Objective proof?

[Alan Mendelson]

Congratulations Monet! Glad to see big winners at -EV machines!!

But wait -- the RNG must have been hole carding, right? And you can count the RNG too, right?

Maybe you can count two RNGs at the same time?

[monet]

HOW DO WE KNOW THAT SAYS $8000 THERE?! WHERE'D YOU GET YOUR PHOTOSHOP SKILLS, AT OFFICE DEPOT!? WHERE'S THE W2G AND HOW DO WE KNOW YOU HIT THIS AND YOU DIDN'T CREEP UP ON SOMEONE ELSE'S JACKPOT TO GET A QUICK SNAPSHOT!? AND THIS ISN'T YOURS ANYWAY--I SAW IT POSTED ON THE INTERNET IN THE PAST!!!!

Congratulations on these wins!

Well you know, sometimes these Cheating Niggers and Redskins let you win.
Wooo Wooo wooo wooo Woo Wooo Wooooo wooo wooo woo Wooo!
I'll never shut up if I keep getting these Chirpin' Chips.
Who knows what I'm talking about?
Chirpin' Chips!
Best Medicine to never let you shut up and or sleep.
They make you the Fucking Resident Know It All.
Sports Book Time.
Massage Time.
Hooker Time?
Massage and Hooker Time for 350... Best Vegas Value.
250 for Repeat Locals.

[monet]

Congratulations Monet! Glad to see big winners at -EV machines!!

But wait -- the RNG must have been hole carding, right? And you can count the RNG too, right?

Maybe you can count two RNGs at the same time?

Just got to keep pushing that narrative to drive the APs and Math Guys crazy huh?
Wait a minute... I'm an AP and Math Guy too but I got a little Rock-N-Roll in me.
I did live in the Cleveland Area for a few years so you know.
9/7 DB doesn't have a 30% vig but I wouldn't doubt that Double Jackpot Sevens Machine has a 80 to 85% drop!
I believe if you Bet More you can Win More.
It's only money.
Almost got enough extra to go Newell Shopping.
Yahoo!

[Alan Mendelson]

Monet I just want you to have winners... and to show the APs that winning without card counting, hole carding, using multiple cards, playing must hits, playing bugs and defects... can actually happen.

You see... you actually play. They just look at the -EV and don't play.

[monet]

Monet I just want you to have winners... and to show the APs that winning without card counting, hole carding, using multiple cards, playing must hits, playing bugs and defects... can actually happen.

You see... you actually play. They just look at the -EV and don't play.

I wish I had a pal that could help me with the card counting and hole carding.
Not sure if my eyes can handle the hole carding and the card counting gets me into nothing but trouble.
The other things I have done for over 25 years.
Plus I just have the look of a degenerate gambler.
Gonna be tough for me to hole card or count for long periods of time without issue.
And I get crazy with moving my spread.
What the Fuck do you mean I can't bet more on this hand?
What are you... scared.
Chicken Shit Mother Fuckers... I thought you wanted to gamble?
Let's Gamble!
Fuck You.... etc. etc.
Do you know who the Fuck I am??
I'll burn this place to the ground!
Wait till I tell ZenKing what the Fuck you are doing over here.
Tackled.
Backroomed.

[jdaewoo]

Monet I just want you to have winners... and to show the APs that winning without card counting, hole carding, using multiple cards, playing must hits, playing bugs and defects... can actually happen.

You see... you actually play. They just look at the -EV and don't play.

You don't know anything about gambling or math. Don't use terms like -EV. You don't understand what it means and you look retarded when you try.

18 yos, nuff said

[redietz]

Silence is golden. Redietz is giving these parlay bettors a pass. KJ says you can't beat negative video poker, but then he turns around and brags about beating negative hockey parlay cards.

The odds and payoffs shown by Monet show the six teamer to be 14% house edge, while the 7, 8 and 9 teamers show 30% house edges.

Hell, Singer is within .5% of the house with what he does.

Maybe loading up the card with dogs changes the math a little, I'm not really sure. Redietz would know. But I've been under the assumption by reading the Wizard's parlay strategy that the books won't allow you to load up on all dogs.

More power to Monet for hitting the parlays but my big question is why is redietz giving you parlay bettors a pass in this thread?

I certainly do not want to get into an argument with you over this but I have stated the mathematical facts about parlay betting multiple times over the last year.
This is not as simple as you think that Parlay Betting is Negative EV no matter what.
You say that Parlay Betting is Negative EV and no human alive can beat Parlays?
Ok... I'll submit to that statement.
It really doesn't matter to me.
I'll let my pre game posted picks do the talking.
Subscription Fees soon to be implemented.

