Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 208

Thread: Note to Dan: Rob Singer and Dan Druff Sharing Account at Gambling Forums

  1. #101
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by Seedvalue View Post
    Originally Posted by Seedvalue View Post

    You highlight real insinuating I’m not ? I got 600k in a bag currently sitting in a hotel room at a gambling destination that I’m sure Dan can verify that says otherwise you fraud. I’m here to call you out. Think I don’t know you ? Lol what I open book you are. You doxed your entire life and family online for years idiot
    So let’s talk about robs gambling career. Do you have any idea how much money rob needed to play the levels of Vp he did for all those years ? You can’t be this stupid to believe the guy was unsuccessful.

    You never had the roll to play one tenth the volume he did at those stakes. This includes the late Alan M. Both of those men were and are more successful then you will ever be.

    Seed, here's the issue I have with your arguments.

    About 35 years ago, a reporter for the Pottsville Republican (which has a Pulitzer under its belt) interviewed me prior to the NFL playoffs, as papers occasionally have done. I had a bang-up year in the Wise Guys Contest and overall, winning 60-some percent of my games. And I was on a really good multi-year streak, as tallied in "Tipsters or Gypsters?" which was published in Las Vegas. Anyway, the reporter asked me how successful I had been, and I answered I had won 60% ATS for that year and x% for three years and y% for five years and finished first in the Wise Guys and second in Bally's College Contest and all this. Later in the interview, he came back and asked me the same question, and I expanded on the answer. And then at the conclusion of the interview, he asked me the same question again, and the light bulb finally went on. He wanted me to answer how much income I had, which I declined to do.

    My point is that when you use the word "successful," Seed, you and that reporter are talking about income or wealth or something that is not the general definition of "successful." If you're a whiz-bang AP and you consider yourself "successful" because you have x number of dollars, then any Chinese billionaire's son who plops themselves in Las Vegas next week and makes more money than you is "more successful" than you by your definition. I find this absurd.

    Before you go on some rant than records and expertise don't translate into real "success," bear in mind I recently finished living in the same multi-million-dollar house as a dude who pumped through a million playing blackjack in 24 hours or something like that. I was basically doing the Magnum P.I. thing on Higgins' estate. Now this guy listened to me and worked with me, and I worked with him. So does where I lived or what I drove (occasionally a Lambo) mean I am "successful?" Or does doing that stuff for a few years not count? My girlfriend and I were staying in the master bedroom, by the way, so no, we were not in the servants' quarters.

    Your definition of "success" is messed up, Seed. I've worked with presidents of companies, CFO's, a vice-president of Boeing, and Billy Walters. Success is being able to do what you want to be able to do, at a high level, and have other "successful" people recognize and respect you. It ain't exclusively or even primarily about money.
    I read Smart Money years ago. Billy Walters used statisticians that ran simulations on matchups all week long before gametime. The only way you can do that is with statistics. Statistics is math. Walters was betting according to the math.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  2. #102
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by Seedvalue View Post
    Originally Posted by Seedvalue View Post

    You highlight real insinuating I’m not ? I got 600k in a bag currently sitting in a hotel room at a gambling destination that I’m sure Dan can verify that says otherwise you fraud. I’m here to call you out. Think I don’t know you ? Lol what I open book you are. You doxed your entire life and family online for years idiot
    So let’s talk about robs gambling career. Do you have any idea how much money rob needed to play the levels of Vp he did for all those years ? You can’t be this stupid to believe the guy was unsuccessful.

    You never had the roll to play one tenth the volume he did at those stakes. This includes the late Alan M. Both of those men were and are more successful then you will ever be.

    Seed, here's the issue I have with your arguments.

    About 35 years ago, a reporter for the Pottsville Republican (which has a Pulitzer under its belt) interviewed me prior to the NFL playoffs, as papers occasionally have done. I had a bang-up year in the Wise Guys Contest and overall, winning 60-some percent of my games. And I was on a really good multi-year streak, as tallied in "Tipsters or Gypsters?" which was published in Las Vegas. Anyway, the reporter asked me how successful I had been, and I answered I had won 60% ATS for that year and x% for three years and y% for five years and finished first in the Wise Guys and second in Bally's College Contest and all this. Later in the interview, he came back and asked me the same question, and I expanded on the answer. And then at the conclusion of the interview, he asked me the same question again, and the light bulb finally went on. He wanted me to answer how much income I had, which I declined to do.

