Professional Sportsbetting

[smurgerburger]

CJ started off as a BJ player as almost everyone did back then.

[kewlJ]

CJ started off as a BJ player as almost everyone did back then.

I'll take your word for it. I just kind of thought the guy at BJ21, was older than this guy appears just from different references. And that was 8-10 years ago that I thought he was older.

So, you are from the blackjack community? Got your start as a BJ player?

What other handles might I know you from because I don't remember seeing a smurgerburger before this forum?

[accountinquestion]

CJ started off as a BJ player as almost everyone did back then.

I'll take your word for it. I just kind of thought the guy at BJ21, was older than this guy appears just from different references. And that was 8-10 years ago that I thought he was older.

So, you are from the blackjack community? Got your start as a BJ player?

What other handles might I know you from because I don't remember seeing a smurgerburger before this forum?

Another redietz. Gotta know who and what everyone is. Also see your buddy seedvalue for same crap.

Smurgerburger posts fairly little regarding AP so why would he care about maintaining some monicker for credibility from places he doesn't want ?

BJ has been fairly burned out for years now. Anyone smart has moved on years ago.

[kewlJ]

AinQ, you seem to now be one of these people that live to argue with me. Obsess much? Well THAT and your stupid climate nonsense.

Redietz, much the same as the late Alan Mendelson doesn't think people should use a handle at all. THAT is their anonymity argument. Anyone arguing that, doesn't understand advantage play and that we have now several industries trying to identify and stop us. So no, nothing like redietz's position. I would prefer that AP's use the same handle on different forums, so I know who they are and can assign some credibility to them (in my mind). Most do so. But if some choose not to, that is fine too.

There certainly are many more, better and bigger (bigger advantage) AP opportunities abound than ever before. So I have no issues with anyone "moving on". BUT, anyone who says something as stupid as BJ is burned out, is just an idiot. Someone who has no clue what they are talking about.

I used to evaluate BJ conditions in Las Vegas annually, as part of my year end review, identifying what has changed ect. I stopped doing that a while ago as there just aren't any BJ players on the forums I am now on, but right now, 2023, Blackjack in Las Vegas is as good as it has been in my 14 years here. And THAT after a handful of casinos never re-opened after covid. I can't speak to other locations, but just on quantity of new locations alone in the last 8 years, I have to think there are plenty of opportunity for anyone wanting to pursue blackjack.

So just stay in your freaking lane, which now seems to be blabbering on and on about climate change. Oh and by the way, when we use up this planet we will just move on. How do you think we got to earth to begin with? You seriously think we climbed out of the sea and evolved into humans? We came from a freaking other planet after we used up the resources there. And that is occurring throughout the universe.

[accountinquestion]

AinQ, you seem to now be one of these people that live to argue with me. Obsess much? Well THAT and your stupid climate nonsense.

...

There certainly are many more, better and bigger (bigger advantage) AP opportunities abound than ever before. So I have no issues with anyone "moving on". BUT, anyone who says something as stupid as BJ is burned out, is just an idiot. Someone who has no clue what they are talking about.

...

So just stay in your freaking lane, which now seems to be blabbering on and on about climate change. Oh and by the way, when we use up this planet we will just move on. How do you think we got to earth to begin with? You seriously think we climbed out of the sea and evolved into humans?

Goofball - recently you are the one who started up with the moralizing over TBC. I made fun of TBC who is an exceptionally selfish person - autism or not. He makes no effort to better himself or how he interacts with others. Now you want to act victimized like I'm obsessing over you.

I have relatively little clue about blackjack but I've never heard of anyone outside of you pursuing it. (yes I've read various books years ago) I suppose that it isn't burned out by the normal use of the term but I've heard/seen anyone and I even saw a docu where some dude has to drive around constantly to play bigger limits. Making 70k a year moving around from shop to shop.

Stay in my lane? I'm not proffering any expertise on BJ just the general consensus from APs. Good for you making 70k a year. That isn't a bad living but not particularly good for the work effort. Assuming your story is even true. If you are going to fake being an AP there is literally nothing better than blackjack given the amount of writing on the subject.

