Originally Posted by
accountinquestion
Originally Posted by
redietz
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Nothing wrong with picking up the bonus. It's not a "shit-ton" unless you're using multiple names and family members and all that, and frankly -- if an offshore discovers you're doing that -- they will just keep your money and thumb their nose at you. So I don't do any of that multiple nonsense.
You have odd sensibilities and interpretations of things. The reason I say "if it doesn't bother your processes" is because if you are a serious NFL handicapper and bettor (I really don't consider myself to be), then any distraction is a bad one. And contests can create bad habits. For example, an obvious one, most NFL ATS contests want you to pick five games a week ATS. That's a stupid arbitrary figure that has no bearing on the real gambling world. It can be a distraction to look at a schedule and in the back of your mind try to find five games. It's silly. And contests sometimes have deadlines that are not kickoff deadlines, so that's another distraction. If you are betting serious money, you don't need the distraction of small (or large) contests.
I would refer you to Fezzik about contest versus real world issues. Ask him if he was a "Groupie."
This bonus whoring stuff, nothing wrong with it, but sports books are within their rights to shut you down. And offshores, if you read the fine print, will keep your money on top of that if you pull stunts.
Nothing wrong with picking up $500 here and $3500 there (I'm doing it this season at two places), but it's not a "shit ton."
I wonder if you had this same view of beards back when you were hanging out with all these gangsters and billy waters? You realize it is logically the same thing but one is for live sports betting and one is for online?
To me it reads like an admission you're not smart enough to not be caught. It is smart to realize that and not go lose your $$$. Kudos.
But most importantly I wanted to point out something here. Redietz complains about it taking up too much mental time to pick specifically 5 games. If he understood EV he could apply it here to make a simple criteria and not fret over the 5. But EV is a concept he ridicules even though he admits to not being a "serious NFL bettor".
He also seems to be admitting contests are not for serious bettors and an amateur thing. (which incidentally is the field he is playing against that he so readily brags about)
So tell us why it would be acceptable morally and ethically for Billy Waters to use a beard but if APs bet under other accounts it is all at once some great immoral unethical thing? Please tell us. Not another <crickets> moment I hope.
All in all this post shows a decent amount of progress for Redietz. Keep it up.
Well, one thing about account -- it ain't hard to point out when he doesn't know what he's talking about. Per usual.
First of all, the use of beards in Las Vegas was only recently made formally "not acceptable." So the bulk of Mr. Walters' wagering using beards was done long before there were any formal casino and Gaming Commission rules against it.
Second, and more important, use of beards for the purposes of accruing bonuses deprives the people in whose names you are operating of the full value of the bonuses that are rightfully theirs. So you are sponging off other people and infringing on their ability to financially benefit from what is their right. If you are simply collecting bonuses for them and giving them those bonuses, then I salute you. I like Robin Hoods.
Third, employing beards, and paying those beards to make wagers for you that you have arrived at via your own skills or expertise, benefits the beards because it pays them (in Mr. Walters' case, pays them well). They would also not have access to the plays they are making except for the fact that they are beards. Mr. Walters is actually benefitting them in multiple ways. He isn't infringing on their ability to make money, and he isn't siphoning off any bonuses.
Fourth, for most of the time Mr. Walters was operating, the beards did not have to identify themselves to the sports books. It's not like they needed to give them players' cards most of the time. Technically, much of the time they were operating anonymously. Now I say "anonymously" because the ticket writers and managers knew who they were and who they were working for, but they didn't have to show ID or anything like that each time they wagered. Many of the runners wore enormous fanny pack type things and were visibly carrying.
Use of beards, in summary, for betting for Mr. Walters, benefitted the beards.
Use of beards for bonus whoring, as suggested by Axel and other alleged "APs," benefits the alleged "APs." In my opinion, it's both sleazy and exploitative, since the beards could make more money without the "APs."
The amazing thing to me is that account knows absolutely nothing about sports betting, the history of sports betting, beards, runners, or in general what he's talking about. But he seems intent on spreading his ignorance at every opportunity.
Anybody in sports betting knew everything I just wrote and knew it off the top of their heads. I can't seriously take time to address every idiot comment account makes. It's a waste of time.
I would love to know if he actually believes he knows what he's talking about.
To get a sense of what being a runner for Mr. Walters was about, I suggest a really bad (but gestalt-accurate) movie called The Runner, starring Courtney Cox and John Goodman. Goodman makes a fine Billy Walters. The movie's not Academy Award material, but it does give the sense of what kinds of pressures professional bettors in LV find themselves immersed in. I was there 100 days a year for more than 20 years, surrounded by and part of this.
Reply With Quote