    My point is that when you use the word "successful," Seed, you and that reporter are talking about income or wealth or something that is not the general definition of "successful." If you're a whiz-bang AP and you consider yourself "successful" because you have x number of dollars, then any Chinese billionaire's son who plops themselves in Las Vegas next week and makes more money than you is "more successful" than you by your definition. I find this absurd.

    Before you go on some rant than records and expertise don't translate into real "success," bear in mind I recently finished living in the same multi-million-dollar house as a dude who pumped through a million playing blackjack in 24 hours or something like that. I was basically doing the Magnum P.I. thing on Higgins' estate. Now this guy listened to me and worked with me, and I worked with him. So does where I lived or what I drove (occasionally a Lambo) mean I am "successful?" Or does doing that stuff for a few years not count? My girlfriend and I were staying in the master bedroom, by the way, so no, we were not in the servants' quarters.

    Your definition of "success" is messed up, Seed. I've worked with presidents of companies, CFO's, a vice-president of Boeing, and Billy Walters. Success is being able to do what you want to be able to do, at a high level, and have other "successful" people recognize and respect you. It ain't exclusively or even primarily about money.

    I think this is what has Singer and many haters on tilt when it comes to gambling. They are "successful" in life but have failed miserably gambling. They can't take it. It's beyond them that they aren't gambling savants or don't have specific kinds of discipline. And they make up all of these dumbass stories in an attempt to get gambling credibility and respect.
    Magnum, Higgins requests your presence in the 301 thread.

    After that Mr. T has is hoping to get just a minute of your time for an opportunity.
    It is official. Redietz will never be on Dan Druff's podcast. "too much integrity"

  3. #103
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    I see Ron logged on, trying to think up a response. Don't even bother old man. You will be wasting your breath (So to speak), and I don't think you have many breaths left.

    All you will be doing is proving yet again, who owns who(m).
    That shows you're worried.

    Enjoy the response!
    Rob is only trailing Crimm by 117 posts. No sweat for the #1 All-Time forum troll/legend....... In before Crimm bitches that it's not a competition. Lighten up Mickey

  4. #104
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by Seedvalue View Post

    So let’s talk about robs gambling career. Do you have any idea how much money rob needed to play the levels of Vp he did for all those years ? You can’t be this stupid to believe the guy was unsuccessful.

    You never had the roll to play one tenth the volume he did at those stakes. This includes the late Alan M. Both of those men were and are more successful then you will ever be.

    Seed, here's the issue I have with your arguments.

    About 35 years ago, a reporter for the Pottsville Republican (which has a Pulitzer under its belt) interviewed me prior to the NFL playoffs, as papers occasionally have done. I had a bang-up year in the Wise Guys Contest and overall, winning 60-some percent of my games. And I was on a really good multi-year streak, as tallied in "Tipsters or Gypsters?" which was published in Las Vegas. Anyway, the reporter asked me how successful I had been, and I answered I had won 60% ATS for that year and x% for three years and y% for five years and finished first in the Wise Guys and second in Bally's College Contest and all this. Later in the interview, he came back and asked me the same question, and I expanded on the answer. And then at the conclusion of the interview, he asked me the same question again, and the light bulb finally went on. He wanted me to answer how much income I had, which I declined to do.

    My point is that when you use the word "successful," Seed, you and that reporter are talking about income or wealth or something that is not the general definition of "successful." If you're a whiz-bang AP and you consider yourself "successful" because you have x number of dollars, then any Chinese billionaire's son who plops themselves in Las Vegas next week and makes more money than you is "more successful" than you by your definition. I find this absurd.

