Bob Dietz' Coming Appeararance On PokerFraudAlert Radio

[kewlJ]

Interesting.

So Red's business model is that he has clients who turn over large sums of money to him to bet on sports for a period of a number of months and if he wins, he returns their money and a portion of what he has won?

And what happens if/when he doesn't win?

I know PT Barnum said there is a sucker born every minute, but this is extremely hard for me to believe.

Oh and one other thing. The timeline. Red started this "enterprise" in 1979, which at 68/69 years old now, would have him as a fresh 22 year old straight out of college. How the fuck do you convince people to turn over large sums of money to a guy with no track record?

Something....make that many things don't add up for me. But I will let you guys figure it out.

[kewlJ]

I hate to say this....but based on the time of this information Axelwolf dug up, I think Red probably DID solicit Rob Singer as Singer has claimed. In 2011, when Red joined this forum, and made that introduction, he probably believed Singer's stories of winning huge amounts playing video poker and figured the guy has some money, making him a prime target.

This forum just gets weirder and weirder.

We have a dude born into a wealthy Arab family that wins millions and millions from the Strip casinos for years now, playing rated, and the casinos love him for it and take no action against him, instead comping him out the ass.

We have Mr Newell, win by progression wagering, win several million dollar jackpots, who ends up with a retirement plan of living off his kids.

And now we have a guy that has clients turn over large sums of money for him to bet and if he wins, he returns a portion of the winnings to them.

Add that to a former member/founder who claims he saw 18 y.o. in a row, and a guy, now deceased who claims he played blackjack professionally in Reno, where you can't get anything above green action down for more than 20 minutes and this is one doozy of a forum. Que the twilight zone music.

[AxelWolf]

It's the equivalent of using a slot club to boost a marginally profitable (or even negative) game.

And if one took a free roll percentage of his investors while playing a marginally profitable game, the investors would not have any advantage(depending on the percentages ofc); they would be investing in a negative situation due to having to pay a commission/percentage/fee. The only one who would be making a profit is the investee. And that's the problem with the tout/investor situation when it comes to sports betting, you're working with small advantages and a low number of trials.

[coach belly]

the investors would not have any advantage(depending on the percentages ofc); they would be investing in a negative situation due to having to pay a commission/percentage/fee.

When would this situation become problematic for the investor?

This reads like you are applying the expected value of random outcomes to sports betting.

[AxelWolf]

the investors would not have any advantage(depending on the percentages ofc); they would be investing in a negative situation due to having to pay a commission/percentage/fee.

When would this situation become problematic for the investor?

This reads like you are applying the expected value of random outcomes to sports betting.

One would need to know the touts' win rate/percentage/advantage/EV, average vig, a breakdown of how, when and why the investor pays. Helpful factors to know would be how many games the investor plans on staying in for. Will games be flat bet, or will there be some scale betting based on the presumed strength of the bet situation.

There's a lot that goes into figuring out if you actually have an advantage as an investor. I can see how someone could be snowed into thinking they have the best it of it based solely on what someone's record is showing.

Perhaps that's why certain people want to pretend there is no such thing as +EV in sports betting.

The same would apply to any gambling investing situation, minus the sports terminology.

[AxelWolf]

Assuming you have a 100.1 +EV situation on a game(or the players club) itself, and the investor had to give up 15% of his winnings, and they played one trial, the investor would be at a huge disadvantage, and the investee would have a huge advantage. As the percentage of the game and the number of trials increase the more likely the it becomes that the investor has an advantage. Game variance plays a part as well.

[MisterV]

Interesting. So Red's business model is that he has clients who turn over large sums of money to him to bet on sports for a period of a number of months and if he wins, he returns their money and a portion of what he has won?

Clever business model...for the tout.

But the investor?

Sort of like paying a stranger to fuck your wife while you get to watch from afar.

[mickeycrimm]

No telling what formula redietz was using but here is some simple math.

