Un-Professional Sports Betting

[redietz]

Since I doubt that anyone on this forum (other than me) in the "Professional Sports Betting" thread has filed federal income taxes as a professional sports gambler, I figured I'd go the other way for a thread title, you know, like kewlJ.

I waited until the auto-profit had dissipated to report, but for those who like to "work off bonuses" while making dinner money or more, there was nothing better than the arbitrage for the Paul/Tyson fight. You could have gotten +180 at one offshore mentioned several times on this forum (and not just by me) while launching -170 the other way on the site where I finished 1st and then 17th back-to-back years in its NFL handicapping contest.

Those Paul/Tyson numbers held up for a week, which is unusual for a high-profile event taking actual money. If you didn't mind having some cash tied up until July, you scored, at minimum, a few free dinners.

[Don Perignom]

If you didn't mind having some cash tied up until July, you scored, at minimum, a few free dinners.

Good post thank you. For me personally, that's too far into the future. I like to keep my funds churning.

I don't know what's appropriate to post publicly. As I write, Jake Paul is -180 at DraftKings, and Mike Tyson is +190 at Circa NV. To bet both sides, you would need access to both NV and another state. I heard one of the offshores has Tyson +200, but I'm unable to confirm.

I have significant money on both sides of Jessica McCaskill/Lauren Price, coming up on the 11th. DraftKings has Price -340, against McCaskill +350 at BetOnline. Another major offshore has McCaskill higher than that.

[redietz]

If you didn't mind having some cash tied up until July, you scored, at minimum, a few free dinners.

Good post thank you. For me personally, that's too far into the future. I like to keep my funds churning.

I don't know what's appropriate to post publicly. As I write, Jake Paul is -180 at DraftKings, and Mike Tyson is +190 at Circa NV. To bet both sides, you would need access to both NV and another state. I heard one of the offshores has Tyson +200, but I'm unable to confirm.

I have significant money on both sides of Jessica McCaskill/Lauren Price, coming up on the 11th. DraftKings has Price -340, against McCaskill +350 at BetOnline. Another major offshore has McCaskill higher than that.

I would fire, although Betonline may have a modest limit. One thing to check vis-a-vis Tyson are the disqualification protocols at each book. There was a riot at the MGM after the Tyson/Norris fight due to different rules at different sports books. People went nuts. I was there -- at the MGM, not the fight. There were gunshots; tables and chips got knocked over. Many unhappy campers. Some books had "no contest" rules that voided wins or losses by disqualification. Others treated a fighter being disqualified as a loss.

[Don Perignom]

One thing to check vis-a-vis Tyson are the disqualification protocols at each book.

I haven't had any traumatic outcomes yet along those lines. It will happen eventually.

I worry about screwing up when betting something other than cash. On free bets, I try to avoid tie potential, but I'm not sure what happens on a canceled event. For last weekend's Gomis/Silva UFC matchup, I had bets at four different Nevada books. Gomis showed up sick to the weigh-in, and the fight was scrapped. Three of the four books refunded me almost immediately, but Caesars kept me open for nearly 48 hours iirc until the afternoon of the scheduled start. I had submitted the bet using points (reward credits) in lieu of cash, and wasn't sure how they would handle it. They did finally refund the points back to my point balance.

[Don Perignom]

This was available last night.

DraftKings:



offshore:



Price is becoming a bigger favorite. DraftKings is now +300/-400.

My first bets on the matchup were at +280 and -270.

[Don Perignom]

Am I doing this right?

MLB today, Mariners at Twins. I don't see an arb available, but Pinnacle has +132/-143.

No-vig calculator indicates 136.5 as the midpoint.

If I bet the Twins at -134 (Atlantis NV), I should have an edge, yes?

[redietz]

Am I doing this right?

MLB today, Mariners at Twins. I don't see an arb available, but Pinnacle has +132/-143.

No-vig calculator indicates 136.5 as the midpoint.

If I bet the Twins at -134 (Atlantis NV), I should have an edge, yes?

Honestly, this is why I keep saying that these are not coin flips. No formula/estimation/best guess merits this kind of "precision estimation." I'm not a mathematician, but there are terms for overstepping one's precision.

