The two totals I considered untake-able (from an Over perspective) were the Ranger/Colorado and St.Louis/Milwaukee totals. Just too high, regardless of pitching matchups. St. Louis/Milwaukee finished as an Under, and Texas/Colorado in progress.Originally Posted by redietz
Reasonable job steering clear today.
Serious question Red. So you will only consider the Grand Salami, over or under if you like EVERY game to go that way? I frequently bet the over or under if the vast majority of games I think will either be over or under. There are always going to be a couple games you might think will be a struggle, but that bet is about the majority of games you think will go one way. Even if a couple games are 1-0 and 2-1 pitchers' duels, there are likely to be a 10-9 game like the Cubs-Pittsburgh the other day, or a game like that frequently involving Colorado that will make up for it.Originally Posted by redietzThe two totals I considered untake-able (from an Over perspective) were the Ranger/Colorado and St.Louis/Milwaukee totals. Just too high, regardless of pitching matchups. St. Louis/Milwaukee finished as an Under, and Texas/Colorado in progress.Originally Posted by redietz
Reasonable job steering clear today.
BTW, regarding that 10-9 Cubs/Pittsburgh game the other day: Cubs scored 7 runs in one inning. 6 scoring on bases loaded walks and the 7th on a bases loaded infield single. THAT is just ridiculous. Shouldn't have 6 bases loaded walks in a year let alone a game, or even worse an inning.
Dan Druff: "there's no question that MDawg has been an obnoxious braggart, and has rubbed a ton of people the wrong way. There's something missing from his stories. Either they're fabricated, grossly exaggerated, or largely incomplete".
It's happened before. (Before I was bornOriginally Posted by kewlJCubs scored 7 runs in one inning. 6 scoring on bases loaded walks and the 7th on a bases loaded infield single. THAT is just ridiculous. Shouldn't have 6 bases loaded walks in a year let alone a game, or even worse an inning..)
I avoided it because it looked like it would require sports knowledge. And then iirc my state (Nevada) outlawed it.Originally Posted by accountinquestion
Originally Posted by Don PerignomIt's happened before. (Before I was bornOriginally Posted by kewlJCubs scored 7 runs in one inning. 6 scoring on bases loaded walks and the 7th on a bases loaded infield single. THAT is just ridiculous. Shouldn't have 6 bases loaded walks in a year let alone a game, or even worse an inning.
I avoided it because it looked like it would require sports knowledge. And then iirc my state (Nevada) outlawed it.Originally Posted by accountinquestion
I very rarely bet any Grand Salami, so these were unusual for me.
I think that fantasy sports bonanza stuff is primarily myth unless you were privy to the insider aspects of Draft Kings and FanDuel. The "insider trading" that went on between people working for the two companies dominated the payouts. The top percentage sliver of people who worked for them were organized and hauling in the majority of the total money.
They were legally forced to enact "single entry" options as a result, and "insider trading" was allegedly banned. Although how you actually prevent it is beyond my pay grade.
Only real professionals know how to handicap this sport.
I used to play a similar Baseball Game with a tennis ball, steps and the house wall.
But I was like 7 years old.
The steps were made out of brick and railroad ties.
You could get some long home runs if you hit them just right.
The trick with these books is to raise limits for losing bettors and lower limits for winning bettors. At least one state, Massachusetts, is looking into it. The books showed how chickenshit they are:
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/551...books-opt-out/
Quote from the article:
"So what was the meeting about? The issue of player limits is one of transparency. Sportsbooks in Massachusetts are legally allowed to set limits on individual patrons. But the MGC (Massachusetts Gaming Commission) is concerned that there isn’t enough clarity or communication on when and why a player might be limited — and that sportsbooks are limiting players simply because they are winning.
In short: Are there patrons who are wagering honestly who are being limited? The MGC’s motivation behind the question is whether these betting limits will drive patrons to illegal markets. “If we have operators limiting patrons who are playing by the rules, that limitation will naturally incentivize those players to turn to the illegal market,” Maynard said.
The commission was aiming to have sportsbook operators answer five guiding questions on the issue of player limits:
Please detail how and why a patron may be limited on your platform, including how you may limit patrons on an individual basis.
