Bob Dietz' Coming Appeararance On PokerFraudAlert Radio

[redietz]

Gary Fucking Austin, now that’s a name I hadn’t heard in well over 30 years. He was big in the tout mail game in the early 80’s.

Here is a recap of him and his “situation”.

https://www.onlinebe.mywhc.ca/gary-austin/

Gary Fucking Austin is about right.

The Castaways gets a prominent mention in Boz's article. Here's my blog entry regarding same:

https://theskepticalgambler.blogspot...castaways.html

Good stuff RED.

I was never in Castaways, was partial to the Barbary Coast in my much younger days.

I loved the Barbary Coast. It had its own vibe, and I loved it. I remember filling out football contest entries at a table in the lounge, hearing a voice singing, and looking up from my table to see Big Elvis for the first time. I thought it was a fat suit (he was around 650 pounds at the time). Won two cruise tickets in their football contest my first year there (top 100, I think), then sold them to my friend (also Bob). I never really warmed to the food in the coffee shop, but ate there occasionally anyway just because.

I still have half a dozen Barbary baseball caps lying around here in various drawers.

[The Boz]

Barbary Coast was the first legal sports bet I made in my life. I think they were the last book to replace the boards with digital and that was after Caesars got it in the land trade and turned it in to Bills.

Watched many a game on the small TV’s there but getting a seat was tough on game days. Never an issue getting beers from the girls unlike today where it’s almost impossible to find a sub $10 beer in the books. And forget about drink coupons for wagers. The cafe was nothing special but the look was classic. And the old check in area never changed over the years.

I also saw Big Elvis there many times along with Cook E certain afternoons. Never stayed there but since Flamingo was my usual home back then I walked over often.

Changing it to Bills was bad, Cromwell worse and now even worse it’s becoming the Vanderpump. Ugh!

[redietz]

The old check in area was great. Really was like an old west saloon. There were a couple of times my flight was mega-late, and I was traveling solo, so they bumped me into a hot tub suite when I showed up around midnight.

Quick story -- their famous football contest. I coordinated between 40 and 90 entries most years -- made money all but maybe two out of 20 years. But I was mini-potatoes in the economy-of-scale game. One afternoon, I saw a guy handing them a brown supermarket bag full of entries, so I was able to pull a ticket guy I knew aside and ask him what the hell that was. Well, it was 1100 coordinated entries (out of 20-some thousand total in the contest) from a local business owner who had all of his employees sign up for the contest, and then he designed and coordinated the entries. Now understand you were not supposed to do this. Even my little group was not supposed to do this.

Thus, I learned early on what's what and who could pull what strings (the ESPN poker series Tilt addresses the poker equivalent). Not much chance for my little group to crack the big money, but we wound up doing okay.

[mickeycrimm]

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.

It's cut and dried he's never going to appear. But that doesn't mean he's off the hook. He's confessed to being a snitch, he's also anti-kelly and doesn't understand EV. If an appearance ever happens-it won't-he should be asked about all of this.

PS: Munchkin didn't say redietz turned him down twice, rather, Munchkin twice confirmed to me that redietz turned him down to appear on GWAE.

Munchkin never directly asked me to be on the show. I don't know how you folks conduct yourselves in a media environment, but I don't beg for or request interviews. If someone wants to interview me, they must bring it up. Otherwise, I'm just having lunch and a conversation.

I think what you guys fail to grasp is that this was a three-person lunch, and I have flat out asked the third person if I ever gave the impression that I turned down an interview. He didn't hesitate. He said definitely not. If you want me to recruit him to report that here, I'm pretty sure he'd do that. So let me know.

Also in the mix was the obvious lean to having a female on GWAE as opposed to a male. So I deferred to the idea of my superior half being on the show. I said I would ask her even though it was a long shot. She will, however, take Munchkin out to dinner at some point as they share some common interests.

