Page 5 of 105 FirstFirst 1234567891555 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 2100

Thread: Professional Sportsbetting

  1. #81
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    A solo interview with them will be as meaningless as Mike's last interview with Rob. Mike was too quick to just get the interview going with no real investigation or preparation. I asked him to wait, but he didn't want to. I was quite peeved off since I facilitated it, but whatever. I would've surprised Rob with a double-up bugged machine and had him do it, or guide someone through it. I had a lead on someone who possibly owned some. Theres other things I would've done as well. I wouldn't have played softball. Mike was never going to play hard ball he just wanted content.
    I don't want to hijack mickey's thread about sports betting and redietz on GWAE, which I look forward to, so I will make this one post about the topic above. I think you are not giving your friend Shackleford enough credit concerning the Rob Singer interview. Had Mike done what you suggest, it would have scared Rob off and the interview wouldn't have gone far. Mike lobbed softball questions, as you put it, to make Rob feel at ease and not like he was being attacked or challenged. Then Mike asked the question that everyone asks and should ask: Did Rob have any proof to this double up bug claim.

    Singer gave his standard answer about having throw away tax information and when Mike pressed him further, Rob said he had purchased a Newell RV with the money, which isn't and never was the least bit believable. Realizing the interview didn't go well, it was like 2 days later that Singer posted pictures of an RV from the dealership that he didn't own, completely exposing himself.

    I was on speaking terms with Mike at that time, and I congratulated him via PM on exposing Rob. Mike said something like he knew Rob would take the bait and do something along the lines that he did. Honestly, I don't know whether Mike really planned that out in advance, or it just fell into place and worked out, but either way, Rob ended up exposing himself. And I give Shackleford credit for that. Nothing Rob said or excuses he came up with mattered after that.
    Scared him off? I said, surprise him with it. He wouldn't have known until after some questions. It was a terrible interview if the goal was finding the truth either way. and Mikes goal for the interview wasn't about that.

  2. #82
    Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
    Kew, the fact that you're still bringing your same lies up tells me you still haven't convinced yourself I didn't do exactly as I said. You give yourself and your envy away every time you feel the need to hi-jack nearly every thread with your obsession over me. From deep inside your twisted mind, that meat I pack really must make you masturbate every day.

    You keep trying to concoct this story about my being forced by Mike into saying what I did with the money won. I did buy the Newell with some of it, but he also was aware I could have bought that thing without DU money. So it was no big deal to Shack--he was just interested if it was as life-changing as it would be for most of his watchers. And we did talk about the IRS filings prior to the interview. He understood I no longer had them and why; there's zero reason to keep them beyond what the law stipulates. Anyone would understand that but you--you want the world to think I needed to keep them for some kind of proof which was never an important issue with me, and I'd never produce them anyway because I have someone called a WIFE involved--because there's not a lot in real life that you DO understand. These stupid things you say and have to keep saying, and act like they're real just because you say them, are why people laugh at you.

    Axel--Mike never asked me to appear in-person, but if he did I would certainly have. If there were a machine available I would have easily been able to replicate the play--handpay winner or not. As you remember, it was me who detailed the correct sequence and identified the version in Wired as wrong, which prompted several people here to contact them and ask about why they weren't truthful about it. I believe their answer had to do with not wanting to publicly get the correct sequence out there or they had an agreement with IGT or law enforcement or attorneys or something. Either way, there's no one alive who knows the play as I do, and if anyone ever wants me to prove the play to them and I'm still able to do so, just ask.

    Oh---I imagine you'll need a machine and the right software pack to install. Maybe someone with a home machine could work it because as you all know and contrary to more lies kew needs everyone to believe, I HAVE NO HOME MACHINE, NO EXERCISE EQUIPMENT, AND NO BASEMENT.
    I haven't any doubt you would've done the interview in person. I stopped seeking out a machine with the bug and wanting to be involved when Mike told me the interview was happening soon. There wasn't enough time for a proper interview if the goal was to get to the bottom of things. The interview didn't tell us anything more or less than had already been talked about. The interview was probably a win for you, all things considered.

