Professional Sportsbetting

[accountinquestion]

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.

First he has multiple ghostwriters. Oh wait he sits around wringing his hands on whether to use EV or a total synonym.

Oops someone else just made thus point.

[redietz]

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.

There is no reference to "Expected Value" in the book. Zero. There are plenty of uses of the word "value," but no use of "expected value."

You can make up whatever you like (as "APs," many of you do anything to find excuses to think you have an edge). But if Walters had wanted "Expected Value" in the book, it would be in the book. "Expected Loss" is not synonymous with "Expected Value." Of course -- LOL -- the "APs" like the idea of a phrase that has a positive prediction for their activities. There is also, if you read the book, no reference to "Expected Wins" or "Expected Profit."

But I mean, really, have any of you even read the book? Because if you haven't, why would you even comment?

Is it because -- cough, cough -- you're "APs?"

[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.

There is no reference to "Expected Value" in the book. Zero. There are plenty of uses of the word "value," but no use of "expected value."

You can make up whatever you like (as "APs," many of you do anything to find excuses to think you have an edge). But if Walters had wanted "Expected Value" in the book, it would be in the book. "Expected Loss" is not synonymous with "Expected Value." Of course -- LOL -- the "APs" like the idea of a phrase that has a positive prediction for their activities. There is also, if you read the book, no reference to "Expected Wins" or "Expected Profit."

But I mean, really, have any of you even read the book? Because if you haven't, why would you even comment?

Is it because -- cough, cough -- you're "APs?"

I was responding to a poor argument rather than to the book that inspired it.

[kewlJ]

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.

There is no reference to "Expected Value" in the book. Zero. There are plenty of uses of the word "value," but no use of "expected value."

You can make up whatever you like (as "APs," many of you do anything to find excuses to think you have an edge). But if Walters had wanted "Expected Value" in the book, it would be in the book. "Expected Loss" is not synonymous with "Expected Value." Of course -- LOL -- the "APs" like the idea of a phrase that has a positive prediction for their activities. There is also, if you read the book, no reference to "Expected Wins" or "Expected Profit."

But I mean, really, have any of you even read the book? Because if you haven't, why would you even comment?

Is it because -- cough, cough -- you're "APs?"

I don't need to have read the book, nor even be an expert in sports betting to know what expected value is in terms of gambling. It is based on the mathematics, not opinion. Red, seriously, you have started to go in some odd directions in your attempt to convince everyone you are an expert in the field of sports betting. Your comments on expected value over the last 6 months or so, the oddest. Just bizarre.

Advantage players don't "think" they have an edge. They have an edge. If they don't, the many that make a living wouldn't be able to pay the rent or buy food. And those that don't play for a living or have other income source, they would know very quickly as well. AP's are not like your ploppies that after years of losing and replenishing funds, claim "yeah I am about even", when they KNOW they are far in the red. For AP's it is about the money, whether professional or recreational. So just give that idea up.

[tableplay]

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.

I am planning to watch these, although it will be difficult to get a hold of Smart Money (1996).

https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/531192/smart-money

[tableplay]

The term Expected Value is a mathematical term. It is the weighted average of the products of the probability of each respective outcome of an event multiplied by the outcomes' cost/profit (as the case may be). It pre-dates modern sportsbetting.

[mickeycrimm]

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.

Question: What is the "value" of 9/6 Jacks video poker?
Answer: 99.54%

Question: What is the "expected value" of 9/6 Jacks video poker?
Answer: 99.54%

Question: If it's 99.54% would that mean the expected loss is .46%?
Answer: Yes, the expected loss is .46%. This is a very precise calculation.

Question: Do you assign EV values to plays where you don't know the exact precise calculation?

Answer: Yes, I do it all the time. On an advantage slot play I might calculate an expected value of 120%. But I could be off 4 or 5 points either way, but more likely just a point or two either way.

It starts with the fact that the payback percentage (expected value) of the overall game is proprietary information and not known by the general public on most slots. So a series of educated guesses are made. IGT, for example generally has 7 different chips for the casino to choose from that normally range between 85% and 97%.

Properties like CZR can be as low as 85 to 87%. A midrange casino can be 89% to 91%. Casinos with above average payback can be 93%.

