Professional Sportsbetting

[mickeycrimm]

Redietz says EV can't be measured for future sports betting events as if he is the final authority. He's not. But many other pro sports bettors say EV can be measured and they use the term in future tense. So instead of saying "EV can't be measured in sports betting" redietz should say "MY OPINION is EV can't be measured in sports betting."

Expected Value can only be used in future tense. Maybe it is the initials that are throwing Dietz for a loop. Maybe he spelled out the words expected value each time, it would make more sense to him that it is an expectation of future results.

If you want me to discuss this further, call into the radio show. You missed the whole point of the tense discussion. My fault; Garnabby can probably explain it to you.

"EV" should be a probabilistic term applied to random event projections. Oh hell, I'm not going to make you guys appear smarter than you are by tipping off the spiel. Call in and argue your points.

I love you guys.

You brought up the book, Gambling Wizards. Here's an excerpt. The Computer Group fed statistics from thousands of games into software to determine how to bet. No opinions involved.

[redietz]

Expected Value can only be used in future tense. Maybe it is the initials that are throwing Dietz for a loop. Maybe he spelled out the words expected value each time, it would make more sense to him that it is an expectation of future results.

If you want me to discuss this further, call into the radio show. You missed the whole point of the tense discussion. My fault; Garnabby can probably explain it to you.

"EV" should be a probabilistic term applied to random event projections. Oh hell, I'm not going to make you guys appear smarter than you are by tipping off the spiel. Call in and argue your points.

I love you guys.

You brought up the book, Gambling Wizards. Here's an excerpt. The Computer Group fed statistics from thousands of games into software to determine how to bet. No opinions involved.

Mickey, I'm going to assume you're not what you were, as my plumber said to me while looking at my old high school yearbook. You've gotta realize there are half a dozen things wrong with what you just wrote. God bless you and all that, but I just assumed you had more awareness, including regarding the use of language. Now what are the holes in what you just said that make it kind of silly?

If this is your argument, be my guest and call it in, but you've gotta have a better grasp of things than this, I mean just in general. I'm starting to see you as a very narrow Dustin Hoffman type rain man than a savvy dude. If you seriously think you just made a case for something or other, you are wrong, and actually I'd appreciate it if you make this exact argument this way. I'm not yanking your chain. I think it provides an entrance point for civilians to understand what I'll say.

It may, however, come across as if you are a little bit lost in space. I just thought of something. LOL. Have kewlJ call it in. Hey, geezers gotta stick together. I got your back.

[mickeycrimm]

If you want me to discuss this further, call into the radio show. You missed the whole point of the tense discussion. My fault; Garnabby can probably explain it to you.

"EV" should be a probabilistic term applied to random event projections. Oh hell, I'm not going to make you guys appear smarter than you are by tipping off the spiel. Call in and argue your points.

I love you guys.

You brought up the book, Gambling Wizards. Here's an excerpt. The Computer Group fed statistics from thousands of games into software to determine how to bet. No opinions involved.

Mickey, I'm going to assume you're not what you were, as my plumber said to me while looking at my old high school yearbook. You've gotta realize there are half a dozen things wrong with what you just wrote. God bless you and all that, but I just assumed you had more awareness, including regarding the use of language. Now what are the holes in what you just said that make it kind of silly?

If this is your argument, be my guest and call it in, but you've gotta have a better grasp of things than this, I mean just in general. I'm starting to see you as a very narrow Dustin Hoffman type rain man than a savvy dude. If you seriously think you just made a case for something or other, you are wrong, and actually I'd appreciate it if you make this exact argument this way. I'm not yanking your chain. I think it provides an entrance point for civilians to understand what I'll say.

It may, however, come across as if you are a little bit lost in space. I just thought of something. LOL. Have kewlJ call it in. Hey, geezers gotta stick together. I got your back.

"Once the computer has all the statistics....it can answer questions....When Dallas plays Detroit this week who will win and by how much? The computer gives it's answer. For example, Dallas will win by 7. Now the bettor must check with bookmakers to see if there's a discrepancy between the computer's line and the bookmaker's line. The bigger the discrepancy the more he bets."



redietz, what part of the above statement do you no understand? We can help you with it if you want.

It's your stance on measuring EV that I was interested in. And I wanted to get it on GWAE before they went defunt because they had a wide pro sports bettor audience. Everyone in the gambling world listened to those podcasts. I wanted to see a debate among pro bettors as to the measuring of EV in sports betting. But you've stalled so long that two years have gone by and PFA Radio will not bring on debate about EV in the sports betting world.

I know what your opinion is on it, you've already explained it thoroughly. Nothing you can really add on a podcast. So I won't be calling in because I won't be listening. His shows run late night to early in the morning anyway. He archives the shows on PFA. Maybe sometime down the road, when I have a little time, I'll give it a listen.

