're doing feel good. There are no sharps and squares. That jargon is frankly ridiculous. It promulgates the nonsense that people are "sharp" or "square" across multiple sports. It's nonsensical. What, reading an injury report, scanning line moves for two minutes, and knowing some ATS history makes you a "sharp?" LOL. They should give out crayons and coloring books to everyone who thinks they're a "sharp."

You probably don't even know how college sports limits are structured at which books. You probably don't know what the limits are, or what negotiated limits can be. Or who offers what kind of reduced vig or free play rebates. If you don't know any of this, why do you insist on acting as if you know what you're talking about?

Oh yeah, right, you're an AP. 'Nuff said.

WTF are you talking about? I have been banned from a major online sportsbook and an offshore joint and I don't really put much time into betting on sports. I know multiple people who have been banned from sports betting and many have been limited. Getting limited is a huge deal when they slap you down to a few hundred dollars.

On many occasions, I have been chastised for attempting +EV parlays and told no. I was told not to come back to Hooters sports book for making parlays.

Joe asher has admitted to WH not accepting any action from some people.
-----------------------------------------
https://www.gamingtoday.com/news/wil...m-average-joe/
The full scope of the issue in the U.K. is difficult to determine, but it's believed only a small fraction of the roughly 8.5 million "punters" (the European term for bettors) are impacted. Gaming experts say sportsbooks might have closed as many as 50,000 betting accounts in recent years, and just as many punters have had their betting limits restricted to mere pittance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aitken cut his teeth in the sports gambling world at Tom Waterhouse, where he handled multimillion dollar bets and learned to differentiate between sharp and recreational action.

I kinda feel sorry for the dietz but he could have just retracted his original thought that we're cowards for not posting under some immediately traceable name. And left it at that. Instead he gives us a bunch of insightful lessons.

I don't know much about sports betting but also know quite a bit more than many. I've been around enough sharp and semi-sharp people to know that being limited/kicked off is not a rare occurance. Infact, I was told to expect it if I was to beard for some group.

I feel sorry for his marks, er, um, sorry, I mean customers.





Just kidding Red.