Since I don't know the exact overall payback I estimate a 90% overall return which is about average payback. Then I ensure that my entry point into the game calculates to at least a 10% edge/value to cover my ass in case the game is just 85% overall. So that I know I have an expected value of at least 105%.

Billy Walters assigns 1-star, 2-stars, 3-stars to value his plays. A 3-star play has much high EV than a 1-star play, consequently he bets more.

[mickeycrimm]

Interesting video. And the term EV was used by a professional bettor:

[redietz]

Here's an exacta for you. The person who co-hosted the Walters book discussion with me (and who ran a high stakes sports betting syndicate in LV) is in the free BetOnline offshore contests. Mark this down, because you may never see this combo again.

My co-host is in 90th place out of 20,000+ picking five NFL ATS each week. Last night -- a horrible loser on a breakaway run with a minute left from midfield. But still, 90th out of 20,000; not bad. This same person is one of 225 people (out of 22,000) left in the Survivor contest. Not sure what the odds are against a person being in the top 1/2 of a percent in one and the top 1% in the other (these being non-random events), but worth saluting.

May never happen again.

[mickeycrimm]

Here's an exacta for you. The person who co-hosted the Walters book discussion with me (and who ran a high stakes sports betting syndicate in LV) is in the free BetOnline offshore contests. Mark this down, because you may never see this combo again.

My co-host is in 90th place out of 20,000+ picking five NFL ATS each week. Last night -- a horrible loser on a breakaway run with a minute left from midfield. But still, 90th out of 20,000; not bad. This same person is one of 225 people (out of 22,000) left in the Survivor contest. Not sure what the odds are against a person being in the top 1/2 of a percent in one and the top 1% in the other (these being non-random events), but worth saluting.

May never happen again.

If he was at a public presentation in Johnson City why are you covering up his name? Or is your friend fictitious?

Another qeustion: Why aren't you in those contests?

[MaxPen]

Here's an exacta for you. The person who co-hosted the Walters book discussion with me (and who ran a high stakes sports betting syndicate in LV) is in the free BetOnline offshore contests. Mark this down, because you may never see this combo again.

My co-host is in 90th place out of 20,000+ picking five NFL ATS each week. Last night -- a horrible loser on a breakaway run with a minute left from midfield. But still, 90th out of 20,000; not bad. This same person is one of 225 people (out of 22,000) left in the Survivor contest. Not sure what the odds are against a person being in the top 1/2 of a percent in one and the top 1% in the other (these being non-random events), but worth saluting.

May never happen again.

Is this friend of yours related in anyway to FraudJ's associates that are pulled from the tunnel when needing some cover?

[redietz]

Here's an exacta for you. The person who co-hosted the Walters book discussion with me (and who ran a high stakes sports betting syndicate in LV) is in the free BetOnline offshore contests. Mark this down, because you may never see this combo again.

My co-host is in 90th place out of 20,000+ picking five NFL ATS each week. Last night -- a horrible loser on a breakaway run with a minute left from midfield. But still, 90th out of 20,000; not bad. This same person is one of 225 people (out of 22,000) left in the Survivor contest. Not sure what the odds are against a person being in the top 1/2 of a percent in one and the top 1% in the other (these being non-random events), but worth saluting.

May never happen again.

If he was at a public presentation in Johnson City why are you covering up his name? Or is your friend fictitious?

Another qeustion: Why aren't you in those contests?

I am. I'm not much of an NFL bettor, and I would certainly never try to play five sides a week, but the contests are free, so what the hell. I was eliminated from the Survivor last week (damn those Commanders vs. NYG), and I'm in roughly 1800th place in the Mega-Contest. I'm in 1838th to be exact, out of 20,000.

You can follow my contest results at GamblingForums, if you're so inclined. I post results about every other week.

The bright spot thus far is I'm in third in the NorthBet Pick the Pros (out of about 500). No spreads in that contest.

[redietz]

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.

There is no reference to "Expected Value" in the book. Zero. There are plenty of uses of the word "value," but no use of "expected value."

You can make up whatever you like (as "APs," many of you do anything to find excuses to think you have an edge). But if Walters had wanted "Expected Value" in the book, it would be in the book. "Expected Loss" is not synonymous with "Expected Value." Of course -- LOL -- the "APs" like the idea of a phrase that has a positive prediction for their activities. There is also, if you read the book, no reference to "Expected Wins" or "Expected Profit."

