Professional Sportsbetting

[kewlJ]

I feel that I'm handicapped in sports betting when it comes to finding +EV value on the games continually and at that point, I'm just flipping coins.

You can do the flipping coins thing if your EV is coming from bonus money rather than winning picks. But that is boring. I try to come up with something that is going to be better than 50-50. Don't succeed all that much, but I try.

I am currently on a kick of betting college basketball first half unders. Not blindly, nor all games. I look at the defensive efficiency and Pace stats for teams and you can usually find a few games each day. (maybe a dozen on Saturdays), where you think total will be under, particularly that a higher scoring team will be slowed down

Of course there are 2 end of game situations that can screw all that work up. 1) overtime. You pick a game to go under and it is on pace for under the whole game and regulation ends tied. and the game goes over in Overtime. 2). final 2 minutes with all the fouling. If a team is losing by 5-10 points, when they hit 2 minutes they start fouling. Not uncommon to see 15+ points scored in that final 2 minutes with one team hitting a couple 3 pointers while the other makes it's foul shots. Rarely does all that fouling cut into the lead. It just creates a lot of scoring in the final 2 minutes.

But by betting the half time under total you eliminate both these problems. No overtime. None of that fouling in the last two minutes. extra bonus is that in the final 30 seconds there will be exactly 1 possession. Even teams that like to run up and down the floor will hold for 1 shot with under 30 seconds.

[MDawg]

The longer the UNKewl post, the more lies it contains.

And of course, there will be some regurgitation of theory he pulled from somewhere or other blah blah blah as he tries to make it seem like he has actually played and not just read about it.


UNKewlJ has gotten to the pitiful point where he cries over being picked on, and wonders why anyone would bother picking on such a helpless person in the first place.

Poor poor KJ. Always the victim.

[AxelWolf]

I feel that I'm handicapped in sports betting when it comes to finding +EV value on the games continually and at that point, I'm just flipping coins.

You can do the flipping coins thing if your EV is coming from bonus money rather than winning picks. But that is boring. I try to come up with something that is going to be better than 50-50. Don't succeed all that much, but I try.

I am currently on a kick of betting college basketball first half unders. Not blindly, nor all games. I look at the defensive efficiency and Pace stats for teams and you can usually find a few games each day. (maybe a dozen on Saturdays), where you think total will be under, particularly that a higher scoring team will be slowed down

Of course there are 2 end of game situations that can screw all that work up. 1) overtime. You pick a game to go under and it is on pace for under the whole game and regulation ends tied. and the game goes over in Overtime. 2). final 2 minutes with all the fouling. If a team is losing by 5-10 points, when they hit 2 minutes they start fouling. Not uncommon to see 15+ points scored in that final 2 minutes with one team hitting a couple 3 pointers while the other makes it's foul shots. Rarely does all that fouling cut into the lead. It just creates a lot of scoring in the final 2 minutes.

But by betting the half time under total you eliminate both these problems. No overtime. None of that fouling in the last two minutes. extra bonus is that in the final 30 seconds there will be exactly 1 possession. Even teams that like to run up and down the floor will hold for 1 shot with under 30 seconds.

Well, Yeah, especially if you are getting less than 5x rollovers on 20k.
It's still a head-scratcher how you pulled that off.

Most of the time it's at least 10X oftentimes that's on the deposit and bonus. Now let's assume you can't go with the big bet or bust method due to $500 max bet limitations.
Obviously, there are other things, better deals, bigger percentages, and extra stuff that pad your situation, but let's look at the standard that you can easily get on the regular.


I have a question for you, let's say you deposit $5,000 and get a $5000 bonus how much are you giving up with the wagering via just flipping coins? Don't forget to factor in the fact that you might actually go bust naturally.

In the end, you will see that if you're just flipping coins there is very little profit to be had and a lot of time invested in wagering.

That's why I keep saying if someone can just break even on sports there's significant money to be made.

[mickeycrimm]

In the fall of 2020 by buddy, Randy McKay told me he was going to Colorado for the football season. He's been going ever since. He told me conditions were much better there than in Las Vegas.

Spencer Cornelia uncovered a gambling operation in Denver by bettors from Las Vegas. Interesting video. They aren't opinion betting. They're just working the discrepencies in the lines from book to book. A 20 minute video. Worth the watch:

[redietz]

Kudos to the groundbreaking "working the discrepancies in the lines from book to book."



