The Riddler

[redietz]

Sporting events are not coin flips. Not at all. Not close.

Betting spreads combined with the juice are based in probability theory.

The house is essentially using probability theory to make a profit.

The house is only half the equation.

The bettor is the other half.

To write the full equation one can't use a bettor's opinion. You have to use the math.

The sporting event itself may not be a coin flip but the line makes betting against the spread very close to a coin flip. You could call it "a coin flip with juice."

Once again, Billy Walters did not bet based on opinion. He didn't bet hunches. He bet based on statistical analysis. Statistical analysis is huge in Probability Theory.

I'm not going to pick on mickey here. So let me just lay out the reality of all this. What he just wrote is, more or less, kindergarten gambling wisdom. The guy in my Road Trip thread got a perfect score on the math SAT and was vice-president of a large company. Another guy I consult was a CFO of a major firm. I hate to use a Shackleford angle here, but the majority of my folks have IQs above mine, which is usually mid-140's. I played hoops with the Penn State math department faculty and grad team, with a point guard from Romania, a Taiwanese off guard, and a Chinese power forward. Our sports analysis discussions were a little more sophisticated than this. My point is, if the post above is wisdom, you are severely out of your depth.

There are solid, valid, obvious, and accepted reasons (that Shackleford, for example, would certainly get) as to why it's a stupid self-sabotaging convenience to decide, on your own, that point spreads create coin flips. Only if God's making the spreads, folks. And He ain't.

What Mr. Walters wrote in his book was bare-bones stuff with major problems if you try to apply it to 2025 football (and really, anything after 1995). And you'll notice that Mr. Walters didn't do much breakdown of his college basketball betting. I wonder why. People should read his book carefully. Or have somebody who knows what he's just read explain the book to you.

Now, if anyone wants me to expand on this stuff, the show would be the place because why waste all of my insightful commentary here, after all?

God bless you, mickey. May you never pick up any wooden nickels. What I love about all this (and mickey) is that at no time did I ever debate or argue with mickey about slots. I just accepted, more or less on faith and reputation, that he knew what he was doing. Same with the kewlJ(s) and blackjack. Evidently I'm low man on the reputation totem pole because I've only done things in the real world for decades using my real name. And those things were documented by third parties. Bummer. I should have just gotten myself a swell handle, a YouTube channel, and decided I was a Leonardo Da AP.

That's my last comment here. It's semi-ridiculous. Mickey, who should know better, arguing this kind of stuff for some reason. He knows he has no business just sneaking in some line about spreads creating coin flips. If it's an attempt to import the math of random events and apply it to non-random events, guess what? No math prof is going to allow you to do that. Ask Shackleford. And account, for example, has no idea what he's talking about vis-a-vis sports. These guys with the proverbial slings and arrows -- funny stuff.

Have a good one.

And if you see The Riddler (unbeaten and unbowed), salute him for me.

[mickeycrimm]

I'm not going to pick on mickey here. So let me just lay out the reality of all this. What he just wrote is, more or less, kindergarten gambling wisdom. The guy in my Road Trip thread got a perfect score on the math SAT and was vice-president of a large company. Another guy I consult was a CFO of a major firm. I hate to use a Shackleford angle here, but the majority of my folks have IQs above mine, which is usually mid-140's. I played hoops with the Penn State math department faculty and grad team, with a point guard from Romania, a Taiwanese off guard, and a Chinese power forward. Our sports analysis discussions were a little more sophisticated than this. My point is, if the post above is wisdom, you are severely out of your depth.

Dude, once again you try to baffle with bullshit and once again you fail miserably. I'm embarrassed for you. You don't know jack squat about probability. You couldn't even answer a simple question like this:

WHAT IS THE CHANCE YOU CAN ROLL A 3 IN FOUR ROLLS OF A SIX SIDED DIE? This is a very basc question in probability and YOU COULDN'T ANSWER IT! You've avoided answering any math questions.

But, hey, I'll give you a chance with a couple more questions:

1. Can you give us at least one fundamental of Probability?

2. What was the mathematical problem, solved by mathematicians, that founded the branch of mathematics known as Probability?

Any student of Probability should be able to answer these two fundamental questions.

I'm glad that your having friends that are mathematical has made you an expert on probabiliy. I have a friend too. I'm good friends with my surgeon. So if you need gall stones removed or an appendectomy let me know. I'll be glad to do it. After all, I have a friend that does it. And he's got a BIIIIIIIIG DEGREEEEEEEEE!!!

PS: Everybody else, please don't answer the questions. Give redietz time to answer them.

