Professional Sportsbetting

[Half Smoke]

.

quite interesting and eye opening
I just looked thru the records for the last 6 months for all of the touts who sell picks on this site
of the 8 who are named only 2 had won - and both of them had only won a tiny % - less than 1% of their total action
the other 6 all lost and most of them got creamed

but they all do have fabulous resumes


https://www.oskeimsportspicks.com/ha...ocky-atkinson/

[Don Perignom]

Most of the games went under last week. They are due to mostly go over this week.

Not what he said.

So far today, overs are 1-0-1. Giants/Rockies goes over with one more score. First half of the 8th, runners were on the left and top bases. But they failed to reach the bottom.

[accountinquestion]

Redietz gives no useful advice.

I find I'm not usually on his wavelength, but I accept that he has useful skills in some aspects of sports betting.

Most of the games went under last week. They are due to mostly go over this week.
Tout speak at its finest. Once a tout always a tout.

If you can find anything he's ever said that can be generalized and is actionable then sure I'll give him credit. It is basic tout bullshit.

I'm sure he has some useful skills in some aspects but they're not verifiable in any significant way. He just reads a bunch of news then regurgitates as some sort of high level analysis. TBH I think the sports-gibberish would really go over well with a sports-talk type show but people who understand gambling and what it takes to win just roll their eyes.

It has all be said before. Redietz has dug his hole of endless disrespect he fell inside. I don't think there is anyway to return.

As someone else pointed out - What Redietz really really wants is to just fit in. He just wants to be seen on here as some sort of equal. Everything he does is to try and pump himself and his authenticity up.

90% I am trolling on here but it is always legitimate critcism. 5% I have a legit opinion to contribute with the last 5% of my time I spend giving out what I feel might be useful info/takes.

Redietz is like 90% trying to talk about Tipsters and Gypsters and other things which can't even really be verified and even if they are verified it doesn't extrapolate to being a winning cash bettor. Redietz's tournaments show he can pick a side given a line. Nothing has suggested he knows when the bet is worth it. That would be the expected value and why every winning pro-bettor understands. Redietz never did because he's never been a winning cash bettor.

[Don Perignom]

Incredible. 7 games today and the overs went 4-2-1. I picked the 2 losers to bet on. Odds of that were 1-in-20.

For the three days running, Redietz is now 21-14-2, imo. And I feel responsible for the 2 losses today. Without my involvement, he's graded at 21-12-2.

For tomorrow, I'll try Braves/Mets >8. Circa has +105 currently.

[kewlJ]

Incredible. 7 games today and the overs went 4-2-1. I picked the 2 losers to bet on. Odds of that were 1-in-20.

For the three days running, Redietz is now 21-14-2, imo. And I feel responsible for the 2 losses today. Without my involvement, he's graded at 21-12-2.

For tomorrow, I'll try Braves/Mets >8. Circa has +105 currently.

0-2. That is nothing. The geniuses at Pickwise, a site Half Smoke linked to yesterday, went 0-7 today. As did those of us that tagged along with those picks.

[redietz]

I find I'm not usually on his wavelength, but I accept that he has useful skills in some aspects of sports betting.

Most of the games went under last week. They are due to mostly go over this week.
Tout speak at its finest. Once a tout always a tout.

If you can find anything he's ever said that can be generalized and is actionable then sure I'll give him credit. It is basic tout bullshit.

I'm sure he has some useful skills in some aspects but they're not verifiable in any significant way. He just reads a bunch of news then regurgitates as some sort of high level analysis. TBH I think the sports-gibberish would really go over well with a sports-talk type show but people who understand gambling and what it takes to win just roll their eyes.

It has all be said before. Redietz has dug his hole of endless disrespect he fell inside. I don't think there is anyway to return.

As someone else pointed out - What Redietz really really wants is to just fit in. He just wants to be seen on here as some sort of equal. Everything he does is to try and pump himself and his authenticity up.

90% I am trolling on here but it is always legitimate critcism. 5% I have a legit opinion to contribute with the last 5% of my time I spend giving out what I feel might be useful info/takes.

Redietz is like 90% trying to talk about Tipsters and Gypsters and other things which can't even really be verified and even if they are verified it doesn't extrapolate to being a winning cash bettor. Redietz's tournaments show he can pick a side given a line. Nothing has suggested he knows when the bet is worth it. That would be the expected value and why every winning pro-bettor understands. Redietz never did because he's never been a winning cash bettor.