If the tout wins 55% of games for the investor:

Betting $1.10 for 100 games means a return of $115.50 on $110 in action.

If the investor pays 10% on the 55 winning bets his return is $110 on $110 in action.

If the tout also bets his own money at the same price as the investor then his return, including his commissions from the investor, is $121 on his $110 in action. A 10% ROI.

This also works to protect the tout from losses from losing sets of 100 decisions. The tout would break even if he won only 47 out of 100. But the investor, losing 11% on 47 out of 100, is shit out of luck.

Great deal for the tout. Not so good for the investor.

[DGenBen]

Interesting. So Red's business model is that he has clients who turn over large sums of money to him to bet on sports for a period of a number of months and if he wins, he returns their money and a portion of what he has won?

Clever business model...for the tout.

But the investor?

Sort of like paying a stranger to fuck your wife while you get to watch from afar.

Funny analogy but slightly flawed, as there are some people who do exactly this and perceive genuine value from the transaction based on their personal tastes.

[MDawg]

Again, this thread is NOT about me MDAWG. This is a thread about Red and his claims..

you will notice the posers, frauds, people like dawg and Singer, never talk about losing. Everything is winning, winning, winning with these people.

I have played blackjack, would have a pretty good blue print of how to play for a living in Las Vegas and be welcome to play for a long time (longevity). Because THAT really is what it comes down to with blackjack and card counting....being able to keep playing..

We have a dude born into a wealthy Arab family that wins millions and millions from the Strip casinos for years now, playing rated, and the casinos love him for it and take no action against him, instead comping him out the ass.

We have Mr Newell, win by progression wagering, win several million dollar jackpots, who ends up with a retirement plan of living off his kids.

Trying so hard to be a victim after the shit KJ has said about shack and qfit. People have a problem with you primarily because you’re as big of a self righteous hypocrite as there is in this world.

It is about you lying constantly !!!! and a ceaseless hypocrite

Dan Druff simply shares his expert opinion of what the truth is. he has been on these forums for a very long time and knows how to read people.

kewlJ has also been caught in a lot of lies over time, both on this forum and elsewhere. Therefore, it is unclear if he really makes much (or anything) playing blackjack these days.

kewlJ is basically the Boy Who Cried Wolf of these AP forums. He has lied so many times that it's impossible to believe any stories he tells.

[jdaewoo]

Why isn't this retard posting more fake baccarat sessions?

[accountinquestion]

Interesting.

So Red's business model is that he has clients who turn over large sums of money to him to bet on sports for a period of a number of months and if he wins, he returns their money and a portion of what he has won?

And what happens if/when he doesn't win?

I know PT Barnum said there is a sucker born every minute, but this is extremely hard for me to believe.

Oh and one other thing. The timeline. Red started this "enterprise" in 1979, which at 68/69 years old now, would have him as a fresh 22 year old straight out of college. How the fuck do you convince people to turn over large sums of money to a guy with no track record?

Something....make that many things don't add up for me. But I will let you guys figure it out.

It is funny how he compared what he does to APs when he doesn't even appear to gamble his own money. Just hustling freerolls. If you're good at it then it is great. I have a friend who lives in a large city that is fairly wealthy. He calls himself a stakehorse and gets in these spots all the time. Half of what he wins or nothing of he loses. I'm impressed.

But he isn't a player if he doesn't gamble his own money. He's a hustler through and through.

[accountinquestion]

No telling what formula redietz was using but here is some simple math.

If the tout wins 55% of games for the investor:

Betting $1.10 for 100 games means a return of $115.50 on $110 in action.

If the investor pays 10% on the 55 winning bets his return is $110 on $110 in action.

If the tout also bets his own money at the same price as the investor then his return, including his commissions from the investor, is $121 on his $110 in action. A 10% ROI.

This also works to protect the tout from losses from losing sets of 100 decisions. The tout would break even if he won only 47 out of 100. But the investor, losing 11% on 47 out of 100, is shit out of luck.