  3. #83
    Bills in Maryland, West Virginia Would Lead To Audits Of Betting Handicappers.


    https://sportshandle.com/maryland-we...capper-audits/

  4. #84
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Bills in Maryland, West Virginia Would Lead To Audits Of Betting Handicappers.


    https://sportshandle.com/maryland-we...capper-audits/
    Thanks for posting this.

    This would be great!!

    Back in 1984, in my bio in Who's Who in Sports Betting, this is what I proposed, except by the feds. This has been my position forever.

  5. #85
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    From adversaries to Mickey becoming Redietz' publicity and appearance agent, perhaps we can all find a way to get along here, after all. JK
    Rediettz and I don't really have a disagreement. I'm not schooled enough on sports betting to have an educated opinion on whether or not "advantage players betting off-market lines and odds" and "taking advantage of weak numbers" can be done profitably.

    Redietz' opinion is it can't be done profitably. That's his opinion and that's fine. But should we just take his word for it or further investigate? I think we should further investigate. We need more information and opinions than just redietz.

    So far I've found Frank B and Spanky who say it's not just possible but they've been doing it for years.

    So the score so far is....

    Other Sports Bettors 2
    Redietz 1

    Now I'm investigating other professional sports bettors like Krakomberger, Denkelson, Fortuna, and anyone else I can find.

    Don't misquote me or misrepresent my position. And don't go around plucking folks from the ether, because, well, what else are they going to say?

    1) I didn't say it cannot be done (or else I would not constantly be mentioning Larry Fletcher). I said the idea that there is this population of "APs" who are able to win continually across all sports using simple arbitrage shopping, a couple of programs, and following alleged "soft numbers" is a myth.

    2) I have said the logistics of it (the need to have roughly 50K parked in a dozen shops to make real money) makes it impractical for 99% of the population.

    3) I have said there is nothing wrong with table scraps bettors trying to exploit the most vulnerable arbitrage opportunities (props), but that what you are grinding out is lunch money while still having to park considerable assets. And since the most end-of-bell-curve lines are in "boutique" books, money parked in these is vulnerable. And offshores can, if they choose, define you as "professional" and limit your opportunities both in terms of how much you can bet and whether they decide to pay you. Unless you're talking Super Bowl, most props (and even SB props) can have limits in the $300 to 1K range. There are many things one can do in life to make lunch money -- I do not recommend squinting at 3000 props every two hours for the SB as being one of them. I say that as someone who has done it more than once.

    I also want to mention why I can see how people got sucked into thinking this kind of "APing" could accomplish something. Line moves during the worst of Covid were severe, books had a problem dealing with Covid casualties, and arbitrage was easier to find. But that was an 18-month anomaly. It is gone. On top of this, the new legal sports books offered some hefty bonuses. So between bonus whoring (not that there's anything wrong with it) and Covid casualties, low end sports bettors got a brief taste of the champagne life. Bonus whoring doesn't last forever (unless you're Axelwolf, evidently), and Covid line moves are extinct.

    The problem with asking people if they win arbitraging and using simple programs is that nobody is motivated to say no. Not the guys betting 2K with Youtube channels. Not the blog writers who claim to be APs. Not the bookmakers who love it when people plop cash in accounts and take their shots.

    Who is going to publicly argue that there is no significant population of "APs" consistently beating the books and ahead lifetime? Me.

    I'm going to try to schedule brief meet-and-greats with some of the great classic old school Las Vegas bookmakers this year. I'll try to see what they say both on and off the record regarding the argument that "APs" are claiming to beat the books with a couple of programs and college intro math.

  6. #86
    Define, "Significant population."

    I'd almost certainly agree with that position, and with your caveats, you no longer seem to be arguing that the methods being proposed are categorically impossible. Perhaps you were never arguing that in the first place, but as with Mickey, that was the implication I read into what you were saying.

    Yeah, kick ass bonuses, for sure. Don't bet sports otherwise. Never would claim to make significant money. Low-hanging fruit, good times.