Of course "Tipsters or Gypsters?" can be verified. What a ridiculous thing to type.

It was an annual publication by a former Seattle Times reporter. One of kewlJ's professional blackjack acquaintances, who I had a few email exchanges with, has a better collection of them than I do.

These folks with tales of "professional gambling" who can't verify a damned thing; it kills them when there's actual historical proof of something. Account's posts are all opinion and anonymous claims. He can do a little math -- about Penn State intro probability course level from what he's posted here. "Doing a little math" ain't gambling credentials. I played, as I like to say, on the Penn State grad/faculty intramural math department hoops team. Chinese power forward, Romanian point guard, Taiwanese off guard. Now those guys could do math! The guy sitting across the table from me in the Retro Road trip thread got a perfect score on the math SATs. He can do math!

"Expected value" for sports betting -- LOL. As Mr. Munchkin and I agreed on -- it's a past tense utility. It's helpful to describe the past; not much help going forward unless you're completely a math doofus, and by that I mean that you are math-averse. Then it gives you some language framework to talk about what you really don't know.

Can't verify "Tipsters or Gypsters?" What do you want -- I post pages from the books? Back pages with multi-year ATS records? You think the Wise Guys Contest, run for 30 friggin' years, can't "be verified?" What kind of crack are you on?

You have two sets of hypothees. You have a sports bettor whose ATS record is publicly available in large part. Now does that mean he wins? No, maybe he's a friggin' idiot, betting parlays left and right, or maybe he's a multi-sport, every-day degenerate but he keeps his degeneracy to himself. Sound like me? LOL.

The other hypothesis features "APs" who claim they have "the edge" because of +EV for sports betting, as if it's coin flipping. And that's it. No public track record. No published track record. Just the certainty that they have an edge because, drum roll, they say so. Not only that, they can bet any and all sports because they can discern their edges. Now who do you think should be tagged with a "degenerate" label? This incredibly arrogant, bizarro perspective that sporting events are coin flips is what blows my mind.

And yes, arbitrage is great. But every sports bettor has the capability to arbitrage. It's not like "AP-ing" or a math degree gives one special access to identifying arbitrage, or as we like to say "auto-profit," opportunities.

That whole "squares" and "sharps" lingo is so self-massaging, so ridiculous. As if the sports books are filled with mentally-challenged folks with "Retard" ID pins on their lapels.

[mickeycrimm]

Most of the games went under last week. They are due to mostly go over this week.
Tout speak at its finest. Once a tout always a tout.

If you can find anything he's ever said that can be generalized and is actionable then sure I'll give him credit. It is basic tout bullshit.

I'm sure he has some useful skills in some aspects but they're not verifiable in any significant way. He just reads a bunch of news then regurgitates as some sort of high level analysis. TBH I think the sports-gibberish would really go over well with a sports-talk type show but people who understand gambling and what it takes to win just roll their eyes.

It has all be said before. Redietz has dug his hole of endless disrespect he fell inside. I don't think there is anyway to return.

As someone else pointed out - What Redietz really really wants is to just fit in. He just wants to be seen on here as some sort of equal. Everything he does is to try and pump himself and his authenticity up.

90% I am trolling on here but it is always legitimate critcism. 5% I have a legit opinion to contribute with the last 5% of my time I spend giving out what I feel might be useful info/takes.

Redietz is like 90% trying to talk about Tipsters and Gypsters and other things which can't even really be verified and even if they are verified it doesn't extrapolate to being a winning cash bettor. Redietz's tournaments show he can pick a side given a line. Nothing has suggested he knows when the bet is worth it. That would be the expected value and why every winning pro-bettor understands. Redietz never did because he's never been a winning cash bettor.

Of course "Tipsters or Gypsters?" can be verified. What a ridiculous thing to type.

It was an annual publication by a former Seattle Times reporter. One of kewlJ's professional blackjack acquaintances, who I had a few email exchanges with, has a better collection of them than I do.

These folks with tales of "professional gambling" who can't verify a damned thing; it kills them when there's actual historical proof of something. Account's posts are all opinion and anonymous claims. He can do a little math -- about Penn State intro probability course level from what he's posted here. "Doing a little math" ain't gambling credentials. I played, as I like to say, on the Penn State grad/faculty intramural math department hoops team. Chinese power forward, Romanian point guard, Taiwanese off guard. Now those guys could do math! The guy sitting across the table from me in the Retro Road trip thread got a perfect score on the math SATs. He can do math!