Please explain the experience of a patron once they become limited.
What are the responsible gaming implications if patron limits are more heavily regulated?
“The MGC was made aware of reports from consumers and media coverage that some operators limit bettors who routinely win,” Maynard said. “Some claim they were not in violation of house rules, state laws or regulations, or other authorized acts when they were limited.”
What would be the impacts to the industry if allowing limits on individual patrons was prohibited or limited by law or regulation?
What are other jurisdictions and/or other sports books doing?
Jack Andrews, a professional gambler and part of sports betting company Unabated, gave the perspective of sports bettors. He shared how sportsbooks often don’t communicate to players that they have been limited, why they are being limited and how long the ban will last. Unlike at brick-and-mortar casinos, where a player might be limited at one table but not every game, sportsbooks set limits that are “pervasive across the board.”
“The house has the edge, this is gambling, but a lot of users feel that things don’t cut both ways,” Andrews said. “Limiting is just an example of that.”
The commission received dozens of stories from sportsbook users about similar experiences. In the words of Commissioner Skinner, the MGC sees it as an issue of “fundamental fairness.”
Brianne Doura-Schawohl, a consultant in the problem gambling space, shared a case from Washington, D.C., where a sportsbook claimed a betting limit was placed due to problem gambling, but that turned out to be untrue.
“This is the first time people who are being limited feel like they’re being heard,” said Dustin Gouker of Closing Line Consulting.
The commission ended with a promise to continue the conversation — with sportsbook operators involved.
“This is day one of this conversation for me,” said Commissioner Eileen O’Brien."
MGC has an incentive to clean it up because limiting bettors drives them to illegal markets.
Last edited by mickeycrimm; 05-23-2024 at 02:14 AM.
"More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. 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." REDIETZ
.
great post from Mickey - hopefully action will be taken - but I'm doubtful that it will - and this is only in the state of Mass. - of course the horrible conditions described are everywhere
.
the foolish sayings of a rich man often pass for words of wisdom by the fools around him
Reminder. Your enemy is not capitalism or "corporate greed." Your enemy is the state.Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1793620518425297059
51% my god! That's worse than getting shaken down for 'protection' by the mob.
.
the link is about how AI may be causing big changes in sports betting
from the article:
"Existing AI tools can now predict certain events with 80 to 90 percent accuracy, according to the tech site TMCnet. “A 90% accuracy means guaranteed profits,” TMCnet said. No more gut instinct bets, just AI-driven statistical probabilities. Those tools are not yet widely available, but they are coming"
could that really be true__________?____________maybe 50 different players on the field in a football game - predict the outcome with 90% accuracy_________?_________IDK - sounds impossible to me
https://archive.ph/TNS32#selection-1467.0-1471.222
.
the foolish sayings of a rich man often pass for words of wisdom by the fools around him
I could be and probably am wrong, but AI has come to mean, more than I think it really does.
Isn't AI just a further extension of computer sciences? Top sports bettors and syndicates have been using computer science and computer analysis for a while. So I don't see where it is THAT new overall.
Dan Druff: "there's no question that MDawg has been an obnoxious braggart, and has rubbed a ton of people the wrong way. There's something missing from his stories. Either they're fabricated, grossly exaggerated, or largely incomplete".
from the article:Originally Posted by kewlJ
"Regular Computing: Decisions in traditional computing are deterministic, following predefined rules without the inherent capacity for nuance or context awareness.
AI: Decision-making in AI involves probabilistic reasoning. Machine learning models evaluate probabilities based on patterns in data, providing a nuanced approach to decision-making that can be more akin to human cognition.
Human-Like Capabilities:
Regular Computing: Traditional systems lack the capacity for human-like reasoning, learning, or understanding. They can be powerful tools but don’t attempt to emulate cognitive functions.
