Originally Posted by regnis View Post
Originally Posted by AxelWolf View Post
Originally Posted by regnis View Post
I was aware of Integrity Sports many years ago when I was in that line of work. So I do have some awareness of his history. However, he is often his own worst enemy as he can be very evasive as to exactly what he does.

One of my beefs with the "company" that I worked for was that they insisted on giving out both sides of games. I felt that with the wealth of knowledge and information that we had, it was not necessary. This was 40 years ago when very few had that information. In those days, and probably until about 2000, you could make $ handicapping sports. I can't say the same thing now as I bet only a few games now and then for fun. I would think playing the freebies and bonuses on all the various wagering platform is the best way now unless you have the 40-50 years of knowledge and experience, and the time, that Redietz has.
Can you define handicapping? It seems like a silly request, but there is +EV sports betting that covers a variety of things that can be backed up with math and perhaps historical data, I'm a firm believer in that. And then there's handicapping. Handicapping is based on various things. What are those things? Obviously, it depends on the handicapper and the list is long. But perhaps someone can give me the top 5 most important things a handicapper looks for and how those things translate to +EV.
Axel-that is a good and difficult question to answer. My primary handicapping tool in those days was the inside info we received from trainers or others at the particular colleges. Beyond that it was the normal things like matchups, home/ away, some degree of historicals, and just years of experience analyzing games. I was not that much into line movements as we had to publish early in the week.
I am not one to rely on stats that have no reasoning behind them. For example, mickey or smoke or someone has thrown out there some stat about dogs of 3 or less (or something like that). I need a reason for that stat. Otherwise to me it is just a statistical anomaly like heads coming up 70 out of 100 times. That being said, i probably made my biggest scores fading the big 10 in the bowl games and march madness. There is some degree of reason behind that—they are always over rated.

Knowledge and experience were the keys. There was no internet and widely known stats.. you had to make your own. I do agree it is completely different now which is why i stick to horses. Plus, instead of -105, i get much higher odds.
Nowadays, are you beating horses straight up? Do you use computers to aid you in doing so?

I know at one-time horse bettors got back significant rebates and such. I don't know if that's still the case, but if you can't beat the ponies str8 up I have to imagine you can make a significant amount. I haven't ay clue how much time and effort goes into finding a good bet or how often one finds a good bet.