Professional Sportsbetting

[mickeycrimm]

I have never ever come close to saying that Billy Walters published a "fraudulent sports betting system." Nothing I have ever written in any venue or said publicly or privately comes remotely close to what mickey crimm just wrote.

I'm not sure if he's libeling me or Billy Walters more.

I will bring this up with Todd. I have no choice in the matter.

While you are at it tell Todd you would like to appear on his radio show to discuss what you called Walter's "faulty strategy." You also said there were actually only a couple of helpful hints in the book but one had to squint real hard to find them. Please discuss your diagnosis of Walters having Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. And please discuss why you said Walters published a faulty strategy on purpose. Isn't that saying he was dishonest, a fraud?

[mickeycrimm]

I have never ever come close to saying that Billy Walters published a "fraudulent sports betting system." Nothing I have ever written in any venue or said publicly or privately comes remotely close to what mickey crimm just wrote.

I'm not sure if he's libeling me or Billy Walters more.

I will bring this up with Todd. I have no choice in the matter.

While you are at it tell Todd you would like to appear on his radio show to discuss what you called Walter's "faulty strategy."

You also said there were actually only a couple of helpful hints in the book but one had to squint real hard to find them. That would mean it was a bad overall strategy, wouldn't it?

Please discuss your diagnosis of Walters having Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

And please discuss why you said Walters published a faulty strategy on purpose. Isn't that saying he was dishonest, a fraud?

[redietz]

You keep putting "faulty strategy" in quotes, as if I actually wrote that. I never wrote "faulty strategy."

If you put something in quotes as a way of declaring someone said something, and they never did, well, that's lying, isn't it?

Again, quoting someone with false quotes is libelous.

You should either learn to read or learn to be honest. I won't expect both. But one or the other would be beneficial to the public.

[mickeycrimm]

You keep putting "faulty strategy" in quotes, as if I actually wrote that. I never wrote "faulty strategy."

If you put something in quotes as a way of declaring someone said something, and they never did, well, that's lying, isn't it?

Again, quoting someone with false quotes is libelous.

You should either learn to read or learn to be honest. I won't expect both. But one or the other would be beneficial to the public.

You said I called myself a professional gambler. Not true. I've said for many years on this forum I consider the term to be an oxymoron.

You said that in my 2017 interview on GWAE that I said I bet sports. Not true. I didn't even talk about sports. Easy enough for you to put up evidence since the entire interview is on youtube. But you certainly didn't put up any evidence, did you. Case closed.

You said I was the one that came up with 8-4 is 2 games above .500. Not true. That came from KJ.

You have become a habitual at lying about me. Should I snitch you off to Dan?

[mickeycrimm]

In post #1259 of this thread redietz wrote:

"Lunch next week will feature some debunking of the Walters how-to chapters -- what he has right, what he has wrong. Why the chapters' context is FAULTY, which is why he probably included them. He knew, of course."

In post #1273 of this thread redietz wrote:

"I'm going to review the two how-to chapters with one of the guys who taught some probability. He made a boatload of notes and we only scratched the surface, so we'll do a deeper dive. The context of the chapters undermines their overall value....but there are a couple of actual helpful thoughts in there -- you just have to squint real hard to notice them."

In post #13 of the GAMBLER: SECRETS OF A LIFE AT RISK thread redietz wrote:

"And honestly, Walters does not present himself as a particularly wonderful handicapper in the book. He's very careful about that. In fact, even the blurbs to sell the book are careful, as in Michael Roxborough's "Is he the greatest handicapper of all time? Maybe. Is he the greatest bettor of all time? Unquestionably." There are few references in the book to Walters' himself actually handicapping anything."

In post #25 of the JOHNSON CITY MEN'S BOOK CLUB thread redietz wrote:

"Already got a couple of nice thank you emails from attendees, which surprised me. There were some really good observations regarding Walters' OCD tendencies and what wasn't stated in the book."

You can easily look these posts up yourself.

In the first quote redietz said Walters intentionally published a faulty strategy.

In the second quote redietz said there were only a couple of helpful thoughts in the strategy but you had to look real hard to find them.

In the third quote redietz downplays Walters' handicapping skills.

In the fourth quote redietz alleges Walters has OCD and things were left out of his handicapping strategy.

The one thing you won't find is any evidence listed in redietz' allegations. And there is no evidence that this book club meeting ever took place.

[redietz]

Why the chapters' context is faulty is not close to synonymous with saying that strategies are faulty. The strategies, in fact, are fine, given the context.

The reason the context is faulty is that which sports were and were not addressed was a purposeful decision. That decision has consequences, and that decision has an historical track record different from the case if other decisions had been made.

