Bob Dietz' Coming Appeararance On PokerFraudAlert Radio

[kewlJ]

I can see why Kim Lee is a tad triggered by me.

Red, You are embarrassing yourself.

There is a rule among lawyers that you don't ask a witness a question that you don't already know the answer to.

Kim Lee was YOUR witness. YOU talked him up. I guess thinking he would support what you claimed. Instead, he gave his expert opinion after studying all the publications and you looked like a jackass. There was nothing left for you to do except to try to discredit your own witness, which you are failing miserably at.

And this white guy - Asian name thing is the stupidest thing you could come up with. For Seinfeld fans, it is reminiscent of the Susy Wong Episode. George's mother, Estelle, was getting advice over the phone from someone she thought was an Asian lady named Susy Wong about different things. At the end of the show Estelle meets Susy Wong, a white girl and feels betrayed. She exclaims "I thought I was getting advice from a Chinese lady, not a Jewish girl from Long Island".

[MDawg]

It doesn't matter how many times any posts or comments or any facts are explained. After kew uses his sick, psychotic, one-track mind to twist & spin the meaning or truth of any issue into something more comfortable so that he can live with himself another miserable day, he will forever repeat those lies and claim everyone else has been similarly convinced.

He does this of course to make up for his self-loathing and extreme feeling of inferiority--and especially compared to mdawg for being successful in life and his reporting of winning at gambling, and because I had him publicly pegged as a fabrication-crazed phony right from the moment I read his first post. His relentless pursuit of attention and relevance in the virtual world combined with his having to live a real life of misery and failure brought on by weakness, being gay, serial lying, and a lack of education and street smarts, has all had a part in the creation of this bona fide forum laughing stock and whipping post.

I hope everyone enjoys the fool's demise and torment as much as me!

[jdaewoo]

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

[mickeycrimm]

If "Kim Lee" and Fezzik read this, they know whereof I speak. In fact, I think it may be time to shut down the lines of communication because I can see why Kim Lee is a tad triggered by me. Now I get it.

Please spare us the bullshit, redietz. It's the other way around. And you ain't just a tad triggered by Kim Lee. You got massively triggered by him to the point you started implying he and KJ were the same. Those kinds of deflections by you are easy to see. So why do you go through the motions?

BTW, Lee has been an American surname (european origin) since the 1600's. There was even a Lee that signed the Declaration.

Kim is short for Kimberly.

The Chinese surname is spelled Li.

Mickey, nobody is going to dispute what I posted because they can't. It's as simple as that. It's a brutal, horrible narrative, distasteful to me. So PM your friends and see if I'm correct. Then type whatever nonsense you want and pretend whatever you want.

Has Munchkin set a date yet for taking the polygraph?

[accountinquestion]

Ok so seems like we can just delete this thread is what I'm reading.

[redietz]

Ok so seems like we can just delete this thread is what I'm reading.

Literacy has never been your strong point.

I'm up for it at any time, any place.

While saying this, I feel like it's ridiculous that someone who knows zero about me would request point duties without even bothering to read up on me in any way. For example, my blog, which is 2019 to present, has 250 entries. How many does anyone think Axelwolf has read?

And the idea that an interviewer would remain anonymous while the interviewee would not is hilarious. Not exactly the way things are done in journalism. Ever. LOL.

I think it's ironic that a forum founded by a legitimate, big-time ABC reporter who conducted solid interviews with famous people including, I believe, ex-presidents, would sponsor an interview by an anonymous interviewer. That's actually pretty funny.

But, being an intrepid sort who keeps his word, I'm up for anything. I was warned off doing this by my filmmaker friend, James Dennison. He said there's no point to it, and editing is everything with interviews. Having been a journalism major myself, and having conducted a couple dozen published interviews, yeah, that's true. You're at the mercy of the interviewer, even if he has a name. LOL.

But I'll do it anyway.

I direct all interested parties to my blog. Maybe a quarter or a third of the entries are directly gambling-related, so feel free to browse the site. Here's one of the early gambling-related entries. Many of the regulars here think they are Holzhauer. They are not. Note also, there were a couple of follow-up articles in national media about his sports-betting pursuits, but they died out with the pandemic. He appears to have gone radio silent, not that there's anything wrong with that.

https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot...er-effect.html

I will see if I can dig up any further historical "Bob Dietz" reading materials from third parties. I have been doing this a long time. Some of my early interviews (where I was being interviewed as opposed to being the interviewer) were cringey in retrospect, but not terrible for the time.

