Sports bettor, Bob Dietz, has asserted that Walter's chapters on strategy have a faulty context. That things were left out. And that Walter's is actually wrong about some things. And per the usual, Dietz didn't explain what was wrong or left out.

So the question is....Is Bob Dietz right, or Billy Walters right? In the book Walters says there is more than one way to handicap. I don't know that redietz is that flexible.

One thing we know for sure redietz has stated in no uncertain terms that football games cannot be fully handicapped by mathematical models. Walters fully handicaps with mathematical models.

Redietz says that EV can't be calculated. Walters measures EV.

That which way to bet against the spread is a matter of opinion. Walter's does not use opinions, just math.

I think what they have is a contrast in styles. By criticizing Walters like he is, Dietz is asserting himself to be a better handicapper than Walters. Is the mouse flipping off the elephant?

I've done a lot of googling. I can't find another negative critique of Walter's strategy. And I can't find anything about a book club meeting where they debunk Walter's strategy. Redietz has led us to believe the press was there but I've googled to hell and back and can't find a single story. And why is Deitz keeping the name of the co-host under wraps if it was a public meeting?

This controversy deserves attention by the real sports betting press. A lot of people need to weigh in. Some of these people doing podcasts need to be informed.