Professional Sportsbetting

[redietz]

I already told one story here ages ago.

I don't recall that story, in which age did you post it?

According to my ditz-to-English dictionary, the translation of your latest yarn is that you were once backed off from an online sportsbook (not Bet365), and that back-off was subsequently rescinded.

Is that an accurate summary of your circuitous answer to the operative question?

You don't seem to grasp the fundamentals, coach. Sports books rarely "back off" someone. They prefer to put stringent limits on them. So if a famous online sports book (like Pinnacle, for example) limits your golf future to $1.50, is that being "backed off?" Technically, and I know you love technically, the answer is no.

Second, whether something is a "yarn" is largely in the eye of the reader. If a reply of roughly 150 words is considered "rambling," and whether such a story is "implausible," -- the words in quotes come from dictionary definitions of the word yarn -- is something that only a reader can decide.

Third, again, whether someone is "backed off" has more to do with the profile of what they are doing, not whether they have won or lost. For example....you know what, I'll save examples for a podcast.

Thanks again, coach, for your time. I'm trying to limit my responses to 150 words so you don't find them onerous or a "yarn."

[coach belly]

Sports books rarely "back off" someone.

You are twisting yourself into a knot by rambling...weren't you backed off?

I was informed I was not customer material for one particular offshore.

Two years later, they emailed and called me and requested that I return as a customer.

[mickeycrimm]

I already told one story here ages ago.

I don't recall that story, in which age did you post it?

According to my ditz-to-English dictionary, the translation of your latest yarn is that you were once backed off from an online sportsbook (not Bet365), and that back-off was subsequently rescinded.

Is that an accurate summary of your circuitous answer to the operative question?

You don't seem to grasp the fundamentals, coach. Sports books rarely "back off" someone. They prefer to put stringent limits on them. So if a famous online sports book (like Pinnacle, for example) limits your golf future to $1.50, is that being "backed off?" Technically, and I know you love technically, the answer is no.

Second, whether something is a "yarn" is largely in the eye of the reader. If a reply of roughly 150 words is considered "rambling," and whether such a story is "implausible," -- the words in quotes come from dictionary definitions of the word yarn -- is something that only a reader can decide.

Third, again, whether someone is "backed off" has more to do with the profile of what they are doing, not whether they have won or lost. For example....you know what, I'll save examples for a podcast.

Thanks again, coach, for your time. I'm trying to limit my responses to 150 words so you don't find them onerous or a "yarn."

It's unbelievable that you think being limited to a buck fifty is not a back off. They are telling you to go fuck yourself. No pro is going to waste their time in that spot. Furthermore getting limited like that is a common theme amongst all professional sports bettors but YOU. They work around it by using other people's accounts then burn those accounts down anonymously and advertise for more accounts. It's a revolving door.

I remember some years ago an NFL playoff game we were is discussing on VCT where the books had Pittsburgh either a 6.5 or 7 point dog. But I bet the game on Bovada getting 7.5 points. You told me that you had accounts at 11 offshore books and none of them had the line at 7.5. I had to tell you that Bovada had that line as you didn't have a Bovada account.

But the point is that you said you have 11 offshore accounts. How have you been able to beat those books for all that money without being limited to chickenfeed betting or getting your accounts suspended? Every other sports bettor of note says it's impossible to get away with it that long. Have you been beating those books for all these years without them taking action against you? If you have then why are you getting special treatment?

PS: Even the sharp books like Pinnacle and Circa that take wiseguy action cap the betting on them.

[redietz]

I don't recall that story, in which age did you post it?

According to my ditz-to-English dictionary, the translation of your latest yarn is that you were once backed off from an online sportsbook (not Bet365), and that back-off was subsequently rescinded.

Is that an accurate summary of your circuitous answer to the operative question?

You don't seem to grasp the fundamentals, coach. Sports books rarely "back off" someone. They prefer to put stringent limits on them. So if a famous online sports book (like Pinnacle, for example) limits your golf future to $1.50, is that being "backed off?" Technically, and I know you love technically, the answer is no.

Second, whether something is a "yarn" is largely in the eye of the reader. If a reply of roughly 150 words is considered "rambling," and whether such a story is "implausible," -- the words in quotes come from dictionary definitions of the word yarn -- is something that only a reader can decide.