[mickeycrimm]

IGod bless you, mickey. May you never pick up any wooden nickels. What I love about all this (and mickey) is that at no time did I ever debate or argue with mickey about slots. I just accepted, more or less on faith and reputation, that he knew what he was doing.

Dimwitted Ditz blunders again!

There are a lot of other voices besides me on slots. I suggest you get their takes on slots too. Everyone else does.

And that's whats wrong with your implying that I should take what you say for granted. I've read many other sports gamblers. They all, at one time or another, have written about EV in sports betting. Here's a list of names you can check on the internet:

Billy Walters
Frank B.
Spanky Kryollos
Captain Jack
Rufus Peabody
Steve Fezzik

I've read all of these guys and much of what the say doesn't jive with what you say.

[AxelWolf]

Meh, all this is nonsense. Can you make a living via gambling nowadays or not? Yes? Show me the math, plays or witnesses. Or, take up my challenge and see.

Meanwhile, did red ever respond to when the PFA show is going to happen? If not why does he keep dodging the question.

[MisterV]

Axl, Dan said he'll reach out to them with acceptable dates, then it will happen.

Dan has not done so yet, apparently.

Blame Dan for dawdling, not redietz for dodging.

[mickeycrimm]

Axl, Dan said he'll reach out to them with acceptable dates, then it will happen.

Dan has not done so yet, apparently.

Blame Dan for dawdling, not redietz for dodging.

It was February 2023 when we challenged redietz to do a show and he accepted saying he would straighten us all out on sportsbetting and EV. Then he privately told Munchkin he had no desire to do the podcast. And redietz hid that big of information from us. Every time we brought it up he came with some bullshit but still pretended he was going to do it. I found out what he told Munchkin on my own. After two years I had to create a thread about it to get some movement.

[MisterV]

yes, I know...and now he's cornered, like a possum up a tree.

You'll finally have verifiable proof of him dodging if he refuses to participate.

[AxelWolf]

Axl, Dan said he'll reach out to them with acceptable dates, then it will happen.

Dan has not done so yet, apparently.

Blame Dan for dawdling, not redietz for dodging.

Well, if we are waiting on Dan I won't hold my breath as I'm sure he has better things to do than to set up a show just to listen to Red tell us how he used to work for Billy Walters and why there is no such thing as EV when handicrapping.

[redietz]

Axl, Dan said he'll reach out to them with acceptable dates, then it will happen.

Dan has not done so yet, apparently.

Blame Dan for dawdling, not redietz for dodging.

Well, if we are waiting on Dan I won't hold my breath as I'm sure he has better things to do than to set up a show just to listen to Red tell us how he used to work for Billy Walters and why there is no such thing as EV when handicrapping.

Personally, I think The Riddler is much more deserving than me to be on the show. I'm sure an audience would love to pick the brain of a guy who made a documented profit on eight (or was it nine?) consecutive wildly differing projects over a two-year period, and with no losses! Boy, I hope Todd can track him down. It would save me the embarrassment of being debunked on a public show. Where is The Riddler?

[monet]

Redietz posts his real-life name and address but when making sports picks, for the VCT Faithful, he has to go incognito and do Riddler Shit.
Sucks.

[accountinquestion]

Sporting events are not coin flips. Not at all. Not close.

Betting spreads combined with the juice are based in probability theory.

The house is essentially using probability theory to make a profit.

The house is only half the equation.

The bettor is the other half.

To write the full equation one can't use a bettor's opinion. You have to use the math.

The sporting event itself may not be a coin flip but the line makes betting against the spread very close to a coin flip. You could call it "a coin flip with juice."

Once again, Billy Walters did not bet based on opinion. He didn't bet hunches. He bet based on statistical analysis. Statistical analysis is huge in Probability Theory.

I'm not going to pick on mickey here. So let me just lay out the reality of all this. What he just wrote is, more or less, kindergarten gambling wisdom. The guy in my Road Trip thread got a perfect score on the math SAT and was vice-president of a large company. Another guy I consult was a CFO of a major firm. I hate to use a Shackleford angle here, but the majority of my folks have IQs above mine, which is usually mid-140's. I played hoops with the Penn State math department faculty and grad team, with a point guard from Romania, a Taiwanese off guard, and a Chinese power forward. Our sports analysis discussions were a little more sophisticated than this. My point is, if the post above is wisdom, you are severely out of your depth.

There are solid, valid, obvious, and accepted reasons (that Shackleford, for example, would certainly get) as to why it's a stupid self-sabotaging convenience to decide, on your own, that point spreads create coin flips. Only if God's making the spreads, folks. And He ain't.