I think you guys are completely off the rails on your Kelly Criterion application for sports betting. Go read actual definitions of Kelly Criterion. Jesus, guys, I played hoops with the PSU math faculty/grad team for years. This stuff is basic. Application of Kelly Criterion depends on one's perception of "EV." Since rules, personnel, and coaching, and quality-of-personnel distributions change year to year, sometimes dramatically, and especially for college sports, you really should not be making hard-and-fast (i.e. semi-crystalline) projections of your personal future success based on past outcomes. It's arrogant. It's stupid. It's an intellectual overreach. Every college season is its own, often dramatically different, thing.

What you are doing is assigning a degree of precision to your process that is not merited until you have established that you know what you are doing any given year. And by then, in college football, the season is almost over and now you get to insert Nov/Dec weather (among other, more crucial considerations) into your alleged precision.

But everybody knows this. LOL. Except you guys.

1. Munchkin told me he asked you and you turned him down. You can lie about it all you want but no one believes you.

2. If you are betting a fixed percentage of your bankroll per event then you are kelly betting. Your bets become larger when you win and smaller when you lose. That's kelly betting. Do you understand that? Repeat. If you are betting a fixed percentage of your bankroll per event then you are kelly betting.

[redietz]

It's cut and dried he's never going to appear. But that doesn't mean he's off the hook. He's confessed to being a snitch, he's also anti-kelly and doesn't understand EV. If an appearance ever happens-it won't-he should be asked about all of this.

PS: Munchkin didn't say redietz turned him down twice, rather, Munchkin twice confirmed to me that redietz turned him down to appear on GWAE.

Munchkin never directly asked me to be on the show. I don't know how you folks conduct yourselves in a media environment, but I don't beg for or request interviews. If someone wants to interview me, they must bring it up. Otherwise, I'm just having lunch and a conversation.

I think what you guys fail to grasp is that this was a three-person lunch, and I have flat out asked the third person if I ever gave the impression that I turned down an interview. He didn't hesitate. He said definitely not. If you want me to recruit him to report that here, I'm pretty sure he'd do that. So let me know.

Also in the mix was the obvious lean to having a female on GWAE as opposed to a male. So I deferred to the idea of my superior half being on the show. I said I would ask her even though it was a long shot. She will, however, take Munchkin out to dinner at some point as they share some common interests.

I think you guys are completely off the rails on your Kelly Criterion application for sports betting. Go read actual definitions of Kelly Criterion. Jesus, guys, I played hoops with the PSU math faculty/grad team for years. This stuff is basic. Application of Kelly Criterion depends on one's perception of "EV." Since rules, personnel, and coaching, and quality-of-personnel distributions change year to year, sometimes dramatically, and especially for college sports, you really should not be making hard-and-fast (i.e. semi-crystalline) projections of your personal future success based on past outcomes. It's arrogant. It's stupid. It's an intellectual overreach. Every college season is its own, often dramatically different, thing.

What you are doing is assigning a degree of precision to your process that is not merited until you have established that you know what you are doing any given year. And by then, in college football, the season is almost over and now you get to insert Nov/Dec weather (among other, more crucial considerations) into your alleged precision.

But everybody knows this. LOL. Except you guys.

1. Munchkin told me he asked you and you turned him down. You can lie about it all you want but no one believes you.

2. If you are betting a fixed percentage of your bankroll per event then you are kelly betting. Your bets become larger when you win and smaller when you lose. That's kelly betting. Do you understand that? Repeat. If you are betting a fixed percentage of your bankroll per event then you are kelly betting.

First of all, I never said I was using a fixed percentage of bankroll per event. You should probably not assume things based on your own style. In my 10K posts on this and other forums, I have never said that, so mayhap you should read more carefully. There is nothing wrong with betting a fixed percentage of bankroll per event, and I can make an argument from a psychological and biological angle for why people should do that, but I have confidence that my judgements are minimally affected by my immediate environment, by recent events, or by what I ate for dinner, so I don't anchor myself to that style of betting.