Third, again, whether someone is "backed off" has more to do with the profile of what they are doing, not whether they have won or lost. For example....you know what, I'll save examples for a podcast.

Thanks again, coach, for your time. I'm trying to limit my responses to 150 words so you don't find them onerous or a "yarn."

It's unbelievable that you think being limited to a buck fifty is not a back off. They are telling you to go fuck yourself. No pro is going to waste their time in that spot. Furthermore getting limited like that is a common theme amongst all professional sports bettors but YOU. They work around it by using other people's accounts then burn those accounts down anonymously and advertise for more accounts. It's a revolving door.

I remember some years ago an NFL playoff game we were is discussing on VCT where the books had Pittsburgh either a 6.5 or 7 point dog. But I bet the game on Bovada getting 7.5 points. You told me that you had accounts at 11 offshore books and none of them had the line at 7.5. I had to tell you that Bovada had that line as you didn't have a Bovada account.

But the point is that you said you have 11 offshore accounts. How have you been able to beat those books for all that money without being limited to chickenfeed betting or getting your accounts suspended? Every other sports bettor of note says it's impossible to get away with it that long. Have you been beating those books for all these years without them taking action against you? If you have then why are you getting special treatment?

PS: Even the sharp books like Pinnacle and Circa that take wiseguy action cap the betting on them.

So let me get this straight. You think that I think that getting a $1.50 limit is "not getting backed off." LOL. Did you even grasp the gist of the post? By coach's standards, is the point, you're not banned, so it doesn't match the warning email from bet365.

I love you guys. You definitely should be posting in "professional sports betting." When I warned kewlJ, more than a year ago, about being "labeled a certain way," what did you think I meant? That "non-recreational" label is the classic go-to these days. The criteria for that are completely subjective and amorphous, so the books have maximum latitude, which they always have had, anyway. They dictate the rules, and they can make them up as they go along. But now they have go-to lingo.

Yes, I did get hit with a $1.50 futures limit on a golf future. Or something like that. May have been $1.27 or $1.33. It was Sergio Garcia, by the way. Coach you can reasonably fault me for a shaky memory on the precise amount. I'm getting old. I'd have to double check.

And mickey, you have no idea why people take or don't take money. You just do not get it. Unless you are betting Billy Walters amounts, and no one is, there are very sound reasons to allow this or that. I can't believe you don't get it. Expertise is insurance of a sort.

And I'm telling you, if you use that multiple account schtick, the offshores can and will keep your money. They are not exactly incommunicado with each other. And then big chunks of your work, and your alleged edge, go out the window the first time an offshore gobbles up 10% of your bankroll for funsies and you have no recourse. Ask Munchkin about the worst hit he took in this regard.

Here you go -- ask Todd what happened when he initially tried to open a Heritage account. What does he think Heritage was doing, and why would they allow some people (me included) to operate with impunity? If you think it was because I was losing money, you got it ass-backwards.

LOL. Mr. Crimm, you are the proverbial kite dancing in a hurricane.

[mickeycrimm]

You don't seem to grasp the fundamentals, coach. Sports books rarely "back off" someone. They prefer to put stringent limits on them. So if a famous online sports book (like Pinnacle, for example) limits your golf future to $1.50, is that being "backed off?" Technically, and I know you love technically, the answer is no.

Second, whether something is a "yarn" is largely in the eye of the reader. If a reply of roughly 150 words is considered "rambling," and whether such a story is "implausible," -- the words in quotes come from dictionary definitions of the word yarn -- is something that only a reader can decide.

Third, again, whether someone is "backed off" has more to do with the profile of what they are doing, not whether they have won or lost. For example....you know what, I'll save examples for a podcast.

Thanks again, coach, for your time. I'm trying to limit my responses to 150 words so you don't find them onerous or a "yarn."

It's unbelievable that you think being limited to a buck fifty is not a back off. They are telling you to go fuck yourself. No pro is going to waste their time in that spot. Furthermore getting limited like that is a common theme amongst all professional sports bettors but YOU. They work around it by using other people's accounts then burn those accounts down anonymously and advertise for more accounts. It's a revolving door.