    Before you go on some rant than records and expertise don't translate into real "success," bear in mind I recently finished living in the same multi-million-dollar house as a dude who pumped through a million playing blackjack in 24 hours or something like that. I was basically doing the Magnum P.I. thing on Higgins' estate. Now this guy listened to me and worked with me, and I worked with him. So does where I lived or what I drove (occasionally a Lambo) mean I am "successful?" Or does doing that stuff for a few years not count? My girlfriend and I were staying in the master bedroom, by the way, so no, we were not in the servants' quarters.

    Your definition of "success" is messed up, Seed. I've worked with presidents of companies, CFO's, a vice-president of Boeing, and Billy Walters. Success is being able to do what you want to be able to do, at a high level, and have other "successful" people recognize and respect you. It ain't exclusively or even primarily about money.
    I read Smart Money years ago. Billy Walters used statisticians that ran simulations on matchups all week long before gametime. The only way you can do that is with statistics. Statistics is math. Walters was betting according to the math.
    Mickey, you know as much about Billy Walters as I do about banging Elizabeth Hurley.

    With all due respect, you are out of your depth, as in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.

    The truly frightening thing is that you are arguably the best forums have to offer regarding gambling expertise (that's a sideways compliment). And you have no real idea what you don't know or how inappropriate some of your conclusions/reasoning are. The degree of naivete and sheer lack of reasoning on these boards is unbelievable.
    Last edited by redietz; 02-01-2023 at 07:33 PM.

  5. #105
    So to sum up:

    -EV isn't real
    -the amount of money you have won is not a measure of gambling success
    -free contests that cost and pay nothing are all that matters

  6. #106
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post


    Seed, here's the issue I have with your arguments.

    About 35 years ago, a reporter for the Pottsville Republican (which has a Pulitzer under its belt) interviewed me prior to the NFL playoffs, as papers occasionally have done. I had a bang-up year in the Wise Guys Contest and overall, winning 60-some percent of my games. And I was on a really good multi-year streak, as tallied in "Tipsters or Gypsters?" which was published in Las Vegas. Anyway, the reporter asked me how successful I had been, and I answered I had won 60% ATS for that year and x% for three years and y% for five years and finished first in the Wise Guys and second in Bally's College Contest and all this. Later in the interview, he came back and asked me the same question, and I expanded on the answer. And then at the conclusion of the interview, he asked me the same question again, and the light bulb finally went on. He wanted me to answer how much income I had, which I declined to do.

    My point is that when you use the word "successful," Seed, you and that reporter are talking about income or wealth or something that is not the general definition of "successful." If you're a whiz-bang AP and you consider yourself "successful" because you have x number of dollars, then any Chinese billionaire's son who plops themselves in Las Vegas next week and makes more money than you is "more successful" than you by your definition. I find this absurd.

    Before you go on some rant than records and expertise don't translate into real "success," bear in mind I recently finished living in the same multi-million-dollar house as a dude who pumped through a million playing blackjack in 24 hours or something like that. I was basically doing the Magnum P.I. thing on Higgins' estate. Now this guy listened to me and worked with me, and I worked with him. So does where I lived or what I drove (occasionally a Lambo) mean I am "successful?" Or does doing that stuff for a few years not count? My girlfriend and I were staying in the master bedroom, by the way, so no, we were not in the servants' quarters.

    Your definition of "success" is messed up, Seed. I've worked with presidents of companies, CFO's, a vice-president of Boeing, and Billy Walters. Success is being able to do what you want to be able to do, at a high level, and have other "successful" people recognize and respect you. It ain't exclusively or even primarily about money.
    I read Smart Money years ago. Billy Walters used statisticians that ran simulations on matchups all week long before gametime. The only way you can do that is with statistics. Statistics is math. Walters was betting according to the math.
    Mickey, you know as much about Billy Walters as I do about banging Elizabeth Hurley.

    With all due respect, you are out of your depth, as in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.

    The truly frightening thing is that you are arguably the best forums have to offer regarding gambling expertise (that's a sideways compliment). And you have no real idea what you don't know or how inappropriate some of your conclusions/reasoning are. The degree of naivete and sheer lack of reasoning on these boards is unbelievable.
    Some of us could care less about fame/recognition in regards to gambling knowledge. I speak for myself and a couple of others who know a hell of a lot more then publicized on these forums. I'm here for a laugh or two or three !