I'll be taking my questions elsewhere, to Krack, Fezzik and a host of others. I already know where Walters stands, the computer model does the handicapping for him. It's obvious that you did but did everyone else in the Johnson City Book Club really ignore Walter's computer driven handicapping system? If that's the case then what the hell did you guys talk about, the weather?

[redietz]

You brought up the book, Gambling Wizards. Here's an excerpt. The Computer Group fed statistics from thousands of games into software to determine how to bet. No opinions involved.

Mickey, I'm going to assume you're not what you were, as my plumber said to me while looking at my old high school yearbook. You've gotta realize there are half a dozen things wrong with what you just wrote. God bless you and all that, but I just assumed you had more awareness, including regarding the use of language. Now what are the holes in what you just said that make it kind of silly?

If this is your argument, be my guest and call it in, but you've gotta have a better grasp of things than this, I mean just in general. I'm starting to see you as a very narrow Dustin Hoffman type rain man than a savvy dude. If you seriously think you just made a case for something or other, you are wrong, and actually I'd appreciate it if you make this exact argument this way. I'm not yanking your chain. I think it provides an entrance point for civilians to understand what I'll say.

It may, however, come across as if you are a little bit lost in space. I just thought of something. LOL. Have kewlJ call it in. Hey, geezers gotta stick together. I got your back.

"Once the computer has all the statistics....it can answer questions....When Dallas plays Detroit this week who will win and by how much? The computer gives it's answer. For example, Dallas will win by 7. Now the bettor must check with bookmakers to see if there's a discrepancy between the computer's line and the bookmaker's line. The bigger the discrepancy the more he bets."



redietz, what part of the above statement do you no understand? We can help you with it if you want.

It's your stance on measuring EV that I was interested in. And I wanted to get it on GWAE before they went defunt because they had a wide pro sports bettor audience. Everyone in the gambling world listened to those podcasts. I wanted to see a debate among pro bettors as to the measuring of EV in sports betting. But you've stalled so long that two years have gone by and PFA Radio will not bring on debate about EV in the sports betting world.

I know what your opinion is on it, you've already explained it thoroughly. Nothing you can really add on a podcast. So I won't be calling in because I won't be listening. His shows run late night to early in the morning anyway. He archives the shows on PFA. Maybe sometime down the road, when I have a little time, I'll give it a listen.

I'll be taking my questions elsewhere, to Krack, Fezzik and a host of others. I already know where Walters stands, the computer model does the handicapping for him. It's obvious that you did but did everyone else in the Johnson City Book Club really ignore Walter's computer driven handicapping system? If that's the case then what the hell did you guys talk about, the weather?

Mickey, the problem with your summary is pretty simple. It has to do with tenses and obvious questions. Now, as a courtesy, I will walk everyone through the obviousness of what you are saying.

Mr. Walters did not use a "computer driven system" -- singular. He had roundtables of experts, most of which (but not all) who used "computer driven systems." LOL. Now, I ask you, what are the problems squaring what you are arguing with reality?

Let's walk through this slowly, so civilians have no issue keeping up. First of all, if different people are using different systems, then the "EV" as you want to call it, is different for each system. And they are significantly different for many different reasons, most of which I am sure most people can figure out. So if a dozen different people arrive at a dozen different "EVs," then there is no single "EV." If there is no single "EV," then what you are dealing with isn't random probability calculations, or even probability calculations per se. What you are dealing with is better described as various opinions.

Just because somebody uses college freshman math to make calculations doesn't make those calculations something other than opinions. The difference between flipping coins and trying to calculate real life behaviors is that a hundred different people using random probability theory to arrive at "EV" will all come to pretty much the same "EV" regarding coin flipping or blackjack or video poker. So why do they not all arrive at anything close to the same "EV" for sports betting?

Using the letters "EV" as a substitute for the words "my opinion of the EV" does no one actually betting any favors. It aggrandizes the abilities of the handicapper. It implies a consistency in results that does not really exist. It suggests future results can be determined from past results in a way that is overly optimistic. It can be argued that such an approach is, rather than being helpful, a dangerous path lined with overconfidence based on contexts that may or may not currently apply.

"EV" should be a math term, not something that translates into "my opinion."

Now all of this is pretty obvious. So why do people prefer using the line "the EV is" when they should be saying "I think the EV might be?" Well, the answers to this question are self-evident.



And that's as far as I'll go. That's the opening minute of any 20-minute "EV-for-sports-betting" debunking.

[mcap]

Are you going to be hobnobbing at Bet Bash this year Red?