[kewlJ]

First of all, I don't make 70k a year. I have averaged just under 100k over 14 years in Las Vegas. To be fair that is total AP play, not just blackjack. Blackjack has accounted for 80% of that. So I guess if you want to say I have averaged 80k a year from blackjack you can. But it is funny people give me shit for only playing blackjack which has never been true in my time in Vegas and at other times want to not count anything but my blackjack. I am very satisfied having averaged 100k for the last 14 years as an AP.

Now, who exactly made a document traveling the country playing blackjack to make 70k? Are you talking about the documentary Inside the Edge where KC spent 18 months on the road in an RV? If so KC made 600k over that 18 months. He was up over a million and then fell back some the later part of his travels. But that project which the play actually occurred a decade ago (doc released in 2019) was as much about the documentary as anything else.

But yes, there are two ways to pursue blackjack. The slash and burn, play high stakes moving around the country for as long as you can, until you are burned out everywhere in about a year, and the milking it, longevity approach.....more of a career, that I have pursued. I tried to share some of my journey, but now a days people like you are only interested in trolling.

As for TBC. I don't know him. Like I said, I communicated with him briefly 6-8 years ago, probably more like 8, now, when he was camped out in North Las Vegas playing video blackjack. I read some posts at WoV and very occasionally read something else. I am not a fan, nor know that much about him. I just find it really petty that people here are openly rooting against him, wanting to bet when he will go broke. What a small and pretty group of people here. No surprise I guess. That is what this forum is.

[accountinquestion]

First of all, I don't make 70k a year. I have averaged just under 100k over 14 years in Las Vegas. To be fair that is total AP play, not just blackjack. Blackjack has accounted for 80% of that. So I guess if you want to say I have averaged 80k a year from blackjack you can. But it is funny people give me shit for only playing blackjack which has never been true in my time in Vegas and at other times want to not count anything but my blackjack. I am very satisfied having averaged 100k for the last 14 years as an AP.

Now, who exactly made a document traveling the country playing blackjack to make 70k? Are you talking about the documentary Inside the Edge where KC spent 18 months on the road in an RV? If so KC made 600k over that 18 months. He was up over a million and then fell back some the later part of his travels. But that project which the play actually occurred a decade ago (doc released in 2019) was as much about the documentary as anything else.

But yes, there are two ways to pursue blackjack. The slash and burn, play high stakes moving around the country for as long as you can, until you are burned out everywhere in about a year, and the milking it, longevity approach.....more of a career, that I have pursued. I tried to share some of my journey, but now a days people like you are only interested in trolling.

As for TBC. I don't know him. Like I said, I communicated with him briefly 6-8 years ago, probably more like 8, now, when he was camped out in North Las Vegas playing video blackjack. I read some posts at WoV and very occasionally read something else. I am not a fan, nor know that much about him. I just find it really petty that people here are openly rooting against him, wanting to bet when he will go broke. What a small and pretty group of people here. No surprise I guess. That is what this forum is.

Except I'm fairly certain I never rooted for him to do poorly so you're just throwing shit against the wall hoping it'll stick. IIRC one guy said something like that. I'm happy to see him do well. He is one of gambling's biggest characters. A true legend. So fuck off with your sanctimonious nonsense. Of course you're going to be trolled.

If that docu guy made 600k then I stand corrected as that is quite respectable. Granted he needed a backer but 1/2 a million in a year is very impressive. Maybe I'll watch it again tonight. I rather enjoyed it.

My apologies to Mickey and others for mucking up an otherwise good thread.

[kewlJ]

If that docu guy made 600k then I stand corrected as that is quite respectable. Granted he needed a backer but 1/2 a million in a year is very impressive. Maybe I'll watch it again tonight. I rather enjoyed it.

It was 600k over 18 months. I don't recall that he had an investor, but maybe. It has been a while since I watched. KC is still active on the blackjack forums. I don't know how much he plays these days.

