Originally Posted by monet View Post
Originally Posted by redietz View Post
Originally Posted by coach belly View Post

In your scenario, the bettor wins 55% of his wagers, then pays 10% commission on the overall win, which brings him to net break-even for his total wager.

Is that correct?

Is it impossible, or even unlikely, that Integrity's actual combination of win rate & commission rate will produce whatever return that's projected by the advisor?

There must be an infinite number of combinations that are +EV.

But you can eliminate any combination that won't or can't produce a consistent positive return, because his investors would not participate under those conditions.


The thing I find shocking is how this all seems novel to "APs," who have posted all these hundreds of posts as if they have any idea what I do or how I do it. What I'm reporting here is basic, fundamental, obvious stuff, but I guess not all experts are expert, if you know what I mean. This is not terribly far removed from basic non-gambling investment relationships.

Well, far be it for me to not complicate it further. When people have asked about payback scales, what I have recommended to balance aggressiveness with sanity, is a sliding scale. Any profits up to 15% are "taxed" at 15%. Any annual profits beyond that are tit for tat -- 16% profit pays 16%. A 20% profit pays 20%, up to a ceiling of 35%. The ceiling prevents gluttony on my part.

Now I'm sure to next hear about mixing and matching so somebody must wind up owing me something. Well, that's a great plan -- LOL -- unless (A) your major wagers occasionally bleed into public view (as with The Wise Guys Contest or various monitors' reports) or ta taaa (B) the investors actually know each other, in which case any shenanigans become impossible. Oh Geez, I guess some readers are sooooo disappointed. You know, I considered skipping this obvious fact, and letting people speculate shadiness, but I figured I'd save you guys some time and effort.

For the record, by the way, investors were able to opt out of various categories, the categories being arbitrage, middles shooting, futures, and standard wagering. Nobody, of course, opts out of arbitrage.

I can't believe mickey is acting as if his simple math is revelatory -- the lack of sport betting savvy is, frankly, unbelievable here. Some folks are doing analyses as if they have uncovered something. I mean, Good Golly Miss Molly, if you didn't understand all this from the jump, why are you even commenting on any of it? You don't see me doing Dietz commentary on blackjack players or "advantage slots" dudes. It's because I'm not an idiot.
My problem is that you said you shouldn't respond to the lying queer J, but you keep responding to he/him/her/she/they/them/it.
And why on Earth do you need to type out novels to justify what you do?
Just keep picking winners baby.
But for goodness sakes, stop scamming people out of money for sports picks.
I'm ok with the scam but stop acting so moral.
Have some integrity.
I want to see him explain how he decides when not to bet without utilizing the concept of EV.

This is such a completely key thing to know. I guess you could sort your hunches and just select the #1 hunch every time and that could very well work if you were good enough but why?

Unfortunately Red's bag of smoke grenades is infinite in depth. He's got all sorts of colors and durations. Some might even have a nerve gas that gives you the shits. We're going to see it all before we see him on a fucking podcast.