Bob Dietz' Coming Appeararance On PokerFraudAlert Radio

[Kim Lee]

Kim Lee also has all those copies of T & G and after studying them and your results in their entirety,

You are picking a fight over whether Integrity Sports won 35 years ago? Or whether Bob criticized sleazy ads in USA today? GMAFB.

Mike McCusker invented the idea of a sports monitor publication. Tipsters and Gypsters did not have many handicappers, and few had a long-term record. It was long ago, did not last long, and McCusker is dead.

The Sports Monitor is a better modern monitor.

https://www.thesportsmonitor.com/pages/home.php

I comprehensively studied their records long ago, and another member of Sharpsportsbetting continued. IIRC correctly, he even paid to be monitored to learn the process.

Last year, the college basketball records ranged form 40.54% to 57.89%, and the average was below 50%. And they even allow a bit of shopping in the pointspreads! The luckiest monkey brags, but I found no evidence of a persistent skill component instead of pure luck. For comparison, I don't see Chris Moneymaker or Jamie Gold winning any major poker tournaments after winning the WSOP main event.

There are far more professional athletes than successful sports bettors. If a guy brags about being the best high school basketball player in Calavaras county in the 1980's, then he was not a professional athlete. I don't know how Redietz handicapped in the 1980's or whether his early winning records were just luck. But the fact that he has been a tout for four decades tells me he made more money selling picks that betting them.

[MDawg]

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

[kewlJ]

You are picking a fight over whether Integrity Sports won 35 years ago? Or whether Bob criticized sleazy ads in USA today? GMAFB.

I don't think I am the one who picked a fight. Redietz picked the fight with not just me but several advantage players, who he criticized for being anonymous, while he is "verified" and monitored by an independent third party. When the truth is that monitoring is for the sole purpose of soliciting clients (tout type service).

I never had a problem with Dietz and still don't. I am anti-casino and on the side of anyone that can take some money from the casino, from fulltime advantage players to recreational players. But a tout isn't really taking money from casinos. Dietz, telling everyone how smart he is with his hi IQ, and perfect SAT scores from 50 years ago, and a 40 year professional sports bettor, while putting down not just me but everyone else, just gets tired after a while. Anyway, good internet fun and cheaper than cable.


Oh and "Integrity Sports"......oxymoron.

[MisterV]

Dietz, telling everyone how smart he is with his hi IQ, and perfect SAT scores from 50 years ago, and a 40 year professional sports bettor, while putting down not just me but everyone else, just gets tired after a while.

But what if what he claims is the truth?

What if he actually does have a hi (sic) IQ and had perfect SAT scores from 50 years ago?

If in fact the claims are true then you have insight into the man's mind and can discern the insecurities he must battle with, compelled as it seems he is to brag to strangers about his alleged wit and wisdom and his exploits from the last century; if not true then same conclusion.

Either way you've got him pegged.

He's from the same bolt of cloth as Singer ("you little people") and the hound ("wealthy lawyer, constantly winning huge sums for years in LV").

These are some of the claims that, as you correctly say, provide us with "good internet fun and cheaper than cable."

[MDawg]

Dietz, telling everyone how smart he is with his hi IQ

What if he actually does have a hi (sic) IQ

Are you mocking UNKewlJ.

This, combined with her affect/effect confusion and dispense despense faux pas are further proof that she's a street educated bum high school dropout.

[jdaewoo]

Why isn't this retard out winning 80% of his tie bets?

[MisterV]

Are you mocking UNKewlJ.

No, I am not mocking him.

Hey, you claim to be a lawyer, the reason my rephrasing should have been clear, but I guess I'd better tell you.

When requoting something that is spelled incorrectly one should insert to term "(sic)" after the misspelling, not to denote the claimant's stupidity but to clarify only that you caught the error and are correcting it.

[redietz]

Dietz, telling everyone how smart he is with his hi IQ, and perfect SAT scores from 50 years ago, and a 40 year professional sports bettor, while putting down not just me but everyone else, just gets tired after a while.