Second of all, I never turned down Munchkin. Try again. There were three people at that particular lunch, and although it's possible my words could be misinterpreted, the third guy there assured me I did not turn down an interview. Considering that the third person has way more professionally in common with Mr. Munchkin than with me, I do not think the third person was telling me anything other than the truth as he saw it.

In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any post, conversation, or printed word where I turned down an interview at any time in the last 40 years, regardless of interviewer or context.

Other than those minor details, mickey, you are spot on. Keep chivin', baby!

[Rob.Singer]

C'mon red, as someone who would like to listen to ANYBODY interviewing you for their show, your words here seem to come out of the same salad bowl where Kamala gets hers.

You're "not sure if your words were misinterpreted or not"? And some "unnamed 3rd person says you did not turn down an interview"? Are you trying to match kew for making things up based on what the latest posts are saying?

Mickey says you turned down Munchkin--twice. Pretty clear snd straightforward. You claim gobbledygook of some sort. Why can't you just be clear also? Why not name this 3rd person....because he'd be a witness?

You see and know how this looks. No amount of your annoying wordsmithing is bound to help you. So let's have the interview!

[redietz]

C'mon red, as someone who would like to listen to ANYBODY interviewing you for their show, your words here seem to come out of the same salad bowl where Kamala gets hers.

You're "not sure if your words were misinterpreted or not"? And some "unnamed 3rd person says you did not turn down an interview"? Are you trying to match kew for making things up based on what the latest posts are saying?

Mickey says you turned down Munchkin--twice. Pretty clear snd straightforward. You claim gobbledygook of some sort. Why can't you just be clear also? Why not name this 3rd person....because he'd be a witness?

You see and know how this looks. No amount of your annoying wordsmithing is bound to help you. So let's have the interview!

I already named the third person on this forum, multiple times. Sorry if I didn't address those posts specifically to you. I'll try to do better. If you give me your phone number, I'll text you next time so you don't miss the name. I aim to please.

Good try with the "wordsmithing" use, though. I love that word. Don't really use it myself, but it's a great word.

The guy at the lunch was James Dennison, who was assistant director for the movie "The Art Thief" and also had a role. Mr. Munchkin is well-known for actually directing a bevy of impressive films with middle-of-the-road budgets. He clearly is very skilled and knowledgeable, so he and Dennison had a lot to talk about. Dennison watched a couple of Munchkin's films in prep for the lunch, and he really enjoyed them. The two of them briefly swapped some of their experiences as actors as opposed to their experiences doing other things in film. Dennison has worked on some private films both writing and editing and sound/music, so he appreciated Mr. Munchkin's diversity of film talents.

I doubt Dennison would fib about whether I turned down any offer. If you've followed this narrative, you know Mr. Munchkin actually offered my superior half a spot on his show. She and he share some background interests.

I appreciate your chiming in, Rob. It gave me the opportunity to flesh out some details of the lunch. Dennison thought the lunch was probably one of two highlights of his trip. I think the fact he met a stand-in for Sharon Tate during his afternoon in The Mob Museum (and went out for drinks with she and her husband) may have slightly outranked his discussion with Mr. Munchkin. But maybe not.

[MHF]

Holy fuck, what's going on in here, double lobotomies?

[Rob.Singer]

C'mon red, as someone who would like to listen to ANYBODY interviewing you for their show, your words here seem to come out of the same salad bowl where Kamala gets hers.

You're "not sure if your words were misinterpreted or not"? And some "unnamed 3rd person says you did not turn down an interview"? Are you trying to match kew for making things up based on what the latest posts are saying?

Mickey says you turned down Munchkin--twice. Pretty clear snd straightforward. You claim gobbledygook of some sort. Why can't you just be clear also? Why not name this 3rd person....because he'd be a witness?

You see and know how this looks. No amount of your annoying wordsmithing is bound to help you. So let's have the interview!

I already named the third person on this forum, multiple times. Sorry if I didn't address those posts specifically to you. I'll try to do better. If you give me your phone number, I'll text you next time so you don't miss the name. I aim to please.