There was a time, on Tuesday mornings, when a stroll up Fremont yielded "working the discrepancies in the lines from book to book" as bettors launched on virgin numbers. Hell, sometimes as little as $400 or $500 could create discrepancies with which to work, since they were almost all independent of each other. Of course, that was 1982 or 1983, so that would be $1500 to $2000 in today's money.

Nice to know some folks haven't abandoned the old ways, and they even post about it on Youtube these days. Like Fred in this video.

[Treeshade]

You're missing the whole point, kewlJ. If you win 55% of your games, but you are a specialist (which almost all winners are), then you have a limited pool of games. Selling your games, say, on a pay-after-you-win premise, just pads the odds for you. It's an obvious advantage play. If you pad every win with a bonus from selling the play, then you eventually get to the point, if you have enough followers, where you can make money while winning 48% or 50% of your plays. You have essentially flipped the odds in your favor, a la being a bookmaker but not being a bookmaker.

I mean, this is obvious as hell. I don't see why "APs" find this strange, when it's a simple, obvious way of turning a house advantage upside down.

Red, Why do you talk down to and take shots at AP's (you just did again), when you just admitted you are APing? That your winnings isn't coming from being a good handicapper or sports picker but from AP contents like selling picks and playing contests?

Like I just said, I am in my second stint of making some money from sports betting bonus whoring. But that money I am making is 100% from the bonus play. I am underwater just going by my picks. Can I call myself a great handicapper or sports bettor?

I guess I am just a little surprised. I though there were some legitimate players that won by handicapping games and winning better than 53% needed to overcome the juice. Based on mickey's research and even your comments, I guess not.

See, talking to you is largely a waste. Have you even understood what "Tipsters or Gypsters?" was? Or Handicappers' Report Card? Or The Sports Monitor? Or a publication called The Absolute Truth? Mickey even posted pages from "Tipsters or Gypsters?" on this site.

You don't really listen. There are people who actually win long-term. They are mostly specialists, and most of the winning takes place in college sports. The Walters' book is notable for NOT mentioning how he does what in which sports, by the way. There have always been college hoops savants. Some have lasted for years. The nature of college hoops, however, has constantly changed. The rules have changed. How those rules are officiated has changed (points of emphasis and all that). Shot clock has changed. What wins for a stretch for three or four years is no guarantee going forward when rules change. The three point line distance changes, for example. Sometimes nine inches means a lot, as opposed to six (LOL, Singer). The shot clock, for example. The degree to which NBA-style officiating bleeds down to lower levels.

All you have to do to figure out whether anybody wins long-term is dig up old "Tipsters or Gypsters?" and check the multi-year stats. Those stats actually UNDERreport the efficacy of handicappers because they are locked into lines in 24 to 48 hour periods prior to games. Shopping lines 24/7 would puff those stats up by 1 to 2 percent. Or dig up old Wise Guy Contest results. The cumulative numbers won't show much, but for some people, the college football numbers were pretty good for a span of 30 years. And again, those are not shopped numbers; they are locked numbers, so efficacy is actually higher than the results.

I talk down to "APs" because they think they're "sharps." LOL. They think they're part of the cool club, when there is literally nothing they are doing sports-wise that hasn't been done by handicappers for 40 years. It's the equivalent of listening to people brag about being able to make half their free throws, and then they give lessons.

The misperception of the "size of the clubs" is also funny. The number of people who have applied themselves to sports handicapping; the resources aimed at sports handicapping, and the expertise, have always dwarfed in number and resources applied the entire population of alleged AP players. And now, because sports gambling has become legal, "APs" think they are bringing something new to the table because they can what? Exploit bonuses? Been done for 50 years. Arbitrage? Been done for 50 years. Middles shooting? Been done for 50 years. Do simple math? Puh-lease. How 'bout them parlay calculators?

And here's the beauty of it. Because most know very little about the history of sports betting, the 'APs" think they are the experts! It's Dunning-Kruger to the nth.

Doesn’t matter when it was first exploited grandma Rat. The money is all that matters. That’s how we keep score. That’s really the measure of success in gambling. Nothing else

[mickeycrimm]

Kudos to the groundbreaking "working the discrepancies in the lines from book to book."



