Bob Dietz' Coming Appeararance On PokerFraudAlert Radio

[coach belly]

if members are required to prove everything

Redietz disputes the accuracy of a quote, about his appearance on a podcast, that's been attributed to him.

That's what this thread is all about...his appearance on a podcast.

It's reasonable to acknowledge red's right to address a grievance in this matter...he is not anonymous and neither is Munchkin.

Being requested to verify a quote is not the same as being required to prove everything.

It's nonsense to bundle this with everyone proving everything...it's a blatant effort to draw attention away from the truth.

But that fits your M.O. around here, doesn't it, mister Mo?

[Kim Lee]

I don't consider Redietz, Munchkin or mickeycrimm to be anonymous.

Munchkin and cohost Dancer are not real names. Now "coach belly" is telling us that "mickeycrimm" is not anonymous.

[mickeycrimm]

I never declined, mickey. Sorry, man. Good try, though. The gist of the issue with GWAE was that evidently Dancer wasn't a fan of my sarcasm regarding "APs.". Who knew? I'm such a gracious dude and all that.

Tell you what, mickey. I'll shoot Munchkin an email this weekend quoting you and offering to be on the show in clear terms. Howzabout that?

Munchkin and my superior half have some old familial ties, and I am not going to comment further. You can ask him about that.

Here's the thing, ditz. Dancer questioned me about whether you would trash the professional sports bettors that had already been on GWAE. I told him I didn't think you would trash them but that I would warn you about it. That was good enough for him.

And I relayed that information to you. That was well before you met Munchkin. SO YOU DIDN'T GET THAT INFORMATION FROM DANCER OR MUNCHKIN. Now here we are over a year later and you are saying "Dancer wasn't a fan of my sarcasm involving AP's." So now you are telling that to me as if its news to me and as if you got that bit of information from someone else. And you are telling me that's the reason you weren't on the show.

BUT YOU FORGOT! YOU GOT THAT INFORMATION FROM ME. AND DANCER DIDN'T MENTION AP'S, JUST SPORTS BETTORS.

DANCER MADE THOSE CONCERNS ABOUT YOU KNOWN TO ME WELL BEFORE MUNCHKIN INVITED YOU ON THE SHOW. MUNCHKIN WOULD NOT HAVE INVITED YOU ON THE SHOW HAD BOB OBJECTED. SO QUIT USING DANCER AS AN EXCUSE.

Now, when you contact Munchkin and quote me, make sure to tell him to look up his Direct Message to me at X.com dated 9 May 2024. He should find it in less than a minute. You will then be able to verify from his end what his message said. You can show him the below pics for reference.

You say you didn't decline to be on the show. In the message below Munchkin told me that you declined. Perhaps you can get Munchkin's opinion about which one of you is lying.

[Kim Lee]

people insist on importing the math of random events and applying it to what are clearly non-random events?

It does not matter if it's a random or non-random event; if you are achieving a 56% ATS on average, you can use Kelly.

Yikes, Redietz does not understand the math of Kelly betting. He calls it "blackjack math" because he has not even read the original papers of Kelly and Breiman that have no content about blackjack. FWIW, Ed Thorp told me that his colleague Claude Shannon was the referee for Kelly's paper. Then Thorp popularized it in Beat The Dealer.

If you don't understand the basic math of gambling then you probably won't succeed in getting an advantage. If you don't understand Kelly math after 40 years then you are not inquisitive enough to win.

[AxelWolf]

people insist on importing the math of random events and applying it to what are clearly non-random events?

It does not matter if it's a random or non-random event; if you are achieving a 56% ATS on average, you can use Kelly.

Yikes, Redietz does not understand the math of Kelly betting. He calls it "blackjack math" because he has not even read the original papers of Kelly and Breiman that have no content about blackjack. FWIW, Ed Thorp told me that his colleague Claude Shannon was the referee for Kelly's paper. Then Thorp popularized it in Beat The Dealer.

If you don't understand the basic math of gambling then you probably won't succeed in getting an advantage. If you don't understand Kelly math after 40 years then you are not inquisitive enough to win.