Good try with the "wordsmithing" use, though. I love that word. Don't really use it myself, but it's a great word.

The guy at the lunch was James Dennison, who was assistant director for the movie "The Art Thief" and also had a role. Mr. Munchkin is well-known for actually directing a bevy of impressive films with middle-of-the-road budgets. He clearly is very skilled and knowledgeable, so he and Dennison had a lot to talk about. Dennison watched a couple of Munchkin's films in prep for the lunch, and he really enjoyed them. The two of them briefly swapped some of their experiences as actors as opposed to their experiences doing other things in film. Dennison has worked on some private films both writing and editing and sound/music, so he appreciated Mr. Munchkin's diversity of film talents.

I doubt Dennison would fib about whether I turned down any offer. If you've followed this narrative, you know Mr. Munchkin actually offered my superior half a spot on his show. She and he share some background interests.

I appreciate your chiming in, Rob. It gave me the opportunity to flesh out some details of the lunch. Dennison thought the lunch was probably one of two highlights of his trip. I think the fact he met a stand-in for Sharon Tate during his afternoon in The Mob Museum (and went out for drinks with she and her husband) may have slightly outranked his discussion with Mr. Munchkin. But maybe not.

There you go again red--cluttering up your own "explanation" with a thousand word salad that has nothing to do with the issue.

Very little here makes sense, and you never directly address the issue. PM me this Dennison's contact info and I'll ask him why and how he's involved with whether or not you appear to be backing down being interviewed....and why he would know such a thing. Then I'll ask Munchkin to be truthful & clear since you say you don't believe or don't want to believe mickey: Has he asked to interview you or not, and what was your answer. I'm believing he has, but per your normal obfuscation methods, you included a spin of caveats that just won't work.

Please--shit or get off the pot.

[redietz]

C'mon red, as someone who would like to listen to ANYBODY interviewing you for their show, your words here seem to come out of the same salad bowl where Kamala gets hers.

You're "not sure if your words were misinterpreted or not"? And some "unnamed 3rd person says you did not turn down an interview"? Are you trying to match kew for making things up based on what the latest posts are saying?

Mickey says you turned down Munchkin--twice. Pretty clear snd straightforward. You claim gobbledygook of some sort. Why can't you just be clear also? Why not name this 3rd person....because he'd be a witness?

You see and know how this looks. No amount of your annoying wordsmithing is bound to help you. So let's have the interview!

I already named the third person on this forum, multiple times. Sorry if I didn't address those posts specifically to you. I'll try to do better. If you give me your phone number, I'll text you next time so you don't miss the name. I aim to please.

Good try with the "wordsmithing" use, though. I love that word. Don't really use it myself, but it's a great word.

The guy at the lunch was James Dennison, who was assistant director for the movie "The Art Thief" and also had a role. Mr. Munchkin is well-known for actually directing a bevy of impressive films with middle-of-the-road budgets. He clearly is very skilled and knowledgeable, so he and Dennison had a lot to talk about. Dennison watched a couple of Munchkin's films in prep for the lunch, and he really enjoyed them. The two of them briefly swapped some of their experiences as actors as opposed to their experiences doing other things in film. Dennison has worked on some private films both writing and editing and sound/music, so he appreciated Mr. Munchkin's diversity of film talents.

I doubt Dennison would fib about whether I turned down any offer. If you've followed this narrative, you know Mr. Munchkin actually offered my superior half a spot on his show. She and he share some background interests.

I appreciate your chiming in, Rob. It gave me the opportunity to flesh out some details of the lunch. Dennison thought the lunch was probably one of two highlights of his trip. I think the fact he met a stand-in for Sharon Tate during his afternoon in The Mob Museum (and went out for drinks with she and her husband) may have slightly outranked his discussion with Mr. Munchkin. But maybe not.

There you go again red--cluttering up your own "explanation" with a thousand word salad that has nothing to do with the issue.