[TheGrimReaper]

Dan ought to just call these clowns up, for his radio show. It's like they're always asking everyone to call them up and/or meet up with up them, anyway. Ha.

[accountinquestion]

Ok so seems like we can just delete this thread is what I'm reading.

Literacy has never been your strong point.

I'm up for it at any time, any place.

While saying this, I feel like it's ridiculous that someone who knows zero about me would request point duties without even bothering to read up on me in any way. For example, my blog, which is 2019 to present, has 250 entries. How many does anyone think Axelwolf has read?

And the idea that an interviewer would remain anonymous while the interviewee would not is hilarious. Not exactly the way things are done in journalism. Ever. LOL.

I think it's ironic that a forum founded by a legitimate, big-time ABC reporter who conducted solid interviews with famous people including, I believe, ex-presidents, would sponsor an interview by an anonymous interviewer. That's actually pretty funny.

But, being an intrepid sort who keeps his word, I'm up for anything. I was warned off doing this by my filmmaker friend, James Dennison. He said there's no point to it, and editing is everything with interviews. Having been a journalism major myself, and having conducted a couple dozen published interviews, yeah, that's true. You're at the mercy of the interviewer, even if he has a name. LOL.

But I'll do it anyway.

I direct all interested parties to my blog. Maybe a quarter or a third of the entries are directly gambling-related, so feel free to browse the site. Here's one of the early gambling-related entries. Many of the regulars here think they are Holzhauer. They are not. Note also, there were a couple of follow-up articles in national media about his sports-betting pursuits, but they died out with the pandemic. He appears to have gone radio silent, not that there's anything wrong with that.

https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot...er-effect.html

I will see if I can dig up any further historical "Bob Dietz" reading materials from third parties. I have been doing this a long time. Some of my early interviews (where I was being interviewed as opposed to being the interviewer) were cringey in retrospect, but not terrible for the time.

I would not listen to Dennison because there is no editing. You run your mouth about not doing research but this is live with archives.

Second you are simply wrong about the questions. After presentations there is often a question and answering session. People don't give their names. Same thing with call in radio shows.

You have somehow turned this into 60 miutes.

[redietz]

Ok so seems like we can just delete this thread is what I'm reading.

Literacy has never been your strong point.

I'm up for it at any time, any place.

While saying this, I feel like it's ridiculous that someone who knows zero about me would request point duties without even bothering to read up on me in any way. For example, my blog, which is 2019 to present, has 250 entries. How many does anyone think Axelwolf has read?

And the idea that an interviewer would remain anonymous while the interviewee would not is hilarious. Not exactly the way things are done in journalism. Ever. LOL.

I think it's ironic that a forum founded by a legitimate, big-time ABC reporter who conducted solid interviews with famous people including, I believe, ex-presidents, would sponsor an interview by an anonymous interviewer. That's actually pretty funny.

But, being an intrepid sort who keeps his word, I'm up for anything. I was warned off doing this by my filmmaker friend, James Dennison. He said there's no point to it, and editing is everything with interviews. Having been a journalism major myself, and having conducted a couple dozen published interviews, yeah, that's true. You're at the mercy of the interviewer, even if he has a name. LOL.

But I'll do it anyway.

I direct all interested parties to my blog. Maybe a quarter or a third of the entries are directly gambling-related, so feel free to browse the site. Here's one of the early gambling-related entries. Many of the regulars here think they are Holzhauer. They are not. Note also, there were a couple of follow-up articles in national media about his sports-betting pursuits, but they died out with the pandemic. He appears to have gone radio silent, not that there's anything wrong with that.

https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot...er-effect.html

I will see if I can dig up any further historical "Bob Dietz" reading materials from third parties. I have been doing this a long time. Some of my early interviews (where I was being interviewed as opposed to being the interviewer) were cringey in retrospect, but not terrible for the time.

I would not listen to Dennison because there is no editing. You run your mouth about not doing research but this is live with archives.

