Professional Sportsbetting

[redietz]

Banned from contests is up there with you actually going on Druffs show.

Do you really think I don't want to be on a podcast?

I can't believe people are this detached from reality. You really don't get it?

Account, I am going to cut you a break by telling you that you are writing exactly what I want you to write. It's frightening.

Jesus. I just gave you a post, directly above, that has a parallel foreshadowing of someone doing exactly what I wanted them to do. And you didn't get the hint. At all. You need to break yourself of the idea that you're the smartest guy in the room. Or the forum. Or any public bathroom.

[accountinquestion]

Banned from contests is up there with you actually going on Druffs show.

Do you really think I don't want to be on a podcast?

I can't believe people are this detached from reality. You really don't get it?

Account, I am going to cut you a break by telling you that you are writing exactly what I want you to write. It's frightening.

Jesus. I just gave you a post, directly above, that has a parallel foreshadowing of someone doing exactly what I wanted them to do. And you didn't get the hint. At all. You need to break yourself of the idea that you're the smartest guy in the room. Or the forum. Or any public bathroom.

I'm definitely smarter than any loser attending your book club in the pizza joint bathroom.

[redietz]

Banned from contests is up there with you actually going on Druffs show.

Do you really think I don't want to be on a podcast?

I can't believe people are this detached from reality. You really don't get it?

Account, I am going to cut you a break by telling you that you are writing exactly what I want you to write. It's frightening.

Jesus. I just gave you a post, directly above, that has a parallel foreshadowing of someone doing exactly what I wanted them to do. And you didn't get the hint. At all. You need to break yourself of the idea that you're the smartest guy in the room. Or the forum. Or any public bathroom.

I'm definitely smarter than any loser attending your book club in the pizza joint bathroom.

Well, I'm proud of you, then. We did have a couple Professor Emeritus (es) in attendance (I never know the plural for that). And a Fullbright scholar who is on a panel to choose Fullbright scholars.

Glad you are among the intellectual elite.

On a semi-serious gambling note, I posted about a "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" gambling couple who managed to win a handicapping competition in back-to-back years versus a couple thousand other people. And the only comment account can come up with is something about being too timid to be on a podcast. So the question I have is, when people have verifiable and highly unusual gambling accomplishments, why would a person's first written response be something about presumed fear of being on a podcast? It's absurd.

[mickeycrimm]

Do you really think I don't want to be on a podcast?

You haven't, and aren't doing anything to make it happen. So no, I don't think you want to be on a podcast. Prove me wrong by making a move to make the podcast happen.

[MisterV]

So the question I have is, when people have verifiable and highly unusual gambling accomplishments, why would a person's first written response be something about presumed fear of being on a podcast? It's absurd.

AQ is in snarky mode.

snarky
adjective
informal

/ˈsnɑːr.ki/ uk
/ˈsnɑː.ki/

criticizing someone in an annoyed way and trying to hurt their feelings:

Example: "There was some idiot at the back of the room making snarky comments."

[mickeycrimm]

Do you really think I don't want to be on a podcast?

I can't believe people are this detached from reality. You really don't get it?

Account, I am going to cut you a break by telling you that you are writing exactly what I want you to write. It's frightening.

Jesus. I just gave you a post, directly above, that has a parallel foreshadowing of someone doing exactly what I wanted them to do. And you didn't get the hint. At all. You need to break yourself of the idea that you're the smartest guy in the room. Or the forum. Or any public bathroom.

I'm definitely smarter than any loser attending your book club in the pizza joint bathroom.

Well, I'm proud of you, then. We did have a couple Professor Emeritus (es) in attendance (I never know the plural for that). And a Fullbright scholar who is on a panel to choose Fullbright scholars.

Glad you are among the intellectual elite.