[mickeycrimm]

Mickey, I'm going to assume you're not what you were, as my plumber said to me while looking at my old high school yearbook. You've gotta realize there are half a dozen things wrong with what you just wrote. God bless you and all that, but I just assumed you had more awareness, including regarding the use of language. Now what are the holes in what you just said that make it kind of silly?

If this is your argument, be my guest and call it in, but you've gotta have a better grasp of things than this, I mean just in general. I'm starting to see you as a very narrow Dustin Hoffman type rain man than a savvy dude. If you seriously think you just made a case for something or other, you are wrong, and actually I'd appreciate it if you make this exact argument this way. I'm not yanking your chain. I think it provides an entrance point for civilians to understand what I'll say.

It may, however, come across as if you are a little bit lost in space. I just thought of something. LOL. Have kewlJ call it in. Hey, geezers gotta stick together. I got your back.

"Once the computer has all the statistics....it can answer questions....When Dallas plays Detroit this week who will win and by how much? The computer gives it's answer. For example, Dallas will win by 7. Now the bettor must check with bookmakers to see if there's a discrepancy between the computer's line and the bookmaker's line. The bigger the discrepancy the more he bets."



redietz, what part of the above statement do you no understand? We can help you with it if you want.

It's your stance on measuring EV that I was interested in. And I wanted to get it on GWAE before they went defunt because they had a wide pro sports bettor audience. Everyone in the gambling world listened to those podcasts. I wanted to see a debate among pro bettors as to the measuring of EV in sports betting. But you've stalled so long that two years have gone by and PFA Radio will not bring on debate about EV in the sports betting world.

I know what your opinion is on it, you've already explained it thoroughly. Nothing you can really add on a podcast. So I won't be calling in because I won't be listening. His shows run late night to early in the morning anyway. He archives the shows on PFA. Maybe sometime down the road, when I have a little time, I'll give it a listen.

I'll be taking my questions elsewhere, to Krack, Fezzik and a host of others. I already know where Walters stands, the computer model does the handicapping for him. It's obvious that you did but did everyone else in the Johnson City Book Club really ignore Walter's computer driven handicapping system? If that's the case then what the hell did you guys talk about, the weather?

Mickey, the problem with your summary is pretty simple. It has to do with tenses and obvious questions. Now, as a courtesy, I will walk everyone through the obviousness of what you are saying.

Mr. Walters did not use a "computer driven system" -- singular. He had roundtables of experts, most of which (but not all) who used "computer driven systems." LOL. Now, I ask you, what are the problems squaring what you are arguing with reality?

Let's walk through this slowly, so civilians have no issue keeping up. First of all, if different people are using different systems, then the "EV" as you want to call it, is different for each system. And they are significantly different for many different reasons, most of which I am sure most people can figure out. So if a dozen different people arrive at a dozen different "EVs," then there is no single "EV." If there is no single "EV," then what you are dealing with isn't random probability calculations, or even probability calculations per se. What you are dealing with is better described as various opinions.

Just because somebody uses college freshman math to make calculations doesn't make those calculations something other than opinions. The difference between flipping coins and trying to calculate real life behaviors is that a hundred different people using random probability theory to arrive at "EV" will all come to pretty much the same "EV" regarding coin flipping or blackjack or video poker. So why do they not all arrive at anything close to the same "EV" for sports betting?

Using the letters "EV" as a substitute for the words "my opinion of the EV" does no one actually betting any favors. It aggrandizes the abilities of the handicapper. It implies a consistency in results that does not really exist. It suggests future results can be determined from past results in a way that is overly optimistic. It can be argued that such an approach is, rather than being helpful, a dangerous path lined with overconfidence based on contexts that may or may not currently apply.

"EV" should be a math term, not something that translates into "my opinion."

Now all of this is pretty obvious. So why do people prefer using the line "the EV is" when they should be saying "I think the EV might be?" Well, the answers to this question are self-evident.



And that's as far as I'll go. That's the opening minute of any 20-minute "EV-for-sports-betting" debunking.

Just skimmed your post. You are a broken record. Once again you should be prefacing your statements with “My opinion is.” And youve voiced that opinion a hundred times.

WALTERS USED A COMPUTER DRIVEN STRATEGY, PERIOD.HE PUBLISHED THE SYSTEM AS A LEGACY. WHEN HE SAID SO CALLED EXPERT HANDICAPPERS COULDNT WIN VERY LONG HE WAS TALKING ABOUT BOB DIETZ TOO.

Your abilty is not on par with your sense of self importance. Stifle yourself.