  7. #107
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post

    Mickey, you know as much about Billy Walters as I do about banging Elizabeth Hurley.

    With all due respect, you are out of your depth, as in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.

    The truly frightening thing is that you are arguably the best forums have to offer regarding gambling expertise (that's a sideways compliment). And you have no real idea what you don't know or how inappropriate some of your conclusions/reasoning are. The degree of naivete and sheer lack of reasoning on these boards is unbelievable.
    Ditz, you know as much about gambling theory as I know about banging Jennifer Aniston. I'm flabbergasted that someone that represents himself as some kind of expert can't grasp the simple concept of EXPECTED VALUE.

    You've totally destroyed any reputation that you thought you had.

    The Fauci defense, "Senator Paul, you don't know what you are talking about" IS NOT GOING TO WORK FOR YOU. You can't hide behind that.

    Plain and simple, you don't know jackshit about legitimate gambling strategy. The more you open your mouth about it the more you prove just how stupid you are. Your lack of intelligence on gambling theory is appalling. It's evident now that you are a quack when it comes to any kind of gambling strategy.

    It's clear now why Billy Walters ran you off.
    Last edited by mickeycrimm; 02-02-2023 at 01:18 AM.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  8. #108
    I guess that what Red is trying to wrap his head around is that "a man shouldn't be captive to what frees him".

    A man shouldn't be captive to what frees him.
    ---> Blue Demon vs. the Satanic Power.

    https://anagram-solver.net/a%20man%2...m?partial=true


    I mean, a truly dangerous man is neither a robot, as a slave to expected value, nor, a worshipper of God. Each will forsake a man where it matters most.
    Drug Rehabilitation + Haliburton County for the local thus clinics. The one in Haliburton town temporarily closed yields the closest, 4cast. 137 posts at NetVoid's forum, + 184 here =321.0, to overlap 3456 at the 3's, as the dimensions from 0 to 6, four by four.bb

    The unused, Zodiac bits: 'dakadu, Lake+151?s (164 char. max) seed the final two lines of the anagram solver -of lies/revenge. Franc Baconis for the capital L yields 141=69+ᘔᘖ; 397=[(10-6+9-1)^3-(1+ᘔ+ᘖ+1)^3].

    Thanks. CIA.0!

    Ha.

  9. #109
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Mickey, you know as much about Billy Walters as I do about banging Elizabeth Hurley.
    Billy Walters here, using coach belly's account. Coach and I are great friends, like brothers, we go way back. We even had an act that we toured around the comedy clubs back in the mid-to-late 80's...Billy & Belly...kind of a Martin & Lewis thing. Anybody remember seeing us?

    Coach is a great guy...I really mean that, like really really great, and so smart and funny.

    Anyway, just want to say that I have no idea who this diet guy is, I don't know him, never heard of him, never hired him.

    I also want to say that mickey is right, and knows his shit.

    And from now on, I'm not going to announce myself when I post on belly's account, I'm just gonna post and you won't know whether it's him or me. This way if either of us gets caught writing something stupid, or lying, we can just say it was the other guy. That should work, over and over again.

    I just want to confirm that I am not belly, I'm Billy, a real person totally separate from belly, and not a sock-puppet pretending to be somebody else, while posting on my like-a-brother's account.

    Thanks.

  10. #110
    wow Billy F'in Waters in the house.

    Redietz not responding - too busy driving the lambo of the man he made successful.
    It is official. Redietz will never be on Dan Druff's podcast. "too much integrity"

  11. #111
    This is why this forum is such a fucking cesspool; are we really reduced to discussing whether or not EV exists?

    Time and time again, you guys continue to demonstrate why (most) Forums suffer from a lack of meaningful moderation. It's because you can't actually have substantive discussions about gambling topics as all of you seem to find this back and forth trolling significantly more entertaining.

    Anyway, before any money talk comes my way---I ain't got much money. Don't really want it, either. Shit, I make as much from writing as I do gambling, most years.