The only issue I had with that project is it felt like it was more about the documentary and less about what he actually made playing. I felt even more so about the church team documentary.

But KC's documentary, at least showed what that slash and burn style is like. Get as much as you can for a short time until it dries up. It is just not the path I was interested in or took. Me and the guys I network with, all 10-20 year professionals are and have been in it for decades. Career professional blackjack players (among other things). I just find it really shitty when someone says Blackjack is dead and then in the next breath admits they know nothing about it. If that is the case then your comments are just about trolling. Big surprise there.

But I will drop this now to out of respect for mickey and his thread, which I too am finding educational and useful.

[Half Smoke]

.



article about how DraftKings put up a stupid prop - 50/1 that Evan Fournier would be high scorer in a Knicks/Celtics game and a sharp crushed it with a $1K bet

DraftKings congratulated him (I think on Twitter) and then limited him to $100 bets on the NBA

then they told him he could only bet $3.63 on a prop

the Director of South Point sportsbook in Vegas said his friend was limited to $.30 (yes thirty cents) on a 30/1 future and called it ridiculous

this stuff is really crazy - maybe worse than the stuff that goes on with blackjack

the books definitely need to be subject to much stronger oversight and regulation by the States or they're just going to ruin sports betting





https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...caesars-circa/


https://www.cbc.ca/sports/opinion-sp...ov24-1.6662775


.

[Don Perignom]

the books definitely need to be subject to much stronger oversight and regulation by the States or they're just going to ruin sports betting

Or private companies can decide how to run their own businesses, and you can choose to avoid them.

FWIW, I don't believe bigger government would create the happy circumstance you're seeking. Heavy regulation is often captured by the major operators to limit competition. We're already seeing consolidation in some states. I'd like to see reduced barriers to entry to ensure the existing operators understand they can be replaced.

[accountinquestion]

the books definitely need to be subject to much stronger oversight and regulation by the States or they're just going to ruin sports betting

Or private companies can decide how to run their own businesses, and you can choose to avoid them.

FWIW, I don't believe bigger government would create the happy circumstance you're seeking. Heavy regulation is often captured by the major operators to limit competition. We're already seeing consolidation in some states. I'd like to see reduced barriers to entry to ensure the existing operators understand they can be replaced.

^^ This. Although it is lame that books do this - the only other option would be to have sharper lines and approach it like Pinnacle. This would dry up +EV spots considerably. Regulatory capture is rarely a good thing for the customer when not dealing with life and death matters.

IMO (and I don't know much) the smarter thing to do is just have smaller limits on the game, partially limit sharp action and toughen up your lines early on. From my understanding this is what Pinnacle does.

If they can't limit or kick people off then they will obviously go out of business when they are swarmed by beards. It really is an absurd stance to take that books should not be able to limit people.

[kewlJ]

Well there HAS to be oversight and more than there is now, because it has been proven over and over that without much oversight the casino industry, and sportsbooks are part of that, will cheat lie and steal to their hearts content.

A lot of my thinking is drawn from my blackjack experiences and roots, and I see a lot of similarities between what has occurred in blackjack for years and what is occurring in sports betting now. In short casinos (and sportsbooks) want to pick and choose and limit players to those they think are not winning players. If a player demonstrates the ability to win, they want to place limits of ban them altogether, exactly the same as has occurred with blackjack players for decades now.

On the surface, this seems very wrong to me. If you are going to be in the business of offering a game, or sports betting opportunity, everyone should be allowed to play and bet without limitations. A casino shouldn't get to decide they don't want a player because they are able to win.

However in real life we have seen what happens when casinos (or sportsbook) aren't allowed to "protect" themselves by looking at Atlantic City blackjack, where casinos aren't allowed to backoff or ban players. Without this protection, casinos made blackjack almost unplayable. And that is exactly what would happen if sportsbooks weren't allowed to protect themselves, by limiting players and amounts. Of the two models you don't want this. So just like blackjack players, sports better have to learn to play the game within the game.