[redietz]

"Once the computer has all the statistics....it can answer questions....When Dallas plays Detroit this week who will win and by how much? The computer gives it's answer. For example, Dallas will win by 7. Now the bettor must check with bookmakers to see if there's a discrepancy between the computer's line and the bookmaker's line. The bigger the discrepancy the more he bets."



redietz, what part of the above statement do you no understand? We can help you with it if you want.

It's your stance on measuring EV that I was interested in. And I wanted to get it on GWAE before they went defunt because they had a wide pro sports bettor audience. Everyone in the gambling world listened to those podcasts. I wanted to see a debate among pro bettors as to the measuring of EV in sports betting. But you've stalled so long that two years have gone by and PFA Radio will not bring on debate about EV in the sports betting world.

I know what your opinion is on it, you've already explained it thoroughly. Nothing you can really add on a podcast. So I won't be calling in because I won't be listening. His shows run late night to early in the morning anyway. He archives the shows on PFA. Maybe sometime down the road, when I have a little time, I'll give it a listen.

I'll be taking my questions elsewhere, to Krack, Fezzik and a host of others. I already know where Walters stands, the computer model does the handicapping for him. It's obvious that you did but did everyone else in the Johnson City Book Club really ignore Walter's computer driven handicapping system? If that's the case then what the hell did you guys talk about, the weather?

Mickey, the problem with your summary is pretty simple. It has to do with tenses and obvious questions. Now, as a courtesy, I will walk everyone through the obviousness of what you are saying.

Mr. Walters did not use a "computer driven system" -- singular. He had roundtables of experts, most of which (but not all) who used "computer driven systems." LOL. Now, I ask you, what are the problems squaring what you are arguing with reality?

Let's walk through this slowly, so civilians have no issue keeping up. First of all, if different people are using different systems, then the "EV" as you want to call it, is different for each system. And they are significantly different for many different reasons, most of which I am sure most people can figure out. So if a dozen different people arrive at a dozen different "EVs," then there is no single "EV." If there is no single "EV," then what you are dealing with isn't random probability calculations, or even probability calculations per se. What you are dealing with is better described as various opinions.

Just because somebody uses college freshman math to make calculations doesn't make those calculations something other than opinions. The difference between flipping coins and trying to calculate real life behaviors is that a hundred different people using random probability theory to arrive at "EV" will all come to pretty much the same "EV" regarding coin flipping or blackjack or video poker. So why do they not all arrive at anything close to the same "EV" for sports betting?

Using the letters "EV" as a substitute for the words "my opinion of the EV" does no one actually betting any favors. It aggrandizes the abilities of the handicapper. It implies a consistency in results that does not really exist. It suggests future results can be determined from past results in a way that is overly optimistic. It can be argued that such an approach is, rather than being helpful, a dangerous path lined with overconfidence based on contexts that may or may not currently apply.

"EV" should be a math term, not something that translates into "my opinion."

Now all of this is pretty obvious. So why do people prefer using the line "the EV is" when they should be saying "I think the EV might be?" Well, the answers to this question are self-evident.



And that's as far as I'll go. That's the opening minute of any 20-minute "EV-for-sports-betting" debunking.

Just skimmed your post. You are a broken record. Once again you should be prefacing your statements with “My opinion is.” And youve voiced that opinion a hundred times.

WALTERS USED A COMPUTER DRIVEN STRATEGY, PERIOD.HE PUBLISHED THE SYSTEM AS A LEGACY. WHEN HE SAID SO CALLED EXPERT HANDICAPPERS COULDNT WIN VERY LONG HE WAS TALKING ABOUT BOB DIETZ TOO.

Your abilty is not on par with your sense of self importance. Stifle yourself.

Makes perfect sense. God bless you, mickey.

For anyone reading this stuff, there's a reason, not hard to figure, why Walters would publish some basics vis-a-vis his NFL (not all sports, not college football, not college hoops) handicapping. It's the same reason I was comfortable discussing NFL handicapping with clients. Walters was even tighter than me informationally in that most of what he discusses in his book features data framed by historical rule changes and therefore of limited validity if anyone tries to apply them today. What he published is almost the opposite of a legacy. It's the stuff people want to read, and it's the stuff that wouldn't hurt Mr. Walters or anyone who trained under him going forward.

All of which, of course, makes complete sense and, given Mr. Walters reputation, is what one would expect.

Have a good one, mickey. Live long and prosper. I will still fly you down to LV if you want to float any theories in person or during a taping. That's my legacy offer to you.

Wrap up: And finally, regarding self-importance, I think a college football specialist who preaches that knowing a specific sport, its players, its coaches, its year-to-year rule changes (sometimes month to month) are important to add to arbitrage and bonuses and middles shooting as a way to win, would probably be considered further down the self-importance scale than people who blithely believe college freshman math and a little savvy are the keys to beating all sports in perpetuity. You know, the Leonardo Da APs of the world. They conquer it all, in a sedan cruising the Dakotas. And then tell you about it on YouTube and the VCT forum, probably because they are so humble.