Very little here makes sense, and you never directly address the issue. PM me this Dennison's contact info and I'll ask him why and how he's involved with whether or not you appear to be backing down being interviewed....and why he would know such a thing. Then I'll ask Munchkin to be truthful & clear since you say you don't believe or don't want to believe mickey: Has he asked to interview you or not, and what was your answer. I'm believing he has, but per your normal obfuscation methods, you included a spin of caveats that just won't work.

Please--shit or get off the pot.

How exactly have I backed down from being interviewed? LOL. Munchkin already told mickey I stated I have no qualms about it and recently volunteered to do it. And I have my anytime/anyplace offer in place for PFA.

You are the one who seems to be obfuscating. You are conflating that one particular lunch with every other post and piece of evidence demonstrating that I have no issues with being interviewed by anyone at anytime. Now while I would like to interview myself, given that it would be a fascinating conversation, that really doesn't work for GWAE (which is currently shuttered) or for Poker Fraud Alert.

I also have some other possible openings for an interview, but I believe in abiding by that "sequential submission" versus "simultaneous submission" rule for writers, with which I am sure you are familiar.

But I appreciate the concern and interest you have repeatedly expressed. I think, for example, you interviewing me would be a hoot. I'll be in LV in August, so if you want to get together, maybe we can pull it off. I might be able to hire Dennison to tape and broadcast the interview -- depends what he's doing.

Tell you what. I will tell him you want to do a video with me in Las Vegas Aug 5-9, and I'll see if he's available. He has done some tapings of videos (on YouTube) for mob bosses. I'll pay any and all video expenses and we can do it. I'll email him later today (after the UFL playoff games).

Great idea, Rob. I owe you. Nothing would garner some interest like a Singer/Dietz confab in Las Vegas. Probably beat the hell out of PFA on YouTube.

As far as you contacting Dennison, why don't you just cut out the middleman (me) and contact him yourself directly? That'll provide more credibility since I'm not part of the conversation. Just look him up -- he's listed as second assistant director on The Art Thief and also is an actor. Just check out that movie's credits on IMDb, then track down James Dennison. I'm sure he's all over the internet. I think some of his student films are on there in perpetuity. Track him down and email him or call him. Here's a link to the film's credits:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1987345...ref_=tt_cst_sm



P.S. Unlike your calling me, however, it's probably a good idea if you identify yourself upfront. Just a thought. This way, I'm not contaminating any conversation or discussion and you can report the undeniable truth straightaway.

[kewlJ]

More Dennison...some dude that no one knows or cares about. And Mob references, and Red trying to set up a meeting with almost anyone in Las Vegas....even washed up troll, never-was winning gambler Rob Singer.


Nobody cares about any of this shit Bob Dietz. What people want to read from you is that you have contacted Munchkin and/or Dan Druff and set up an interview and give a definitive date and time. Anything else is just Bob Dietz martian nonsense.

[redietz]

More Dennison...some dude that no one knows or cares about. And Mob references, and Red trying to set up a meeting with almost anyone in Las Vegas....even washed up troll, never-was winning gambler Rob Singer.


Nobody cares about any of this shit Bob Dietz. What people want to read from you is that you have contacted Munchkin and/or Dan Druff and set up an interview and give a definitive date and time. Anything else is just Bob Dietz martian nonsense.

Well, I would have done all that, but I was robbed at gunpoint and died. Then, after Jesus told me my work here wasn't done, I teamed up with Dracula and rose from the dead, only to have my arm broken when I reached outside while the BMW was going through a car wash and I had forgotten to retract the antenna, which I later discovered was built into the windshield and doesn't retract. So I called Bob Nersesian to sue the car wash, since I would have to rely on my partner to drive me around because i had a dirty car. But my partner died of various and sundry diseases usually reserved for the very gay, and I had to protect my anonymity by coming up with another handle. "KewlJKnowsHowThingsWork.com" is available, and I will try to buy it later today.

Despite these drawbacks, which one might say could erode one's credibility, I am always available.