[Half Smoke]

.

I have no problem with limits, but they have to be uniform.
Not $20 for one guy and $500 for another guy they think is a sucker.

they have a huge advantage against the bettors - they can change the lines as the money comes in

they should be able to put up just about unbeatable lines - as to the entire crowd of bettors - at least on the straight bets

on the props they could limit any bet to no greater than a $1,500 payout

I don't get it - what's the big deal - this stuff isn't rocket science -

they could just find some sharps and offer them well paying jobs to run their lines - some of these guys might love getting a salary for a change - especially with all these limits they face

if they're that stupid as to offer these props that are so far mispriced as indicated in my OP - then it's really a pathetic thing - whoever offered a prop like that just needs to be fired

imagine if a pit boss interrupted a blackjack game with 5 people at the table and said they were only going to pay KJ 6/5 on his blackjacks - everybody else will get paid 3/2

even blackjack isn't nearly that bad


.

[kewlJ]

.

I have no problem with limits, but they have to be uniform.
Not $20 for one guy and $500 for another guy they think is a sucker.

imagine if a pit boss interrupted a blackjack game with 5 people at the table and said they were only going to pay KJ 6/5 on his blackjacks - everybody else will get paid 3/2

But they do essentially do this Half Smoke. Back in Atlantic City, in my final year, I was playing Borgata a lot. With no backoffs or banning allowed, the countermeasure I most often saw was a $5 minimum, $50 maximum, bet limits card placed on the table that applied only to me. This was a $25 minimum table. I forget if the maximum was $3000 or $5000. But the limits that applied ONLY to me were $5-$50.

Now I haven't encountered that kind of couter-measure in Las Vegas, but I have encountered bet restrictions and limitations and even flat betting that applied only to me, while others at the same table were free to wager any way they like. It is not common, because in Vegas the more common counter-measure is "no more blackjack", but it does occur. I think they are usually trying to send a message with this kind of thing.

[Half Smoke]

.

I have no problem with limits, but they have to be uniform.
Not $20 for one guy and $500 for another guy they think is a sucker.

imagine if a pit boss interrupted a blackjack game with 5 people at the table and said they were only going to pay KJ 6/5 on his blackjacks - everybody else will get paid 3/2

But they do essentially do this Half Smoke. Back in Atlantic City, in my final year, I was playing Borgata a lot. With no backoffs or banning allowed, the countermeasure I most often saw was a $5 minimum, $50 maximum, bet limits card placed on the table that applied only to me. This was a $25 minimum table. I forget if the maximum was $3000 or $5000. But the limits that applied ONLY to me were $5-$50.

Now I haven't encountered that kind of couter-measure in Las Vegas, but I have encountered bet restrictions and limitations and even flat betting that applied only to me, while others at the same table were free to wager any way they like. It is not common, because in Vegas the more common counter-measure is "no more blackjack", but it does occur. I think they are usually trying to send a message with this kind of thing.

so how in the world do you keep doing this for all these years - what is it 18 years now_________?

don't they freak out if they see you betting black__________?___________don't most of these joints know you by now_________?


.

[mickeycrimm]

I put this post in the wrong thread:

Two people bet Team A at -2. The line moves to -4. One person then bets Team B at -4 to shoot for the 2 point middle. Then after that the line moves to -5. The other person then bets Team B to go for the 3 point middle.

Which is the best bet? Of course it's the 3 point middle. It obviously has a much higher Expected Value than the 2 point middle.

How would the EV be calculated? My guess is pro sports bettors are most likely using long term statistics to measure the EV.

There must be statistics that exist that show how often a team that is favored by 2 points wins the game by exactly 2 points, or 3 points, or 4 points or 5 points---or win by 1 point, tie, or lose the game outright.

In the Fezzik video he said if you bet a game at -2.5 then the line moves to 3.5 at game time the -3.5 bet is expected to win 50% of the time but the -2.5 bet is expected to win 60% of the time. Of course, this revolves around the key number, 3.