Doesn't he claim to have a high IQ or some nonsense? I don't pay much attention to claims about high IQs, it's meaningless, true or not, especially when it comes to making in casinos. The smartest most talented guy I ever meet lived most of his adult life out of crappy unkept van on fathers property, he died alone and penniless.

[redietz]

people insist on importing the math of random events and applying it to what are clearly non-random events?

It does not matter if it's a random or non-random event; if you are achieving a 56% ATS on average, you can use Kelly.

Yikes, Redietz does not understand the math of Kelly betting. He calls it "blackjack math" because he has not even read the original papers of Kelly and Breiman that have no content about blackjack. FWIW, Ed Thorp told me that his colleague Claude Shannon was the referee for Kelly's paper. Then Thorp popularized it in Beat The Dealer.

If you don't understand the basic math of gambling then you probably won't succeed in getting an advantage. If you don't understand Kelly math after 40 years then you are not inquisitive enough to win.

You shouldn't apply the math of random events to non-random events as a strategy for investment. Just as you shouldn't apply the math of sealed systems to permeable systems. At best, you are being imprecise and ballparking something that can be heuristically ballparked anyway. At worst, you are wading into quicksand.

This is the part where I say I wasn't a math guy; I just played hoops with the Penn State grad/faculty math squad, where we debated such things for years, including shot distribution formulas that were adopted by the NBA 20 years later.

A simple change in rules for a sport like basketball can potentially eliminate whatever gambling edge you think you have immediately, and you're not going to know that until you accumulate enough events (and of course the annihilation comes well before that ever happens). In addition, when officiating bulletins are sent out, you are now dealing with what amounts to a novel environment. And if you don't know the officiating bulletin has been distributed, well, it's possible that could work to your favor, but it's more likely it does not.

Betting sports has very little to do with the application of formulas to random events because there are no random events.

One of my favorite deconstructions was of a paper that appeared in The Skeptic criticizing the idea of a "hot hand" in basketball. An Ivy League prof who had actually played college hoops "proved" there was no such thing as a "hot hand." One of the problems with the paper was that basketball courts are not closed systems with random events. Like the see-saw, adjustments are made on the fly with no loudspeakers announcing the adjustments. The fact there was no purely statistical "hot hand" (A) hid the reality of what was actually happening on the court and (B) could have also been interpreted as evidence that there was indeed a "hot hand," but one not evident from the statistics available. So the stats-as-available could conceivably (A) be viewed as one "reality," but not a useful one from which strategic decisions could be made going forward.

[redietz]

I don't consider Redietz, Munchkin or mickeycrimm to be anonymous.

Munchkin and cohost Dancer are not real names. Now "coach belly" is telling us that "mickeycrimm" is not anonymous.

I think this comes down to practical matters (my brother-in-law was a PI; my nephew is studying online forensics). Munchkin and Dancer are not really "anonymous" in any sense. If you want to know their legal names, you can discover their legal names. Pretty quickly. Same with Mr. Flowers and all that.

It's one thing to use a nom de plume like Dancer, Singer (quick plug for the dude), Munchkin, Curtis, and so on. It's another thing to actually be "anonymous." If you can pull up a photo or video of someone these days (and you can with Dancer and Munchkin and Singer and Curtis and Jean Scott), that person is actually not anonymous in the usual sense of the word because you're going to be able to ID them 99% of the time if you want to.

I'm not arguing for any perspective or definition here; I'm just stating the obvious about how things actually are. If I remember correctly, Munchkin's real name is on his Wiki listing. That ain't anonymity.

[kewlJ]

And the Redietz ridiculousness continues.

Everything is pick up baskkeball games or he ate lunch with this expert 50 years ago!!

Although "the Penn State faculty math squad" is a reference we haven't heard before.

[coach belly]

I don't consider Redietz, Munchkin or mickeycrimm to be anonymous.

Munchkin and cohost Dancer are not real names. Now "coach belly" is telling us that "mickeycrimm" is not anonymous.

None of the three mentioned are anonymous, they are public figures.