    Can't really comment on people who use sports betting as their main source of AP. I don't even know 2% of what I would need to know to even offer an opinion.

    I can comment on bonuses, though. This analysis I did of a DraftKings promotion:

    https://wizardofodds.com/online-gamb...-nfl-promotion

    Kicked fucking ass, brev.

  7. #87
    Oh, I should also mention that frequent promotions, such as boosts, can be used in conjunction with betting the opposite on a different site to create can't lose scenarios. Alternatively, it can also be used to create arbitrage opportunities, even if you can't create an, "Impossible not to profit," scenario.

  8. #88
    Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post

    Meanwhile, the handicappers who have documented records stretching back decades
    Documented records of what? Winning via just handicapping? Please show me someone who can show decades of legitimate documented records beating sports via only handicapping. (something like what DanDruff does, gives his picks and the line beforehand)

    I believe I asked this question before and crickets.
    I'm precise with my language. I don't say people beat "sports." I argue against that (the plural, that is). I argue that individuals and teams have beaten their specialty for years. For example, roughly 90% of my volume is college football.

    The Wise Guys Contest, for one. Two games a week, every week of every football season, for 30 years. And these were lines from a particular point in time, so shopping not included. Therefore, a 54% in the contest was more like a real-life 56% with shopping.

    "Tipsters of Gypsters?" by Mike McCusker, published in Las Vegas from the 70's through the early 90's. McCusker's published multi-year records on the back pages of his publication. And any records published by McCusker were understatements, as he locked people into particular lines on Friday or Saturday mornings, taking shopping out of the equation (which, these days, is semi-nuts). So a 54% with McCusker was more like a 56% real-life record.

    Axelwolf, not everyone considers you the brains of Las Vegas or is interested in answering your questions. FYI. If you really wanted your questions answered, you'd do the research to drop me an email or call me. I've put my address on this site often enough.

  9. #89
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    Define, "Significant population."

    I'd almost certainly agree with that position, and with your caveats, you no longer seem to be arguing that the methods being proposed are categorically impossible. Perhaps you were never arguing that in the first place, but as with Mickey, that was the implication I read into what you were saying.

    Yeah, kick ass bonuses, for sure. Don't bet sports otherwise. Never would claim to make significant money. Low-hanging fruit, good times.

    Can't really comment on people who use sports betting as their main source of AP. I don't even know 2% of what I would need to know to even offer an opinion.

    I can comment on bonuses, though. This analysis I did of a DraftKings promotion:

    https://wizardofodds.com/online-gamb...-nfl-promotion

    Kicked fucking ass, brev.
    Mission, what makes you think you're an expert? Hanging at WoV? C'mon, man. The bonus stuff is minor. I haven't even used any of these bonus opportunities. I'm saving them for a rainy day. If I miss the best of the advantages, so be it. You can't sustain anything doing this stuff.

    It's not like I haven't used family and friends to assemble entries in the old Barbary Coast contest or anything. So I'm not unfamiliar with the sports equivalent of "multi-carding." But being all thrilled with assembling family and friends to bonus whore is gimmickry. It doesn't sustain anything. You're going opportunity to opportunity, hoping you don't get shut down or that "boosts" continue. Everything you do is dependent on the largesse of the books above and beyond standard betting. As something that represents 5% or 10% of what you do, great. But don't sell it as something that can expand and fill the other 90% or 95%.

    And here's what I predicted five years ago. I said as machine gambling dried up, as video poker became impossible, as ID tech eliminated card counting, you'd get all these "APs" claiming they could beat sports. Sports betting was expanding; "APing" was dying. You were going to get all manner of "APs" coming out of the woodwork with how they could make a lifetime profit betting sports.

    And I was correct.

  10. #90
    I never claimed to be a sports betting expert; in fact, my post says, in part:

    Can't really comment on people who use sports betting as their main source of AP. I don't even know 2% of what I would need to know to even offer an opinion.
    So, if that looks like someone claiming to be an expert, you either need to see your optometrist and inquire about thicker lenses, or fuck off, your choice.