[accountinquestion]

Mickey, the problem with your summary is pretty simple. It has to do with tenses and obvious questions. Now, as a courtesy, I will walk everyone through the obviousness of what you are saying.

Mr. Walters did not use a "computer driven system" -- singular. He had roundtables of experts, most of which (but not all) who used "computer driven systems." LOL. Now, I ask you, what are the problems squaring what you are arguing with reality?

Let's walk through this slowly, so civilians have no issue keeping up. First of all, if different people are using different systems, then the "EV" as you want to call it, is different for each system. And they are significantly different for many different reasons, most of which I am sure most people can figure out. So if a dozen different people arrive at a dozen different "EVs," then there is no single "EV." If there is no single "EV," then what you are dealing with isn't random probability calculations, or even probability calculations per se. What you are dealing with is better described as various opinions.

Just because somebody uses college freshman math to make calculations doesn't make those calculations something other than opinions. The difference between flipping coins and trying to calculate real life behaviors is that a hundred different people using random probability theory to arrive at "EV" will all come to pretty much the same "EV" regarding coin flipping or blackjack or video poker. So why do they not all arrive at anything close to the same "EV" for sports betting?

Using the letters "EV" as a substitute for the words "my opinion of the EV" does no one actually betting any favors. It aggrandizes the abilities of the handicapper. It implies a consistency in results that does not really exist. It suggests future results can be determined from past results in a way that is overly optimistic. It can be argued that such an approach is, rather than being helpful, a dangerous path lined with overconfidence based on contexts that may or may not currently apply.

"EV" should be a math term, not something that translates into "my opinion."

Now all of this is pretty obvious. So why do people prefer using the line "the EV is" when they should be saying "I think the EV might be?" Well, the answers to this question are self-evident.



And that's as far as I'll go. That's the opening minute of any 20-minute "EV-for-sports-betting" debunking.

Just skimmed your post. You are a broken record. Once again you should be prefacing your statements with “My opinion is.” And youve voiced that opinion a hundred times.

WALTERS USED A COMPUTER DRIVEN STRATEGY, PERIOD.HE PUBLISHED THE SYSTEM AS A LEGACY. WHEN HE SAID SO CALLED EXPERT HANDICAPPERS COULDNT WIN VERY LONG HE WAS TALKING ABOUT BOB DIETZ TOO.

Your abilty is not on par with your sense of self importance. Stifle yourself.

Makes perfect sense. God bless you, mickey.

For anyone reading this stuff, there's a reason, not hard to figure, why Walters would publish some basics vis-a-vis his NFL (not all sports, not college football, not college hoops) handicapping. It's the same reason I was comfortable discussing NFL handicapping with clients. Walters was even tighter than me informationally in that most of what he discusses in his book features data framed by historical rule changes and therefore of limited validity if anyone tries to apply them today. What he published is almost the opposite of a legacy. It's the stuff people want to read, and it's the stuff that wouldn't hurt Mr. Walters or anyone who trained under him going forward.

All of which, of course, makes complete sense and, given Mr. Walters reputation, is what one would expect.

Have a good one, mickey. Live long and prosper. I will still fly you down to LV if you want to float any theories in person or during a taping. That's my legacy offer to you.

Wrap up: And finally, regarding self-importance, I think a college football specialist who preaches that knowing a specific sport, its players, its coaches, its year-to-year rule changes (sometimes month to month) are important to add to arbitrage and bonuses and middles shooting as a way to win, would probably be considered further down the self-importance scale than people who blithely believe college freshman math and a little savvy are the keys to beating all sports in perpetuity. You know, the Leonardo Da APs of the world. They conquer it all, in a sedan cruising the Dakotas. And then tell you about it on YouTube and the VCT forum, probably because they are so humble.

Never known a pro sports bettor needed other people's money after being in the game for decades.

BTW no sharp AP thinks any sport is beatable in perpetuity. It all depends on weak lines.

The nice thing about an AP approach utilizing EV is that you're also told when not to bet.

I've never seen any suggestion you understand these things I just mentioned.

[accountinquestion]

Infact it is possible if redietz understood and had a system to suggest the EV then he would have known when not to bet and would not have needed the money of others.

It really is that simple.

[kewlJ]

Wrap up: And finally, regarding self-importance, I think a college football specialist who preaches that knowing a specific sport, i

Looks like Bob Dietz has made a shift from 40 year professional sports bettor to "college football specialist". Fitting that he did so when discussing self-importance.