So how would Fezzik know that -2.5 wins 10% more of the time than -3.5?

I think he is making two assumptions

1. The -3.5 line is sharp.
2. The 10% difference is derived from statistics collected on prior games that show how well the favorites do against the spread.

If a team is favored by 3 points how often will they win the game by 2 points or less or lose the game outright.

How often will they win the game by exactly 3 points?
How often will they win the game by exactly 4 points?
How often will they win the game by 5 points, 6 points, etc.

I've heard that NFL football games are won by exactly 3 points 10% of the time. Can't say if it's true or not....but I would have to think that a game where the number is right around -3 then the chance of the game landing exactly on that 3 would be much higher.

I'll have to take a look to see if Shack has any stats that break down the win margins of teams against the spread according to the number, whether it's -3 or -7 or whatever.

[kewlJ]

so how in the world do you keep doing this for all these years - what is it 18 years now_________?

don't they freak out if they see you betting black__________?___________don't most of these joints know you by now_________?
.

This is my 20th year of supporting myself from blackjack play. But to be fair the first 4 in Atlantic city was very low limit play. So it has really been my 13+ years living and playing Las Vegas and maybe my final year or so playing AC that were any kind of stakes that would cause any casino concern, green to mid black and now some straight up black play. Even THAT really shouldn't be a concern to casinos, if they looked at the math.

So longevity in Vegas is about learning to play the game within the game. Sometimes referred to the cat and mouse game. I think I have excelled at that identifying methods of play, short sessions and some other things along with betting limits for different casinos, and times, that should result in my play being better tolerated. THAT is really the goal now, sort of a don't rock the boat, as opposed to hiding anything. And by rock the boat, I mean create a situation that someone has to answer for.

But a recent incident that I just wrote about in another thread is a reminder that it is still hard to play the game within the game when the opponent doesn't play by the rules or laws.

[redietz]

I put this post in the wrong thread:

Two people bet Team A at -2. The line moves to -4. One person then bets Team B at -4 to shoot for the 2 point middle. Then after that the line moves to -5. The other person then bets Team B to go for the 3 point middle.

Which is the best bet? Of course it's the 3 point middle. It obviously has a much higher Expected Value than the 2 point middle.

How would the EV be calculated? My guess is pro sports bettors are most likely using long term statistics to measure the EV.

There must be statistics that exist that show how often a team that is favored by 2 points wins the game by exactly 2 points, or 3 points, or 4 points or 5 points---or win by 1 point, tie, or lose the game outright.

In the Fezzik video he said if you bet a game at -2.5 then the line moves to 3.5 at game time the -3.5 bet is expected to win 50% of the time but the -2.5 bet is expected to win 60% of the time. Of course, this revolves around the key number, 3.

So how would Fezzik know that -2.5 wins 10% more of the time than -3.5?

I think he is making two assumptions

1. The -3.5 line is sharp.
2. The 10% difference is derived from statistics collected on prior games that show how well the favorites do against the spread.

If a team is favored by 3 points how often will they win the game by 2 points or less or lose the game outright.

How often will they win the game by exactly 3 points?
How often will they win the game by exactly 4 points?
How often will they win the game by 5 points, 6 points, etc.

I've heard that NFL football games are won by exactly 3 points 10% of the time. Can't say if it's true or not....but I would have to think that a game where the number is right around -3 then the chance of the game landing exactly on that 3 would be much higher.

I'll have to take a look to see if Shack has any stats that break down the win margins of teams against the spread according to the number, whether it's -3 or -7 or whatever.

You're missing the forest for the trees, mickey. But, just like account, you buried the lead as they say in the journalism business.

Don't edit this post. It says what needs to be said.

You're obviously not stupid, mickey, but this is what can happen. You don't understand the context. As I said, you're missing the forest for the trees, and you don't understand that there are forest fires. When you miss this stuff, you're really missing everything.

[Dan Druff]

.