    Anyway, if you consider an advantage with that promotion of over 24% (underdogs) of all monies bet over the course of a five season sample with people being allowed to bet as much as $250, per game, or sometimes more as, "Minor," then you're one hell of a sports bettor...which we already knew. For us mere plebeians, most of us would consider a positive expectation of more than $60 on a $250 bet that takes five seconds to make as pretty goddamn good.

    I never claimed it was sustainable as it's only sustainable for as long as they offer the promotion---which I recall being three or four weeks. That said, should they offer the same promotion again, then people should jump all over it. Especially those people who wouldn't see a 24%+ advantage as trivial. The page is also useful in that it can serve as a guide for those wanting to analyze similar promotions, for either NFL or other sports.

    This promotion had nothing to do with bonus whoring. I suppose many might have bonus whored with it, but I don't know if it was offered to totally new players or what the bet limits may have been, if it were. The analysis was written with the simple assumption of betting underdogs on your one account under the promotion's terms.

    Anyway, I didn't sell it as any such thing. The analysis I wrote stipulated that the promotion would certainly not last forever, though I did conjure up an alternative to the promotion that they might do after they were satisfied that they had sufficiently gotten their asses kicked on the promotion they were offering at the time.

    I have made a lifetime profit betting sports, but I make no claims that it is any kind of income replacement money. As you as much as said, it's very difficult to be an AP and do all one thing or all the other thing right now, with probably only a few exceptions that would only apply to folks with extremely deep bankrolls to begin with. In the meantime, most of us proletariats are happy to take an edge where we can get an edge.

    If that's not you, then fine, but don't ever fucking put words in my mouth again.

  11. #91
    Based on what Spanky, who is an expert, is saying, it is much easier and more profitable to go about predicting the direction (and magnitude to some extent) of line movement (when the line is first set) versus the prediction of what the line should be itself. That's it in a nutshell if I understand Spanky correctly.

  12. #92
    In the poker world there is some distinction between tournament players and cash game players. The guys at the very pinnacle of the cash game world always make more than tournament players. I don't follow so much but it used to be believed that one's EV (ooooh look at what I did) on a tournament is not higher than a buyin. I have no idea as it is very dependent on many things but the idea is that there just isn't that much money in tournaments. Especially given tax implications.

    However the cool thing about these tournaments is that people can go around saying they've won $50 million playing poker! Ha! These people are clearly more successful than I ever was but the whole thing is a bit of a joke in some ways. What do these records really tell us without the buyins? What would they tell us if we had the buyins included? Well whatever ! Who cares! The records are there!

    The other thing is Redietz keeps making fun of the guy who bet 2000 as if the guy was saying "Hey look at me make this $2k bet". The whole point of that video was to show people get limited which Redietz denied. Redietz seemed to ignore that aspect and then fixated on the amount of the bet. He then uses it to ridicule the person who has clearly been limited by a book. I hate to admit it but I am SO confused right now.

    How does redietz see the world? If you ridicule someone for making a $2000 bet then what is the buyin for these contests he references? $10k minimum I would think.

    Ahh well a few of many questions I have. It would be nice to see Redietz give his thoughts but as I've noticed he seems to be a bit too busy respond when the answers are desired the most. I'm sure when we hear him on GWAE here soon things will be clarified.
    It is official. Redietz will never be on Dan Druff's podcast. "too much integrity"

  13. #93
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    In the poker world there is some distinction between tournament players and cash game players. The guys at the very pinnacle of the cash game world always make more than tournament players. I don't follow so much but it used to be believed that one's EV (ooooh look at what I did) on a tournament is not higher than a buyin. I have no idea as it is very dependent on many things but the idea is that there just isn't that much money in tournaments. Especially given tax implications.

    However the cool thing about these tournaments is that people can go around saying they've won $50 million playing poker! Ha! These people are clearly more successful than I ever was but the whole thing is a bit of a joke in some ways. What do these records really tell us without the buyins? What would they tell us if we had the buyins included? Well whatever ! Who cares! The records are there!