But what if what he claims is the truth?

What if he actually does have a hi (sic) IQ and had perfect SAT scores from 50 years ago?

If in fact the claims are true then you have insight into the man's mind and can discern the insecurities he must battle with, compelled as it seems he is to brag to strangers about his alleged wit and wisdom and his exploits from the last century; if not true then same conclusion.

Either way you've got him pegged.

He's from the same bolt of cloth as Singer ("you little people") and the hound ("wealthy lawyer, constantly winning huge sums for years in LV").

These are some of the claims that, as you correctly say, provide us with "good internet fun and cheaper than cable."

Actually, what Mr. Lee is missing is the fundamental reality that people are specialists. That 57% at the far end of the bell curve that Mr. Lee mentions is more than fine. It's excellent. I don't know what kinds of weird expectations people have, but anybody banging out a lifetime 55% is doing a helluva job, I can guarantee they are doing it at one sport and one sport only, and Lee can verify that. My lifetime straight-bet college football ATS is roughly 56%. The number gets skewed up a bit from playing certain teasers, but it's 56% on straight wagers, not counting middles shots and arbitrage unless one side is significantly overbet vis-a-vis the other. That 56% is, frankly, excellent. Not sure what kinds of info you folks have been digesting, but you may want to check in with something called reality.

Now I do know someone with a better lifetime ATS record than me. She has dominated something called LineMasters, a private contest. I'm hoping to put her and Mr. Munchkin together sometime soon.

I would love to see the post where I claimed a perfect SAT score -- LOL. Jesus, there is not one single post with anything like that. Go ahead, do a search a thousand times, you won't find anything like that. Not close. Now why would the kewlJ(s) write something like that? I get it -- kewlJ(s) spout thousands of bullshit posts -- if he repeats things often enough, maybe somebody buys his bullshit. I mean, go ahead and search every single one of my posts -- you will not find that claim or anything close. Pretty weird.

Now one of the guys sitting with me in the photos in the Retro Road Trip thread did get a perfect math SAT, which I mentioned. If I need math checked, I would ask him. But when I say someone else did something, I'm not sure how that translates into me doing it.

And that's the problem with KewlJ(s). He lies all the time about everything. This is a forum with all saved posts. There is not one mention of me getting some perfect SAT score, so why would an anonymous idiot quote me as having said that? Because he lies all the time.

And what is the KewlJ(s) response to this fact going to be? The fact that he wrote something completely false multiple times? He'll ignore it and go on bullshitting, which is what he does best -- LOL.

Final note: If you can bang out 57% ATS in one sport consistently or cumulatively, you are The Man. Obviously, from a financial survival standpoint, the issue is that you're not going to generate +30 games or +40 games doing that each year unless it's college hoops. So managing 10-15 games over .500 in something like, say, college football per annum would require a starting bankroll in the half million dollar range, which is what I have said every time this subject is broached.

[AxelWolf]

Dietz, telling everyone how smart he is with his hi IQ, and perfect SAT scores from 50 years ago, and a 40 year professional sports bettor, while putting down not just me but everyone else, just gets tired after a while.

But what if what he claims is the truth?

What if he actually does have a hi (sic) IQ and had perfect SAT scores from 50 years ago?

If in fact the claims are true then you have insight into the man's mind and can discern the insecurities he must battle with, compelled as it seems he is to brag to strangers about his alleged wit and wisdom and his exploits from the last century; if not true then same conclusion.

Either way you've got him pegged.

He's from the same bolt of cloth as Singer ("you little people") and the hound ("wealthy lawyer, constantly winning huge sums for years in LV").

These are some of the claims that, as you correctly say, provide us with "good internet fun and cheaper than cable."