KewlJ, you do realize you have zero credibility? Anybody stitching together the nonsense narratives you have trotted out over the years has no business -- none -- declaring Singer this or MDawg that. You are the proverbial bottom of the credibility barrel. Being criticized by you is a good thing. I'd hate like hell for you to proclaim you know I did this or that because every bullshit red alert would be clanging.

[kewlJ]

KewlJ, you do realize you have zero credibility? Anybody stitching together the nonsense narratives you have trotted out over the years has no business -- none -- declaring Singer this or MDawg that. You are the proverbial bottom of the credibility barrel. Being criticized by you is a good thing. I'd hate like hell for you to proclaim you know I did this or that because every bullshit red alert would be clanging.

Among the trolls on this forum, and those that don't understand what I do and why such a person would need to be anonymous, and that included at times being less than honest about details and non gambling nonsense, yes, I am quite sure you are correct Red.

But among real advantage players, and even some non-APs that just understand some of what I just said, you are 100% wrong...as usual. Unfortunately, there aren't many of these folks on this forum anymore. So the troll side dominates.

Mr Dietz, i comes down to the math. I know the trolls like to make fun of that because they usually don't understand the math of gambling. And you seem to have shown yourself to be in that group. But Gambling is MATH. Advantage play gambling is MATH. And real APs that understand the math know that everything I say and claim...the math works. Because it is real. I don't need any "special plays" or any other gobbly gook nonsense that some of these dudes with extraordinary claims, try to make. No Voodoo nonsense. Everything I do is based in math and works. THAT is what advantage play is. i wouldn't expect you, a "tout" to understand Red

[kewlJ]

But my partner died of various and sundry diseases usually reserved for the very gay,

Your whole post is filled with lies and distorted claims, just like the troll you have become redietz. But I am going to address this particularly. YOU recently claimed I made disparaging comments about your late wife, when I did no such thing. On the contrary I have always expressed my hard felt sympathy for her passing and did so again just a few days ago after your erroneous comment.

And then you turn around and say this!! This is just pure Rob Singer Mdawg lying shit.

My partner died from an aneurism in his head. Had nothing to do with sexual orientation or anything else. Maybe hereditary, that is about it. Shame on you redietz. But I think we already know, you troll types of which you are now firmly implanted with...have no shame.

[MDawg]

Ultimate idiot? Well you know, the UNKewl one is a nervous poodle who has never done much of anything with his life, so how could you expect him to be anything other than nervous and 'fraid when playing.

Uneducated, overweight, afraid, that's no way to be.

[redietz]

But my partner died of various and sundry diseases usually reserved for the very gay,

Your whole post is filled with lies and distorted claims, just like the troll you have become redietz. But I am going to address this particularly. YOU recently claimed I made disparaging comments about your late wife, when I did no such thing. On the contrary I have always expressed my hard felt sympathy for her passing and did so again just a few days ago after your erroneous comment.

And then you turn around and say this!! This is just pure Rob Singer Mdawg lying shit.

My partner died from an aneurism in his head. Had nothing to do with sexual orientation or anything else. Maybe hereditary, that is about it. Shame on you redietz. But I think we already know, you troll types of which you are now firmly implanted with...have no shame.

Nothing you have ever posted has been verified. Plenty of what you have posted has been proven to be bullshit. My logical conclusion is that the proper way to approach anything and everything you write is that it's all bullshit.

Nobody knows if you had a partner. Why should anyone believe you? Nobody knows if you play blackjack. Why should anyone believe you? Nobody knows if you died in a robbery. Why should anyone have believed you (although they did)? Nobody knows if you had your arm broken and speed-dialed Nersesian. And on and on and on.

It's just some collection of letters spelling kewlJ writing unverifiable nonsense (and plenty of it) day after day. It's a waste of space for it to be in a forum. It's a waste of time for anyone to read it.

[accountinquestion]

Kewl takes a lickin and keeps on tickin

[kewlJ]

Nothing you have ever posted has been verified.