    The other thing is Redietz keeps making fun of the guy who bet 2000 as if the guy was saying "Hey look at me make this $2k bet". The whole point of that video was to show people get limited which Redietz denied. Redietz seemed to ignore that aspect and then fixated on the amount of the bet. He then uses it to ridicule the person who has clearly been limited by a book. I hate to admit it but I am SO confused right now.

    How does redietz see the world? If you ridicule someone for making a $2000 bet then what is the buyin for these contests he references? $10k minimum I would think.

    Ahh well a few of many questions I have. It would be nice to see Redietz give his thoughts but as I've noticed he seems to be a bit too busy respond when the answers are desired the most. I'm sure when we hear him on GWAE here soon things will be clarified.

    I'm not ridiculing someone for making a 2K bet. I'm ridiculing the idea of people assigning gravitas or expertise or experience to someone BECAUSE they are making 2K bets. Or because they are "limited."

    Account, if you bothered to read what I posted, I said I tried to bet a $250 future at Hard Rock and was limited to $10. So, by your reasoning, I must (1) be making fun of myself because I admit to making a $250 wager and (2) I must also be a helluva bettor, striking fear into the hearts of mortal books.

    No, that wasn't the case. They didn't know me from Adam. The reality was books limit people all the time for myriad reasons. If you don't understand that, you should just stand on the sidelines.

  14. #94
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    In the poker world there is some distinction between tournament players and cash game players. The guys at the very pinnacle of the cash game world always make more than tournament players. I don't follow so much but it used to be believed that one's EV (ooooh look at what I did) on a tournament is not higher than a buyin. I have no idea as it is very dependent on many things but the idea is that there just isn't that much money in tournaments. Especially given tax implications.

    However the cool thing about these tournaments is that people can go around saying they've won $50 million playing poker! Ha! These people are clearly more successful than I ever was but the whole thing is a bit of a joke in some ways. What do these records really tell us without the buyins? What would they tell us if we had the buyins included? Well whatever ! Who cares! The records are there!

    The other thing is Redietz keeps making fun of the guy who bet 2000 as if the guy was saying "Hey look at me make this $2k bet". The whole point of that video was to show people get limited which Redietz denied. Redietz seemed to ignore that aspect and then fixated on the amount of the bet. He then uses it to ridicule the person who has clearly been limited by a book. I hate to admit it but I am SO confused right now.

    How does redietz see the world? If you ridicule someone for making a $2000 bet then what is the buyin for these contests he references? $10k minimum I would think.

    Ahh well a few of many questions I have. It would be nice to see Redietz give his thoughts but as I've noticed he seems to be a bit too busy respond when the answers are desired the most. I'm sure when we hear him on GWAE here soon things will be clarified.
    Even more relevantly with poker tournaments, and to a lesser extent, cash games---how much of a percentage of yourself did you sell to others? How much of a percentage in others did you buy?

    In theory, we could all sit at a table, nine seats, buy in for $100,000 apiece (except I don't have 100k) and agree to play until one person gets it all. Superficially, one person profits $800,000, but if everyone agrees that the winner is just going to give $90,000 of it back to each person who loses (in advance), then they have only won $80,000 and the others at the table only lost $10,000 each.

    Looks very exciting to the viewers, though.

  15. #95
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    In the poker world there is some distinction between tournament players and cash game players. The guys at the very pinnacle of the cash game world always make more than tournament players. I don't follow so much but it used to be believed that one's EV (ooooh look at what I did) on a tournament is not higher than a buyin. I have no idea as it is very dependent on many things but the idea is that there just isn't that much money in tournaments. Especially given tax implications.

    However the cool thing about these tournaments is that people can go around saying they've won $50 million playing poker! Ha! These people are clearly more successful than I ever was but the whole thing is a bit of a joke in some ways. What do these records really tell us without the buyins? What would they tell us if we had the buyins included? Well whatever ! Who cares! The records are there!