What Mr. Walters wrote in his book was bare-bones stuff with major problems if you try to apply it to 2025 football (and really, anything after 1995). And you'll notice that Mr. Walters didn't do much breakdown of his college basketball betting. I wonder why. People should read his book carefully. Or have somebody who knows what he's just read explain the book to you.

Now, if anyone wants me to expand on this stuff, the show would be the place because why waste all of my insightful commentary here, after all?

God bless you, mickey. May you never pick up any wooden nickels. What I love about all this (and mickey) is that at no time did I ever debate or argue with mickey about slots. I just accepted, more or less on faith and reputation, that he knew what he was doing. Same with the kewlJ(s) and blackjack. Evidently I'm low man on the reputation totem pole because I've only done things in the real world for decades using my real name. And those things were documented by third parties. Bummer. I should have just gotten myself a swell handle, a YouTube channel, and decided I was a Leonardo Da AP.

That's my last comment here. It's semi-ridiculous. Mickey, who should know better, arguing this kind of stuff for some reason. He knows he has no business just sneaking in some line about spreads creating coin flips. If it's an attempt to import the math of random events and apply it to non-random events, guess what? No math prof is going to allow you to do that. Ask Shackleford. And account, for example, has no idea what he's talking about vis-a-vis sports. These guys with the proverbial slings and arrows -- funny stuff.

Have a good one.

And if you see The Riddler (unbeaten and unbowed), salute him for me.

Says a guy who thinks expected value is the better term to use when the value is completely known... do you get that redietz?

[pinchingyourballs]

Dan should interview the Piddler. He knows all the best spots for public urination.

[The Boz]

Dan should interview the Piddler. He knows all the best spots for public urination.

We already have to Shiddler but they just go wherever they are when the urge strikes, no need for the best spots with her.

[mickeycrimm]

But, hey, I'll give you a chance with a couple more questions:

1. Can you give us at least one fundamental of Probability?

2. What was the mathematical problem, solved by mathematicians, that founded the branch of mathematics known as Probability?

Any student of Probability should be able to answer these two fundamental questions.

Hey, redietz, in your last post you forgot to answer the two above questions. Did you forget? Oh, okay. You forgot. We forgive you. So here we go again.

Would you please answer the above two questions?

[smurgerburger]

Redietz posts his real-life name and address but when making sports picks, for the VCT Faithful, he has to go incognito and do Riddler Shit.
Sucks.

Solid observation.

[pinchingyourballs]

But, hey, I'll give you a chance with a couple more questions:

1. Can you give us at least one fundamental of Probability?

2. What was the mathematical problem, solved by mathematicians, that founded the branch of mathematics known as Probability?

Any student of Probability should be able to answer these two fundamental questions.

Hey, redietz, in your last post you forgot to answer the two above questions. Did you forget? Oh, okay. You forgot. We forgive you. So here we go again.

Would you please answer the above two questions?

The problem with your test is that Chat GPT can easily answer them. It's even gotten much better at answering math questions, even abstract ones. For example, it supplied the correct answer to the following probability problem: An N-sided die is rolled 2N times. As N goes to infinity, what is the *exact* probability that a "1" is rolled at least once? (The exact answer is 1 - e^-2.)

Oddly, for much easier and less abstract problems than the one above, Chat GPT usually runs simulations to provide an approximate answer. For example, I gave it this problem: Three 12-sided dice, two 8-sided dice, and one 6-sided dice are rolled together 70 times. What is the *exact* probability of getting a sum of 35 at least once? Chat GPT gave up on giving me an exact answer and gave me the approximate answer of 97.4%. (The exact answer is 23747334394408570396012778743653759063488520677884 31909726511693069935091666359131323558466286507549 17934606771203789431033685265463262448640672664790 72931360164245720066763476446235261816365926024140 53169284974273091793595143285349153033702219751175 11958045182410764674659080716117376291338655213311 00182829511370534284865868399488285285221934304885 1042302946518023/24380801733460786192855177712943382337567918666624 47074439286541531357532392672388934788548086628894 47360680997070232047251093593266399949498498281964 87003477939197014790600408982492808769914194724947 84070162622583613879526819141284028494582978872096 66715773473330543549598950631334348201636519885742 78907430040076379180195092126186179696146750683641 8446941512269824)

If you want to test someone's math abilities make sure your questions can't be AI'ed or WolframAlpha'ed easily.

[accountinquestion]

But, hey, I'll give you a chance with a couple more questions:

1. Can you give us at least one fundamental of Probability?

2. What was the mathematical problem, solved by mathematicians, that founded the branch of mathematics known as Probability?