    That out of the way, Red, EV is an abbreviation for, "Expected Value." Do you rely upon EV when betting sports? Yes, you do. You might not choose to call it that, but you do. You don't have to have a precise probability that you ascribe to an event to believe that you have +EV on that event; the concept of EV is not that strict. Most of us machine guys couldn't even put an EV, to the tenth decimal place or whatever, on a particular play. We just know the expected outcome is more than 100% of the total amount we are betting.

    If you have a spread that is -2.5 -110, and you bet that spread, are you betting it because you think the probability of the team winning by three, or more, is precisely 50%?

    (.5 * -110) + (.5 * 100) = -5

    Of course not. If 50%, then you would have an expected loss of $5, hence the assumed vig of 4.5454545~% on those sorts of bets.

    Okay, so what is the breakeven probability?

    ((1-x) * -110) + (.x * 100) = 0

    x = 0.52380952381

    ((1-0.52380952381) * -110) + (0.52380952381 * 100) = 0

    In effect, you would need the probability of the team to win by three, or more, to be 52.380952381% in order to overcome the -110 juice.

    Does that mean you have to put a number on it like, "I think this team is 54.757341765823417% to win by three, or more?"

    No, you don't. You could take something extremely simple like a machine where I know I can only win on the following spin--do I know my exact EV all the time? Probably not. I know my exact EV almost 0% of the time, but I know it's positive.

  12. #112
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Redietz not responding - too busy driving the lambo of the man he made successful.
    ---> List of incidents that have been considered great blunders.

    https://anagram-solver.net/%20Rediet...0?partial=true


    Name:  big3.jpg
Views: 253
Size:  37.3 KB

    Anyway, with the two additional posts, Red's death anagram with gematria goes,


    It's shut down, Redietz, 4t post seven thous4nd, eight hundred eighty-one, for t4x ev4sion.
    --->

    Here's Where the Story Ends (Tin Tin Out song).

    Stephenson House (University of Toronto).

    https://anagram-solver.net/It%27s%20....?partial=true


    Strikingly, even closer to (my) home than the previous second output line. And, another place on Charles Street. Ha.

    Stephenson House was a community involvement residence at Victoria University in the University of Toronto. Located at 63-65 Charles Street West, the house hosted ten undergraduate students per year until 2010, when it became offices and storage space for the HR department and physical plant staff of Victoria University. As a student residence, Stephenson House was self-governed and self-regulating, with the aim of creating a living environment that supports and encourages a sense of ownership, involvement, and responsibility, both at home and in the greater community. The building has historical value as the last remaining house of the many 19th century Victorian homes on Charles Street.
    Name:  Stephenson-House-2022-2.jpg
Views: 297
Size:  295.8 KB

    I don't know that Red will post, again, but, as Mcap always points out about me, it's getting weirder, and weirder. Like how far can people fall, but still cling to the horseshit.
    Last edited by TheGrimReaper; 02-02-2023 at 10:39 AM.
    Drug Rehabilitation + Haliburton County for the local thus clinics. The one in Haliburton town temporarily closed yields the closest, 4cast. 137 posts at NetVoid's forum, + 184 here =321.0, to overlap 3456 at the 3's, as the dimensions from 0 to 6, four by four.bb

    The unused, Zodiac bits: 'dakadu, Lake+151?s (164 char. max) seed the final two lines of the anagram solver -of lies/revenge. Franc Baconis for the capital L yields 141=69+ᘔᘖ; 397=[(10-6+9-1)^3-(1+ᘔ+ᘖ+1)^3].

    Thanks. CIA.0!

    Ha.

  13. #113
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    This is why this forum is such a fucking cesspool; are we really reduced to discussing whether or not EV exists?

    Time and time again, you guys continue to demonstrate why (most) Forums suffer from a lack of meaningful moderation. It's because you can't actually have substantive discussions about gambling topics as all of you seem to find this back and forth trolling significantly more entertaining.

    Anyway, before any money talk comes my way---I ain't got much money. Don't really want it, either. Shit, I make as much from writing as I do gambling, most years.