Second you are simply wrong about the questions. After presentations there is often a question and answering session. People don't give their names. Same thing with call in radio shows.

You have somehow turned this into 60 miutes.

You are simply wrong about everything -- nothing new.

There is nothing to prevent editing, so there is always the opportunity for editing. Nobody signs a release saying, "There will be no editing," so you are always at the mercy of an interviewer. It doesn't matter if the previous hundred podcasts were unedited. Unless you sign a document stating absolutely no editing, there is always an opportunity for editing.

Second, Axelwolf, who prefers to be anonymous for various and sundry, has taken point for the process, which means the interviewer (as opposed to some call-in person) wishes to remain anonymous, which is ridiculous and unprecedented outside of the Iron Curtain. Try to keep up.

Third, I said nothing about the call-in part, which is fine. It's relatively simple, however, for people to seed the call-in part either for or against a particular guest. Happens all the time. It actually happens live during lectures, too, both academic and non-academic. Any public Q&A can be seeded. Obvious and no big deal. Everybody knows this.

Any other brilliant comments from the ever-astute-and-anonymous account?

[accountinquestion]

Literacy has never been your strong point.

I'm up for it at any time, any place.

While saying this, I feel like it's ridiculous that someone who knows zero about me would request point duties without even bothering to read up on me in any way. For example, my blog, which is 2019 to present, has 250 entries. How many does anyone think Axelwolf has read?

And the idea that an interviewer would remain anonymous while the interviewee would not is hilarious. Not exactly the way things are done in journalism. Ever. LOL.

I think it's ironic that a forum founded by a legitimate, big-time ABC reporter who conducted solid interviews with famous people including, I believe, ex-presidents, would sponsor an interview by an anonymous interviewer. That's actually pretty funny.

But, being an intrepid sort who keeps his word, I'm up for anything. I was warned off doing this by my filmmaker friend, James Dennison. He said there's no point to it, and editing is everything with interviews. Having been a journalism major myself, and having conducted a couple dozen published interviews, yeah, that's true. You're at the mercy of the interviewer, even if he has a name. LOL.

But I'll do it anyway.

I direct all interested parties to my blog. Maybe a quarter or a third of the entries are directly gambling-related, so feel free to browse the site. Here's one of the early gambling-related entries. Many of the regulars here think they are Holzhauer. They are not. Note also, there were a couple of follow-up articles in national media about his sports-betting pursuits, but they died out with the pandemic. He appears to have gone radio silent, not that there's anything wrong with that.

https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot...er-effect.html

I will see if I can dig up any further historical "Bob Dietz" reading materials from third parties. I have been doing this a long time. Some of my early interviews (where I was being interviewed as opposed to being the interviewer) were cringey in retrospect, but not terrible for the time.

I would not listen to Dennison because there is no editing. You run your mouth about not doing research but this is live with archives.

Second you are simply wrong about the questions. After presentations there is often a question and answering session. People don't give their names. Same thing with call in radio shows.

You have somehow turned this into 60 miutes.

You are simply wrong about everything -- nothing new.

There is nothing to prevent editing, so there is always the opportunity for editing. Nobody signs a release saying, "There will be no editing," so you are always at the mercy of an interviewer. It doesn't matter if the previous hundred podcasts were unedited. Unless you sign a document stating absolutely no editing, there is always an opportunity for editing.

Second, Axelwolf, who prefers to be anonymous for various and sundry, has taken point for the process, which means the interviewer (as opposed to some call-in person) wishes to remain anonymous, which is ridiculous and unprecedented outside of the Iron Curtain. Try to keep up.

Third, I said nothing about the call-in part, which is fine. It's relatively simple, however, for people to seed the call-in part either for or against a particular guest. Happens all the time. It actually happens live during lectures, too, both academic and non-academic. Any public Q&A can be seeded. Obvious and no big deal. Everybody knows this.

Any other brilliant comments from the ever-astute-and-anonymous account?

I like how you think being condescendingly wrong will somehow make you right. Lol

Signing a document doesn't mean you won't be edited. This idea Dan druff or anyone else cares enough to edit is testament to your illness of grandiosity.

[Rob.Singer]

Literacy has never been your strong point.