Munchkin and Dancer use pen names some times, like Jean Scott or Anthony Curtis, but these folks are not anonymous authors or content creators.

mickey posted his father's obit here awhile back, he's not anonymous.

Is English your second language, or are you just a misbehaving gaping asshole?

[coach belly]

You shouldn't apply the math of random events to non-random events as a strategy for investment.

The Kelly criterion requires accurate probability values, which isn't always possible for real-world event outcomes. When a gambler overestimates their true probability of winning, the criterion value calculated will diverge from the optimal, increasing the risk of ruin.

I thought everybody here already knew that.

[mickeycrimm]

I don't consider Redietz, Munchkin or mickeycrimm to be anonymous.

Munchkin and cohost Dancer are not real names. Now "coach belly" is telling us that "mickeycrimm" is not anonymous.

I think this comes down to practical matters (my brother-in-law was a PI; my nephew is studying online forensics). Munchkin and Dancer are not really "anonymous" in any sense. If you want to know their legal names, you can discover their legal names. Pretty quickly. Same with Mr. Flowers and all that.

It's one thing to use a nom de plume like Dancer, Singer (quick plug for the dude), Munchkin, Curtis, and so on. It's another thing to actually be "anonymous." If you can pull up a photo or video of someone these days (and you can with Dancer and Munchkin and Singer and Curtis and Jean Scott), that person is actually not anonymous in the usual sense of the word because you're going to be able to ID them 99% of the time if you want to.

I'm not arguing for any perspective or definition here; I'm just stating the obvious about how things actually are. If I remember correctly, Munchkin's real name is on his Wiki listing. That ain't anonymity.

They either hid their real names for years or were outed by other people.

[mickeycrimm]

I never declined, mickey. Sorry, man. Good try, though. The gist of the issue with GWAE was that evidently Dancer wasn't a fan of my sarcasm regarding "APs.". Who knew? I'm such a gracious dude and all that.

Tell you what, mickey. I'll shoot Munchkin an email this weekend quoting you and offering to be on the show in clear terms. Howzabout that?

Munchkin and my superior half have some old familial ties, and I am not going to comment further. You can ask him about that.

Here's the thing, ditz. Dancer questioned me about whether you would trash the professional sports bettors that had already been on GWAE. I told him I didn't think you would trash them but that I would warn you about it. That was good enough for him.

And I relayed that information to you. That was well before you met Munchkin. SO YOU DIDN'T GET THAT INFORMATION FROM DANCER OR MUNCHKIN. Now here we are over a year later and you are saying "Dancer wasn't a fan of my sarcasm involving AP's." So now you are telling that to me as if its news to me and as if you got that bit of information from someone else. And you are telling me that's the reason you weren't on the show.

BUT YOU FORGOT! YOU GOT THAT INFORMATION FROM ME. AND DANCER DIDN'T MENTION AP'S, JUST SPORTS BETTORS.

DANCER MADE THOSE CONCERNS ABOUT YOU KNOWN TO ME WELL BEFORE MUNCHKIN INVITED YOU ON THE SHOW. MUNCHKIN WOULD NOT HAVE INVITED YOU ON THE SHOW HAD BOB OBJECTED. SO QUIT USING DANCER AS AN EXCUSE.

Now, when you contact Munchkin and quote me, make sure to tell him to look up his Direct Message to me at X.com dated 9 May 2024. He should find it in less than a minute. You will then be able to verify from his end what his message said. You can show him the below pics for reference.

You say you didn't decline to be on the show. In the message below Munchkin told me that you declined. Perhaps you can get Munchkin's opinion about which one of you is lying.

Well, after saying, in so many words, i was lying on the Munchkin quote, but then seeing irrefutable proof i wasnt lying….redietz has chosen to ignore it and hope it goes away. hmmm….

So who is lying, you, munchkin, and/or me?

[coach belly]

irrefutable proof

Isn't the default position around here that anything can be faked?

[AxelWolf]

It does not matter if it's a random or non-random event; if you are achieving a 56% ATS on average, you can use Kelly.