So the former blackjack card counter, now "blackjack specialist" has a question. Same question I asked back when I was a lowly card counter and not a "blackjack specialist". What kind of money did you (Dietz) make FROM BETTING, not selling, as a "college football specialist?"


We are still back to the same facts that Kim Lee studying all the publications that you mentioned concluded that a winning rate (even as a college football specialist) that would not allow for anything more than breaking even or winning small potatoes. So, it is relevant. How Much? Give a number.

Because frankly, a "college football specialist" who spent 4 months a year, EVERY year in Las Vegas, and lived in the low-end temporary housing that you did, doesn't really square with the grandeur of this new "college football specialist" title. And that is before we even get into the ability to pay your taxes....your singular living expense after inheriting a house.

Or maybe I have to wait for an answer from an interview that is never going to happen. That seems to be your game now...stringing along to an interview that YOU KNOW is never going to happen.

[kewlJ]

I want people to understand the context of me asking redietz about what kind of money he made. It isn't about a pissing contest over money "claimed". When a person says "professional gambler" or any of the labels Dietz has used or is now using, it implies a certain monetary level. No hard and fast rule, but what would be considered a living wage.

I like to say I have "supported myself from blackjack play" for 22 years now. But the first 3 years as a 20-22 year old were not much of a living wage, averaging 10k a year. If people want to disqualify those years, that is fair game. A lot of players go through that kind of period early on as you build a bankroll from scratch. But there has to be a point that when someone says, "professional this" or "making a living from that", that we are talking about some kind of real money.

I will go back to two specific incidents and people, that mislead in this manner.

* The second is the player that was a member here, Moses that passed a few years ago. When Moses burst onto the blackjack scene back on Norm's forum, he labeled himself as a professional blackjack player and sports bettor living and playing Reno. A number of people, myself included, had a problem with that because we knew it couldn't be....not in Reno.

So it turned out the person that posted as Moses, owned a successful business in California. Blinds or shades or something. When he divorced at about age 50, 12 years or so before he passed, he sold his business and moved to Reno. And this is when he began this blackjack and sports betting career. Nothing wrong with that. That is actually an ideal time to be involved with blackjack (I don't know about sports betting), to supplement retirement income...that sort of thing.

And on his deathbed, Moses confirmed that is basically what he did, when he stated he had made about 100k over 10 years. 10k a year supplementing retirement just does not give you the right to call yourself "professional anything". It is misleading.

* The first, prior to Moses there was another somewhat similar situation. Player called himself Flash, and later like redietz, upgraded to Zenmaster Flash. I am not going to say his real name, even though he is probably no longer with us because that is a "grey" or "Gray" area.

So this flash, similar to Moses retired early about age 50, from a teaching job at a university as a professor. A life-long gambler, who had interest in everything from horse-racing (big time) to roulette, craps and blackjack. So he took up card counting and blackjack at which he apparently was successful in playing at an advantage, even though he continues -Ev gambling at other things. So Flash took to mentoring new players and giving himself all sorts of fancy names and titles. By the time he was 70 and I knew him (in an online sense), he referred to himself as a 20 year professional gambler.

Towards the end of his time, like moses, Flash revealed some actual numbers. 300 and some thousand dollars won over those 20 years. So right off the bat you are talking 15ish grand a year. But it is even worse than that. One year he was involved with a hole-carding team that made good money. he says he made 150k that year. So if you subtract that one year out, over the other 19 of card counting he made less than 10k a year. That just is not a living wage that justifies calling yourself 20 year professional anything.

The guy was retired, with a retirement income and a wife still working. He was not a professional gambler or any other term you want to use. These are retired guys gambling, maybe playing at a little advantage making a few bucks.

Now Dietz was not retired, so how does this apply to him? It just doesn't appear from the numbers that he made much money from sports betting. Did he make good money as a "tout"? I have no idea. I don't know about that type of thing. But that is not what his claim was. His claim was "professional sports bettor", which now had morphed into "college football specialist". I would conclude a very similar misleading by Mr. Dietz all these years as to the other two blackjack players I mentioned. If you are going to call yourself a "professional" gambler, sports bettor, blackjack player, there HAS to be a monetary level involved that most people would consider a decent living wage.

[MDawg]

The truth is … UNKewlJ hasn’t spent 20 years playing blackjack. He’s spent 20 years trying to convince people that he’s been playing blackjack.

And now going on a year trying desperately to establish that he's ever placed a sports bet in his tunnel dwelling life.

[DGenBen]

What would be most relevant to the discussion is if someone could answer how many professional sports bettors can dance on the head of a pin?

[redietz]

Wrap up: And finally, regarding self-importance, I think a college football specialist who preaches that knowing a specific sport, i

Looks like Bob Dietz has made a shift from 40 year professional sports bettor to "college football specialist". Fitting that he did so when discussing self-importance.