    That out of the way, Red, EV is an abbreviation for, "Expected Value." Do you rely upon EV when betting sports? Yes, you do. You might not choose to call it that, but you do. You don't have to have a precise probability that you ascribe to an event to believe that you have +EV on that event; the concept of EV is not that strict. Most of us machine guys couldn't even put an EV, to the tenth decimal place or whatever, on a particular play. We just know the expected outcome is more than 100% of the total amount we are betting.

    If you have a spread that is -2.5 -110, and you bet that spread, are you betting it because you think the probability of the team winning by three, or more, is precisely 50%?

    (.5 * -110) + (.5 * 100) = -5

    Of course not. If 50%, then you would have an expected loss of $5, hence the assumed vig of 4.5454545~% on those sorts of bets.

    Okay, so what is the breakeven probability?

    ((1-x) * -110) + (.x * 100) = 0

    x = 0.52380952381

    ((1-0.52380952381) * -110) + (0.52380952381 * 100) = 0

    In effect, you would need the probability of the team to win by three, or more, to be 52.380952381% in order to overcome the -110 juice.

    Does that mean you have to put a number on it like, "I think this team is 54.757341765823417% to win by three, or more?"

    No, you don't. You could take something extremely simple like a machine where I know I can only win on the following spin--do I know my exact EV all the time? Probably not. I know my exact EV almost 0% of the time, but I know it's positive.
    Why do you keep participating at a cesspool??
    Are you monitoring and reporting us?

  14. #114
    Originally Posted by monet View Post
    Why do you keep participating at a cesspool??
    Are you monitoring and reporting us?
    You guys are all so good-natured and fun to be around; how could I ever resist stopping by, from time to time?

    No, I am neither monitoring nor reporting you. Who would I ever report anyone here to and for what? LOL

  15. #115
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    This is why this forum is such a fucking cesspool; are we really reduced to discussing whether or not EV exists?

    Time and time again, you guys continue to demonstrate why (most) Forums suffer from a lack of meaningful moderation. It's because you can't actually have substantive discussions about gambling topics as all of you seem to find this back and forth trolling significantly more entertaining.

    Anyway, before any money talk comes my way---I ain't got much money. Don't really want it, either. Shit, I make as much from writing as I do gambling, most years.

    That out of the way, Red, EV is an abbreviation for, "Expected Value." Do you rely upon EV when betting sports? Yes, you do. You might not choose to call it that, but you do. You don't have to have a precise probability that you ascribe to an event to believe that you have +EV on that event; the concept of EV is not that strict. Most of us machine guys couldn't even put an EV, to the tenth decimal place or whatever, on a particular play. We just know the expected outcome is more than 100% of the total amount we are betting.

    If you have a spread that is -2.5 -110, and you bet that spread, are you betting it because you think the probability of the team winning by three, or more, is precisely 50%?

    (.5 * -110) + (.5 * 100) = -5

    Of course not. If 50%, then you would have an expected loss of $5, hence the assumed vig of 4.5454545~% on those sorts of bets.

    Okay, so what is the breakeven probability?

    ((1-x) * -110) + (.x * 100) = 0

    x = 0.52380952381

    ((1-0.52380952381) * -110) + (0.52380952381 * 100) = 0

    In effect, you would need the probability of the team to win by three, or more, to be 52.380952381% in order to overcome the -110 juice.

    Does that mean you have to put a number on it like, "I think this team is 54.757341765823417% to win by three, or more?"