I remember some years ago an NFL playoff game we were is discussing on VCT where the books had Pittsburgh either a 6.5 or 7 point dog. But I bet the game on Bovada getting 7.5 points. You told me that you had accounts at 11 offshore books and none of them had the line at 7.5. I had to tell you that Bovada had that line as you didn't have a Bovada account.

But the point is that you said you have 11 offshore accounts. How have you been able to beat those books for all that money without being limited to chickenfeed betting or getting your accounts suspended? Every other sports bettor of note says it's impossible to get away with it that long. Have you been beating those books for all these years without them taking action against you? If you have then why are you getting special treatment?

PS: Even the sharp books like Pinnacle and Circa that take wiseguy action cap the betting on them.

So let me get this straight. You think that I think that getting a $1.50 limit is "not getting backed off." LOL. Did you even grasp the gist of the post? By coach's standards, is the point, you're not banned, so it doesn't match the warning email from bet365.

I love you guys. You definitely should be posting in "professional sports betting." When I warned kewlJ, more than a year ago, about being "labeled a certain way," what did you think I meant? That "non-recreational" label is the classic go-to these days. The criteria for that are completely subjective and amorphous, so the books have maximum latitude, which they always have had, anyway. They dictate the rules, and they can make them up as they go along. But now they have go-to lingo.

Yes, I did get hit with a $1.50 futures limit on a golf future. Or something like that. May have been $1.27 or $1.33. It was Sergio Garcia, by the way. Coach you can reasonably fault me for a shaky memory on the precise amount. I'm getting old. I'd have to double check.

And mickey, you have no idea why people take or don't take money. You just do not get it. Unless you are betting Billy Walters amounts, and no one is, there are very sound reasons to allow this or that. I can't believe you don't get it. Expertise is insurance of a sort.

And I'm telling you, if you use that multiple account schtick, the offshores can and will keep your money. They are not exactly incommunicado with each other. And then big chunks of your work, and your alleged edge, go out the window the first time an offshore gobbles up 10% of your bankroll for funsies and you have no recourse. Ask Munchkin about the worst hit he took in this regard.

Here you go -- ask Todd what happened when he initially tried to open a Heritage account. What does he think Heritage was doing, and why would they allow some people (me included) to operate with impunity? If you think it was because I was losing money, you got it ass-backwards.

LOL. Mr. Crimm, you are the proverbial kite dancing in a hurricane.

redietz has classic malignant narcissism. He thinks his continual mocking of others will win the day for him. But all he is really doing is harming himself. People pity his poor attempts to appear to be highly knowledgeable while demeaning others as unknowledgeable. He actually thinks that kind of shit works. It's funny and sad at the same time. Classic delusions of grandeur.

Ditz, seriously, please seek counseling for your affliction. The sooner you quit denying you have a problem the better off you will be. Confabulation is most likely your problem.


"Confabulation is a neuropsychiatric disorder wherein a patient generates a false memory."

[redietz]

It's unbelievable that you think being limited to a buck fifty is not a back off. They are telling you to go fuck yourself. No pro is going to waste their time in that spot. Furthermore getting limited like that is a common theme amongst all professional sports bettors but YOU. They work around it by using other people's accounts then burn those accounts down anonymously and advertise for more accounts. It's a revolving door.

I remember some years ago an NFL playoff game we were is discussing on VCT where the books had Pittsburgh either a 6.5 or 7 point dog. But I bet the game on Bovada getting 7.5 points. You told me that you had accounts at 11 offshore books and none of them had the line at 7.5. I had to tell you that Bovada had that line as you didn't have a Bovada account.

But the point is that you said you have 11 offshore accounts. How have you been able to beat those books for all that money without being limited to chickenfeed betting or getting your accounts suspended? Every other sports bettor of note says it's impossible to get away with it that long. Have you been beating those books for all these years without them taking action against you? If you have then why are you getting special treatment?

PS: Even the sharp books like Pinnacle and Circa that take wiseguy action cap the betting on them.

So let me get this straight. You think that I think that getting a $1.50 limit is "not getting backed off." LOL. Did you even grasp the gist of the post? By coach's standards, is the point, you're not banned, so it doesn't match the warning email from bet365.

