Professional Sportsbetting

[AxelWolf]

Here's an actual "professional sports betting" report. I was eliminated from a "Survivor" contest at one offshore yesterday. Started with 500+; seven people are left. I wound up tying for eighth. I hated using Washington, but they were my biggest remaining favorite, so I swallowed my personal distaste and got myself eliminated by using them.

One interesting aspect is that the people who survived all had Washington available to them but refused to use them. Kudos to them. I absolutely despised going against an NFL team that had been hammered 49-17 or whatever the previous week, but I swallowed my personal opinion and did it anyway and got myself eliminated. First place is 15K.

The other interesting aspect was that this particular game was an example of a technical piece of advice from the Walters book that, if you read carefully, is one of the couple of useful tidbits that Walters (to my mind, surprisingly) mentioned. I didn't expect Walters to formally spell it out, but he did. You just have to read the charts carefully to see it. Again, it's not some big secret to actual sports gamblers, but it is not really well known to the public. Walters formalizes it in a way that's probably overly precise, but I actually agree with his ballparking number adjustment in a general sense. I was surprised he stepped out and put the generous number he did on it, but I would not have been more than half a point different had I been forced to opine.

Bottom line: I lost, and deservedly so. The people who advanced showed some balls and deserved to advance.

Another thing Redietz does. He ever says one thing useful outside of NFL nerd opinions.

This is more of the same. Goes to so much effort to not say anything useful but a veiled brag.

We get it Redietz, you need validation. Pathetic. Pat yourself on the back some more while everyone else realizes how clueless you are in general.

You know, I tested you guys recently. I reported an offshore that gave 100% free play on losses for every Monday Night game, capped at $200. It sits right there in the "Talk About Your Free Play" thread. Post #35.

The only response was semi-comedic by Dom.

I guess $200 in free play for every Monday Night loss just wasn't good enough for the VCT "APs" to appreciate. Nobody said thanks. Nobody said, "Which offshore?"

LOL. So the test worked. Either everybody here is too wealthy to bother with free money every Monday night or they have their own bizarro agendas or they don't really read.

I guess a poll is in order. Is $200 in free play for every Monday Night loser not "useful?" Account says it's not. He's the "AP." He's the expert.

I must have missed that, I would have probably participated assuming it was at a place where I didn't already have a bonus going. I tend to stay away from stacking bonuses.

I would assume there was some type of rollover required and other terms.

[AxelWolf]

Another thing Redietz does. He ever says one thing useful outside of NFL nerd opinions.

This is more of the same. Goes to so much effort to not say anything useful but a veiled brag.

We get it Redietz, you need validation. Pathetic. Pat yourself on the back some more while everyone else realizes how clueless you are in general.

You know, I tested you guys recently. I reported an offshore that gave 100% free play on losses for every Monday Night game, capped at $200. It sits right there in the "Talk About Your Free Play" thread. Post #35.

The only response was semi-comedic by Dom.

I guess $200 in free play for every Monday Night loss just wasn't good enough for the VCT "APs" to appreciate. Nobody said thanks. Nobody said, "Which offshore?"

LOL. So the test worked. Either everybody here is too wealthy to bother with free money every Monday night or they have their own bizarro agendas or they don't really read.

I guess a poll is in order. Is $200 in free play for every Monday Night loser not "useful?" Account says it's not. He's the "AP." He's the expert.

I must have missed that, I would have probably participated assuming it was at a place where I didn't already have a bonus going. I tend to stay away from stacking bonuses.

I would assume there was some type of rollover required and other terms.

No wonder I missed it you posted it in Tasha's thread, I tend to stay away from some of her threads or don't check them often. I really didn't want to hear about her $5 free play. You didn't say where it was or give any details. If it's Bovada, I can't play there.

[redietz]

Well, as I said, not everyone likes to bet sports, but everyone likes to bet free play. I didn't announce the site because (1) I had mentioned it previously, as Dom noted and (2) I wanted to see if anyone would actually ask what it was. I figured you already likely knew.

The whole kewlJ schtick is old. Unless you're rotating a bevy of friends and family as beards, you're not going to be able to do what kewlJ suggests -- namely get a mega-bonus, play the minimum to roll it over, withdraw it all, then do the same thing the next sport 60-90 days later at the same site. If you do that, the site will stick a label on you. In fact, the site may even allow you to redeposit just so they CAN claim the money they previously gave you as bonuses. Good luck going to Costa Rica to argue with them. I think a movie was based on that -- Runner, Runner, with Affleck and Timberlake. Has a 7% critics' score on Rotten Tomatoes.