    No, you don't. You could take something extremely simple like a machine where I know I can only win on the following spin--do I know my exact EV all the time? Probably not. I know my exact EV almost 0% of the time, but I know it's positive.
    Everyone who claims to be a professional gambler on here understands EV exists in all gambling outside of Redietz. Redietz claims it can't exist in sports betting because it can't be mathematically defined. Everyone laughs at him. There is no debate. Redietz just catches so much shit because he is so arrogant while also being so wrong. EV is not really the topic of discussion.
    It is official. Redietz will never be on Dan Druff's podcast. "too much integrity"

  16. #116
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Everyone who claims to be a professional gambler on here understands EV exists in all gambling outside of Redietz. Redietz claims it can't exist in sports betting because it can't be mathematically defined. Everyone laughs at him. There is no debate. Redietz just catches so much shit because he is so arrogant while also being so wrong. EV is not really the topic of discussion.
    I also want to be clear that I would not term myself a, "Professional gambler," but recreational AP. Maybe I'm somewhere between the two, idk. I wouldn't exactly call myself a, "Professional," writer, either, though I guess I am to the extent that it's my most guaranteed source of income. I feel like my calling myself a professional is a disservice to other writers who are, you know, good.

  17. #117
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Everyone who claims to be a professional gambler on here understands EV exists in all gambling outside of Redietz. Redietz claims it can't exist in sports betting because it can't be mathematically defined. Everyone laughs at him. There is no debate. Redietz just catches so much shit because he is so arrogant while also being so wrong. EV is not really the topic of discussion.
    I also want to be clear that I would not term myself a, "Professional gambler," but recreational AP. Maybe I'm somewhere between the two, idk. I wouldn't exactly call myself a, "Professional," writer, either, though I guess I am to the extent that it's my most guaranteed source of income. I feel like my calling myself a professional is a disservice to other writers who are, you know, good.
    Thats fine but you likely understand EV. I'm not currently a professional gambler either but I probably know as much as many professional gamblers. I am far from an expert in any 1 area. I just find the stuff interesting and fun to mess with. Problem with gambling is scaling up. In business scaling up does not have near the issues typically. Easier to not be a professional gambler.

    This means for getting into bigger and better games as a poker player you have to go around kissing ass acting like you like folks.
    Blackjack you scale up they will counter-measure you.
    In slots you want to scale up you need to find bigger plays which aren't very common. (Lots of moving around or hiring scouts)
    Sports betting you end up needing beards if you are proficient at all.

    It is a lot of work.

    Anyway, point is that being a professional gambler is harder than business IMO. It is just far more fun and romantic but to scale it becomes a significant effort. If you are trying to be serious let your hourly lead you and nothing more. I've never been serious enough to pay attention to the hourly. I just sorta fell into what I wanted to do. Not the right approach to maximize money.
    It is official. Redietz will never be on Dan Druff's podcast. "too much integrity"

  18. #118
    Originally Posted by monet View Post
    Why do you keep participating at a cesspool??
    ---> Speedway - Spin-out - Cryptologic.

    https://anagram-solver.net/Why%20do%...l?partial=true


    Cryptology is the study of codes (secret systems of words or numbers): "She is an expert in computer security and cryptology." Cryptology specialists decode and analyze intelligence.

    Originally Posted by monet View Post
    Are you mon1torin9 Ⱥn6 report1ng us?
    ---> Ⱥnonymous (internet group).

    https://anagram-solver.net/%20Are%20...s?partial=true



    TheGrimReaper
    TheGrimReaper is invisible
    Gold
    TheGrimReaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2022
    Posts
    169 --------> 169*1 ---> 1961
    Last edited by TheGrimReaper; 02-02-2023 at 11:20 AM.
    Drug Rehabilitation + Haliburton County for the local thus clinics. The one in Haliburton town temporarily closed yields the closest, 4cast. 137 posts at NetVoid's forum, + 184 here =321.0, to overlap 3456 at the 3's, as the dimensions from 0 to 6, four by four.bb

    The unused, Zodiac bits: 'dakadu, Lake+151?s (164 char. max) seed the final two lines of the anagram solver -of lies/revenge. Franc Baconis for the capital L yields 141=69+ᘔᘖ; 397=[(10-6+9-1)^3-(1+ᘔ+ᘖ+1)^3].

    Thanks. CIA.0!

    Ha.

  19. #119
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Everyone who claims to be a professional gambler on here understands EV exists in all gambling outside of Redietz. Redietz claims it can't exist in sports betting because it can't be mathematically defined. Everyone laughs at him. There is no debate. Redietz just catches so much shit because he is so arrogant while also being so wrong. EV is not really the topic of discussion.
    I also want to be clear that I would not term myself a, "Professional gambler," but recreational AP. Maybe I'm somewhere between the two, idk. I wouldn't exactly call myself a, "Professional," writer, either, though I guess I am to the extent that it's my most guaranteed source of income. I feel like my calling myself a professional is a disservice to other writers who are, you know, good.
    Thats fine but you likely understand EV. I'm not currently a professional gambler either but I probably know as much as many professional gamblers. I am far from an expert in any 1 area. I just find the stuff interesting and fun to mess with. Problem with gambling is scaling up. In business scaling up does not have near the issues typically. Easier to not be a professional gambler.

    This means for getting into bigger and better games as a poker player you have to go around kissing ass acting like you like folks.
    Blackjack you scale up they will counter-measure you.
    In slots you want to scale up you need to find bigger plays which aren't very common. (Lots of moving around or hiring scouts)
    Sports betting you end up needing beards if you are proficient at all.

    It is a lot of work.

    Anyway, point is that being a professional gambler is harder than business IMO. It is just far more fun and romantic but to scale it becomes a significant effort. If you are trying to be serious let your hourly lead you and nothing more. I've never been serious enough to pay attention to the hourly. I just sorta fell into what I wanted to do. Not the right approach to maximize money.
    That's true.

    My approach is to focus on getting a reasonable hourly with minimum hassle and competition. You'd be surprised as to the number of things I have been approached on, but I genuinely have little interest in working with anyone I have not already worked with regardless of the amount of money involved. Money really doesn't move me very much and it's almost more important not to have things go south on something major and have to defend myself publicly on that---especially in today's social media climate.

    With that, there's a certain risk in jumping every time a few grand is dangled in front of me. Would a few grand be good with relatively little effort? Sometimes, but I don't really care. There's too much unforeseen shit that can happen on the backend of that money that isn't worth the hassle or people thinking you're beholden to them beyond pre-defined specific tasks.

    So, I try to just be content with whatever I have and whatever I can make. Besides, if I'm ever in a serious pinch, then there's really no hard limit on how much writing I can do. I'm also aware of a few casinos where the camping might still be decent, but I'd sooner get a traditional job as camp any one place or area and spend 12+ hours a day in casinos.

    I don't even think it's more fun, if you want to know the truth. At least, all the time spent grinding in traditional casinos is not fun at all, in my opinion. I do like figuring out machines that I don't already know, but the actual gambling part I could take it or leave it.

  20. #120
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    I don't even think it's more fun, if you want to know the truth. At least, all the time spent grinding in traditional casinos is not fun at all, in my opinion. I do like figuring out machines that I don't already know, but the actual gambling part I could take it or leave it.
    It depends on the job. I suspect in the long run I'd find it more fun going to a casino every day than commuting to a job every day at the typical 9-5 times. (Getting up early, be presentable, fight traffic there, fight traffic back). That stuff drags me down. I remember walking into an office down a hallway. Each office 2 desks. Over and over. That is basically what you're set to do until you retire which is basically preparing for the end. It is the realization of all that shit while sitting there that just drags me the fuck down while questioning my life.

    Now in a casino you have similar issues.. what am I doing with my life.. this fucking nasty air.. but.. you do it on your own.

    I have to agree with you on figuring out machines. I get a lot of enjoyment out of that. I can't say I really nailed down any numbers or was particularly successful in clocking them but I got a pretty good feel. Had a great casino to do it in but too many hustlers walking just not worth the hourly. If I lived close by for the friday/saturday night thing then maybe.
    It is official. Redietz will never be on Dan Druff's podcast. "too much integrity"

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Note to Dan Druff
    By redietz in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 01-23-2023, 10:37 AM
  2. Dan Druff Quote
    By kewlJ in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-13-2021, 03:01 AM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-30-2019, 10:37 PM
  4. Dan Druff Retires From Gambling
    By mickeycrimm in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 143
    Last Post: 12-24-2018, 07:32 PM
  5. Dan Druff
    By kewlJ in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 08-02-2018, 01:59 PM

Posting Permissions

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