To put this in "it's not coin flipping" context, understand that MLB totals went on a +20 games over .500 or so binge early in the season. The totals were, one might say, too low. Then, as numbers adjusted, the totals went on an overpowering run, making up lost ground and rampaging to 25 games over .500 cumulatively Unders. Now, noticeable by totals during this past weekend, numbers have shifted down as a response to that run of Unders. My expectation is for Overs to do okay for a spell this week.

These shifts in book numbers are not random and not due to locations of games dramatically shifting from run-heavy ballparks to stingy ballparks and back. These are shifts in numbers based on results and action on those results.

This is why trying to make really precise calls is not mathematically or philosophically merited. These are not coin flips.

[Don Perignom]

My expectation is for Overs to do okay for a spell this week.

This is why trying to make really precise calls is not mathematically or philosophically merited.

All else equal, totals are a little more difficult imo because of the higher vig. Also the limits may be lower. Atlantis only allowed me $100 on an MLB total yesterday, whereas I was able to bet bigger on a money line.

For those wondering, the theory on using Pinnacle as a reference is that they need to be competent because they allow anyone to bet. The tighter the lines, the more competent they need to be. And the tightest lines are MLB money lines, usually. As you note, it's not an assurance of anything. But I'm trying to work within my skill set.

[mickeycrimm]

Since I doubt that anyone on this forum (other than me) in the "Professional Sports Betting" thread has filed federal income taxes as a professional sports gambler, I figured I'd go the other way for a thread title, you know, like kewlJ.

I waited until the auto-profit had dissipated to report, but for those who like to "work off bonuses" while making dinner money or more, there was nothing better than the arbitrage for the Paul/Tyson fight. You could have gotten +180 at one offshore mentioned several times on this forum (and not just by me) while launching -170 the other way on the site where I finished 1st and then 17th back-to-back years in its NFL handicapping contest.

Those Paul/Tyson numbers held up for a week, which is unusual for a high-profile event taking actual money. If you didn't mind having some cash tied up until July, you scored, at minimum, a few free dinners.

Glad to see you’re making breakfast money.

[redietz]

Since I doubt that anyone on this forum (other than me) in the "Professional Sports Betting" thread has filed federal income taxes as a professional sports gambler, I figured I'd go the other way for a thread title, you know, like kewlJ.

I waited until the auto-profit had dissipated to report, but for those who like to "work off bonuses" while making dinner money or more, there was nothing better than the arbitrage for the Paul/Tyson fight. You could have gotten +180 at one offshore mentioned several times on this forum (and not just by me) while launching -170 the other way on the site where I finished 1st and then 17th back-to-back years in its NFL handicapping contest.

Those Paul/Tyson numbers held up for a week, which is unusual for a high-profile event taking actual money. If you didn't mind having some cash tied up until July, you scored, at minimum, a few free dinners.

Glad to see you’re making breakfast money.

"Never Pass Up a Free Breakfast." Old Wise Jungle Saying

Actually, I have an issue with this proverb, as a vendor at the Chicago airport offered me free hash browns once when I ordered a breakfast. I had lost track of time and thought it was earlier than it was. It was actually the end of breakfast. Hours later, en route to Las Vegas, I spent half the flight in the restroom. I got so sick I started losing vision -- visual field started spotting black. I made it to the hotel, the Orleans I think, where I was supposed to meet clients for dinner. I sat with a cold towel on my head for an hour. Karen went downstairs to stall the clients while I gathered myself. I did make it downstairs eventually. So I suggest, as an addendum, "Never pass up a free breakfast unless it involves free hash browns scraped from a fryer at O'Hare at the end of breakfast hours."

[Half Smoke]

You could have gotten +180 at one offshore mentioned several times on this forum (and not just by me) while launching -170 the other way on the site

many bettors are doing that just about every day on different events - so many legal sports books now and they pretty much all have slightly different lines and the lines change quite often

a guy who posts at WOV does it very often

.