I love you guys. You definitely should be posting in "professional sports betting." When I warned kewlJ, more than a year ago, about being "labeled a certain way," what did you think I meant? That "non-recreational" label is the classic go-to these days. The criteria for that are completely subjective and amorphous, so the books have maximum latitude, which they always have had, anyway. They dictate the rules, and they can make them up as they go along. But now they have go-to lingo.

Yes, I did get hit with a $1.50 futures limit on a golf future. Or something like that. May have been $1.27 or $1.33. It was Sergio Garcia, by the way. Coach you can reasonably fault me for a shaky memory on the precise amount. I'm getting old. I'd have to double check.

And mickey, you have no idea why people take or don't take money. You just do not get it. Unless you are betting Billy Walters amounts, and no one is, there are very sound reasons to allow this or that. I can't believe you don't get it. Expertise is insurance of a sort.

And I'm telling you, if you use that multiple account schtick, the offshores can and will keep your money. They are not exactly incommunicado with each other. And then big chunks of your work, and your alleged edge, go out the window the first time an offshore gobbles up 10% of your bankroll for funsies and you have no recourse. Ask Munchkin about the worst hit he took in this regard.

Here you go -- ask Todd what happened when he initially tried to open a Heritage account. What does he think Heritage was doing, and why would they allow some people (me included) to operate with impunity? If you think it was because I was losing money, you got it ass-backwards.

LOL. Mr. Crimm, you are the proverbial kite dancing in a hurricane.

redietz has classic malignant narcissism. He thinks his continual mocking of others will win the day for him. But all he is really doing is harming himself. People pity his poor attempts to appear to be highly knowledgeable while demeaning others as unknowledgeable. He actually thinks that kind of shit works. It's funny and sad at the same time. Classic delusions of grandeur.

Ditz, seriously, please seek counseling for your affliction. The sooner you quit denying you have a problem the better off you will be. Confabulation is most likely your problem.


"Confabulation is a neuropsychiatric disorder wherein a patient generates a false memory without the intention of deceit."

Mickey, I apologize if you've never taken exams or passed interviews where you actually were evaluated and given a score of some kind. I understand that you think, in your quirky way, that you somehow qualify to know just about everything vis-a-vis gambling. It's an odd thing. You've lived a very socialistic kind of life -- I mean, really, when was the last time you were evaluated and told by an expert that you weren't good enough/smart enough/skilled enough at something?

Or maybe I'm wrong. Why don't you tell us all the aspects of gambling that you're not qualified to evaluate? Personally, I think it's a hoot that you think you're good at everything. You have no formal math training. You have no track record vis-a-vis sports gambling. You're a machine dude who thinks he has it all figured out. Kudos to your ego, my friend. It puts my considerable ego to shame.

[mickeycrimm]

So let me get this straight. You think that I think that getting a $1.50 limit is "not getting backed off." LOL. Did you even grasp the gist of the post? By coach's standards, is the point, you're not banned, so it doesn't match the warning email from bet365.

I love you guys. You definitely should be posting in "professional sports betting." When I warned kewlJ, more than a year ago, about being "labeled a certain way," what did you think I meant? That "non-recreational" label is the classic go-to these days. The criteria for that are completely subjective and amorphous, so the books have maximum latitude, which they always have had, anyway. They dictate the rules, and they can make them up as they go along. But now they have go-to lingo.

Yes, I did get hit with a $1.50 futures limit on a golf future. Or something like that. May have been $1.27 or $1.33. It was Sergio Garcia, by the way. Coach you can reasonably fault me for a shaky memory on the precise amount. I'm getting old. I'd have to double check.

And mickey, you have no idea why people take or don't take money. You just do not get it. Unless you are betting Billy Walters amounts, and no one is, there are very sound reasons to allow this or that. I can't believe you don't get it. Expertise is insurance of a sort.

And I'm telling you, if you use that multiple account schtick, the offshores can and will keep your money. They are not exactly incommunicado with each other. And then big chunks of your work, and your alleged edge, go out the window the first time an offshore gobbles up 10% of your bankroll for funsies and you have no recourse. Ask Munchkin about the worst hit he took in this regard.

Here you go -- ask Todd what happened when he initially tried to open a Heritage account. What does he think Heritage was doing, and why would they allow some people (me included) to operate with impunity? If you think it was because I was losing money, you got it ass-backwards.