What annoys me is that I gave kewlJ some formal advice (I think in a PM) as to how he should/could camouflage a little and slow play the rollover specifically so he would NOT be penalized and at risk of being labeled. Instead he wanted/needed the money back in his two or three month span, so was looking to withdraw all of it immediately after he hit the rollover requirement. That suggested a couple of things. First, it suggested that all of this bonus whoring cheerleading was based on short-term thinking that's not necessarily the best strategy. Second, his need for immediate withdrawal at least suggested that he was using other people's money or, conversely, that he has a very limited bankroll.

I actually gave this kid some good advice, with nothing to gain for me other than that offshores will read this and hate me (using my real name) for giving good advice. Instead, kewlJ ignored my advice and posts the bullshit he did here regarding me. LOL. What a little prick.

Now, Axelwolf, you do a lot of bonus whoring. Honestly, who do you think knows what they're talking about regarding this, me or your fellow "AP," the inimitable kewlJ?

[mickeycrimm]

Well, as I said, not everyone likes to bet sports, but everyone likes to bet free play. I didn't announce the site because (1) I had mentioned it previously, as Dom noted and (2) I wanted to see if anyone would actually ask what it was. I figured you already likely knew.

The whole kewlJ schtick is old. Unless you're rotating a bevy of friends and family as beards, you're not going to be able to do what kewlJ suggests -- namely get a mega-bonus, play the minimum to roll it over, withdraw it all, then do the same thing the next sport 60-90 days later at the same site. If you do that, the site will stick a label on you. In fact, the site may even allow you to redeposit just so they CAN claim the money they previously gave you as bonuses. Good luck going to Costa Rica to argue with them. I think a movie was based on that -- Runner, Runner, with Affleck and Timberlake. Has a 7% critics' score on Rotten Tomatoes.

What annoys me is that I gave kewlJ some formal advice (I think in a PM) as to how he should/could camouflage a little and slow play the rollover specifically so he would NOT be penalized and at risk of being labeled. Instead he wanted/needed the money back in his two or three month span, so was looking to withdraw all of it immediately after he hit the rollover requirement. That suggested a couple of things. First, it suggested that all of this bonus whoring cheerleading was based on short-term thinking that's not necessarily the best strategy. Second, his need for immediate withdrawal at least suggested that he was using other people's money or, conversely, that he has a very limited bankroll.

I actually gave this kid some good advice, with nothing to gain for me other than that offshores will read this and hate me (using my real name) for giving good advice. Instead, kewlJ ignored my advice and posts the bullshit he did here regarding me. LOL. What a little prick.

Now, Axelwolf, you do a lot of bonus whoring. Honestly, who do you think knows what they're talking about regarding this, me or your fellow "AP," the inimitable kewlJ?

When you were first learning sportsbetting who was it that told you that you are an idiot? That they know everything and you don't know anything? That you're a stupid idiot for even trying. Who was that guy? Do you remember him fondly?

You get a big kick out of running down those who are trying to learn something. You must have learned it from someone else. How many mistakes did you make when you were first getting started? A hundred? A thousand? Did you learn anything from it? And who was the guy standing there calling you a stupid ass when you got things wrong.

Dude, there was a time you couldn't pick your own mother out of nine chinamen. How did it feel? Who was the guy laughing his ass off at you?

[accountinquestion]

Well, as I said, not everyone likes to bet sports, but everyone likes to bet free play. I didn't announce the site because (1) I had mentioned it previously, as Dom noted and (2) I wanted to see if anyone would actually ask what it was. I figured you already likely knew.

The whole kewlJ schtick is old. Unless you're rotating a bevy of friends and family as beards, you're not going to be able to do what kewlJ suggests -- namely get a mega-bonus, play the minimum to roll it over, withdraw it all, then do the same thing the next sport 60-90 days later at the same site. If you do that, the site will stick a label on you. In fact, the site may even allow you to redeposit just so they CAN claim the money they previously gave you as bonuses. Good luck going to Costa Rica to argue with them. I think a movie was based on that -- Runner, Runner, with Affleck and Timberlake. Has a 7% critics' score on Rotten Tomatoes.