[Half Smoke]

.

also, the guy at WOV will very often get some kinna bonus or free play on one side of the arbitrage

because of fierce competition the books are now giving lots of free stuff - I think mainly at the smallish betting levels

but it's pretty easy for a small fish with discipline to beat the books now because of all the boosts, bonuses and free play

there is also discussion of books who hassle winning players and either refuse or drastically limit their bets - this prolly happens mostly to players betting fairly big

.

[Don Perignom]

I did it to myself.

One of my Nevada books had a slow reaction, and I was able to get Mets +149 at Cardinals. Everyone else was already down to +130 or less.

But having already drawn down my balance this morning playing small edges, I was handcuffed to a small amount. Nevada is somewhat primitive in funding options, so I couldn't reload at the click of a button.

[Don Perignom]

How it started:

I was able to get Mets +149 at Cardinals.

How it's going:

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1788349569278906461

[redietz]

I was asked about daily "Grand Salami" betting in lieu of individual game betting of MLB Overs this week. I have a couple of comment/caveats. Now understand that I do not follow some crystalline strategy for this stuff; I'm largely winging it. So I'll admit I bet a "Grand Salami" in addition to the Tuesday individual game Overs but did not do it Wednesday. No real rhyme or reason. As far as "Grand Salami" betting goes, there are issues. Rarely a good value. Especially an issue when Colorado is playing at home and those numbers fold into the Grand Salami. That's a segue to the second set of issues. Do you automatically wager on Colorado Overs under the auspices of my recommendation? I have thus far for two days (split), but you have to evaluate each home Rockies game based on the number. The numbers presented this year have been wildly, wildly different. So while I have no problem taking Over 9 1/2 (today), Over 15 is not something I have any interest in.

Since account was his usual asinine, rude self, I'm going to pass on any further wagering comments/recommendations on this forum. You guys can catch me on various podcasts or in person in Las Vegas.

[mickeycrimm]

Since I doubt that anyone on this forum (other than me) in the "Professional Sports Betting" thread has filed federal income taxes as a professional sports gambler, I figured I'd go the other way for a thread title, you know, like kewlJ.

I waited until the auto-profit had dissipated to report, but for those who like to "work off bonuses" while making dinner money or more, there was nothing better than the arbitrage for the Paul/Tyson fight. You could have gotten +180 at one offshore mentioned several times on this forum (and not just by me) while launching -170 the other way on the site where I finished 1st and then 17th back-to-back years in its NFL handicapping contest.

Those Paul/Tyson numbers held up for a week, which is unusual for a high-profile event taking actual money. If you didn't mind having some cash tied up until July, you scored, at minimum, a few free dinners.

Redietz' claim of filing as a "professional gambler" is unsubstantiated. And redietz had said repeatedly unsubstatnianted claims aren't worth a hill of beans compared to verified claims.

So should we believe him? Well, I'm inclined to believe him on this one because....

only idiots put "professional gambler" on tax returns. It's an oxymoron.

[Don Perignom]

DraftKings now has Jake Paul at -170 vs Mike Tyson.

Best I can find for Tyson is +210 at Westgate/Superbook NV. Not available in other Superbook states.

Some of the offshores, including BetOnline, have Tyson +190 or higher.

[redietz]

Excellent scouting, Don. Did not know Westgate was taking a position like that. I need to track down the South Point odds. On many events, Westgate and South Point track similarly.

You've gotta fire on those. Can't pass up free money. Again, however, you must pin down the "no contest" and "disqualification" definitions at each book.

[Don Perignom]

You've gotta fire on those.

Here's the Westgate/Superbook view, incidentally:



I forgot which odds screener I was looking at, but South Point was indicated as not having the game available on its slate (via the app). I don't have a South Point account to view directly.

DraftKings is viewable online:



but I can't bet from my current (Nevada) location, and I'm limited with them anyway. They rarely allow me to exceed $100 on a bet.

[redietz]

I'm not surprised South Point has it off the board, given the date of the fight. South Point, at least up until and including last season, is loathe to post college football futures before July because anything can and will happen in the months leading up to the season, especially with mass transfers and the ramifications. Plus SP takes real money, so they have reason to post numbers in a serious fashion. They're managing things the way I would, so I really can't complain about it.