Actually, what Mr. Lee is missing is the fundamental reality that people are specialists. That 57% at the far end of the bell curve that Mr. Lee mentions is more than fine. It's excellent. I don't know what kinds of weird expectations people have, but anybody banging out a lifetime 55% is doing a helluva job, I can guarantee they are doing it at one sport and one sport only, and Lee can verify that. My lifetime straight-bet college football ATS is roughly 56%. The number gets skewed up a bit from playing certain teasers, but it's 56% on straight wagers, not counting middles shots and arbitrage unless one side is significantly overbet vis-a-vis the other. That 56% is, frankly, excellent. Not sure what kinds of info you folks have been digesting, but you may want to check in with something called reality.

Now I do know someone with a better lifetime ATS record than me. She has dominated something called LineMasters, a private contest. I'm hoping to put her and Mr. Munchkin together sometime soon.

I would love to see the post where I claimed a perfect SAT score -- LOL. Jesus, there is not one single post with anything like that. Go ahead, do a search a thousand times, you won't find anything like that. Not close. Now why would the kewlJ(s) write something like that? I get it -- kewlJ(s) spout thousands of bullshit posts -- if he repeats things often enough, maybe somebody buys his bullshit. I mean, go ahead and search every single one of my posts -- you will not find that claim or anything close. Pretty weird.

Now one of the guys sitting with me in the photos in the Retro Road Trip thread did get a perfect math SAT, which I mentioned. If I need math checked, I would ask him. But when I say someone else did something, I'm not sure how that translates into me doing it.

And that's the problem with KewlJ(s). He lies all the time about everything. This is a forum with all saved posts. There is not one mention of me getting some perfect SAT score, so why would an anonymous idiot quote me as having said that? Because he lies all the time.

And what is the KewlJ(s) response to this fact going to be? The fact that he wrote something completely false multiple times? He'll ignore it and go on bullshitting, which is what he does best -- LOL.

Final note: If you can bang out 57% ATS in one sport consistently or cumulatively, you are The Man. Obviously, from a financial survival standpoint, the issue is that you're not going to generate +30 games or +40 games doing that each year unless it's college hoops. So managing 10-15 games over .500 in something like, say, college football per annum would require a starting bankroll in the half million dollar range, which is what I have said every time this subject is broached.

On average, how many games did/do you get your investors down on per year in college football?

[MDawg]

Are you mocking UNKewlJ.

No, I am not mocking him.

Hey, you claim to be a lawyer, the reason my rephrasing should have been clear, but I guess I'd better tell you.

When requoting something that is spelled incorrectly one should insert to term "(sic)" after the misspelling, not to denote the claimant's stupidity but to clarify only that you caught the error and are correcting it.

Of course I know what sic means (usually bracketed not parenthesized by the way), but clearly you were mocking her, whether you wish to admit it or not.

Let's face it, the girlie is an imbacile [sic].

[redietz]

But what if what he claims is the truth?

What if he actually does have a hi (sic) IQ and had perfect SAT scores from 50 years ago?

If in fact the claims are true then you have insight into the man's mind and can discern the insecurities he must battle with, compelled as it seems he is to brag to strangers about his alleged wit and wisdom and his exploits from the last century; if not true then same conclusion.

Either way you've got him pegged.

He's from the same bolt of cloth as Singer ("you little people") and the hound ("wealthy lawyer, constantly winning huge sums for years in LV").

These are some of the claims that, as you correctly say, provide us with "good internet fun and cheaper than cable."

Actually, what Mr. Lee is missing is the fundamental reality that people are specialists. That 57% at the far end of the bell curve that Mr. Lee mentions is more than fine. It's excellent. I don't know what kinds of weird expectations people have, but anybody banging out a lifetime 55% is doing a helluva job, I can guarantee they are doing it at one sport and one sport only, and Lee can verify that. My lifetime straight-bet college football ATS is roughly 56%. The number gets skewed up a bit from playing certain teasers, but it's 56% on straight wagers, not counting middles shots and arbitrage unless one side is significantly overbet vis-a-vis the other. That 56% is, frankly, excellent. Not sure what kinds of info you folks have been digesting, but you may want to check in with something called reality.

Now I do know someone with a better lifetime ATS record than me. She has dominated something called LineMasters, a private contest. I'm hoping to put her and Mr. Munchkin together sometime soon.