So the former blackjack card counter, now "blackjack specialist" has a question. Same question I asked back when I was a lowly card counter and not a "blackjack specialist". What kind of money did you (Dietz) make FROM BETTING, not selling, as a "college football specialist?"


We are still back to the same facts that Kim Lee studying all the publications that you mentioned concluded that a winning rate (even as a college football specialist) that would not allow for anything more than breaking even or winning small potatoes. So, it is relevant. How Much? Give a number.

Because frankly, a "college football specialist" who spent 4 months a year, EVERY year in Las Vegas, and lived in the low-end temporary housing that you did, doesn't really square with the grandeur of this new "college football specialist" title. And that is before we even get into the ability to pay your taxes....your singular living expense after inheriting a house.

Or maybe I have to wait for an answer from an interview that is never going to happen. That seems to be your game now...stringing along to an interview that YOU KNOW is never going to happen.

Three banal and obvious comments:

1) Why someone would think I inherited the house at 1412 Forest Dale Lane is beyond me. The house is in Tennessee. Every relative I have lived in Pennsylvania, Delaware, or New Jersey. But the fact that some anonymous idiot thinks he's scoring points by declaring this is bizarre. I WISH some fine Tennessee resident had decided to will me a home gratis.

2) Mr. Walters has all the money in the world, and access to every bit of sports gambling information on the planet. So the fact he actually considered and consulted me probably means something. Unless, of course, you are an anonymous handle playing at being a blackjack player, in which case it counts for nothing.

3) It doesn't matter if somebody wagers a penny a game if the ATS record is there in black-and-white, stretching back decades. What matters is the documented record of somebody doing this, not how much they wagered per game. Mr. Walters didn't give a rats ass what amounts you wagered per game. What matters is whether you won. And obviously, occasionally, as in the futures tickets posted in the Retro Road Trip thread (not a full accounting, mind you, but a good chunk), I won a little bit. And obviously, if I tallied up half a million in wagers here (say, Oddsmaker) and there (say, Northbet), I have managed to wager a little here and there, especially since I really only bet one sport.

But all of this is obvious and goes without saying.

And Kewlj, I'm moving on up to the East Side in two weeks. Drop on in, baby! We're in the shadow of Bristol Motor Speedway, so we won't be hard to find. I'm sure we'll host Singer and Boz at some point. You may as well join the crowd.

KewlJ, you may as well give up on the anonymous declarations where you get half the facts dead wrong. I'm here, in the flesh, willing to host real people in a real place. Willing to go on broadcasts as a real person who has done real things. Willing to have lunch with any gambling luminary on the planet. And unlike the VCT resident Dracula, able to have his photo taken and sit down with actual gambling writers and real filmmakers.

You are basically, as Tony Stark says at the beginning of Iron Man 3, an assclown.

[Keystone]

The truth is … UNKewlJ hasn’t spent 20 years playing blackjack. He’s spent 20 years trying to convince people that he’s been playing blackjack.

And now going on a year trying desperately to establish that he's ever placed a sports bet in his tunnel dwelling life.

Aaaaaaaaand, just like clockwork, the sand monkey appears beating his cymbals shortly after KJ plays his flute….total loser lol

[kewlJ]

Three banal and obvious comments:

1) Why someone would think I inherited the house at 1412 Forest Dale Lane is beyond me. The house is in Tennessee. Every relative I have lived in Pennsylvania, Delaware, or New Jersey. But the fact that some anonymous idiot thinks he's scoring points by declaring this is bizarre. I WISH some fine Tennessee resident had decided to will me a home gratis.

Oh for God sakes! You inherited the house when your wife died, NOT some distant relative. Maybe "inherited" isn't the right word, but she, a professor with a real Job bought and paid for the house, maybe putting it in both names as married folks do, but she bought the house, and you took ownership after her death. Stop playing word salads.

2) Mr. Walters has all the money in the world, and access to every bit of sports gambling information on the planet. So the fact he actually considered and consulted me probably means something. Unless, of course, you are an anonymous handle playing at being a blackjack player, in which case it counts for nothing.

Did Mr Walters always have all the money in the world? Or did he build up to it by betting (his own money...not investors), winning...repeat, repeat, repeat. All using the safe model of Kelly wagering?

3) It doesn't matter if somebody wagers a penny a game if the ATS record is there in black-and-white, stretching back decades. What matters is the documented record of somebody doing this, not how much they wagered per game.

It doesn't matter how much someone bet? They could bet a penny a game? All that matter is documented results? Spoken like a true tout! It most certainly does matter how much a person bet and WON. See my comments a couple posts up about Moses and Flash, guys that won a few thousand a year and claimed they were professional blackjack players.