I get a kick out of you people who continue to demand that things be proven and verified. What anonymous internet forum have you been on where people are required to prove everything? That is NOT how internet forums work Dietz.

Of late you seem like to name drop Munchkin. I guess he is your new hero because he had lunch with you. I have been on internet forums with Munchkin. 2 different ones spanning a number of years. Maybe 3 as I am not sure if he was on BJ21. I don't remember him there, but hard to imagine he wasn't. Not once did he ever prove any of his "claims". Nor did anyone ever ask him to. He is/was just a guy sharing some of his experiences. THAT is what forums are.

You know how people prove their claims on internet forums? Simply know what the fuck they are talking about. ALWAYS comes back to this. "It just doesn't take that much to figure out who knows what they are talking about and who is just talking". Well that is unless you go into it with some sort of bias, not wanting to believe what you figure out.

[MDawg]

Get help.

You are a fascinating person in a lot of ways but it has nothing to do with your gambling.

[mickeycrimm]

Munchkin never directly asked me to be on the show. I don't know how you folks conduct yourselves in a media environment, but I don't beg for or request interviews. If someone wants to interview me, they must bring it up. Otherwise, I'm just having lunch and a conversation.

I think what you guys fail to grasp is that this was a three-person lunch, and I have flat out asked the third person if I ever gave the impression that I turned down an interview. He didn't hesitate. He said definitely not. If you want me to recruit him to report that here, I'm pretty sure he'd do that. So let me know.

Also in the mix was the obvious lean to having a female on GWAE as opposed to a male. So I deferred to the idea of my superior half being on the show. I said I would ask her even though it was a long shot. She will, however, take Munchkin out to dinner at some point as they share some common interests.

I think you guys are completely off the rails on your Kelly Criterion application for sports betting. Go read actual definitions of Kelly Criterion. Jesus, guys, I played hoops with the PSU math faculty/grad team for years. This stuff is basic. Application of Kelly Criterion depends on one's perception of "EV." Since rules, personnel, and coaching, and quality-of-personnel distributions change year to year, sometimes dramatically, and especially for college sports, you really should not be making hard-and-fast (i.e. semi-crystalline) projections of your personal future success based on past outcomes. It's arrogant. It's stupid. It's an intellectual overreach. Every college season is its own, often dramatically different, thing.

What you are doing is assigning a degree of precision to your process that is not merited until you have established that you know what you are doing any given year. And by then, in college football, the season is almost over and now you get to insert Nov/Dec weather (among other, more crucial considerations) into your alleged precision.

But everybody knows this. LOL. Except you guys.

1. Munchkin told me he asked you and you turned him down. You can lie about it all you want but no one believes you.

2. If you are betting a fixed percentage of your bankroll per event then you are kelly betting. Your bets become larger when you win and smaller when you lose. That's kelly betting. Do you understand that? Repeat. If you are betting a fixed percentage of your bankroll per event then you are kelly betting.

First of all, I never said I was using a fixed percentage of bankroll per event. You should probably not assume things based on your own style. In my 10K posts on this and other forums, I have never said that, so mayhap you should read more carefully. There is nothing wrong with betting a fixed percentage of bankroll per event, and I can make an argument from a psychological and biological angle for why people should do that, but I have confidence that my judgements are minimally affected by my immediate environment, by recent events, or by what I ate for dinner, so I don't anchor myself to that style of betting.

Second of all, I never turned down Munchkin. Try again. There were three people at that particular lunch, and although it's possible my words could be misinterpreted, the third guy there assured me I did not turn down an interview. Considering that the third person has way more professionally in common with Mr. Munchkin than with me, I do not think the third person was telling me anything other than the truth as he saw it.

In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any post, conversation, or printed word where I turned down an interview at any time in the last 40 years, regardless of interviewer or context.

Other than those minor details, mickey, you are spot on. Keep chivin', baby!

Munchkin told me twice that you turned him down. I believe Munchkin.