I would love to see the post where I claimed a perfect SAT score -- LOL. Jesus, there is not one single post with anything like that. Go ahead, do a search a thousand times, you won't find anything like that. Not close. Now why would the kewlJ(s) write something like that? I get it -- kewlJ(s) spout thousands of bullshit posts -- if he repeats things often enough, maybe somebody buys his bullshit. I mean, go ahead and search every single one of my posts -- you will not find that claim or anything close. Pretty weird.

Now one of the guys sitting with me in the photos in the Retro Road Trip thread did get a perfect math SAT, which I mentioned. If I need math checked, I would ask him. But when I say someone else did something, I'm not sure how that translates into me doing it.

And that's the problem with KewlJ(s). He lies all the time about everything. This is a forum with all saved posts. There is not one mention of me getting some perfect SAT score, so why would an anonymous idiot quote me as having said that? Because he lies all the time.

And what is the KewlJ(s) response to this fact going to be? The fact that he wrote something completely false multiple times? He'll ignore it and go on bullshitting, which is what he does best -- LOL.

Final note: If you can bang out 57% ATS in one sport consistently or cumulatively, you are The Man. Obviously, from a financial survival standpoint, the issue is that you're not going to generate +30 games or +40 games doing that each year unless it's college hoops. So managing 10-15 games over .500 in something like, say, college football per annum would require a starting bankroll in the half million dollar range, which is what I have said every time this subject is broached.

On average, how many games did/do you get your investors down on per year in college football?

Some years it was in the 115-120 range; some years more like 80. I didn't adhere to any rules or regs on number of games because why would you if you're actually gambling? Peak volume was usually, but not always, the second half of October for various and sundry reasons.

[AxelWolf]

Actually, what Mr. Lee is missing is the fundamental reality that people are specialists. That 57% at the far end of the bell curve that Mr. Lee mentions is more than fine. It's excellent. I don't know what kinds of weird expectations people have, but anybody banging out a lifetime 55% is doing a helluva job, I can guarantee they are doing it at one sport and one sport only, and Lee can verify that. My lifetime straight-bet college football ATS is roughly 56%. The number gets skewed up a bit from playing certain teasers, but it's 56% on straight wagers, not counting middles shots and arbitrage unless one side is significantly overbet vis-a-vis the other. That 56% is, frankly, excellent. Not sure what kinds of info you folks have been digesting, but you may want to check in with something called reality.

Now I do know someone with a better lifetime ATS record than me. She has dominated something called LineMasters, a private contest. I'm hoping to put her and Mr. Munchkin together sometime soon.

I would love to see the post where I claimed a perfect SAT score -- LOL. Jesus, there is not one single post with anything like that. Go ahead, do a search a thousand times, you won't find anything like that. Not close. Now why would the kewlJ(s) write something like that? I get it -- kewlJ(s) spout thousands of bullshit posts -- if he repeats things often enough, maybe somebody buys his bullshit. I mean, go ahead and search every single one of my posts -- you will not find that claim or anything close. Pretty weird.

Now one of the guys sitting with me in the photos in the Retro Road Trip thread did get a perfect math SAT, which I mentioned. If I need math checked, I would ask him. But when I say someone else did something, I'm not sure how that translates into me doing it.

And that's the problem with KewlJ(s). He lies all the time about everything. This is a forum with all saved posts. There is not one mention of me getting some perfect SAT score, so why would an anonymous idiot quote me as having said that? Because he lies all the time.

And what is the KewlJ(s) response to this fact going to be? The fact that he wrote something completely false multiple times? He'll ignore it and go on bullshitting, which is what he does best -- LOL.

Final note: If you can bang out 57% ATS in one sport consistently or cumulatively, you are The Man. Obviously, from a financial survival standpoint, the issue is that you're not going to generate +30 games or +40 games doing that each year unless it's college hoops. So managing 10-15 games over .500 in something like, say, college football per annum would require a starting bankroll in the half million dollar range, which is what I have said every time this subject is broached.