If You or anyone else is claiming to be a professional gambler, players, sports bettor, you better be able to make a living wager, otherwise you are misleading in your claims.

The fact is, and has become very apparent that you may have been involved with sports betting for 40 years (as a tout), but you made no real money from betting on sports. The only reason you were able to do what you did for an entire lifetime is because at first you had someone else supporting you, and then "inherited" the house and basically lived rent free. THAT is why you stayed there in East Bumble fuck all these years. All you had to do is come up with a few hundred dollars to pay the taxes, which at least one year recently you were unable to do.

And Now you are moving on up to the East side of East Bumble fuck. Congratulations George Jefferson. But you are not moving up due to any success you have had in sports betting/touting. You are moving up because you have latched on to another woman that makes more money than you and is paying for a house. God you are pathetic Dietz.

I really don't care about most of that shit. All I really care about is you claimed you were a "professional sports bettor" for 40 years, when at best you were a professional tout/salesman. I think scammer even fits. And all along the way, you tried to tell us all how fucking smart you were. Smarter than everyone else, with the Hi I.Q and SAT scores. When at the end of day (and your great career) you are just a dude that scammed his way through life. Bob Dietz, great sports bettor, my ass.

[kewlJ]

God, I would love to hear what Billy Walters had to say about "him consulting you". You were a damn "runner" for a few months.

[redietz]

Oh for God sakes! You inherited the house when your wife died, NOT some distant relative. Maybe "inherited" isn't the right word, but she, a professor with a real Job bought and paid for the house, maybe putting it in both names as married folks do, but she bought the house, and you took ownership after her death. Stop playing word salads.


Did Mr Walters always have all the money in the world? Or did he build up to it by betting (his own money...not investors), winning...repeat, repeat, repeat. All using the safe model of Kelly wagering?

3) It doesn't matter if somebody wagers a penny a game if the ATS record is there in black-and-white, stretching back decades. What matters is the documented record of somebody doing this, not how much they wagered per game.

It doesn't matter how much someone bet? They could bet a penny a game? All that matter is documented results? Spoken like a true tout! It most certainly does matter how much a person bet and WON. See my comments a couple posts up about Moses and Flash, guys that won a few thousand a year and claimed they were professional blackjack players.

If You or anyone else is claiming to be a professional gambler, players, sports bettor, you better be able to make a living wager, otherwise you are misleading in your claims.

The fact is, and has become very apparent that you may have been involved with sports betting for 40 years (as a tout), but you made no real money from betting on sports. The only reason you were able to do what you did for an entire lifetime is because at first you had someone else supporting you, and then "inherited" the house and basically lived rent free. THAT is why you stayed there in East Bumble fuck all these years. All you had to do is come up with a few hundred dollars to pay the taxes, which at least one year recently you were unable to do.

And Now you are moving on up to the East side of East Bumble fuck. Congratulations George Jefferson. But you are not moving up due to any success you have had in sports betting/touting. You are moving up because you have latched on to another woman that makes more money than you and is paying for a house. God you are pathetic Dietz.

I really don't care about most of that shit. All I really care about is you claimed you were a "professional sports bettor" for 40 years, when at best you were a professional tout/salesman. I think scammer even fits. And all along the way, you tried to tell us all how fucking smart you were. Smarter than everyone else, with the Hi I.Q and SAT scores. When at the end of day (and your great career) you are just a dude that scammed his way through life. Bob Dietz, great sports bettor, my ass.

That's probably why Mr. Walters hired me. I don't know what I'm doing and have no established track record. Makes perfect sense.

The question arises, if someone gets something so wrong as inheriting a house (a pretty bizarre tangent) and declares what they are saying as fact, and they are completely wrong, what does that indicate about the rest of what they are claiming? If you go out on a limb and proclaim that you know something, and you are completely wrong, what does that mean vis-a-vis your credibility?

It probably means the whole schtick is bullshit. No big deal. Everybody knew that.

[MDawg]

One thing you can tell, when UNKewlJ makes with the all bold sentences one after another something has really gotten to him. You can practically see the hand cocked onto his side, the bent elbow and the high pitched whiny voice complaining, "Now wayyyyt a minute, Misterrrrr."

[kewlJ]

That's probably why Mr. Walters hired me. I don't know what I'm doing and have no established track record. Makes perfect sense.

The question isn't why did Walters hire you. Real sports bettors hire people to get their bets in for them, or at least did in the 80s/90s when we are talking about.

So the real question is, if you were such an asset to the Billy Walters organization, why did he let you go after a few months Dietz?

Can't wait to hear this bullshit story.