AI: Artificial intelligence aims to replicate and augment human cognitive abilities. Natural language processing, image recognition, and even creativity (especially generative AI applications such as MidJourney, DALL-E, Adobe Firefly) are within the realm of AI applications."
https://www.rigb.org/explore-science...ve%20abilities.
the foolish sayings of a rich man often pass for words of wisdom by the fools around him
People have been applying machine learning to stuff like this for ages. It is a matter of the inputs. There isn't more data to slurp up unless they have the AI actually watch the games and possibly generate its own data. Kinda like how they beat horses by having more data. Without an extra source of data I'm very suspect of AI making any sort of significant edge.Originally Posted by Half Smoke
Pop-AI as we know it currently utilizes tons of data. If the plays themselves were turned into data that could be parsable then it is possible. I suppose if someone took a game and cut out all duplicate plays and other commentary then possibly a machine could learn something about the individual performances/timings of the players.
However if the AI has the same inputs going in that have been available elsewhere - I am highly suspect.
One part mentions "AI generated metrics". If you are able to generate metrics like this, by AI analyzing past video then I could see it being effective.
The 80% - 90% accuracy will never be the case. We can currently predict 80-90% on certain outcomes. As an example, moneyline bets on mismatched teams. Such statements mean so little.
AI advanced when they started to learn that 3d graphics cards could do some sort of operation on the RAM on the cards. Something a standard CPU does far slower. From this they have been feeding all sorts of things into these machines. It takes 7+ figures of computer time to train some of these models.Originally Posted by kewlJ
If you were to chop out only gameplay. Then a computer identified players and could map them out. From there you might be able to generate metrics (or something metric-like) that aren't in wide use.
IMO it is fairly likely this happens already. There are so many libraries available now to help. Finding the players on screen and tracking them. Once you do that, the rest is fairly straight forward.
The lines still have to be weak enough to be beatable though. So it might be better to apply it all to a sports that isn't as widely analyzed. The NFL market seems efficient for lack of better terminology.
.
it looks like this to me:
the books will be more able to put out highly accurate lines
the only chance for the players to win is if those lines are bet well up or down for various reasons - such as love for a particular team or athlete - causing an advantageous bet to become available
if that doesn't happen - the bettors don't have a prayer of being winners in the long run
prolly something like 99% of sports bettors don't even dream of being long run winners
so it won't really matter to them - they're just in it for the action
.
Last edited by Half Smoke; 05-29-2024 at 01:51 PM.
the foolish sayings of a rich man often pass for words of wisdom by the fools around him
You did a fantastic job of making yourself well-known to the bookies. That was absolutely brilliant! Not! All those pro sports bettors trying to stay anonymous but here's redietz wanting to be a celebrity.Originally Posted by redietzOriginally Posted by accountinquestionIf 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.Originally Posted by cyberbabble
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.
"More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. 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." REDIETZ
Mickey, you have no real idea who is or is not a "pro sports bettor." That phrase doesn't even have a definition. Go ahead, define it. LOL. Are they "pro sports bettors" because they bet pro sports? Because they are ahead lifetime? Because they are ahead for a decade? Because they bet? Because they win? For how long? Because it can be proven that they win? Because they file as professional gamblers?
Anybody can be a "pro sports bettor." Just decide that's what you are, and voila! You're a "pro sports bettor." See how that works?
All these "pro sports bettors" trying to stay anonymous. LOL. Have you ever tried to stay anonymous betting sports? Any tips? Wait, wait, I have one. When the sports book manager asks for your ID, just tell him that you're a "pro sports bettor." That'll show him. Wait, wait, use a beard. Oh, that's illegal in LV these days. Wait, wait, wear a mask! That's the ticket!
Mickey, you really need to have some mental consistency. You can't go blabbing about Bet Bash as a good thing when it completely undermines all of these "pro sports bettors" quests for anonymity. Make up your mind, buddy. Nothing like being an "AP" attending something like Bet Bash to stay under the radar.
Over and out. I'll be in LV Sunday night. Give me a ring at the Golden Nugget.
Last edited by redietz; 05-30-2024 at 05:25 AM.
Like I said. Nothing but weird ass smoke and mirrors.Originally Posted by redietz
"More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. 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." REDIETZ
Which sportsbooks offer YES/NO betting on futures?
I'm only aware of Circa NV.
Here's how it looks on the app menu:
Traditional view:
YES/NO view:
I found a Bovada tweet from last year indicating YES/NO on MLB, but I don't see anything at present. And I'm coming up dry at all the other books I've checked.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote