Professional Sportsbetting

[accountinquestion]

https://plusevanalytics.wordpress.co...-5-easy-rules/ great post. I like this idea of cross game correlations. This one post has 10x more actionable info about sports betting than we've ever heard from redietz.

I mean, other than every one of "The Riddler's" suggestions making money. LOL.

God Bless "actionable info." It's a great substitute for winning.

You're both clueless and a clown.

Unintentionally, of course.

[accountinquestion]

I took a meteorology course, if that's what you mean. Not a phantom one at Villanova, either. And had lunch with a Mr. Munchkin yesterday, if that counts.

KewlJ(s) have discovered the effects of weather on sports. Happy days. Next they'll be getting checks from casinos to avoid getting robbed.

Or not.

The nuggets of wisdom here are top notch. Deep thoughts.

You took a meteorology course? Yeah, just like you read a probability book. Ahahahahaha!

Did you explain to Munch how he is wrong about multi-accounting?

Lol or lecture him how EV is not a useful concept in sports betting because such a thing can't exist!

Redietz is just a football nerd who will prattle on about minutia expecting real gamblers to look up to him.

Redietz stick with sports bettors.

[accountinquestion]

And had lunch with a Mr. Munchkin yesterday, if that counts.

Did you explain to Munch how he is wrong about multi-accounting?

What about tracking a second table....did you have time to ask Munchkin about that. He was one of the first that when I mentioned it and started getting all that pushback, he told me, "Oh yeah, I have been doing some of that for years".

To be clear - my issue was you tracking 3 tables.

[accountinquestion]

https://plusevanalytics.wordpress.co...-5-easy-rules/ great post. I like this idea of cross game correlations. This one post has 10x more actionable info about sports betting than we've ever heard from redietz.

I mean, other than every one of "The Riddler's" suggestions making money. LOL.

God Bless "actionable info." It's a great substitute for winning.

You're both clueless and a clown.

Unintentionally, of course.

If one doesn't bet sports then one has to establish a book and deposit. In addition to that one has to expend effort on your goofy riddles or whatever. Then if a legit AP they're going to do an off the cuff EV calculation of each riddle to determine whether it is worth their time.

To any actual successful prof3ssional gambler it is as clear as day why that isn't a winning move. But in your simple world model they're fools for not listening to you.

Good stuff redietz. I love you not for the man you are but for the poster you are. I'm likely your #1 fan, yanno.

I just felt it wasn't very clear why I was so mean.

[kewlJ]

To be clear - my issue was you tracking 3 tables.

First of all, I don't really care what YOUR issue is with anything, AcctinQ. I don't think that much of you as a person or AP to care what you might think.

Secondly, you weren't even a member of this forum when the original tracking of multiple tables took place. You became a member some 2 years later. So what exactly is your objection. What do you think was said about tracking a 3rd table?

The discussion started with me mentioning the tracking of a second table, which Alan, Rob and some of the other arguing types immediately jumped on to argue. None of those arguing that someone couldn't track a second (or later in the discussion 3rd) table had or has any experience playing blackjack that I could tell and certainly not counting cards. At the time, there were two members that did have a good deal of experience counting cards, JBJB and RS_. Both confirmed that they had tracked a second table or were well aware of the technique. RS_ had time playing on a professional blackjack teams, so naturally he was aware of the technique.

In addition, mickeycrimm, linked to a discussion at another forum where a pretty well know long time card counter "Sonny" (slightly before my time) spoke of tracking 2 tables at once. And during the discussion I contacted 3 longtime card counters, Munchkin, Schlesinger and the 3rd prefers I not use his name, that all confirmed they not only were aware of tracking a second table, but had done so at times during their career.

So a bunch of real card counters, most at a professional level, all confirmed. Vs, a handful of non-card counters, most like Alan and Singer, didn't even play much if any blackjack. So the topic just evolved into a typical VCT those who know vs those who don't discussion.

I will break here so as not to make this post too long.

[kewlJ]

Now several weeks into this discussion (still 2 years before you joined the forum AcctinQ), is when I mentioned that if everything was just right, which would include sitting in middle seat with a view of BOTH neighboring tables, and both neighboring tables were starting at the same time, I could track all three tables FOR A ROUND OR TWO ONLY, at which point I would drop the lowest count at one of the neighboring tables and continue tracking the better two.

So THAT is what I said, acctinQ. What is it that you object to? That a person can track a 3rd table for a round or two (approximately a minute)? That is what you think is impossible?

I have news for you. On the blackjack teams that use the spotter/big player call in approach, spotters are tracking 3-5 tables and for far longer than a round or two. What amazes me is that YOU acctinQ and some of these other people that have absolutely no experience counting cards, some of you appear to know little about blackjack, yet these are the people arguing tracking multiple tables can't be done. Your opinion is meaningless. So I don't really give a flying FUCK, what your issue is.

[kewlJ]

And for the record, which I have said a number of times, this technique is all but gone now. There may be an occasional casino that has a set up with enough BJ tables in close proximity, and arranged just right, but for the most part all the new table games, including some blackjack variants, have taken up space that used to just be traditional blackjack tables, and you just don't see that perfect set up very often anymore. But by all means, lets continue an argument with non card counters, and non blackjack players voicing their "issues".

[MDawg]

The longer the UNKewl post, the more lies it contains.

And of course, there will be some regurgitation of theory he pulled from somewhere or other blah blah blah as he tries to make it seem like he has actually played and not just read about it.


UNKewlJ has gotten to the pitiful point where he cries over being picked on, and wonders why anyone would bother picking on such a helpless person in the first place.

Poor poor KJ. Always the victim.

[MDawg]

This is not meant as a joke at KJ's expense. There has been quite the change in KJ over the last few years. We all know of his heart problems and his bout with covid. He is bound to have suffered from a lack of oxygen to the brain multiple times, especially with the covid. And that has obviously caused some major mental deterioration as we all have witnessed in his postings. He no longer can remember simple facts and gets confused. I have nothing against KJ but it is hard to ignore the deterioration of his mental faculties.

[redietz]

I took a meteorology course, if that's what you mean. Not a phantom one at Villanova, either. And had lunch with a Mr. Munchkin yesterday, if that counts.

KewlJ(s) have discovered the effects of weather on sports. Happy days. Next they'll be getting checks from casinos to avoid getting robbed.

Or not.

The nuggets of wisdom here are top notch. Deep thoughts.

You took a meteorology course? Yeah, just like you read a probability book. Ahahahahaha!

Did you explain to Munch how he is wrong about multi-accounting?

Lol or lecture him how EV is not a useful concept in sports betting because such a thing can't exist!

Redietz is just a football nerd who will prattle on about minutia expecting real gamblers to look up to him.

Redietz stick with sports bettors.

Again, for the umpteenth time, since I will not allow you to misrepresent anything I said (which is undoubtedly why you don't use direct quotes of me and instead paraphrase everything), EV is fine for arbitrage or middles shooting calculations. It's also fine to use in PAST TENSE to describe what the EV WAS for a particular play or project. But you should not use EV going forward for sports investing outside of arbitrage or middles shooting calculations because you are not dealing with random events. It really is that simple. No amount of history or past results or success/failure allows one to logically use EV going forward for sports betting outside of those parameters because:

1) You do not know what is currently affecting what is an open real-world system. A change in rules season to season, or in-season, or a change in the pool of people doing the gambling (demographic or money profile) -- in other words, a change in the source of the money -- changes the current odds relationship with past odds. To blithely presume none of these matter is utter naivete and utter arrogance, which leads to:

2) You always have to ask yourself, what is more likely? That people (A) overestimate their ability to describe, calculate, and predict events based on their data access and abilities, or (B) they underestimate their abilities to do so. Hint -- it's not B.

So what I suggest is asking what's more likely, is the idea one can use blanket, simple skills to win at everything in reality, or is doing so both self-aggrandizement and an excuse to gamble. If people answer that question honestly, then they may get some awareness of their Fred Flintstone gamble/gamble/gamble problem.

Why people think they should be applying the math of random events to non-random events is baffling, unless they simply want an excuse to (1) claim expertise they do not have and (2) gamble, gamble, gamble.

[MDawg]

Munchkin does not communicate with UNKewlJ, notwithstanding the UNKewl attempts to make it seem like any APs know who he even is. Why any AP would care about a male prostitute is part of why UNKewl is a LyingJason.

[kewlJ]

Munchkin does not communicate with UNKewlJ, notwithstanding the UNKewl attempts to make it seem like any APs know who he even is. Why any AP would care about a male prostitute is part of why UNKewl is a LyingJason.

Are we on a first name basis now? Then you won't mind if I post your name over and over? That is an attempt at doxxing and everyone knows it. And you wonder why people think you are such a lowlife sand nigger.

You are correct that I do not correspond regularly with Munchkin much anymore. Used to when we were on the same forum (norms forum and BJinfo). Munchkin was someone that I asked some questions and advice of privately. But we are no longer on the same forum, and he doesn't play much blackjack at least in regards to card counting, so I don't have much of a reason to contact him much. I think the last time was when I contacted several people in 2017 or early 2018 asking about their experience with tracking a second or 3rd table. And he got back to me very quickly. I have no doubt if I had a reason to contact him, he would again get back to me in a timely manner.

There are a lot of card counting or blackjack AP's current or former, that if I have a question or seek advice I can contact. Doesn't mean I do so regularly. AND likewise, I hear from some of them and other players on occasion when they have a question. Often a question about playing conditions in Vegas, which I try to help if I can.

Not sure what your point is here, other than to just be the dick that you are.

[tableplay]

Why people think they should be applying the math of random events to non-random events is baffling

Luckily, you have the knowledge of La Place's Demon such that everything is deterministic to you. You are unique in this (with the possible exception of your girlfriend). Everyone else, from other sports bettors, casinos, advantage players, meteorologists, actuaries and so on must slum it and use probability.

[accountinquestion]

You took a meteorology course? Yeah, just like you read a probability book. Ahahahahaha!

Did you explain to Munch how he is wrong about multi-accounting?

Lol or lecture him how EV is not a useful concept in sports betting because such a thing can't exist!

Redietz is just a football nerd who will prattle on about minutia expecting real gamblers to look up to him.

Redietz stick with sports bettors.

Again, for the umpteenth time, since I will not allow you to misrepresent anything I said (which is undoubtedly why you don't use direct quotes of me and instead paraphrase everything), EV is fine for arbitrage or middles shooting calculations. It's also fine to use in PAST TENSE to describe what the EV WAS for a particular play or project. But you should not use EV going forward for sports investing outside of arbitrage or middles shooting calculations because you are not dealing with random events. It really is that simple. No amount of history or past results or success/failure allows one to logically use EV going forward for sports betting outside of those parameters because:

1) You do not know what is currently affecting what is an open real-world system. A change in rules season to season, or in-season, or a change in the pool of people doing the gambling (demographic or money profile) -- in other words, a change in the source of the money -- changes the current odds relationship with past odds. To blithely presume none of these matter is utter naivete and utter arrogance, which leads to:

2) You always have to ask yourself, what is more likely? That people (A) overestimate their ability to describe, calculate, and predict events based on their data access and abilities, or (B) they underestimate their abilities to do so. Hint -- it's not B.

So what I suggest is asking what's more likely, is the idea one can use blanket, simple skills to win at everything in reality, or is doing so both self-aggrandizement and an excuse to gamble. If people answer that question honestly, then they may get some awareness of their Fred Flintstone gamble/gamble/gamble problem.

Why people think they should be applying the math of random events to non-random events is baffling, unless they simply want an excuse to (1) claim expertise they do not have and (2) gamble, gamble, gamble.

People use EV all over in sports betting.

I don't use direct quotes because I'm not going back to research the nonsensical stuff you've said in the past.

[AxelWolf]

Lol or lecture him how EV is not a useful concept in sports betting because such a thing can't exist!

Redietz is just a football nerd who will prattle on about minutia expecting real gamblers to look up to him.

Redietz stick with sports bettors.

Again, for the umpteenth time, since I will not allow you to misrepresent anything I said (which is undoubtedly why you don't use direct quotes of me and instead paraphrase everything), EV is fine for arbitrage or middles shooting calculations. It's also fine to use in PAST TENSE to describe what the EV WAS for a particular play or project. But you should not use EV going forward for sports investing outside of arbitrage or middles shooting calculations because you are not dealing with random events. It really is that simple. No amount of history or past results or success/failure allows one to logically use EV going forward for sports betting outside of those parameters because:

1) You do not know what is currently affecting what is an open real-world system. A change in rules season to season, or in-season, or a change in the pool of people doing the gambling (demographic or money profile) -- in other words, a change in the source of the money -- changes the current odds relationship with past odds. To blithely presume none of these matter is utter naivete and utter arrogance, which leads to:

2) You always have to ask yourself, what is more likely? That people (A) overestimate their ability to describe, calculate, and predict events based on their data access and abilities, or (B) they underestimate their abilities to do so. Hint -- it's not B.

So what I suggest is asking what's more likely, is the idea one can use blanket, simple skills to win at everything in reality, or is doing so both self-aggrandizement and an excuse to gamble. If people answer that question honestly, then they may get some awareness of their Fred Flintstone gamble/gamble/gamble problem.

Why people think they should be applying the math of random events to non-random events is baffling, unless they simply want an excuse to (1) claim expertise they do not have and (2) gamble, gamble, gamble.

People use EV all over in sports betting.

I don't use direct quotes because I'm not going back to research the nonsensical stuff you've said in the past.

Exactly

[MDawg]

KJ is different because (1) I initially believed him, more or less, and (2) he is imo a complete fraud. I don't mean a liar, I mean a complete fraud, like catfish style. And that is not something you see every day and is really kind of fascinating.

[smurgerburger]

As best I can figure it redietz thinks that the use of mathematics implies the belief that mathematical models necessarily yield correct results, which is obviously untrue.

People make casual calculations all the time ("I think there's a 50/50 chance we win if we reject this settlement offer and go forward, and if we do win we'll win $X, therefore...") knowing that the premises of the model and its inputs are not necessarily correct.

If the judge is corrupt and therefore the lawyer's likelihood of winning is not what his historical record would suggest, does that mean his method of estimation was wrong? Should he have used some alternative "mathematics of non-random events"?

[AxelWolf]

As best I can figure it redietz thinks that the use of mathematics implies the belief that mathematical models necessarily yield correct results, which is obviously untrue.

People make casual calculations all the time ("I think there's a 50/50 chance we win if we reject this settlement offer and go forward, and if we do win we'll win $X, therefore...") knowing that the premises of the model and its inputs are not necessarily correct.

If the judge is corrupt and therefore the lawyer's likelihood of winning is not what his historical record would suggest, does that mean his method of estimation was wrong? Should he have used some alternative "mathematics of non-random events"?

How was it he could tell his investors they could expect to make 10%(or whatever he was TOUTING)

[smurgerburger]

As best I can figure it redietz thinks that the use of mathematics implies the belief that mathematical models necessarily yield correct results, which is obviously untrue.

People make casual calculations all the time ("I think there's a 50/50 chance we win if we reject this settlement offer and go forward, and if we do win we'll win $X, therefore...") knowing that the premises of the model and its inputs are not necessarily correct.

If the judge is corrupt and therefore the lawyer's likelihood of winning is not what his historical record would suggest, does that mean his method of estimation was wrong? Should he have used some alternative "mathematics of non-random events"?

How was it he could tell his investors they could expect to make 10%(or whatever he was TOUTING)

Apparently using some alternate branch of mathematics.

[redietz]

As best I can figure it redietz thinks that the use of mathematics implies the belief that mathematical models necessarily yield correct results, which is obviously untrue.

People make casual calculations all the time ("I think there's a 50/50 chance we win if we reject this settlement offer and go forward, and if we do win we'll win $X, therefore...") knowing that the premises of the model and its inputs are not necessarily correct.

If the judge is corrupt and therefore the lawyer's likelihood of winning is not what his historical record would suggest, does that mean his method of estimation was wrong? Should he have used some alternative "mathematics of non-random events"?

How was it he could tell his investors they could expect to make 10%(or whatever he was TOUTING)

Apparently using some alternate branch of mathematics.

You are correct. So, granting you are correct, how is "the EV is" any different from "my opinion is?"

Answer: It's not. And that is my point. The people using "EV" going forward in sports betting are simply subbing in "the EV is" for "my opinion is." It dresses up the estimation with gobbledygook, and it allows the person doing the estimating from needing to dress up the estimating with any actual knowledge of the events being discussed. "Math" phrasing becomes a kind of intellectual cover.

This is obvious, simple stuff. "The EV is" -- LOL. No, it's "I think the EV is." Huge difference.

There is a monstrous difference between an actual established EV based on actual probability theory, and some dude dressing up vague ballpark estimates with "the EV is."

Or maybe I'm all wet, and it's fine when "APs" throw out "the EV is" for non-random events based on their personal history and whatever neurons they can bring to the table in that moment. So what if they turn out to be off by 1% or 5% or 20%? They are, after all, "APs."