On average, how many games did/do you get your investors down on per year in college football?

Some years it was in the 115-120 range; some years more like 80. I didn't adhere to any rules or regs on number of games because why would you if you're actually gambling? Peak volume was usually, but not always, the second half of October for various and sundry reasons.

And you avrage 55%?

[kewlJ]

Lot of day baseball that I am tracking, so I am not going digging for quotes Redietz. And maybe it wasn't perfect SAT scores, I don't remember but you have been bragging about SAT scores and IQ scores, along with every other damn thing you did back in college 50 years ago, while putting everyone else down about everything, including what college we went to.

And all this shit with you is 40, 50 years ago. Seriously Red, I sometimes wonder if you know what freaking century we are in?

If you did well for a couple years, many years ago, what the F does that mean? Why are you trading off that now? I have asked you what kind of money you made throughout this 40 years of professional sports betting and you have refused to give an answer. I mean shouldn't we know if this 40 year professional Sports bettor, that is verified and vetted, make $250k a year or $15k a year and had trouble paying his property tax? Isn't that legitimate question for the discussion. I am pretty sure that would be asked during an interview. But doesn't look like THAT is ever going to happen.

[redietz]

Lot of day baseball that I am tracking, so I am not going digging for quotes Redietz. And maybe it wasn't perfect SAT scores, I don't remember but you have been bragging about SAT scores and IQ scores, along with every other damn thing you did back in college 50 years ago, while putting everyone else down about everything, including what college we went to.

And all this shit with you is 40, 50 years ago. Seriously Red, I sometimes wonder if you know what freaking century we are in?

If you did well for a couple years, many years ago, what the F does that mean? Why are you trading off that now? I have asked you what kind of money you made throughout this 40 years of professional sports betting and you have refused to give an answer. I mean shouldn't we know if this 40 year professional Sports bettor, that is verified and vetted, make $250k a year or $15k a year and had trouble paying his property tax? Isn't that legitimate question for the discussion. I am pretty sure that would be asked during an interview. But doesn't look like THAT is ever going to happen.

AKA "I lied through my teeth multiple times and got caught, but that's okay because I almost got some details half right."

This guy faked his own death, tells stories about having his arm broken, makes up nonsense about going to Villanova but being broke, and then inserts any comment he feels is 20% accurate in service of whatever braindead argument he's currently making.

Note to KewlJ(s): lying about literally everything while criticizing someone who has told the truth about literally everything is a fascinating personal strategy. Somehow the person who told the truth becomes, in your sick narrative, the person in the wrong. You must be a hoot in person. You don't just have wires crossed, dude, you are a compulsive liar with zero credibility. The forum owner, who has read all of your crap, came to that conclusion a long time ago. He was right.

And MDawg, feel free to quote me on this.

[TheGrimReaper]

Dietz, telling everyone how smart he is with his hi IQ

What if he actually does have a hi (sic) IQ

Are you mocking UNKewlJ.

V mocks himself, yet again. Ha.

As adjectives the difference between hi and high is that hi is informal spelling of lang=en, often hyphenated while high is elevated in position or status; above many things.

Look, if a doctor claims something definitive about the law, nine times out of ten it's a bullshit guess. But, if a lawyer claims to know something definitive about the spoken language, then nineteen times out of twenty that it's total bullshit.

But, hey, at least, every now, and then, the doctor can admit it.

[redietz]

Lot of day baseball that I am tracking, so I am not going digging for quotes Redietz. And maybe it wasn't perfect SAT scores, I don't remember but you have been bragging about SAT scores and IQ scores, along with every other damn thing you did back in college 50 years ago, while putting everyone else down about everything, including what college we went to.

And all this shit with you is 40, 50 years ago. Seriously Red, I sometimes wonder if you know what freaking century we are in?