What annoys me is that I gave kewlJ some formal advice (I think in a PM) as to how he should/could camouflage a little and slow play the rollover specifically so he would NOT be penalized and at risk of being labeled. Instead he wanted/needed the money back in his two or three month span, so was looking to withdraw all of it immediately after he hit the rollover requirement. That suggested a couple of things. First, it suggested that all of this bonus whoring cheerleading was based on short-term thinking that's not necessarily the best strategy. Second, his need for immediate withdrawal at least suggested that he was using other people's money or, conversely, that he has a very limited bankroll.

I actually gave this kid some good advice, with nothing to gain for me other than that offshores will read this and hate me (using my real name) for giving good advice. Instead, kewlJ ignored my advice and posts the bullshit he did here regarding me. LOL. What a little prick.

Now, Axelwolf, you do a lot of bonus whoring. Honestly, who do you think knows what they're talking about regarding this, me or your fellow "AP," the inimitable kewlJ?

When you were first learning sportsbetting who was it that told you that you are an idiot? That they know everything and you don't know anything? That you're a stupid idiot for even trying. Who was that guy? Do you remember him fondly?

You get a big kick out of running down those who are trying to learn something. You must have learned it from someone else. How many mistakes did you make when you were first getting started? A hundred? A thousand? Did you learn anything from it? And who was the guy standing there calling you a stupid ass when you got things wrong.

Dude, there was a time you couldn't pick your own mother out of nine chinamen. How did it feel? Who was the guy laughing his ass off at you?

It isn't so much he gets a kick out of "running down" - it is that it is required for him to maintain his image in his own mind.

Dude takes Ivermectin every day thinking Stanford told people "gold standard" not even knowing he had it totally wrong.

[tableplay]

[kewlJ]

Of the many new sign-ups in the last 48 hours, two are SteveIsMe and JasmineIsMe.

Good Lord.

[redietz]

Occasionally, the ten seconds you take doing some free promo pays off. One of the offshores offers a prize for picking the exact score of Thursday and Monday night games. I picked up $1,666 (along with two other guys) for hitting the Thursday night 31-13 game on the button.

Never look a gift horse in the mouth.

[Don Perignom]

I picked up $1,666 (along with two other guys) for hitting the Thursday night 31-13 game on the button.

Very nice! They could have rounded up to 1667 .

I split a contest win with the cents portion calculated at 33 and a third. They rounded up to 35 cents .

[mickeycrimm]

Hey guys, just browsing and sports betting gut me interested. Any tips for newbies? Sites to play on or any tips on how to play? I've been a slots a roulette type of gal and I want to explore other games.

Give up some of that pussy and I'll let you know.

[Treeshade]

Hey guys, just browsing and sports betting gut me interested. Any tips for newbies? Sites to play on or any tips on how to play? I've been a slots a roulette type of gal and I want to explore other games.

Give up some of that pussy and I'll let you know.

Lmao

[mickeycrimm]

Back in the 90's all the video poker writers used the term "expected return." I suppose it was sometime around 2000 that one of the groups asserted that "expected value" was a better term to use. Everyone switched to using "EV." I don't know if EV was used by writers on other forms of gambling. It may have been video poker writers that started using it first but I don't know for sure.

"EV" is a probability term. There are other terms that mean the same thing, like expected loss or expected win. So one does not need to use the term EV to be talking about EV.

Did Walter's use the term "EV" in his book? I haven't found an example yet of him using that exact term. But I found one example where he is definitely discussing EV, but just not using the exact term. This excerpt comes from the section called Parlays & Teasers:

"In a straight bet laying $110 to win $100, the expected loss is 4.6%. Under the current rules in which a tie is a non-bet, a two-team parlay has an expected loss of 9.8 percent-more than twice the expected loss of a straight bet laying $110/$100. A three-team parlay has an expected loss of 12.4 percent, almost three times the expected loss of a straight bet."

Telling us what the Expected Loss is....is telling us what the Expected Value is.

[redietz]

Actually, it's not. And it's especially not when ghost writers or co-writers are doing the writing as opposed to Walters himself.

And if you had read real carefully, you'd have realized that Walters had ghost writers (note the term is plural). A different writer tackled the second how-to chapter as opposed to most of the rest of the book.

Expected Loss is not identical to Expected Value. Use of the phrase "Expected Loss" explicitly brings the non-mathematical context of opinion into play. If nothing else, it implies, very strongly, opinion. It almost screams "I think that" Expected Loss is this or that. What it implies is one of the following phrases, "MY expected loss," YOUR expected loss," or "HISTORICALLY, the expected loss." None of these is a pure math calculation. They are all historical terms.