"Expected value" for sports betting -- LOL. As Mr. Munchkin and I agreed on -- it's a past tense utility. It's helpful to describe the past; not much help going forward unless you're completely a math doofus, and by that I mean that you are math-averse. Then it gives you some language framework to talk about what you really don't know.

Can't verify "Tipsters or Gypsters?" What do you want -- I post pages from the books? Back pages with multi-year ATS records? You think the Wise Guys Contest, run for 30 friggin' years, can't "be verified?" What kind of crack are you on?

You have two sets of hypothees. You have a sports bettor whose ATS record is publicly available in large part. Now does that mean he wins? No, maybe he's a friggin' idiot, betting parlays left and right, or maybe he's a multi-sport, every-day degenerate but he keeps his degeneracy to himself. Sound like me? LOL.

The other hypothesis features "APs" who claim they have "the edge" because of +EV for sports betting, as if it's coin flipping. And that's it. No public track record. No published track record. Just the certainty that they have an edge because, drum roll, they say so. Not only that, they can bet any and all sports because they can discern their edges. Now who do you think should be tagged with a "degenerate" label? This incredibly arrogant, bizarro perspective that sporting events are coin flips is what blows my mind.

And yes, arbitrage is great. But every sports bettor has the capability to arbitrage. It's not like "AP-ing" or a math degree gives one special access to identifying arbitrage, or as we like to say "auto-profit," opportunities.

That whole "squares" and "sharps" lingo is so self-massaging, so ridiculous. As if the sports books are filled with mentally-challenged folks with "Retard" ID pins on their lapels.

The Great Confabulator has confabulated again. More false premises than Carter has pills.

Ditz, could you confabulate on why you refused to appear on GWAE but led us to believe you would do an interview there?

[Don Perignom]

Today's lineup:

Braves/Mets >8 +105
Phillies/Marlins >7.5 +105

And a middle !

Guardians/White Sox >7.5 +105
Guardians/White Sox <8 -115

[Don Perignom]

Is this a good middle?

World ice hockey championships, Finland at Czech Republic.

over 4.5 -117
under 5 -125

Edit: Looks like they do play overtime, so that helps the odd-numbered totals imo. I learned that in one of the monet threads. (But I had to figure it out myself.)

EditEdit: NHL comparisons (DraftKings):

Panthers/Bruins -
over/under 4.5 = -280/+200
over/under 5.0 = -180/+140

Oilers/Canucks -
over/under 6.5 = -105/-135
over/under 7.0 = +165/-225

[Don Perignom]

World ice hockey championships, Finland at Czech Republic.

over 4.5 -117
under 5 -125

Scoreless through 1. That's acceptable because I leaned more heavily into the under. Worst outcome would be 6 or higher. Still hoping for a 5 though.

[accountinquestion]

When you brag about playing ball with a guy who had a perfect SAT math score ........

You're a ditz

[Half Smoke]

0-2. That is nothing. The geniuses at Pickwise, a site Half Smoke linked to yesterday, went 0-7 today. As did those of us that tagged along with those picks.

I'm very sorry about that dude
I thought that when I had tracked them going 11-3 that they might truly be skillful
now, it looks like it was just pure luck
since, I've been tracking they are 22-19 and I will continue tracking until I have 100 picks
but yesterday's horrible results were definitely a shock



"Tout"


from Wikipedia:


"A tout is someone who sells picks of winners against the spread and the over/under.

Most touts are scam artists and don't have a long term winning record."



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tout


.

[accountinquestion]

Of course "Tipsters or Gypsters?" can be verified. What a ridiculous thing to type.

Possibly tracking down some anonymous friend of Kewl's does not mean it is verifiable.

If it is verifiable then give me where I can go find this publication archived.

You really truly haven't been paying attention if you are putting forth Kewl's internet friend as credence. At least you are entertaining and thats really all we're here for.

[Don Perignom]

I missed both middles and went 1-1 on my overs. We knew the opportunity on overs would expire, so I won't pursue that one any further. Good call though by redietz, imo.

I'm amazed at the volatility of my account balances. To give myself options, I try to keep them all above $1000, but I have a knack for winning on the big balances and busting the small ones. Maybe I should work that into a system .

[kewlJ]

0-2. That is nothing. The geniuses at Pickwise, a site Half Smoke linked to yesterday, went 0-7 today. As did those of us that tagged along with those picks.