But I mean, really, have any of you even read the book? Because if you haven't, why would you even comment?

Is it because -- cough, cough -- you're "APs?"

I don't need to have read the book, nor even be an expert in sports betting to know what expected value is in terms of gambling. It is based on the mathematics, not opinion. Red, seriously, you have started to go in some odd directions in your attempt to convince everyone you are an expert in the field of sports betting. Your comments on expected value over the last 6 months or so, the oddest. Just bizarre.

Advantage players don't "think" they have an edge. They have an edge. If they don't, the many that make a living wouldn't be able to pay the rent or buy food. And those that don't play for a living or have other income source, they would know very quickly as well. AP's are not like your ploppies that after years of losing and replenishing funds, claim "yeah I am about even", when they KNOW they are far in the red. For AP's it is about the money, whether professional or recreational. So just give that idea up.

Bottom line: using the term "EV" in sports betting is flat-out wrong. You are using the math of random events to try to estimate future results or profit/loss for non-random events. If you think results are random when you apply a spread, you are simply incorrect in a fundamental sense. And you don't understand how spreads and totals are assigned to games.

Why do you insist on trying to use the math of random events for non-random events?

For example, there is no way that NFL totals this season are yielding random results. The idea is simply silly.

[redietz]

Here's an exacta for you. The person who co-hosted the Walters book discussion with me (and who ran a high stakes sports betting syndicate in LV) is in the free BetOnline offshore contests. Mark this down, because you may never see this combo again.

My co-host is in 90th place out of 20,000+ picking five NFL ATS each week. Last night -- a horrible loser on a breakaway run with a minute left from midfield. But still, 90th out of 20,000; not bad. This same person is one of 225 people (out of 22,000) left in the Survivor contest. Not sure what the odds are against a person being in the top 1/2 of a percent in one and the top 1% in the other (these being non-random events), but worth saluting.

May never happen again.

If he was at a public presentation in Johnson City why are you covering up his name? Or is your friend fictitious?

Another qeustion: Why aren't you in those contests?

I listed the guy who runs the book club previously. Seems to me all you have to do to establish who is real is call him or email him. I know, novel concept. Here you go, mickey.


https://play.google.com/store/info/n...i?id=11mwdzxc8

[mickeycrimm]

There is no reference to "Expected Value" in the book. Zero. There are plenty of uses of the word "value," but no use of "expected value."

You can make up whatever you like (as "APs," many of you do anything to find excuses to think you have an edge). But if Walters had wanted "Expected Value" in the book, it would be in the book. "Expected Loss" is not synonymous with "Expected Value." Of course -- LOL -- the "APs" like the idea of a phrase that has a positive prediction for their activities. There is also, if you read the book, no reference to "Expected Wins" or "Expected Profit."

But I mean, really, have any of you even read the book? Because if you haven't, why would you even comment?

Is it because -- cough, cough -- you're "APs?"

I don't need to have read the book, nor even be an expert in sports betting to know what expected value is in terms of gambling. It is based on the mathematics, not opinion. Red, seriously, you have started to go in some odd directions in your attempt to convince everyone you are an expert in the field of sports betting. Your comments on expected value over the last 6 months or so, the oddest. Just bizarre.

Advantage players don't "think" they have an edge. They have an edge. If they don't, the many that make a living wouldn't be able to pay the rent or buy food. And those that don't play for a living or have other income source, they would know very quickly as well. AP's are not like your ploppies that after years of losing and replenishing funds, claim "yeah I am about even", when they KNOW they are far in the red. For AP's it is about the money, whether professional or recreational. So just give that idea up.

Bottom line: using the term "EV" in sports betting is flat-out wrong. You are using the math of random events to try to estimate future results or profit/loss for non-random events. If you think results are random when you apply a spread, you are simply incorrect in a fundamental sense. And you don't understand how spreads and totals are assigned to games.

Why do you insist on trying to use the math of random events for non-random events?

For example, there is no way that NFL totals this season are yielding random results. The idea is simply silly.

You have no credibility when it comes to math. You've proven you don't know anything about the math. According to you it's about opinion not math. So any statements by you concerning math and probability are not credible.

[mickeycrimm]

Here's an exacta for you. The person who co-hosted the Walters book discussion with me (and who ran a high stakes sports betting syndicate in LV) is in the free BetOnline offshore contests. Mark this down, because you may never see this combo again.