Yikes, Redietz does not understand the math of Kelly betting. He calls it "blackjack math" because he has not even read the original papers of Kelly and Breiman that have no content about blackjack. FWIW, Ed Thorp told me that his colleague Claude Shannon was the referee for Kelly's paper. Then Thorp popularized it in Beat The Dealer.

If you don't understand the basic math of gambling then you probably won't succeed in getting an advantage. If you don't understand Kelly math after 40 years then you are not inquisitive enough to win.

You shouldn't apply the math of random events to non-random events as a strategy for investment. Just as you shouldn't apply the math of sealed systems to permeable systems. At best, you are being imprecise and ballparking something that can be heuristically ballparked anyway. At worst, you are wading into quicksand.

This is the part where I say I wasn't a math guy; I just played hoops with the Penn State grad/faculty math squad, where we debated such things for years, including shot distribution formulas that were adopted by the NBA 20 years later.

A simple change in rules for a sport like basketball can potentially eliminate whatever gambling edge you think you have immediately, and you're not going to know that until you accumulate enough events (and of course the annihilation comes well before that ever happens). In addition, when officiating bulletins are sent out, you are now dealing with what amounts to a novel environment. And if you don't know the officiating bulletin has been distributed, well, it's possible that could work to your favor, but it's more likely it does not.

Betting sports has very little to do with the application of formulas to random events because there are no random events.

One of my favorite deconstructions was of a paper that appeared in The Skeptic criticizing the idea of a "hot hand" in basketball. An Ivy League prof who had actually played college hoops "proved" there was no such thing as a "hot hand." One of the problems with the paper was that basketball courts are not closed systems with random events. Like the see-saw, adjustments are made on the fly with no loudspeakers announcing the adjustments. The fact there was no purely statistical "hot hand" (A) hid the reality of what was actually happening on the court and (B) could have also been interpreted as evidence that there was indeed a "hot hand," but one not evident from the statistics available. So the stats-as-available could conceivably (A) be viewed as one "reality," but not a useful one from which strategic decisions could be made going forward.

So your years of hitting 56% is meaningless?

[mickeycrimm]

Im posting this here because 2 well known professional sports betters, Capt. Jack and Steve Fezzik both use the term, EV.

[Kim Lee]

One of my favorite deconstructions was of a paper that appeared in The Skeptic criticizing the idea of a "hot hand" in basketball.

Your vague recollections without citations are embarrassing. You are probably thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_hand.

[mcap]

You shouldn't apply the math of random events to non-random events as a strategy for investment.

The Kelly criterion requires accurate probability values, which isn't always possible for real-world event outcomes. When a gambler overestimates their true probability of winning, the criterion value calculated will diverge from the optimal, increasing the risk of ruin.

I thought everybody here already knew that.

Wait until you hear about this concept called fractional kelly to deal with that. Mind-bottling.

[redietz]

One of my favorite deconstructions was of a paper that appeared in The Skeptic criticizing the idea of a "hot hand" in basketball.

Your vague recollections without citations are embarrassing. You are probably thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_hand.

Vague recollections? My responses were published in the magazine in question, and garnered a reply from the original author. I assume the author was invited to write up his study in more plebeian terms for The Skeptic or The Skeptical Inquirer because that's where I read it. The reason the subject died was because (1) the follow-ups did not confirm the original study and (2) somebody got in the ear of the author and explained the logical problems with the study.

Mr. Lee, you do realize that the only reason I'm being so polite with you is...I know who you are. LOL. Have you forgotten that? I mean, c'mon, man, as they say on ESPN. I'm not threatened by your expertise, and I'm not buying much of your high horse because...I know who you are.

Having said that, and still being the polite soul I am, I must say that I do have an issue with dudes like you and "Stanford Wong" co-opting Asian names. I'm not bitching about "cultural appropriation" or anything like that. As someone with an Asian significant other, however, I must say that it does seem a tad racist and a trifle pathetic when white men purposefully give themselves Asian nom de plumes. Why do that? Because Asians are smarter than white dudes!?! You should give your readers the benefit of the doubt that they know there exist the occasional bright white guys.

To KewlJ -- yeah, yeah, I know the guy in my Retro Thread got a perfect math SAT and was Asian, but people still shouldn't co-opt Asian names. Reminds me of when my white Polish friend first went on the internet as "Blakock." Very naughty of him.