LOL. Mr. Crimm, you are the proverbial kite dancing in a hurricane.

redietz has classic malignant narcissism. He thinks his continual mocking of others will win the day for him. But all he is really doing is harming himself. People pity his poor attempts to appear to be highly knowledgeable while demeaning others as unknowledgeable. He actually thinks that kind of shit works. It's funny and sad at the same time. Classic delusions of grandeur.

Ditz, seriously, please seek counseling for your affliction. The sooner you quit denying you have a problem the better off you will be. Confabulation is most likely your problem.


"Confabulation is a neuropsychiatric disorder wherein a patient generates a false memory without the intention of deceit."

Mickey, I apologize if you've never taken exams or passed interviews where you actually were evaluated and given a score of some kind. I understand that you think, in your quirky way, that you somehow qualify to know just about everything vis-a-vis gambling. It's an odd thing. You've lived a very socialistic kind of life -- I mean, really, when was the last time you were evaluated and told by an expert that you weren't good enough/smart enough/skilled enough at something?

Or maybe I'm wrong. Why don't you tell us all the aspects of gambling that you're not qualified to evaluate? Personally, I think it's a hoot that you think you're good at everything. You have no formal math training. You have no track record vis-a-vis sports gambling. You're a machine dude who thinks he has it all figured out. Kudos to your ego, my friend. It puts my considerable ego to shame.

Redietz has confabulated quite the story here. Yes, confabulation is definitely his problem. He should seek help as soon as possible.

[mickeycrimm]

Mickey, I apologize if you've never taken exams or passed interviews where you actually were evaluated and given a score of some kind. I understand that you think, in your quirky way, that you somehow qualify to know just about everything vis-a-vis gambling. It's an odd thing. You've lived a very socialistic kind of life -- I mean, really, when was the last time you were evaluated and told by an expert that you weren't good enough/smart enough/skilled enough at something?

Or maybe I'm wrong. Why don't you tell us all the aspects of gambling that you're not qualified to evaluate? Personally, I think it's a hoot that you think you're good at everything. You have no formal math training. You have no track record vis-a-vis sports gambling. You're a machine dude who thinks he has it all figured out. Kudos to your ego, my friend. It puts my considerable ego to shame.

LOL, I've had tons of training in gambling math. It's just 8th grade math. Addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. That's it. Nothing else. I had all that shit mastered by the 4th grade.

It's really funny reading ditz talking about reading fucking probability books and name dropping some math professor like that makes a shit. It don't. Redietz is so ignorant that he thinks you need a degree in math to write and do gambling equations. It's hyterically funny that he is that dumb....but thinks he's smart.

He is so right that I never went to college. But I remember being the first one to be able to read out loud in first grade. The other kids were way behind me.

And in a dispute with a teacher early in the 3rd grade I was moved to a 4th grade classroom for two weeks. I scored higher on the tests than all the 4th graders so they moved me up from 3rd to 4th. From then on I was a year younger than all my classmates....and a straight A student.

And on aptitude tests I not only scored highest at the school, but highest in the district.

Yeah, sure. I didn't go to college. But I did pretty good at what training I did get.

I don't claim to be the brightest bulb in the room but I damn sure ain't the dimmest bulb in the room.

Remember ditz, gambling math is the same in every form of gambling....and it's easier than shit. Really sad you don't know that.

But keep on confabulating, ditz. It exposes you.

[coach belly]

It's unbelievable that you think being limited to a buck fifty is not a back off.

You think that I think that getting a $1.50 limit is "not getting backed off."

if a famous online sports book (like Pinnacle, for example) limits your golf future to $1.50, is that being "backed off?" Technically, and I know you love technically, the answer is no.

LOL...The Nutty Professor

[redietz]

if a famous online sports book (like Pinnacle, for example) limits your golf future to $1.50, is that being "backed off?" Technically, and I know you love technically, the answer is no.

LOL...The Nutty Professor

The third quote above is from the "coach belly perspective." The term "backed off," according to the dictionary, refers to leaving something alone (as opposed to reducing limits of interaction). Therefore, from a denotative (coach belly) perspective, having an imposed limit of $1.50 is not technically being "backed off." Now do I think having limits reduced to $1.50 is being "backed off?" Of course I do. I'm a connotative kind of guy.