Expected Value is much more of a math term. It implies accurate, precise calculation.

Good try, though, mickey. Let me know when you find Walters using the term "Expected Value" in the book.

[smurgerburger]

Nah.

[redietz]

In addition, to think that Walters didn't use the term "Expected Value" by accident is just silly. He's known every gambling term in the universe, as Kirk said to Picard, since most of you were in diapers. He had co-writers, editors, and a slew of gamblers reading his drafts before publication.

Obviously, he chose to not put "Expected Value" in the book. To think he somehow meant to do so is a really sick "AP" self-infatuation.

[kewlJ]

Expected Loss is not identical to Expected Value. Use of the phrase "Expected Loss" explicitly brings the non-mathematical context of opinion into play. If nothing else, it implies, very strongly, opinion. It almost screams "I think that" Expected Loss is this or that. What it implies is one of the following phrases, "MY expected loss," YOUR expected loss," or "HISTORICALLY, the expected loss." None of these is a pure math calculation. They are all historical terms.

What?! How preposterous. Expected value has nothing to do with opinion. It is strictly about math. Positive expected value is expected win and negative expected value is an expected loss.

Mickey laid out the math, that it costs 110% to wager and win 100%. That is the math of it. Opinion at no time enters into that equation.

[monet]

Well, as I said, not everyone likes to bet sports, but everyone likes to bet free play. I didn't announce the site because (1) I had mentioned it previously, as Dom noted and (2) I wanted to see if anyone would actually ask what it was. I figured you already likely knew.

The whole kewlJ schtick is old. Unless you're rotating a bevy of friends and family as beards, you're not going to be able to do what kewlJ suggests -- namely get a mega-bonus, play the minimum to roll it over, withdraw it all, then do the same thing the next sport 60-90 days later at the same site. If you do that, the site will stick a label on you. In fact, the site may even allow you to redeposit just so they CAN claim the money they previously gave you as bonuses. Good luck going to Costa Rica to argue with them. I think a movie was based on that -- Runner, Runner, with Affleck and Timberlake. Has a 7% critics' score on Rotten Tomatoes.

What annoys me is that I gave kewlJ some formal advice (I think in a PM) as to how he should/could camouflage a little and slow play the rollover specifically so he would NOT be penalized and at risk of being labeled. Instead he wanted/needed the money back in his two or three month span, so was looking to withdraw all of it immediately after he hit the rollover requirement. That suggested a couple of things. First, it suggested that all of this bonus whoring cheerleading was based on short-term thinking that's not necessarily the best strategy. Second, his need for immediate withdrawal at least suggested that he was using other people's money or, conversely, that he has a very limited bankroll.

I actually gave this kid some good advice, with nothing to gain for me other than that offshores will read this and hate me (using my real name) for giving good advice. Instead, kewlJ ignored my advice and posts the bullshit he did here regarding me. LOL. What a little prick.

Now, Axelwolf, you do a lot of bonus whoring. Honestly, who do you think knows what they're talking about regarding this, me or your fellow "AP," the inimitable kewlJ?

I had really high hopes for Runner Runner.
Same with Two for the Money.
They both start off pretty good but end up falling flat.
The Runner (1999) is better but still not good enough.
Tough to find a really good Sports Betting movie.
I'm thinking.

[monet]

In addition, to think that Walters didn't use the term "Expected Value" by accident is just silly. He's known every gambling term in the universe, as Kirk said to Picard, since most of you were in diapers. He had co-writers, editors, and a slew of gamblers reading his drafts before publication.

Obviously, he chose to not put "Expected Value" in the book. To think he somehow meant to do so is a really sick "AP" self-infatuation.

I personally hate the terms AP or EV.
I still scoff when people use them in any form.

[Don Perignom]

Arguing with redietz:

I actually gave this kid some good advice, with nothing to gain for me other than that offshores will read this and hate me (using my real name) for giving good advice. Instead, kewlJ ignored my advice and posts the bullshit he did here regarding me. LOL. What a little prick.

That's excellent advice to post anonymously. You can't say I never learn anything here.

[smurgerburger]

So the use of "expected loss" must have been due to his ghost writers, but the non-use of "expected value" must have been due to Walters himself.