And coach, I know what Kelly Criterion is, for God's sake. No need to concern yourself. I think Kelly is a good idea for random-event gambling. For real-world events, unless you're an idiot, it's no better than just stating, "My opinion is" or "I prefer to do" whatever.

I played on a PSU math department faculty hoops team with a Romanian, a Taiwanese, a Red Chinese (note to Kim -- these were real Asians). We had complex debates about proper basketball strategy all the time. Sometimes they were right; often they missed some real-world component that flipped what the proper strategy was. The original "hot hand" paper missed the forest for the trees, for example. It just didn't describe what happens on a basketball court accurately, which is why I took it to task before these follow-ups listed on Wiki were published. You know, my letters may have been in Skeptical Briefs, now that I think about it with my vague memory. That was a kind of quarterly addendum to Skeptical Inquirer.

And Mr. Lee, next time I embarrass myself with my vague memory, please try to sign your real name so I can keep everything straight. I might wind up repeating that it's sad when white dudes take Asian names for gravitas. I apologize in advance for my memory. Aging is a bitch.

[redietz]

Yikes, Redietz does not understand the math of Kelly betting. He calls it "blackjack math" because he has not even read the original papers of Kelly and Breiman that have no content about blackjack. FWIW, Ed Thorp told me that his colleague Claude Shannon was the referee for Kelly's paper. Then Thorp popularized it in Beat The Dealer.

If you don't understand the basic math of gambling then you probably won't succeed in getting an advantage. If you don't understand Kelly math after 40 years then you are not inquisitive enough to win.

You shouldn't apply the math of random events to non-random events as a strategy for investment. Just as you shouldn't apply the math of sealed systems to permeable systems. At best, you are being imprecise and ballparking something that can be heuristically ballparked anyway. At worst, you are wading into quicksand.

This is the part where I say I wasn't a math guy; I just played hoops with the Penn State grad/faculty math squad, where we debated such things for years, including shot distribution formulas that were adopted by the NBA 20 years later.

A simple change in rules for a sport like basketball can potentially eliminate whatever gambling edge you think you have immediately, and you're not going to know that until you accumulate enough events (and of course the annihilation comes well before that ever happens). In addition, when officiating bulletins are sent out, you are now dealing with what amounts to a novel environment. And if you don't know the officiating bulletin has been distributed, well, it's possible that could work to your favor, but it's more likely it does not.

Betting sports has very little to do with the application of formulas to random events because there are no random events.

One of my favorite deconstructions was of a paper that appeared in The Skeptic criticizing the idea of a "hot hand" in basketball. An Ivy League prof who had actually played college hoops "proved" there was no such thing as a "hot hand." One of the problems with the paper was that basketball courts are not closed systems with random events. Like the see-saw, adjustments are made on the fly with no loudspeakers announcing the adjustments. The fact there was no purely statistical "hot hand" (A) hid the reality of what was actually happening on the court and (B) could have also been interpreted as evidence that there was indeed a "hot hand," but one not evident from the statistics available. So the stats-as-available could conceivably (A) be viewed as one "reality," but not a useful one from which strategic decisions could be made going forward.

So your years of hitting 56% is meaningless?

One could say that, depending on how much expertise you bring to the table to evaluate the present. If you think I'm not self-aware and disciplined as hell, you are wrong.

For example, during the pandemic, I dialed everything back to 20-25% of the usual wagers for two years. I banged out marginal profits, but nothing great. Almost had a beauty of a future (Northwestern to win the Big 10 at 100-1), but the powers that be changed the criteria for who could make the Big 10 title game weeks before it. Evil bastards. If Ohio State had sat out as legislated, I had an even money team at 100-1 in the title game. Instead I had a 10-1 dog. Still made money, but really, I and NWestern got screwed.

As Clint says regarding what happens going forward, "A man's got to know his limitations."

[kewlJ]

. As someone with an Asian significant other,

I thought you said your GF was from a Mob family here in Las Vegas?

I guess the Asian Mob.