    The other thing is Redietz keeps making fun of the guy who bet 2000 as if the guy was saying "Hey look at me make this $2k bet". The whole point of that video was to show people get limited which Redietz denied. Redietz seemed to ignore that aspect and then fixated on the amount of the bet. He then uses it to ridicule the person who has clearly been limited by a book. I hate to admit it but I am SO confused right now.

    How does redietz see the world? If you ridicule someone for making a $2000 bet then what is the buyin for these contests he references? $10k minimum I would think.

    Ahh well a few of many questions I have. It would be nice to see Redietz give his thoughts but as I've noticed he seems to be a bit too busy respond when the answers are desired the most. I'm sure when we hear him on GWAE here soon things will be clarified.

    I'm not ridiculing someone for making a 2K bet. I'm ridiculing the idea of people assigning gravitas or expertise or experience to someone BECAUSE they are making 2K bets. Or because they are "limited."

    Account, if you bothered to read what I posted, I said I tried to bet a $250 future at Hard Rock and was limited to $10. So, by your reasoning, I must (1) be making fun of myself because I admit to making a $250 wager and (2) I must also be a helluva bettor, striking fear into the hearts of mortal books.

    No, that wasn't the case. They didn't know me from Adam. The reality was books limit people all the time for myriad reasons. If you don't understand that, you should just stand on the sidelines.
    I will stand on the sidelines as I don't even bet sports outside of recently doing promo stuff for friends of a friend type deal.

    If you were limited to $10 on a bet where they didn't know you - then no my reasoning would not be that they limited you. You stated as much.

    The fact that you don't think limiting is a common thing blows me away. This is like an episode of Quantum Leap.

    So when will we know when you're going to be on GWAE?

    Maybe you didn't mock the guy for making a 2k bet but I don't think anyone here is assigning him "gravitas" because he is making the 2k bet either. You're the only one fixating on the 2k aspect of it.
    It is official. Redietz will never be on Dan Druff's podcast. "too much integrity"

  16. #96
    Someone making a 2k bet, in isolation, only proves to me that they have access to $2,000.

  17. #97
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    In the poker world there is some distinction between tournament players and cash game players. The guys at the very pinnacle of the cash game world always make more than tournament players. I don't follow so much but it used to be believed that one's EV (ooooh look at what I did) on a tournament is not higher than a buyin. I have no idea as it is very dependent on many things but the idea is that there just isn't that much money in tournaments. Especially given tax implications.

    However the cool thing about these tournaments is that people can go around saying they've won $50 million playing poker! Ha! These people are clearly more successful than I ever was but the whole thing is a bit of a joke in some ways. What do these records really tell us without the buyins? What would they tell us if we had the buyins included? Well whatever ! Who cares! The records are there!

    The other thing is Redietz keeps making fun of the guy who bet 2000 as if the guy was saying "Hey look at me make this $2k bet". The whole point of that video was to show people get limited which Redietz denied. Redietz seemed to ignore that aspect and then fixated on the amount of the bet. He then uses it to ridicule the person who has clearly been limited by a book. I hate to admit it but I am SO confused right now.

    How does redietz see the world? If you ridicule someone for making a $2000 bet then what is the buyin for these contests he references? $10k minimum I would think.

    Ahh well a few of many questions I have. It would be nice to see Redietz give his thoughts but as I've noticed he seems to be a bit too busy respond when the answers are desired the most. I'm sure when we hear him on GWAE here soon things will be clarified.
    Even more relevantly with poker tournaments, and to a lesser extent, cash games---how much of a percentage of yourself did you sell to others? How much of a percentage in others did you buy?

    In theory, we could all sit at a table, nine seats, buy in for $100,000 apiece (except I don't have 100k) and agree to play until one person gets it all. Superficially, one person profits $800,000, but if everyone agrees that the winner is just going to give $90,000 of it back to each person who loses (in advance), then they have only won $80,000 and the others at the table only lost $10,000 each.

    Looks very exciting to the viewers, though.
    In the very early days of online poker there was a forum + play money site. They just gave away free play money chips for their tourneys and then went around saying how everyone wins using their system. Good stuff.