On a semi-serious gambling note, I posted about a "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" gambling couple who managed to win a handicapping competition in back-to-back years versus a couple thousand other people. And the only comment account can come up with is something about being too timid to be on a podcast. So the question I have is, when people have verifiable and highly unusual gambling accomplishments, why would a person's first written response be something about presumed fear of being on a podcast? It's absurd.

If you want respect you have to give respect. Until you start showing some respect don't expect to get any respect. But I think there's been to much water under the bridge for things to change. Your best course is probably to continue dishing disrespect because I don't think anyone here is willing to kiss your ass.

[1Hit1der]

So the question I have is, when people have verifiable and highly unusual gambling accomplishments, why would a person's first written response be something about presumed fear of being on a podcast? It's absurd.

AQ is in snarky mode.

snarky
adjective
informal

/ˈsnɑːr.ki/ uk
/ˈsnɑː.ki/

criticizing someone in an annoyed way and trying to hurt their feelings:

Example: "There was some idiot at the back of the room making snarky comments."

How about snArQI, to get the A=0 QI into it. Ha.

The snr might be signal-to-noise ratio, "The ease with which useful information can be discerned in the context of much noise, talk, or undesired information."

P.S. "Use the singular, emeritus or emerita, when referring to one male or one female former faculty member, respectively; use the plural, emeriti, when referring to an all-male or mixed-gender group; for an all-female group use emeritae."

[mickeycrimm]

Banned from contests is up there with you actually going on Druffs show.

Do you really think I don't want to be on a podcast?

I can't believe people are this detached from reality. You really don't get it?

Account, I am going to cut you a break by telling you that you are writing exactly what I want you to write. It's frightening.

Jesus. I just gave you a post, directly above, that has a parallel foreshadowing of someone doing exactly what I wanted them to do. And you didn't get the hint. At all. You need to break yourself of the idea that you're the smartest guy in the room. Or the forum. Or any public bathroom.

In the above post redietz dishes some major disrespect to. But in his subsequent post redietz wonders why people aren't clapping and cheering for his "accomplishment." Here's the quote:

"Well, I'm proud of you, then. We did have a couple Professor Emeritus (es) in attendance (I never know the plural for that). And a Fullbright scholar who is on a panel to choose Fullbright scholars.

Glad you are among the intellectual elite.

On a semi-serious gambling note, I posted about a "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" gambling couple who managed to win a handicapping competition in back-to-back years versus a couple thousand other people. And the only comment account can come up with is something about being too timid to be on a podcast. So the question I have is, when people have verifiable and highly unusual gambling accomplishments, why would a person's first written response be something about presumed fear of being on a podcast? It's absurd."

Ditz dishes disrespect while at the same time thinking he should get respect. You can't make this shit up.

[accountinquestion]

Ditz and kewl are crazier than garnaby.

[accountinquestion]

FACT

[redietz]

I'm definitely smarter than any loser attending your book club in the pizza joint bathroom.

Well, I'm proud of you, then. We did have a couple Professor Emeritus (es) in attendance (I never know the plural for that). And a Fullbright scholar who is on a panel to choose Fullbright scholars.

Glad you are among the intellectual elite.

On a semi-serious gambling note, I posted about a "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" gambling couple who managed to win a handicapping competition in back-to-back years versus a couple thousand other people. And the only comment account can come up with is something about being too timid to be on a podcast. So the question I have is, when people have verifiable and highly unusual gambling accomplishments, why would a person's first written response be something about presumed fear of being on a podcast? It's absurd.

If you want respect you have to give respect. Until you start showing some respect don't expect to get any respect. But I think there's been to much water under the bridge for things to change. Your best course is probably to continue dishing disrespect because I don't think anyone here is willing to kiss your ass.

So, mickey, you have any conversations with anyone regarding which podcasts certain people are invited to?

Or are you still pushing the "Gee, Dietz is aghast at being on Todd's podcast? He'll be exposed!!" LOL.

[accountinquestion]

The only LOL is your lack of shame.

[1Hit1der]

Ditz and kewl are crazier than Garnabby.