I'm very sorry about that dude
I thought that when I had tracked them going 11-3 that they might truly be skillful
now, it looks like it was just pure luck
since, I've been tracking they are 22-19 and I will continue tracking until I have 100 picks
but yesterday's horrible results were definitely a shock



"Tout"


from Wikipedia:


"A tout is someone who sells picks of winners against the spread and the over/under.

Most touts are scam artists and don't have a long term winning record."



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tout


.

No need to be sorry, Half Smoke. You or the guys at Pickwise didn't hold a gun to my head. Nor does Dan Druff or yourself or anyone else when I tag a long with picks. I am doing volume betting, just to get through the rollover requirements. My advantage comes from the bonus. And to that, I will tag along with almost anyone that has a reasonable opinion. I just found it funny that the Pickwise guys who tout their picks as "expert picks" went 0-7 on day one of me following them. They did bounce back with a 2-1 day yesterday.

[MDawg]

The UNKewlJ claims consist of reading something on the 'net, studying up on the topic, and then posting online to make it appear as if he knows something about the matter.
Mostly, UNKewlJ is in a, as AccountInQuestion has put it: Neverending quest for street creds on the internet.

[mickeycrimm]

These overly dorky middle aged white guy influencers are the worst. Every fucking gambling degenerate knows that machines can be profitable because of guys like that. Losers.

The boat has already sailed on that one. Information on machine play has saturated the internet. If you want to take some online courses let me know. I'll steer you in the right direction. One site teaches over 200 different machine plays for $900. One will likely make that back their first day or two in the casino.

Machine hustlers are a dime a dozen now because of information being sold. But they are not all created equal.

It's now a matter of being better than them.

[redietz]

I missed both middles and went 1-1 on my overs. We knew the opportunity on overs would expire, so I won't pursue that one any further. Good call though by redietz, imo.

I'm amazed at the volatility of my account balances. To give myself options, I try to keep them all above $1000, but I have a knack for winning on the big balances and busting the small ones. Maybe I should work that into a system .

Totals recovered yesterday after getting clobbered Friday. I will evaluate them and report whether playing today. The totals Fri/Sat were low both days, so not really an error to have played Friday. The only real debate with me was the Rockies games, which I played at 1-1. Playing Over with Rockies/Texas a questionable idea as those are the two teams who are not on schedule run-scoring in a long-term historical manner. Since in the past, they have been high-scoring, there is a kind of blackhole historicity pulling those totals higher than right-now says they should be.

One way to check whether I know what I'm talking about (a little; it's baseball) is to look at the salaries for Texas and Rockies players in these games at Colorado for Fanduel and DraftKings. What you'll find is they are assigned salaries (based on long-term history) way out of line with what they are actually doing in Colorado this year.

Thus, my taking these Overs in Colorado may have been a wrong idea.

[redietz]

Totals for two games are untake-able, in my opinion, so Grand Salami is a no go. Will debate further, but I think taking the profits from the short-term project and calling it a day is the proper call. I call this short-term stuff "bulk betting," by the way. Other people use other monikers.

[accountinquestion]

I missed both middles and went 1-1 on my overs. We knew the opportunity on overs would expire, so I won't pursue that one any further. Good call though by redietz, imo.

I'm amazed at the volatility of my account balances. To give myself options, I try to keep them all above $1000, but I have a knack for winning on the big balances and busting the small ones. Maybe I should work that into a system .

Totals recovered yesterday after getting clobbered Friday. I will evaluate them and report whether playing today. The totals Fri/Sat were low both days, so not really an error to have played Friday. The only real debate with me was the Rockies games, which I played at 1-1. Playing Over with Rockies/Texas a questionable idea as those are the two teams who are not on schedule run-scoring in a long-term historical manner. Since in the past, they have been high-scoring, there is a kind of blackhole historicity pulling those totals higher than right-now says they should be.

One way to check whether I know what I'm talking about (a little; it's baseball) is to look at the salaries for Texas and Rockies players in these games at Colorado for Fanduel and DraftKings. What you'll find is they are assigned salaries (based on long-term history) way out of line with what they are actually doing in Colorado this year.

Thus, my taking these Overs in Colorado may have been a wrong idea.

This is interesting. The concept of looking at the bids of players on fantasy sites and how out of line they seem to be to then gauge biases in pricing elsewhere. I'm not saying this is a good idea but definitely worth taking in. I wish I had pursued fantasy sports betting back when people were printing,

Redietz, you've said something interesting for me. You have went from a 0 to a 1.5 on the 10-o-value-meter of vct. I'm only half trolling here.