If you did well for a couple years, many years ago, what the F does that mean? Why are you trading off that now? I have asked you what kind of money you made throughout this 40 years of professional sports betting and you have refused to give an answer. I mean shouldn't we know if this 40 year professional Sports bettor, that is verified and vetted, make $250k a year or $15k a year and had trouble paying his property tax? Isn't that legitimate question for the discussion. I am pretty sure that would be asked during an interview. But doesn't look like THAT is ever going to happen.

Yeah, that bragging about IQ scores -- I think my line was that when I'm with my compadres, I have the lowest IQ in the room. Now that's not necessarily a terrible thing, but the only reason it came up at all was Shackleford sharing his Mensa journey with his audience ad nauseum.

As I like to say, "If you're the smartest guy in the room, you are in the wrong room."

Again, somehow KewlJ lying about things is more noble in the KewlJ's eyes than someone telling the truth. The forum owner has them pegged as habitual liars. Tough rep to shake, I guess, so they just keep the lies coming. Maybe there's some internet award for bullshitting.

[accountinquestion]

Lot of day baseball that I am tracking, so I am not going digging for quotes Redietz. And maybe it wasn't perfect SAT scores, I don't remember but you have been bragging about SAT scores and IQ scores, along with every other damn thing you did back in college 50 years ago, while putting everyone else down about everything, including what college we went to.

And all this shit with you is 40, 50 years ago. Seriously Red, I sometimes wonder if you know what freaking century we are in?

If you did well for a couple years, many years ago, what the F does that mean? Why are you trading off that now? I have asked you what kind of money you made throughout this 40 years of professional sports betting and you have refused to give an answer. I mean shouldn't we know if this 40 year professional Sports bettor, that is verified and vetted, make $250k a year or $15k a year and had trouble paying his property tax? Isn't that legitimate question for the discussion. I am pretty sure that would be asked during an interview. But doesn't look like THAT is ever going to happen.

Yeah, that bragging about IQ scores -- I think my line was that when I'm with my compadres, I have the lowest IQ in the room. Now that's not necessarily a terrible thing, but the only reason it came up at all was Shackleford sharing his Mensa journey with his audience ad nauseum.

As I like to say, "If you're the smartest guy in the room, you are in the wrong room."

Again, somehow KewlJ lying about things is more noble in the KewlJ's eyes than someone telling the truth. The forum owner has them pegged as habitual liars. Tough rep to shake, I guess, so they just keep the lies coming. Maybe there's some internet award for bullshitting.

Definitely not the smartest in this room but admirable you admit to these things.

[MisterV]

V mocks himself, yet again. Ha...Look, if a doctor claims something definitive about the law, nine times out of ten it's a bullshit guess. But, if a lawyer claims to know something definitive about the spoken language, then nineteen times out of twenty that it's total bullshit. But, hey, at least, every now, and then, the doctor can admit it.

What ARE you going on about, garnabby?

Got hi (sic) again smoking banana peels, did ya?

[Rob.Singer]

Love tuning in and watching kew continue to make a fool of himself! No doubt the dropout gets tired of seeing Red's credentials.

[TheGrimReaper]

V mocks himself, yet again. Ha...Look, if a doctor claims something definitive about the law, nine times out of ten it's a bullshit guess. But, if a lawyer claims to know something definitive about the spoken language, then nineteen times out of twenty that it's total bullshit. But, hey, at least, every now, and then, the doctor can admit it.

What ARE you going on about, garnabby?

Got hi (sic) again smoking banana peels, did ya?

Lo, V. You need to work more on that hi-maintenance, hi-way beater (in the hi tech garage) while getting hi'er on the Portland pot listening to your lo-fi idiotic tunes and Tashathan's hijinks in your head simply because you're strictly lo iq, but, stay clear of Hi-Lo poker psychology games found on most gambling forums. Ha.

lo
in American English

adjective

an informal, simplified spelling of low, used esp. in labeling or advertising commercial products
lo calorie

Most material © 2005, 1997, 1991 by Penguin Random House LLC. Modified entries © 2019 by Penguin Random House LLC and HarperCollins Publishers Ltd

Definition of 'hi tech'
British

high-tech

Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers

Ooh, 3:33 ---> 333