Great deal for the tout. Not so good for the investor.

Wait but what about those immoral types utilizing the bonuses of othere that were not going to be utilized otherwise?

Not fair to the casinos !

Lol

[monet]

Interesting.

So Red's business model is that he has clients who turn over large sums of money to him to bet on sports for a period of a number of months and if he wins, he returns their money and a portion of what he has won?

And what happens if/when he doesn't win?

I know PT Barnum said there is a sucker born every minute, but this is extremely hard for me to believe.

Oh and one other thing. The timeline. Red started this "enterprise" in 1979, which at 68/69 years old now, would have him as a fresh 22 year old straight out of college. How the fuck do you convince people to turn over large sums of money to a guy with no track record?

Something....make that many things don't add up for me. But I will let you guys figure it out.

It is funny how he compared what he does to APs when he doesn't even appear to gamble his own money. Just hustling freerolls. If you're good at it then it is great. I have a friend who lives in a large city that is fairly wealthy. He calls himself a stakehorse and gets in these spots all the time. Half of what he wins or nothing of he loses. I'm impressed.

But he isn't a player if he doesn't gamble his own money. He's a hustler through and through.

He literally has the smartest slant eyed gook sports and horse handicapper in the nation.
He's basically printing money.

[coach belly]

If the investor pays 10% on the 55 winning bets his return is $110 on $110 in action.

In your scenario, the bettor wins 55% of his wagers, then pays 10% commission on the overall win, which brings him to net break-even for his total wager.

Is that correct?

Is it impossible, or even unlikely, that Integrity's actual combination of win rate & commission rate will produce whatever return that's projected by the advisor?

There must be an infinite number of combinations that are +EV.

But you can eliminate any combination that won't or can't produce a consistent positive return, because his investors would not participate under those conditions.

[MisterV]

There is, of course, a way to objectively determine how successful a gambler is, and that is to examine their tax returns.

Not that Redietz, KJ or the hound should or would disclose them to a trusted, neutral party such as Dan for examination and then feedback to the forum: but they could.

Of course it will never happen and so questions will remain unanswered...not that the questions really matter.

[redietz]

If the investor pays 10% on the 55 winning bets his return is $110 on $110 in action.

In your scenario, the bettor wins 55% of his wagers, then pays 10% commission on the overall win, which brings him to net break-even for his total wager.

Is that correct?

Is it impossible, or even unlikely, that Integrity's actual combination of win rate & commission rate will produce whatever return that's projected by the advisor?

There must be an infinite number of combinations that are +EV.

But you can eliminate any combination that won't or can't produce a consistent positive return, because his investors would not participate under those conditions.

The thing I find shocking is how this all seems novel to "APs," who have posted all these hundreds of posts as if they have any idea what I do or how I do it. What I'm reporting here is basic, fundamental, obvious stuff, but I guess not all experts are expert, if you know what I mean. This is not terribly far removed from basic non-gambling investment relationships.

Well, far be it for me to not complicate it further. When people have asked about payback scales, what I have recommended to balance aggressiveness with sanity, is a sliding scale. Any profits up to 15% are "taxed" at 15%. Any annual profits beyond that are tit for tat -- 16% profit pays 16%. A 20% profit pays 20%, up to a ceiling of 35%. The ceiling prevents gluttony on my part.

Now I'm sure to next hear about mixing and matching so somebody must wind up owing me something. Well, that's a great plan -- LOL -- unless (A) your major wagers occasionally bleed into public view (as with The Wise Guys Contest or various monitors' reports) or ta taaa (B) the investors actually know each other, in which case any shenanigans become impossible. Oh Geez, I guess some readers are sooooo disappointed. You know, I considered skipping this obvious fact, and letting people speculate shadiness, but I figured I'd save you guys some time and effort.