    Contests are a manufactured for amusement and entertainment foremost. I know guys whose biggest dream is literally to "win a bracelet". This person is a loser in every aspect of life so they glom on to that possibility. Literally their hope in life. I talk about it with other gamblers and they crack on it much like myself.

    That is because this person is actually a pretty big losing gambler but hendonmob and a bracelet will help this person feel legitimate in the eyes of the math naive and as many of us know - there are lots of these types out there. Sometimes the math naive are even in charge of making policy / rule decisions
    Last edited by accountinquestion; 02-24-2023 at 12:17 PM.
    It is official. Redietz will never be on Dan Druff's podcast. "too much integrity"

  18. #98
    When I put up the GWAE interview of Spanky, redietz mockingly wrote:

    "Nothing like hearing from a 'well-known sports bettor on GWAE'....Mickey there is an entire world you know absolutely nothing about. Do you really think any sports book manager is concerned with anything or anybody on GWAE?....People at GWAE are a step above civilians but they are not top tier." And in another post he called Spanky "an anonymous cute nickname."

    But little did redietz know. Read between the lines. Redietz had no clue who Spanky was. WTF?

    Spanky is just one of the most famous sports bettors out there....and ditz never heard of him. WTF?

    Redietz, what did you tell me? There's a whole world out there I know nothing about? Well guess what, buttfuck. There's a whole world out there YOU know nothing about.

    And you wrote: "Is there any sports book manager that is afraid of anybody on GWAE?" You bet your ass there is. Spanky is well documented being banned out of virtually every book in the world. Redietz didn't know that when he made those comments. Because he never heard of one of the most famous sports bettors in the country. WTF?

    How would someone who claims to be a highly skilled professional handicapper for decades not know of Spanky?

    Ditz really needs to get down off his high horse. He's making a fool of himself.
    Last edited by mickeycrimm; 02-24-2023 at 12:20 PM.
    "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

  19. #99
    Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
    When I put up the GWAE interview of Spanky, redietz mockingly wrote:

    "Nothing like hearing from a 'well-known sports bettor on GWAE'....Mickey there is an entire world you know absolutely nothing about. Do you really think any sports book manager is concerned with anything or anybody on GWAE?....People at GWAE are a step above civilians but they are not top tier." And in another post he called Spanky "an anonymous cute nickname."

    But little did redietz know. Read between the lines. Redietz had no clue who Spanky was. WTF?

    Spanky is just one of the most famous sports bettors out there....and ditz never heard of him. WTF?

    Redietz, what did you tell me? There's a whole world out there I know nothing about? Well guess what, buttfuck. There's a whole world out there YOU know nothing about.

    And you wrote: "Is there any sports book manager that is afraid of anybody on GWAE?" You bet your ass there is. Spanky is well documented being banned out of virtually every book in the world. Redietz didn't know that when he made those comments. Because he never heard of one of the most famous sports bettors in the country. WTF?

    How would someone who claims to be a highly skilled professional handicapper for decades not know of Spanky?

    Ditz really needs to get down off his high horse. He's making a fool of himself.
    If he wasn't on such a high-horse he'd get a lot more respect. I'd enjoy his old school stories and such. I don't even care if they're not true. The problem is he has no clue how much the world has changed and goes out of his way to mock things he clearly know very little about.

    How can you be so great and successful and so knowledgeable about an area but then literally checked out for decades ? Yet still be condescending to those who have a fairly strong clue about what is going on !?!

    Fantastic stuff.

    How does this happen? How can you be so obsessed with sports-betting to the extent it appears to be your sole identity yet you are incredibly clueless about all manner of modern cash sports betting? It is legitimately more bizarre than Kewl being a card-counter in LV for 10+ years. How can it even be true? At least Kewl isn't constantly mocking other credible counters.