You say....that I said....that parlay betting is negative EV and no human alive can beat it. Funny, I don't recall saying any such thing. I don't think I said it.

Redietz, could you please put up a link to where I said it?

Why are you asking me? I never said that you said that. And I'm not giving parlay bettors a pass. Did you read what I said? Parlays, unless open, or unless using time-staggered middle shots on parlay CARDS or "old numbers" on parlay CARDS, are by definition forcing you to use non-optimal numbers. Those numbers have a cost, which varies by sport. Off the top of my head, I suspect that college basketball late in the year carries the highest cost for betting parlays and getting non-optimal numbers. You will push games you should have won, lost games you should have pushed, and lost games you should have won as compared to individual game shopping.

Loading up on dogs doesn't change the math. Back in the day, some parlay CARDS massaged the numbers a bit higher on underdogs, especially in college football, but that didn't really matter. The CARDS came out Wednesday, usually, and although ON WEDNESDAY the dogs had generous odds on the CARDS (compared to the board), by the time kickoff came Saturday, the board odds had caught the parlay CARD odds because people bet favorites slightly more than they bet underdogs, and the board odds had moved.

Look, there are no locks, so the idea being debated that one game was a "sure thing" and you can assign it different percentages in a parlay analysis is semi-silly except in very rare instances. However, if I didn't use this example before, I'll use it now. Forty years ago, the Kentucky team doctor bet Indiana (hoops) prior to Kentucky playing Indiana. That still didn't make the game a "lock," but it did make it a game of strong opinion, shall we say. So pure math is not what's always going on here. Opinions matter.

[jbjb]

Monet I just want you to have winners... and to show the APs that winning without card counting, hole carding, using multiple cards, playing must hits, playing bugs and defects... can actually happen.

You see... you actually play. They just look at the -EV and don't play.

I see it happen all the time. Sadly they still spend more then they win.

[kewlJ]

These anti-APer people are nuts! Alan and Singer are getting all excited because they think Monet is proving that he can win playing -EV at both VP and sports betting. Singer jumping on the statement I made that "I suspect Monet's play is +EV".

Several years ago Monet posted up some of the mailers he receives. He was receiving Thousands of dollars a month at some places like Arizona Charlies. I played some of those same places (lesser amounts than Monet) so I know what places gave out real good mail offers that were disproportionately high for the play to generate them. And obviously so did Monet. I bet he got those kinds of amounts from all the good mailer places. So yeah, Monet posts up some picture of big winner jackpots on some games that are -EV, but that doesn't mean his play, including the large free play amounts was -EV....ALAN!

I don't know Monet, and he doesn't seem to like me much anyway, so I am only speculating from what I read and see. He talks about and knows the math for everything he does. I think you people that are seeing -EV from his play, are seeing it because that is what you want to see.

Simple thing would be to ask him. Not sure if he will answer or not. Monet are you playing with an advantage at all or most things you do?

[redietz]

Monet I just want you to have winners... and to show the APs that winning without card counting, hole carding, using multiple cards, playing must hits, playing bugs and defects... can actually happen.

You see... you actually play. They just look at the -EV and don't play.

I see it happen all the time. Sadly they still spend more then they win.

Betting -EV and being ahead is like spitting into the wind. You think you're clear of the spit for a moment, and then you're not.

[monet]

Look, there are no locks, so the idea being debated that one game was a "sure thing" and you can assign it different percentages in a parlay analysis is semi-silly except in very rare instances. However, if I didn't use this example before, I'll use it now. Forty years ago, the Kentucky team doctor bet Indiana (hoops) prior to Kentucky playing Indiana. That still didn't make the game a "lock," but it did make it a game of strong opinion, shall we say. So pure math is not what's always going on here. Opinions matter.

Are you saying that games are never shaved or fixed?
No such thing as a sure thing?
Are you sure?

[monet]

Monet are you playing with an advantage at all or most things you do?

No way Man.
I'm a Gambler.
Gamblers got to Gamble.
Penny for your thoughts tableplay!?

[kewlJ]

Monet are you playing with an advantage at all or most things you do?

No way Man.
I'm a Gambler.
Gamblers got to Gamble.
Penny for your thoughts tableplay!?

There ya go, Alan. Take out a loan and gamble, gamble, gamble.