Oh, I posted up what I wanted to, over the years. And, so, avoided 99.9% of the bickering.

What was really nuts was you suggesting stuff like others should document, say, all of the "friendly wagers" here. Perhaps, had you put more effort into working out what you wanted done, instead of asking everyone else to do it, then you, too, could take it, or leave it, the crap from others. Ha.

[mickeycrimm]

Well, I'm proud of you, then. We did have a couple Professor Emeritus (es) in attendance (I never know the plural for that). And a Fullbright scholar who is on a panel to choose Fullbright scholars.

Glad you are among the intellectual elite.

On a semi-serious gambling note, I posted about a "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" gambling couple who managed to win a handicapping competition in back-to-back years versus a couple thousand other people. And the only comment account can come up with is something about being too timid to be on a podcast. So the question I have is, when people have verifiable and highly unusual gambling accomplishments, why would a person's first written response be something about presumed fear of being on a podcast? It's absurd.

If you want respect you have to give respect. Until you start showing some respect don't expect to get any respect. But I think there's been to much water under the bridge for things to change. Your best course is probably to continue dishing disrespect because I don't think anyone here is willing to kiss your ass.

So, mickey, you have any conversations with anyone regarding which podcasts certain people are invited to?

Or are you still pushing the "Gee, Dietz is aghast at being on Todd's podcast? He'll be exposed!!" LOL.

Todd invited you on the show. The ball is in your court. Make a move. Propose a plan to Todd. Quit expecting others to do what you should be doing.

[mickeycrimm]

China switched from full time online poker to full time sportsbetting. He's a friend of Druff. He puts the EV on SB prop bets at 10 to 20%:

china
@chinamaniac

The Super Bowl is the one event per year where you can get down $1,000,000 + with no partners and expect a 10-20 % ROI by betting on carnival bets and face less restrictive behavior toward you from books.

Obviously not everyone has that kind of bankroll but the point is you can almost bet as much as you want if you really want to bet big with good sized edges

If you understand basic math and have a calculator it is hard to lose.

[mickeycrimm]

From what I've read, the noted sports bettors in this thread call just handicapping numbers, not teams, top-down betting. That's all some of them do, just top-down betting.

I did a "what if" on Bovada college basketball lines this past week. I didn't cherry pick games just went down the list. First I recorded the results against the spread. Favorites against the dogs went:

70-70-6
50%

Then I did a "what if I got 2 extra points on all the dogs?" It changed the result to:

88-56-2
61%

Getting 1 extra point would land somewhere between 50% and 61%.

BTW, college basketball has about 6,000 games per year. Compare that to the NFL.

[Don Perignom]

If you understand basic math and have a calculator it is hard to lose.

What if you don't understand the rules?

I'm trying to interpret the "sacks by a player" props.

DraftKings has over/under 0.25. I think that's clear because sacks are only recorded in halves or wholes.

Others have over/under 0.5. Presumably this means the bet pushes on a 0.5.

FanDuel has "record a sack" -- but with a note indicating 0.5 counts as a win. So it's really an over/under 0.25.

Caesars also has "record a sack" -- but without any explanation.

And Circa has "record at least 1 sack" -- which I take as equivalent to over/under 0.75.

But I'm not sure.

[cyberbabble]

I can't don't remember where I read it but some guy was able to take advantage of slightly different rules between books on the same basic bet. He bet at two books and set up a freeroll situation where he either won or pushed. This was based on the rules and not different odds.

Was this you?

Keep looking. There may be other possibilities with so many books pushing out so many prop bets.

[cyberbabble]

I looked at the Montana state sportsbook website.

With the juice they are charging it's very difficult to find an off market line far enough off to squeeze out any value.

This is an example of why a monopoly is bad and the free market is better for consumers.

[cyberbabble]

Billy Walters makes his Super Bowl pick. Says it's KC and they should be 2 point favorites and not underdogs.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/sports...%80%94%20VIDEO