I'm up for it at any time, any place.

While saying this, I feel like it's ridiculous that someone who knows zero about me would request point duties without even bothering to read up on me in any way. For example, my blog, which is 2019 to present, has 250 entries. How many does anyone think Axelwolf has read?

And the idea that an interviewer would remain anonymous while the interviewee would not is hilarious. Not exactly the way things are done in journalism. Ever. LOL.

I think it's ironic that a forum founded by a legitimate, big-time ABC reporter who conducted solid interviews with famous people including, I believe, ex-presidents, would sponsor an interview by an anonymous interviewer. That's actually pretty funny.

But, being an intrepid sort who keeps his word, I'm up for anything. I was warned off doing this by my filmmaker friend, James Dennison. He said there's no point to it, and editing is everything with interviews. Having been a journalism major myself, and having conducted a couple dozen published interviews, yeah, that's true. You're at the mercy of the interviewer, even if he has a name. LOL.

But I'll do it anyway.

I direct all interested parties to my blog. Maybe a quarter or a third of the entries are directly gambling-related, so feel free to browse the site. Here's one of the early gambling-related entries. Many of the regulars here think they are Holzhauer. They are not. Note also, there were a couple of follow-up articles in national media about his sports-betting pursuits, but they died out with the pandemic. He appears to have gone radio silent, not that there's anything wrong with that.

https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot...er-effect.html

I will see if I can dig up any further historical "Bob Dietz" reading materials from third parties. I have been doing this a long time. Some of my early interviews (where I was being interviewed as opposed to being the interviewer) were cringey in retrospect, but not terrible for the time.

I would not listen to Dennison because there is no editing. You run your mouth about not doing research but this is live with archives.

Second you are simply wrong about the questions. After presentations there is often a question and answering session. People don't give their names. Same thing with call in radio shows.

You have somehow turned this into 60 miutes.

You are simply wrong about everything -- nothing new.

There is nothing to prevent editing, so there is always the opportunity for editing. Nobody signs a release saying, "There will be no editing," so you are always at the mercy of an interviewer. It doesn't matter if the previous hundred podcasts were unedited. Unless you sign a document stating absolutely no editing, there is always an opportunity for editing.

Second, Axelwolf, who prefers to be anonymous for various and sundry, has taken point for the process, which means the interviewer (as opposed to some call-in person) wishes to remain anonymous, which is ridiculous and unprecedented outside of the Iron Curtain. Try to keep up.

Third, I said nothing about the call-in part, which is fine. It's relatively simple, however, for people to seed the call-in part either for or against a particular guest. Happens all the time. It actually happens live during lectures, too, both academic and non-academic. Any public Q&A can be seeded. Obvious and no big deal. Everybody knows this.

Any other brilliant comments from the ever-astute-and-anonymous account?

Wait!.....He's WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING? You mean hiding in his little safe space with mom's cookies and muffins, having extreme TDS while the president carves up these greenies and losers, equates to being WRONG?!!

[accountinquestion]

I would not listen to Dennison because there is no editing. You run your mouth about not doing research but this is live with archives.

Second you are simply wrong about the questions. After presentations there is often a question and answering session. People don't give their names. Same thing with call in radio shows.

You have somehow turned this into 60 miutes.

You are simply wrong about everything -- nothing new.

There is nothing to prevent editing, so there is always the opportunity for editing. Nobody signs a release saying, "There will be no editing," so you are always at the mercy of an interviewer. It doesn't matter if the previous hundred podcasts were unedited. Unless you sign a document stating absolutely no editing, there is always an opportunity for editing.

Second, Axelwolf, who prefers to be anonymous for various and sundry, has taken point for the process, which means the interviewer (as opposed to some call-in person) wishes to remain anonymous, which is ridiculous and unprecedented outside of the Iron Curtain. Try to keep up.

Third, I said nothing about the call-in part, which is fine. It's relatively simple, however, for people to seed the call-in part either for or against a particular guest. Happens all the time. It actually happens live during lectures, too, both academic and non-academic. Any public Q&A can be seeded. Obvious and no big deal. Everybody knows this.

Any other brilliant comments from the ever-astute-and-anonymous account?