    Well whatever - hope to hear Redietz on GWAE where he can talk about the old days. Stuff like that is great. Just like I love to hear Mickey talk about his old days and various AP angles that no longer exist. Redietz should seriously stay away from interacting people over contemporary betting stuff as he does himself no favors. Even to someone who has no clue what is going on - they will read this and decide .. Redietz or this whole board full of people who seem to have a strong clue what

    In short. Redietz - stick with the historical info and stories and avoid trying to lecture people on things you know very very little about these days. You just do yourself a repeated disservice.
    It is official. Redietz will never be on Dan Druff's podcast. "too much integrity"

  20. #100
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    Originally Posted by accountinquestion View Post
    In the poker world there is some distinction between tournament players and cash game players. The guys at the very pinnacle of the cash game world always make more than tournament players. I don't follow so much but it used to be believed that one's EV (ooooh look at what I did) on a tournament is not higher than a buyin. I have no idea as it is very dependent on many things but the idea is that there just isn't that much money in tournaments. Especially given tax implications.

    However the cool thing about these tournaments is that people can go around saying they've won $50 million playing poker! Ha! These people are clearly more successful than I ever was but the whole thing is a bit of a joke in some ways. What do these records really tell us without the buyins? What would they tell us if we had the buyins included? Well whatever ! Who cares! The records are there!

    The other thing is Redietz keeps making fun of the guy who bet 2000 as if the guy was saying "Hey look at me make this $2k bet". The whole point of that video was to show people get limited which Redietz denied. Redietz seemed to ignore that aspect and then fixated on the amount of the bet. He then uses it to ridicule the person who has clearly been limited by a book. I hate to admit it but I am SO confused right now.

    How does redietz see the world? If you ridicule someone for making a $2000 bet then what is the buyin for these contests he references? $10k minimum I would think.

    Ahh well a few of many questions I have. It would be nice to see Redietz give his thoughts but as I've noticed he seems to be a bit too busy respond when the answers are desired the most. I'm sure when we hear him on GWAE here soon things will be clarified.

    I'm not ridiculing someone for making a 2K bet. I'm ridiculing the idea of people assigning gravitas or expertise or experience to someone BECAUSE they are making 2K bets. Or because they are "limited."

    Account, if you bothered to read what I posted, I said I tried to bet a $250 future at Hard Rock and was limited to $10. So, by your reasoning, I must (1) be making fun of myself because I admit to making a $250 wager and (2) I must also be a helluva bettor, striking fear into the hearts of mortal books.

    No, that wasn't the case. They didn't know me from Adam. The reality was books limit people all the time for myriad reasons. If you don't understand that, you should just stand on the sidelines.
    I will stand on the sidelines as I don't even bet sports outside of recently doing promo stuff for friends of a friend type deal.

    If you were limited to $10 on a bet where they didn't know you - then no my reasoning would not be that they limited you. You stated as much.

    The fact that you don't think limiting is a common thing blows me away. This is like an episode of Quantum Leap.

    So when will we know when you're going to be on GWAE?

    Maybe you didn't mock the guy for making a 2k bet but I don't think anyone here is assigning him "gravitas" because he is making the 2k bet either. You're the only one fixating on the 2k aspect of it.

    Is there a reading comprehension issue? I just said "the reality was books limit people all the time for myriad reasons." You quoted me.

    How does that translate into "The fact you don't think limiting is a common thing blows me away?"

    Account, is it the use of the word "myriad?" What has you confused here?

    You do realize CET had been using a sports betting limit formula based on a combination of tier card status and tier game status? So technically, everyone who bet at CET was being "limited" in the precise meaning in some way vis-a-vis almost all other CET bettors?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 7 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 7 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What are best sportsbetting apps in Vegas?
    By PIGGY BANKER in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-14-2020, 12:44 PM
  2. The Future of Sportsbetting
    By mickeycrimm in forum Sports & Sportsbetting
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-05-2018, 08:03 AM
  3. Sportsbetting ONLY thread
    By LoneStarHorse in forum Sports & Sportsbetting
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-05-2016, 04:48 PM
  4. Sportsbetting
    By LoneStarHorse in forum Sports & Sportsbetting
    Replies: 143
    Last Post: 02-03-2016, 07:09 PM
  5. Sportsbetting Anguish
    By Rob.Singer in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 12-21-2011, 11:17 AM

Posting Permissions

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