Originally Posted by
accountinquestion
Originally Posted by
cyberbabble
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.