Wait!.....He's WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING? You mean hiding in his little safe space with mom's cookies and muffins, having extreme TDS while the president carves up these greenies and losers, equates to being WRONG?!!

Sorry I came at you too hard and this is sadly the best you got.

[Kim Lee]

I feel like it's ridiculous that someone who knows zero about me would request point duties without even bothering to read up on me in any way. For example, my blog, which is 2019 to present, has 250 entries.

https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot.com/2019/05/

It is ridiculous for you to write for decades without reading Kelly or Gilovich-Tversky-Vallone.

Defend this post:

redietz
September 16th, 2020 at 10:24:05 PM
I had the Over of the Jets/Buffalo game ... teased/partnered with the Over 34 of the Tennessee/Denver game.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...ng-with-style/

I think you are too addled to do a decent analysis. I found no concrete analysis in your blog that would make money.

[redietz]

I feel like it's ridiculous that someone who knows zero about me would request point duties without even bothering to read up on me in any way. For example, my blog, which is 2019 to present, has 250 entries.

https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot.com/2019/05/

It is ridiculous for you to write for decades without reading Kelly or Gilovich-Tversky-Vallone.

Defend this post:

redietz
September 16th, 2020 at 10:24:05 PM
I had the Over of the Jets/Buffalo game ... teased/partnered with the Over 34 of the Tennessee/Denver game.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...ng-with-style/

I think you are too addled to do a decent analysis. I found no concrete analysis in your blog that would make money.

LOL. No, you wouldn't. And you won't find much of a concrete analysis in Billy Walters' book, either. At least not one that hasn't been outdated by rule changes from 20 years ago. Gee, I wonder why.

Nothing like experts who give "concrete analyses" in public blogs. Wow, there must be a lot of percentage in that. Jesus, that was pitiful. You looking up some conversational post in an old WoV thread. And then critiquing me about it. I mean, that's pretty fucking funny. Yeah, I'm doing "concrete analyses" at WoV because that's how I roll. What is wrong with you?

Maybe you should call Fezzik up and ask him how it's done. I'm sure he's done a lot of "concrete analyses" in public.

You thought plucking Fezzik's name out of the blue would what? Give you credence? It makes you radioactive to a lot of people. But maybe you knew that. Yeah, I guess you knew that.

I appreciate you deigning to chime in with your advice vis-a-vis NFL wagering. Much appreciated. Tell Fezzik I said hello.

P.S. See, this is the way it's going to work between you and me. Since you have self-reported partnering with Fezzik, every time you post vis-a-vis me, I'm going to mention Fezzik, and each time, going forward, I'm going to drop Fezzik an email suggesting he reel you in because why should I have a filter? Do you have any idea who helmed "the group" before Fezzik? No? You should probably ask him.

[accountinquestion]

I feel like it's ridiculous that someone who knows zero about me would request point duties without even bothering to read up on me in any way. For example, my blog, which is 2019 to present, has 250 entries.

https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot.com/2019/05/

It is ridiculous for you to write for decades without reading Kelly or Gilovich-Tversky-Vallone.

Defend this post:

redietz
September 16th, 2020 at 10:24:05 PM
I had the Over of the Jets/Buffalo game ... teased/partnered with the Over 34 of the Tennessee/Denver game.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gamb...ng-with-style/

I think you are too addled to do a decent analysis. I found no concrete analysis in your blog that would make money.

LOL. No, you wouldn't. And you won't find much of a concrete analysis in Billy Walters' book, either. At least not one that hasn't been outdated by rule changes from 20 years ago. Gee, I wonder why.

Nothing like experts who give "concrete analyses" in public blogs. Wow, there must be a lot of percentage in that. Jesus, that was pitiful. You looking up some conversational post in an old WoV thread. And then critiquing me about it. I mean, that's pretty fucking funny. Yeah, I'm doing "concrete analyses" at WoV because that's how I roll. What is wrong with you?

Maybe you should call Fezzik up and ask him how it's done. I'm sure he's done a lot of "concrete analyses" in public.

You thought plucking Fezzik's name out of the blue would what? Give you credence? It makes you radioactive to a lot of people. But maybe you knew that. Yeah, I guess you knew that.

I appreciate you deigning to chime in with your advice vis-a-vis NFL wagering. Much appreciated. Tell Fezzik I said hello.