There was a time, on Tuesday mornings, when a stroll up Fremont yielded "working the discrepancies in the lines from book to book" as bettors launched on virgin numbers. Hell, sometimes as little as $400 or $500 could create discrepancies with which to work, since they were almost all independent of each other. Of course, that was 1982 or 1983, so that would be $1500 to $2000 in today's money.

Nice to know some folks haven't abandoned the old ways, and they even post about it on Youtube these days. Like Fred in this video.

Thanks for the tip that flinch bets were around 40 years ago. What do you want, a participation trophy?

Once again the mouse flips off the elephant. Face it, ditz. Your ego is 10X your ability. You're just a small time capper working for ham and eggs.

Not long ago you were saying one couldn't make more than lunch money working those discrepencies. After evidence gets exposed once again you change your tune to anyone can do that shit.

In the past you've falsely accused AP's of saying they invented the shit. And here you go again. Many years ago Jean Scott quoted me about strategic gambling in one of her articles. Here's the quote:

"I don't try to reinvent the wheel. I study the person that invented the wheel."

That don't sound much like I think I invented anything does it? The fundamental in gambling I know best is combinatorial math. It's a 400 year old science.

This is what redietz would tell kids that have just learned to read: You think you invented that shit, kid? We were doing that shit 40 years ago.

Face it's Dietz. That gambling outfit in Denver has you outclassed. And so does my friend, Randy McKay. When I met him in the late nineties he lived in the books in Laughlin. He was just getting started then. Now it's 25 years later and he's a well-respected capper playing in 50K buy-in contests. He passed you like you were standing still.

A lot of people that are much newer to the game have passed you up. Eat your heart out.

Now take your participation trophy and go on home.

[1Hit1der]

Remove the letters in red, which spell out 1evel_level, as in level one, to obtain the following.

1 don't try to reinvent the wheel. I study the person that invented the wheel.

---> One-hit wonder in the United States.

https://anagram-solver.net/1%20don%2...X?partial=true


Now note the one hit wonder song, "Something About You", from Level-42. And, something called a steering wheel level.

Furthermore, my current number of posts is 168 = 42*4 ---> 42_24. And, the time of the video is 8:01 ---> 801 = (2*400 + 2^0) ---> 24_42.



Interestingly, the post time of 8:58 ---> 858, and, spot #1889, lead to 858*(1889 + 0^0) = 162162*10 ---> 1621621, whatever that means. Ha.

Oh, 1621621 = [(810810 + 0^0)^2 - 810810^2], as in the time of the video, with 810 ---> 810.


1Hit1der
1Hit1der is online now
Gold
1Hit1der's Avatar

Join Date
Nov 2023
Posts
168

[Don Perignom]

Spencer Cornelia uncovered a gambling operation in Denver by bettors from Las Vegas. Interesting video.

If it felt like an infomercial, it's because Dave Miller offers a selection of services ranging from picks to partnerships.

That's why I keep saying if someone can just break even on sports there's significant money to be made.

I'm not there yet. The good news is I'm finding a steady supply of breakeven or slightly positive bets, without subscribing to any services for assistance.

The bad news is the offshore bonuses don't feel very generous. Typical reloads are only worth about 2% of playthrough, and initial signups aren't much better than that.

Also, I have no idea how to look square, or whether it's worth the effort to try. In the casinos, sometimes video poker specialists will play slots for cover, but that's usually a wasteful effort imo unless they have AP slot knowledge.

[redietz]

For God's sake, don't use that word "square." LOL. It's like George Costanza deciding his nickname should be "T-Bone."



Wait, wait, I get it! Or I got it!!

Use that term "square" all the time! That's actually a great idea. If anything will point to you being a "square," it's using the word "square" to describe other bettors.

It's like the old joke about "How do you know you're a sharp?" Answer(s): (1) "Because you say you are or (2) Because everybody else tells you that you are.

[mickeycrimm]

For God's sake, don't use that word "square." LOL. It's like George Costanza deciding his nickname should be "T-Bone."



Wait, wait, I get it! Or I got it!!

Use that term "square" all the time! That's actually a great idea. If anything will point to you being a "square," it's using the word "square" to describe other bettors.

It's like the old joke about "How do you know you're a sharp?" Answer(s): (1) "Because you say you are or (2) Because everybody else tells you that you are.

What's a "sharp?" Oh, I get it now. Stanford Wong named his book Sharp Sports Betting. So is Stanford on your shit list too? Every other knowledgeable sports bettor is.

[Don Perignom]

For God's sake, don't use that word "square." LOL.

On that note, when I pronounce "Tipsters or Gypsters," I feel like I'm not rhyming the words exactly. The y vowel is influencing me toward "Gee-ipsters" almost.

I looked on a phonological site, which said it's allowable until age 6 but after that it's a disorder.

[kewlJ]

"I don't try to reinvent the wheel. I study the person that invented the wheel."

That don't sound much like I think I invented anything does it? The fundamental in gambling I know best is combinatorial math. It's a 400 year old science.

I don't have mickey's mathematical abilities, so I am not comparing myself to him in that regard. But this philosophy about re-inventing the wheel is something I live by. I am going to put it in terms of blackjack card counting for a moment and then we will go back to other forms of advantage play.

In card counting the wheel that was invented was the fact that some rounds favor house, some fairly neutral (small house advantage) and some favor the player (player advantage). And that by tracking the cards played (card counting) a player can identify those rounds that favor the player and bet more. THAT is the wheel that was invented long ago.

Now some people come along and try to reinvent that wheel by coming up with "super duper counts" (the guy on Norm's website) or specialized "column counts" (the late moses). These things are not re-inventing the wheel. Just using the wheel in different sizes. The guy that invented the wheel still invented the wheel. And really these new counts don't even add much. Most still identify the exact same situations advantageous to the player. So there is absolutely no re-inventing the wheel with these new counts. Just guys trying to make a name for themselves. That is all it feels like to me.

And then even worse you will have someone come along and claim to win by really re-inventing the wheel. Say something like he wins by "betting into hot steaks", or by "progression wagering". That kind of (long disproven nonsense) is pre-wheel invention. That is like back to the square wheel and trying to make that work again, when it was long ago proven it doesn't.

These attempts at re-inventing the wheel irk me. Maybe that is my issue and not theirs. Maybe I should just laugh it off. But I usually don't.

Now what I have done is use that wheel invented by other. You can make tweaks to it, which I would equate to betting in patterns that are better tolerated by casinos, including short sessions and limits better accepted. Or maybe something a little deeper like spreading wagers both ways. Even these "tweaks" added to the basic invention of the wheel are often not my own. They are things that others came up with and I have adopted or incorporated in my game. But they are things like the initial invention of the wheel (card counting) that actually work and still work.

Now moving on from blackjack and card counting. I don't see all that much difference in other games and opportunities. The math (the wheel) was invented a long time ago. It doesn't change and there is no need to reinvent it. All you need to do is tweak it and how it is applied to newer games. Unfortunately, a lot of that is above my grade. As well as my interest. Players like mickeycrimm are experts at that.

[mcap]

Don’t say square guys, just repeat tipsters and gypsterd again, and again, and again, and again instead. That’ll put them in their place.

[kewlJ]

A lot of the new things I see coming down the pike that are labeled as advantage play, I am not sure are really advantage play. If you are showing a profit betting sports because of the bonuses (as I have for the last 6 months) you aren't really beating sports....you are beating the bonuses.

Multi-carding isn't beating any casino game.....it is beating a glitch or hole in casino marketing.

Even Don Johnson didn't beat blackjack, he beat or exploited the loss rebate.

The real guys that did the double up bug, Kane and Nestor, didn't beat video poker, they beat a computer glitch.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with any of this. Nothing illegal, although I am still not sure about the double up bug. But none of this is pure advantage play of beating a game without the bonuses and holes in marketing, or rebates etc.

Anyway carry on. Red is the greatest sports bettor of all time. Mdawg is well I guess Rainman now. Singer....just the fool that always was Rob Singer.

Speaking of which. Rob Singer was the handle Rob Argentino came up with to 'mock' a real advantage player Bob Dancer. And that is ALL Singer has ever been and done is a mockery. Likewise, I believe Mdawgs intent was to make a mockery of Michael Shackleford, the math and his website WoV. He now claims that he and Shackleford are friends or have become friends. Maybe Shackleford is now in on it. But both these guys Singer and Mdawg it was about mocking the math and real players playing and winning by the math. In other words, it just wasn't real. Again maybe it is my issue that I can't just say that once and laugh at them like everyone else does.

[MDawg]

Quite a 10x multiplier response!

The longer the UNKewl post, the more lies it contains.

And of course, there will be some regurgitation of theory he pulled from somewhere or other blah blah blah as he tries to make it seem like he has actually played and not just read about it.

[Rob.Singer]

A lot of the new things I see coming down the pike that are labeled as advantage play, I am not sure are really advantage play. If you are showing a profit betting sports because of the bonuses (as I have for the last 6 months) you aren't really beating sports....you are beating the bonuses.

Multi-carding isn't beating any casino game.....it is beating a glitch or hole in casino marketing.

Even Don Johnson didn't beat blackjack, he beat or exploited the loss rebate.

The real guys that did the double up bug, Kane and Nestor, didn't beat video poker, they beat a computer glitch.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with any of this. Nothing illegal, although I am still not sure about the double up bug. But none of this is pure advantage play of beating a game without the bonuses and holes in marketing, or rebates etc.

Anyway carry on. Red is the greatest sports bettor of all time. Mdawg is well I guess Rainman now. Singer....just the fool that always was Rob Singer.

Speaking of which. Rob Singer was the handle Rob Argentino came up with to 'mock' a real advantage player Bob Dancer. And that is ALL Singer has ever been and done is a mockery. Likewise, I believe Mdawgs intent was to make a mockery of Michael Shackleford, the math and his website WoV. He now claims that he and Shackleford are friends or have become friends. Maybe Shackleford is now in on it. But both these guys Singer and Mdawg it was about mocking the math and real players playing and winning by the math. In other words, it just wasn't real. Again maybe it is my issue that I can't just say that once and laugh at them like everyone else does.

This is the kind of genius who touts himself as able to be savvy enuf to win at blackjack.

No one beats a computer glitch. I used a glitch to beat the hell out of video poker.

I and many others have used sports betting bonuses, not to beat the bonuses, doofus. The bonuses are a tool sports bettors use to make a profit from the books.

As mdawg says, the longer the post by kew, the more lies it contains.....in addition to the glaring stupidity.

Where's "baby bro" when he needs him?

[kewlJ]

No one beats a computer glitch. I used a glitch to beat the hell out of video poker.

No you didn't. You stole that story from the news.

I and many others have used sports betting bonuses, not to beat the bonuses

Of course you did! You have never mentioned sports betting bonuses until now that others are talking about it.

Typical Singer: "Oh I did that before anyone else".

[1Hit1der]

For God's sake, don't use that word "square." LOL.

On that note, when I pronounce "Tipsters or Gypsters," I feel like I'm not rhyming the words exactly. The y vowel is influencing me toward "Gee-ipsters" almost.

I looked on a phonological site, which said it's allowable until age 6 but after that it's a disorder.

The first part of your quote answers the second part.

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post

Originally Posted by Redietz View Post

For God's sake, don't use that word "square." LOL.

---> Leeds University Library's Gypsy, Traveller and Roma Collections.

https://anagram-solver.net/Originall....?partial=true


It's the only solution that uses all of the L's, for losses. And, the L's occur as in the quote as in the solution, except in reverse, with two sets of two L's occurring together, and, the two L's, of the other set, occurring one word apart.

What I call professional losing. Losing, as in misspelling leads as Leeds.

Perhaps, the y in gypsy may be extended, to go along with tiiiiiipsy. Ha.


1Hit1der 1Hit1der is online now
Gold
1Hit1der's AvatarJoin Date
Nov 2023
Posts
169

[MDawg]

No you didn't. You stole that story from the news.

Versus UNKewLyingJ? and his fake news stories, that have yet to hit the news...about his fabricated Brittle Bones story.

7/5/2023:

There was a news reporter sniffing around a couple weeks ago that contacted me. I have no idea what kind of sources these people might have to get around the system, but just the fact that she contacted me, means she got somewhere (some information).

6/24/2023:

I am pretty sure something about this case will hit the news very shortly, as I have been contacted by email and text by one local TV News station here in Vegas. I didn't respond to either contact. I can't provide the information they are probably seeking. I don't know if they can get their hands on video, but if they do, I am sure this will be mentioned on the local news. At this point I don't even care, even if they name me.