There's also an issue with the selection of data points. Within the context I mentioned, there were additional contextual decisions made. Those decisions were probably made because (1) they made the case for what was being written, (2) people tend to look where the streetlight shines (assuming it's dark), (3) it made for clearer, more concise writing, (4) the chapters were already more opaque than a casual reader would find optimal, and (5) these decisions made the chapters easier to write.

Those with some sports gambling experience or who know the history of sports gambling likely know exactly what I'm talking about. Those without experience do not.


Note: One of the reasons Fezzik is held in esteem is because his record is in the NFL. There are other individuals who have managed to match or better Fezzik's ATS record in other sports, but because they do not operate versus the NFL, they are not as well known or respected. This dovetails with what I said about context. Choice of context has enormous effect on results. The "APs" sometimes don't recognize that applying the same tools with the same skill to different contexts can have very different outcomes.

[accountinquestion]

Could it actually be the case that there was no book club? That would be wild.

It would be near impossible for there to be a book club and not be a Facebook page for it or something of that nature. I made up group?

[mickeycrimm]

It's pretty obvious why Walters chose the NFL to write about. That's what interests the masses, i.e, book sales.

In addition, redietz has always said the NFL is to hard to beat. In the book Walters said he bet five to ten NFL games per week. And he was betting a lot of money. On a 3-star play he would bet upwards of 2 million.

[redietz]

Could it actually be the case that there was no book club? That would be wild.

It would be near impossible for there to be a book club and not be a Facebook page for it or something of that nature. I made up group?

You should probably start a poll.

[redietz]

It's pretty obvious why Walters chose the NFL to write about. That's what interests the masses, i.e, book sales.

In addition, redietz has always said the NFL is to hard to beat. In the book Walters said he bet five to ten NFL games per week. And he was betting a lot of money. On a 3-star play he would bet upwards of 2 million.

LOL. And did you read any mention of Walters' saying which sport he cumulatively bet the MOST on? Or a ranking of sports in order of how much he bet on them? Or which sports he won what percentage? Or which sports he had the most income from? Or which sports he had the most general success with?

Gee, what strange omissions, eh?

Ding, ding, light bulbs going on at VCT.

That concludes me giving lessons on how to read.

Have a good one. Start a poll. Maybe a couple of polls.

[accountinquestion]

Could it actually be the case that there was no book club? That would be wild.

It would be near impossible for there to be a book club and not be a Facebook page for it or something of that nature. I made up group?

You should probably start a poll.

If and when I have time and am so inclined I will do something called research. It is a word that you parrot but don't seem to ever have done yourself.

[accountinquestion]

Just because someone found 5 nfl games with value Every week does not mean that It is still possible. It should be beyond obvious that book's sources And methodology of their Lines have and will change over the course of a few years.

[mickeycrimm]

It's pretty obvious why Walters chose the NFL to write about. That's what interests the masses, i.e, book sales.

In addition, redietz has always said the NFL is to hard to beat. In the book Walters said he bet five to ten NFL games per week. And he was betting a lot of money. On a 3-star play he would bet upwards of 2 million.

LOL. And did you read any mention of Walters' saying which sport he cumulatively bet the MOST on? Or a ranking of sports in order of how much he bet on them? Or which sports he won what percentage? Or which sports he had the most income from? Or which sports he had the most general success with?

Gee, what strange omissions, eh?

Ding, ding, light bulbs going on at VCT.

That concludes me giving lessons on how to read.

Have a good one. Start a poll. Maybe a couple of polls.

Irrelevant points. Quit chasing your tail.

[mickeycrimm]

Redietz has downplayed the relevance of math in sports betting saying it's more a matter of opinion.

So when the Walters book came out it showed Walters and the Computer group used an entirely mathematical approach. The power ratings were based on empirical data. There were no opinions involved. Just pure math.

Everyone knows the success Walters had using this strategy. But here is Bob Dietz telling a book club meeting "what is right and what is wrong" with the strategy. He said there wasn't much right, just a few tidbits. Can you believe that? Redietz really really really thinks he knows more about it than Walters and the Computer Group. LOL. You can't make this shit up.

It don't take a rocket scientist to figure out why Dietz is poo poohing the Walters/Computer Group strategy. He doesn't believe in the math. That's because he doesn't know much about the math. Given how adamant he was in downplaying the math before the book came out it's no wonder he's critical of the strategy. To him it just can't be that math is so important in sports betting.

[accountinquestion]

It's pretty obvious why Walters chose the NFL to write about. That's what interests the masses, i.e, book sales.

In addition, redietz has always said the NFL is to hard to beat. In the book Walters said he bet five to ten NFL games per week. And he was betting a lot of money. On a 3-star play he would bet upwards of 2 million.