My co-host is in 90th place out of 20,000+ picking five NFL ATS each week. Last night -- a horrible loser on a breakaway run with a minute left from midfield. But still, 90th out of 20,000; not bad. This same person is one of 225 people (out of 22,000) left in the Survivor contest. Not sure what the odds are against a person being in the top 1/2 of a percent in one and the top 1% in the other (these being non-random events), but worth saluting.

May never happen again.

If he was at a public presentation in Johnson City why are you covering up his name? Or is your friend fictitious?

Another qeustion: Why aren't you in those contests?

I listed the guy who runs the book club previously. Seems to me all you have to do to establish who is real is call him or email him. I know, novel concept. Here you go, mickey.


https://play.google.com/store/info/n...i?id=11mwdzxc8

Give me his email address and phone number.

[redietz]

If he was at a public presentation in Johnson City why are you covering up his name? Or is your friend fictitious?

Another qeustion: Why aren't you in those contests?

I listed the guy who runs the book club previously. Seems to me all you have to do to establish who is real is call him or email him. I know, novel concept. Here you go, mickey.


https://play.google.com/store/info/n...i?id=11mwdzxc8

Give me his email address and phone number.

Email me your questions, or email me your email, and I will pass them along to him. He retired a few years back, so I don't think he currently maintains a "public" email. I'm not going to just give out another's person's email address without consulting him. If you want, I'll ask him if it's okay if I provide it, but you'll have to give a reason that I can pass along as to why you want it.

My email: Integritysports@aol.com.

Feel free to email your email address.

[1Hit1der]

A phone number or two on the internet ...

Kenneth J Mijeski, (423) 596-9134, Johnson City

ClustrMaps
https://clustrmaps.com › US Persons › M
Mar 5, 2022 — Kenneth J Mijeski Phone Numbers. (423) 596-9134 Cellphone by New Cingular Wireless Pcs, LLC, two persons associated; (423) 926-9318 Landline ...

https://www.google.com/search?q=phon...hrome&ie=UTF-8


Out of hellry, I might call that number.

Some 79-year-old guy into Latin American politics. Ha.


1Hit1der 1Hit1der is online now
Bronze
Join Date
Nov 2023
Posts
2

[redietz]

I don't need to have read the book, nor even be an expert in sports betting to know what expected value is in terms of gambling. It is based on the mathematics, not opinion. Red, seriously, you have started to go in some odd directions in your attempt to convince everyone you are an expert in the field of sports betting. Your comments on expected value over the last 6 months or so, the oddest. Just bizarre.

Advantage players don't "think" they have an edge. They have an edge. If they don't, the many that make a living wouldn't be able to pay the rent or buy food. And those that don't play for a living or have other income source, they would know very quickly as well. AP's are not like your ploppies that after years of losing and replenishing funds, claim "yeah I am about even", when they KNOW they are far in the red. For AP's it is about the money, whether professional or recreational. So just give that idea up.

Bottom line: using the term "EV" in sports betting is flat-out wrong. You are using the math of random events to try to estimate future results or profit/loss for non-random events. If you think results are random when you apply a spread, you are simply incorrect in a fundamental sense. And you don't understand how spreads and totals are assigned to games.

Why do you insist on trying to use the math of random events for non-random events?

For example, there is no way that NFL totals this season are yielding random results. The idea is simply silly.

You have no credibility when it comes to math. You've proven you don't know anything about the math. According to you it's about opinion not math. So any statements by you concerning math and probability are not credible.

LOL. I know absolutely nothing (ignore that 740 on the old math part of the SATs). The fact that I know nothing, but I know that it's inappropriate to use equations for random events on non-random events, frames you pretty badly, mickey.

But feel free -- anytime -- to explain why you insist on using random probability equations to predict non-random events.

Hmmmm, I wonder what Shack got on the math portion of the old SATs. You should ask him sometime. He's Mensa, after all. One of the people I consult fairly frequently got a perfect math SAT. If I bog down, I ask him. Or I ask a professor (Scott Beck) who taught social science probability. Or I ask the guy a hundred yards down the road, teaches all manner of college math. But I digress....

I understand you have no formal math training, mickey. Here's a hint -- don't hold it against people when they do have formal training and math degrees and all that. It makes you look like a poser.

[redietz]

More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. Unreal.

C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.

'Nuff said.