Any student of Probability should be able to answer these two fundamental questions.

Hey, redietz, in your last post you forgot to answer the two above questions. Did you forget? Oh, okay. You forgot. We forgive you. So here we go again.

Would you please answer the above two questions?

The problem with your test is that Chat GPT can easily answer them. It's even gotten much better at answering math questions, even abstract ones. For example, it supplied the correct answer to the following probability problem: An N-sided die is rolled 2N times. As N goes to infinity, what is the *exact* probability that a "1" is rolled at least once? (The exact answer is 1 - e^-2.)

Oddly, for much easier and less abstract problems than the one above, Chat GPT usually runs simulations to provide an approximate answer. For example, I gave it this problem: Three 12-sided dice, two 8-sided dice, and one 6-sided dice are rolled together 70 times. What is the *exact* probability of getting a sum of 35 at least once? Chat GPT gave up on giving me an exact answer and gave me the approximate answer of 97.4%. (The exact answer is 23747334394408570396012778743653759063488520677884 31909726511693069935091666359131323558466286507549 17934606771203789431033685265463262448640672664790 72931360164245720066763476446235261816365926024140 53169284974273091793595143285349153033702219751175 11958045182410764674659080716117376291338655213311 00182829511370534284865868399488285285221934304885 1042302946518023/24380801733460786192855177712943382337567918666624 47074439286541531357532392672388934788548086628894 47360680997070232047251093593266399949498498281964 87003477939197014790600408982492808769914194724947 84070162622583613879526819141284028494582978872096 66715773473330543549598950631334348201636519885742 78907430040076379180195092126186179696146750683641 8446941512269824)

If you want to test someone's math abilities make sure your questions can't be AI'ed or WolframAlpha'ed easily.

Buddy, Redietz didn't even know EV is widely used in sports betting.

I don't think he knows anything about AI.

The caves of Tennessee are a helluva place.

[cyberbabble]

Perhaps we could set up a handicapping contest between redietz and Chat GPT. Of course, Chat GPT would be at a disadvantage since redietz is a pro.
Something like redietz -130 and Chat GPT +130 looks about right to even it out.

[mickeycrimm]

But, hey, I'll give you a chance with a couple more questions:

1. Can you give us at least one fundamental of Probability?

2. What was the mathematical problem, solved by mathematicians, that founded the branch of mathematics known as Probability?

Any student of Probability should be able to answer these two fundamental questions.

Hey, redietz, in your last post you forgot to answer the two above questions. Did you forget? Oh, okay. You forgot. We forgive you. So here we go again.

Would you please answer the above two questions?

The problem with your test is that Chat GPT can easily answer them. It's even gotten much better at answering math questions, even abstract ones. For example, it supplied the correct answer to the following probability problem: An N-sided die is rolled 2N times. As N goes to infinity, what is the *exact* probability that a "1" is rolled at least once? (The exact answer is 1 - e^-2.)

Oddly, for much easier and less abstract problems than the one above, Chat GPT usually runs simulations to provide an approximate answer. For example, I gave it this problem: Three 12-sided dice, two 8-sided dice, and one 6-sided dice are rolled together 70 times. What is the *exact* probability of getting a sum of 35 at least once? Chat GPT gave up on giving me an exact answer and gave me the approximate answer of 97.4%. (The exact answer is 23747334394408570396012778743653759063488520677884 31909726511693069935091666359131323558466286507549 17934606771203789431033685265463262448640672664790 72931360164245720066763476446235261816365926024140 53169284974273091793595143285349153033702219751175 11958045182410764674659080716117376291338655213311 00182829511370534284865868399488285285221934304885 1042302946518023/24380801733460786192855177712943382337567918666624 47074439286541531357532392672388934788548086628894 47360680997070232047251093593266399949498498281964 87003477939197014790600408982492808769914194724947 84070162622583613879526819141284028494582978872096 66715773473330543549598950631334348201636519885742 78907430040076379180195092126186179696146750683641 8446941512269824)

If you want to test someone's math abilities make sure your questions can't be AI'ed or WolframAlpha'ed easily.

You didn’t answer either of the two questions.

[AxelWolf]

Perhaps we could set up a handicapping contest between redietz and Chat GPT. Of course, Chat GPT would be at a disadvantage since redietz is a pro.
Something like redietz -130 and Chat GPT +130 looks about right to even it out.

Fuck the AI. Go VS ME! I offered a challenge already with a few options, and said "I'm willing to negotiate terms."