LOL. And did you read any mention of Walters' saying which sport he cumulatively bet the MOST on? Or a ranking of sports in order of how much he bet on them? Or which sports he won what percentage? Or which sports he had the most income from? Or which sports he had the most general success with?

Gee, what strange omissions, eh?

Ding, ding, light bulbs going on at VCT.

That concludes me giving lessons on how to read.

Have a good one. Start a poll. Maybe a couple of polls.

Irrelevant points. Quit chasing your tail.

Redietz has no clue about why Waters wrote what he wrote.. my guess if the extra answers had some huge insight Waters would have put them in there.

Redietz's post above does sound like some approach Redietz would take at the book club to try and sound so knowledgeable. "We will discuss what he said and didn't say and why he said those things" .. lol .. you know just to show how much smarter he is.. wink wink

11 hour audio book. That sounds really great for next long road trip somewhere...

[mickeycrimm]

Just because someone found 5 nfl games with value Every week does not mean that It is still possible. It should be beyond obvious that book's sources And methodology of their Lines have and will change over the course of a few years.

That's 5 to 10 games a week. Walters wrote about how things change and how his power ratings are based on a team's last ten games. There were a lot of changes over 40 years. It looks like Walter's adapted well to them.

[accountinquestion]

Just because someone found 5 nfl games with value Every week does not mean that It is still possible. It should be beyond obvious that book's sources And methodology of their Lines have and will change over the course of a few years.

That's 5 to 10 games a week. Walters wrote about how things change and how his power ratings are based on a team's last ten games. There were a lot of changes over 40 years. It looks like Walter's adapted well to them.

I wasn't very clear above... At least online I know books lines became a lot sharper. Basically Waters could have been way ahead of whatever Books were using to handicap but it is very unlikely that would be the same in this day and age. Info is just so much more symmetrical. Books have had a chance to wise up. So many guys using computer models.

Books also might realize if your lines are as sharp as possible you no longer have to worry about sharp bettors finding value bets.

So the argument about whether NFL is beatable or not and using Water's experiences to say yes it is - doesn't seem like a sound conclusion

[AxelWolf]

Redietz has downplayed the relevance of math in sports betting saying it's more a matter of opinion.

So when the Walters book came out it showed Walters and the Computer group used an entirely mathematical approach. The power ratings were based on empirical data. There were no opinions involved. Just pure math.

Everyone knows the success Walters had using this strategy. But here is Bob Dietz telling a book club meeting "what is right and what is wrong" with the strategy. He said there wasn't much right, just a few tidbits. Can you believe that? Redietz really really really thinks he knows more about it than Walters and the Computer Group. LOL. You can't make this shit up.

It don't take a rocket scientist to figure out why Dietz is poo poohing the Walters/Computer Group strategy. He doesn't believe in the math. That's because he doesn't know much about the math. Given how adamant he was in downplaying the math before the book came out it's no wonder he's critical of the strategy. To him it just can't be that math is so important in sports betting.

Dietz general AP and math poo poohing seem to be more about the fact that if anyone can make money following the math, using bonuses, middling, stale lines, locking up money betting both sides, off-market lines, and legitimate AP in sports. It renderers his investment services and 20+ years of experience useless.

Some new smart mathematical Advantage Player who's never even bet a sport in his life can look at all those things and figure out how to make 10 times per year than what Red has ever made.

[mickeycrimm]

redietz should start a poll.

[accountinquestion]

Redietz has downplayed the relevance of math in sports betting saying it's more a matter of opinion.

So when the Walters book came out it showed Walters and the Computer group used an entirely mathematical approach. The power ratings were based on empirical data. There were no opinions involved. Just pure math.

Everyone knows the success Walters had using this strategy. But here is Bob Dietz telling a book club meeting "what is right and what is wrong" with the strategy. He said there wasn't much right, just a few tidbits. Can you believe that? Redietz really really really thinks he knows more about it than Walters and the Computer Group. LOL. You can't make this shit up.

It don't take a rocket scientist to figure out why Dietz is poo poohing the Walters/Computer Group strategy. He doesn't believe in the math. That's because he doesn't know much about the math. Given how adamant he was in downplaying the math before the book came out it's no wonder he's critical of the strategy. To him it just can't be that math is so important in sports betting.

Dietz general AP and math poo poohing seem to be more about the fact that if anyone can make money following the math, using bonuses, middling, stale lines, locking up money betting both sides, off-market lines, and legitimate AP in sports. It renderers his investment services and 20+ years of experience useless.

Some new smart mathematical Advantage Player who's never even bet a sport in his life can look at all those things and figure out how to make 10 times per year than what Red has ever made.

I would love to know all the stuff he has learned from reading APs methods on sports betting. Of course he'll NEVER admit it .. never ever.

One would think though that he would want widen his opportunities to start making some level of real money.