I have no problem with limits, but they have to be uniform.
Not $20 for one guy and $500 for another guy they think is a sucker.

imagine if a pit boss interrupted a blackjack game with 5 people at the table and said they were only going to pay KJ 6/5 on his blackjacks - everybody else will get paid 3/2

But they do essentially do this Half Smoke. Back in Atlantic City, in my final year, I was playing Borgata a lot. With no backoffs or banning allowed, the countermeasure I most often saw was a $5 minimum, $50 maximum, bet limits card placed on the table that applied only to me. This was a $25 minimum table. I forget if the maximum was $3000 or $5000. But the limits that applied ONLY to me were $5-$50.

Now I haven't encountered that kind of couter-measure in Las Vegas, but I have encountered bet restrictions and limitations and even flat betting that applied only to me, while others at the same table were free to wager any way they like. It is not common, because in Vegas the more common counter-measure is "no more blackjack", but it does occur. I think they are usually trying to send a message with this kind of thing.

Yeah I had something similar occur at Borgata in the 2000s. Limits applied only to me. I just laughed about it and moved across the casino when they weren't looking.

[mickeycrimm]

I put this post in the wrong thread:

Two people bet Team A at -2. The line moves to -4. One person then bets Team B at -4 to shoot for the 2 point middle. Then after that the line moves to -5. The other person then bets Team B to go for the 3 point middle.

Which is the best bet? Of course it's the 3 point middle. It obviously has a much higher Expected Value than the 2 point middle.

How would the EV be calculated? My guess is pro sports bettors are most likely using long term statistics to measure the EV.

There must be statistics that exist that show how often a team that is favored by 2 points wins the game by exactly 2 points, or 3 points, or 4 points or 5 points---or win by 1 point, tie, or lose the game outright.

In the Fezzik video he said if you bet a game at -2.5 then the line moves to 3.5 at game time the -3.5 bet is expected to win 50% of the time but the -2.5 bet is expected to win 60% of the time. Of course, this revolves around the key number, 3.

So how would Fezzik know that -2.5 wins 10% more of the time than -3.5?

I think he is making two assumptions

1. The -3.5 line is sharp.
2. The 10% difference is derived from statistics collected on prior games that show how well the favorites do against the spread.

If a team is favored by 3 points how often will they win the game by 2 points or less or lose the game outright.

How often will they win the game by exactly 3 points?
How often will they win the game by exactly 4 points?
How often will they win the game by 5 points, 6 points, etc.

I've heard that NFL football games are won by exactly 3 points 10% of the time. Can't say if it's true or not....but I would have to think that a game where the number is right around -3 then the chance of the game landing exactly on that 3 would be much higher.

I'll have to take a look to see if Shack has any stats that break down the win margins of teams against the spread according to the number, whether it's -3 or -7 or whatever.

You're missing the forest for the trees, mickey. But, just like account, you buried the lead as they say in the journalism business.

Don't edit this post. It says what needs to be said.

You're obviously not stupid, mickey, but this is what can happen. You don't understand the context. As I said, you're missing the forest for the trees, and you don't understand that there are forest fires. When you miss this stuff, you're really missing everything.

You quit the forum. Now you've made a liar out of yourself. But I knew you would. That shit about being extra busy now because of the XFL was a crock. You had no problem making multiple posts a day during the college and NFL seasons.

You can't see the forest for the tree's. You attack but give no argument to back it up. Your agenda here is glaringly apparent. You don't intend to contribute anything positive here. You are lashing out because you lost the argument on EV. You got your feelings hurt. Seek counseling.

I've encountered non-math gamblers like you before. You guys have an inferiority complex because of your lack of ability in math. So you have to pull the cowardly lion bullshit with the math guys. You have to tell them you are superior in order to assuage your feelings of inferiority. Not all non-math guys are that way, but you and maxpen are.

So tell us, oh masterful one....One guy has a 2 point middle and one guy has a 3 point middle on the same game. Which one has the better expected value. Forget about the forest. Forget about the tree's. Just answer this one specific question.