[redietz]

Look, there are no locks, so the idea being debated that one game was a "sure thing" and you can assign it different percentages in a parlay analysis is semi-silly except in very rare instances. However, if I didn't use this example before, I'll use it now. Forty years ago, the Kentucky team doctor bet Indiana (hoops) prior to Kentucky playing Indiana. That still didn't make the game a "lock," but it did make it a game of strong opinion, shall we say. So pure math is not what's always going on here. Opinions matter.

Are you saying that games are never shaved or fixed?
No such thing as a sure thing?
Are you sure?

Now monet, you know I would never say that. I'm a little more precise in the language. Just because a game is "shaved" doesn't mean it's "fixed." I'm saying you can orchestrate a game, but you can't guarantee an outcome.

When people ask me if games are rigged or fixed, I go on a spiel about "fixed" suggests the outcome is guaranteed, while "rigged" suggests a strong purposeful bias from players or coaches or officials (and occasionally from management).

To say that no game is rigged is absurd because it says that nobody has motive, means, and opportunity to rig games, and that is clearly not the case. More games are likely massaged than we admit.

In fact, to be technical, when the NCAA hoops rules committee sends out "officiating guidelines" during the season that promote certain emphases, that could reasonably be interpreted as massaging outcomes. You don't want to be betting Unders the weeks after a bitch guideline comes out saying that contact isn't being called enough. So my hint is to find somebody who can feed you a copy of the officiating bulletins as they are distributed to officials.

[monet]

Now monet, you know I would never say that. I'm a little more precise in the language. Just because a game is "shaved" doesn't mean it's "fixed." I'm saying you can orchestrate a game, but you can't guarantee an outcome.

When people ask me if games are rigged or fixed, I go on a spiel about "fixed" suggests the outcome is guaranteed, while "rigged" suggests a strong purposeful bias from players or coaches or officials (and occasionally from management).

To say that no game is rigged is absurd because it says that nobody has motive, means, and opportunity to rig games, and that is clearly not the case. More games are likely massaged than we admit.

In fact, to be technical, when the NCAA hoops rules committee sends out "officiating guidelines" during the season that promote certain emphases, that could reasonably be interpreted as massaging outcomes. You don't want to be betting Unders the weeks after a bitch guideline comes out saying that contact isn't being called enough. So my hint is to find somebody who can feed you a copy of the officiating bulletins as they are distributed to officials.

Up 5 Million and Blew It.
Dummy!!
Arizona State... Nuff Said.

[MisterV]

These anti-APer people are nuts! Alan and Singer are getting all excited because they think Monet is proving that he can win playing -EV at both VP and sports betting. Singer jumping on the statement I made that "I suspect Monet's play is +EV".

Some recreatinal gamblers, aka ploppies, are likely lifetime winners.

I say that with the proverbial bell curve in mind; doesn't the theory go that yeah, there will be a few winners in the long run due to positive variance?

If I misunderstand then I apologize.

[Alan Mendelson]

Monet are you playing with an advantage at all or most things you do?

No way Man.
I'm a Gambler.
Gamblers got to Gamble.
Penny for your thoughts tableplay!?

There ya go, Alan. Take out a loan and gamble, gamble, gamble.

Do you come up we these things Kewlj because it's what you do?

I dont have to gamble. BUT YOU MUST GAMBLE. Gambling is your only income. That's sad.

[MisterV]

Gambling is your only income. That's sad.

Why "sad?"

[Alan Mendelson]

Gambling is your only income. That's sad.

Why "sad?"

It's sad that he cant take off. He can't let an employer pay for his retirement. He cant have an employer pay for his health insurance. He doesn't get sick pay.

And he's DEPENDENT on a stop loss strategy. He knows that he cant blow thru his bankroll because his bankroll is his job. He must conserve wins and he must limit losses.

Unlike someone with a job he cant replenish his gambling bankroll with his next paycheck.

Frankly he's the poster child for why a stop loss program is essential. If he loses too much he loses his chance to work and his chance to win.

[The Boz]

No way Man.
I'm a Gambler.
Gamblers got to Gamble.
Penny for your thoughts tableplay!?

There ya go, Alan. Take out a loan and gamble, gamble, gamble.

Do you come up we these things Kewlj because it's what you do?

I dont have to gamble. BUT YOU MUST GAMBLE. Gambling is your only income. That's sad.

Alan calling someone’s life sad. That rich, rich I tell you.