For the record, by the way, investors were able to opt out of various categories, the categories being arbitrage, middles shooting, futures, and standard wagering. Nobody, of course, opts out of arbitrage.

I can't believe mickey is acting as if his simple math is revelatory -- the lack of sport betting savvy is, frankly, unbelievable here. Some folks are doing analyses as if they have uncovered something. I mean, Good Golly Miss Molly, if you didn't understand all this from the jump, why are you even commenting on any of it? You don't see me doing Dietz commentary on blackjack players or "advantage slots" dudes. It's because I'm not an idiot.

[monet]

If the investor pays 10% on the 55 winning bets his return is $110 on $110 in action.

In your scenario, the bettor wins 55% of his wagers, then pays 10% commission on the overall win, which brings him to net break-even for his total wager.

Is that correct?

Is it impossible, or even unlikely, that Integrity's actual combination of win rate & commission rate will produce whatever return that's projected by the advisor?

There must be an infinite number of combinations that are +EV.

But you can eliminate any combination that won't or can't produce a consistent positive return, because his investors would not participate under those conditions.

The thing I find shocking is how this all seems novel to "APs," who have posted all these hundreds of posts as if they have any idea what I do or how I do it. What I'm reporting here is basic, fundamental, obvious stuff, but I guess not all experts are expert, if you know what I mean. This is not terribly far removed from basic non-gambling investment relationships.

Well, far be it for me to not complicate it further. When people have asked about payback scales, what I have recommended to balance aggressiveness with sanity, is a sliding scale. Any profits up to 15% are "taxed" at 15%. Any annual profits beyond that are tit for tat -- 16% profit pays 16%. A 20% profit pays 20%, up to a ceiling of 35%. The ceiling prevents gluttony on my part.

Now I'm sure to next hear about mixing and matching so somebody must wind up owing me something. Well, that's a great plan -- LOL -- unless (A) your major wagers occasionally bleed into public view (as with The Wise Guys Contest or various monitors' reports) or ta taaa (B) the investors actually know each other, in which case any shenanigans become impossible. Oh Geez, I guess some readers are sooooo disappointed. You know, I considered skipping this obvious fact, and letting people speculate shadiness, but I figured I'd save you guys some time and effort.

For the record, by the way, investors were able to opt out of various categories, the categories being arbitrage, middles shooting, futures, and standard wagering. Nobody, of course, opts out of arbitrage.

I can't believe mickey is acting as if his simple math is revelatory -- the lack of sport betting savvy is, frankly, unbelievable here. Some folks are doing analyses as if they have uncovered something. I mean, Good Golly Miss Molly, if you didn't understand all this from the jump, why are you even commenting on any of it? You don't see me doing Dietz commentary on blackjack players or "advantage slots" dudes. It's because I'm not an idiot.

My problem is that you said you shouldn't respond to the lying queer J, but you keep responding to he/him/her/she/they/them/it.
And why on Earth do you need to type out novels to justify what you do?
Just keep picking winners baby.
But for goodness sakes, stop scamming people out of money for sports picks.
I'm ok with the scam but stop acting so moral.
Have some integrity.

[coach belly]

This is not terribly far removed from basic non-gambling investment relationships.

These guys are so far removed from the mainstream that their concept of basic investment relationships doesn't extend beyond grift.

You can see how that manifests itself, when multi friend-maker change-boy numero-uno, who has met and hung out with hundreds of members of the forums, ultimately chooses all the solitude and reclusion that his money can buy, for his penultimate play.

[kewlJ]

My problem is that you said you shouldn't respond to the lying queer J, but you keep responding to he/him/her/she/they/them/it.

You really are a piece of shit dude. I have been nothing but respectful to you, as we have occasionally discussed sports. And then you come at me with this shit. You can call me she/her, but I am a man. A gay man. And more of a man that you will ever be. And I can see my dick with the use and positioning of mirrors, you fat, disgusting, piece of shit.