P.S. See, this is the way it's going to work between you and me. Since you have self-reported partnering with Fezzik, every time you post vis-a-vis me, I'm going to mention Fezzik, and each time, going forward, I'm going to drop Fezzik an email suggesting he reel you in because why should I have a filter? Do you have any idea who helmed "the group" before Fezzik? No? You should probably ask him.

Triggered from someone else name dropping so you re name-drop? Redietz - pack it up and sign off.

[Kim Lee]

you won't find much of a concrete analysis in Billy Walters' book.

Billy's handicappers estimated a linear model with fixed effects for teams and dummy variables for home field advantage using data back to 1978. The book included coefficient estimates for home field advantage and divisional effects. You didn't read it.

I had the Over of the Jets/Buffalo game ... teased/partnered with the Over 34 of the Tennessee/Denver game.

A 6-point two-team teaser needs both teams to cover the adjusted spread at odds of -110. Those extra points must hit 20% of the time to be profitable. Here are sample frequencies from a few thousand old NFL games.

28 0.9%
29 2.4%
30 3.5%
31 3.0%
32 0.9%
33 3.1%
34 2.9%
All seven frequencies: 16.7%

Games low O/U Totals have lower scores, but there is not a large sample. I have not seen you do any concrete analysis using math or statistics.

Maybe you should call Fezzik up and ask him how it's done. I'm sure he's done a lot of "concrete analyses" in public.

Fezzik was an actuary and posted a lot of analysis on the old Sharp Sports Betting forum before he became a tout and won the Hilton Contest twice.

[accountinquestion]

Billy's handicappers estimated a linear model with fixed effects for teams and dummy variables for home field advantage using data back to 1978. The book included coefficient estimates for home field advantage and divisional effects. You didn't read it.



A 6-point two-team teaser needs both teams to cover the adjusted spread at odds of -110. Those extra points must hit 20% of the time to be profitable. Here are sample frequencies from a few thousand old NFL games.

28 0.9%
29 2.4%
30 3.5%
31 3.0%
32 0.9%
33 3.1%
34 2.9%
All seven frequencies: 16.7%

Games low O/U Totals have lower scores, but there is not a large sample. I have not seen you do any concrete analysis using math or statistics.

Maybe you should call Fezzik up and ask him how it's done. I'm sure he's done a lot of "concrete analyses" in public.

Fezzik was an actuary and posted a lot of analysis on the old Sharp Sports Betting forum before he became a tout and won the Hilton Contest twice.

Redietz doesn't believe in such statistical analysis. What you have offered is basically the EV of the bet to determine profitability. Redietz completely mocks such things.

[Don Perignom]

Billy's handicappers estimated a linear model with fixed effects for teams and dummy variables for home field advantage using data back to 1978. The book included coefficient estimates for home field advantage and divisional effects. You didn't read it.

Stop. He's already dead.

[mickeycrimm]

If an interview ever happens Bob Dietz should be asked about snitching off advantage players to the online books.

[kewlJ]

If an interview ever happens Bob Dietz should be asked about snitching off advantage players to the online books.

We might as well just stop with this. It is never going to happen. Dietz is never going to do an interview. For years now he has been talking about doing an interview with Munchkin. Now you tell us he turned Munchkin down twice privately.

Now he talks about Druffs podcast, but every time the ball seems to move on that even a little bit, Dietz throws up roadblocks, like he needs to be in Las Vegas for a phone in interview. Weird.

And when you ask him a question about something he said that don't make sense, he now says to ask him on the interview....which he knows is never going to happen. It is a big shell game.

Bottom line, he can't answer the questions and reasonable explain anything, on a forum so he sure as hell isn't going to do so on a live interview.

Red just wants to tell a story about being a great sports bettor for 40 years, the second coming of Billy Walters, when there is nothing that points to that. He did well in a few contests, which is what the touts use to get new customers/clients. Big deal. That he even has all that documentation from decades ago is weird to me. I should have realized it was weird when he sent it to Alan.

It is very similar to Mdawg wanting to tell a story.

But I am done with Red. He is coming off the rails threatening people and shit. Good luck mickeycrimm, but don't hold your breath.