Update on the KJ AP experience

[redietz]

(my comments in blue) While I no longer see Dietz's posts, I was made aware of his post earlier today, once again attempting to discredit Kim Lee. I want to again go over some fact (backed by quotes from the last 3 months.

First just a short collection of the 100's of posts made by redietz, trying to claim this 3rd party monitoring nonsense.

personal gambling history provided by neutral third parties.

Barring Axelwolf's play actually being monitored 24/7 by a third party,

long-term, third-party tracking,

Next we have this post from Dietz, 1 of 2 mentioning Kim Lee and his collection of the very publications Dietz has TRIED to use as evidence for decades. You will notice Dietz didn't say, Kim Lee has several years of these publication, or SOME of these publications. He said "a collection better than Dietz's own collection".

I also mentioned a poster here under an Asian name who was a professional card counter and who had a collection of "Tipsters or Gypsters?" better than mine. So tracking down those posts on this forum might help. Maybe you knew the guy (unlikely, but worth a shot). I tracked him down. He wasn't Asian, and he was also (I know you guys love this) an East Coast academic when he wasn't counting cards.

So Dietz opened the door, inviting Kim Lee here and what follows is parts of Kim Lee's conclusion from the very first couple posts he made here. You will note he stated that he actually wanted to support Dietz claims, but the evidence just didn't support that.

Point Number One: The people who pick 57% winners in ...maybe 250-300 or thereabouts for basketball ... need a starting bankroll somewhere between 250K and 500K to make this work.

Point Number Two for all you "APs" out there: When a handicapper ... wins 53% of the time, depending on how many clients he has and what they are paying him, he has generated income as if he'd hit 55% or 58% or 60% or more. ... It's classic "AP" methodology.

I wanted to support Bob (redietz) as a long-time handicapper who tried to play it straight by having Integrity Sports monitored. I don't know how he paid his rent in Vegas, but he could have mixed betting with touting, shopping numbers and playing promotions in town, perhaps booking some bets on the side. He could also have had other sources of money.

I also wanted to warn that touting is a sleazy marketing business. Even if a tout starts with an edge, it inevitably deteriorates over time, and he is stuck selling worthless picks for the rest of his career.

But this money management nonsense is annoying. A 57% Kelly bettor should bet 10% of his bankroll at -110. Haralabos Voulgaris made millions betting NBA totals. There are plenty of losing gamblers who find time to handicap, gamble, and post on internet forums. If you could really hit 57%, then you would accumulate the bankroll. Many low-level poker and blackjack pros played part-time while they scrounged up session bankrolls and lost. But eventually they won and never looked back.

Also, "pay after you win" is not classic advantage play, it is classic scamdicapping. If the tout is winning at 53%, then his paying customers are losing. If you earn money and your "partners" lose, then you are not a professional bettor. The poker world had a lot of "professional" players who got publicity in the poker boom and then burned "investors" in staking deals. Bob's post displays no remorse or empathy for his losing customers and just brags about being clever to win so much with 53% picks. This also ignores those inevitable 47% seasons where customers lose a lot.

Point Number One: The people who pick 57% winners in ...maybe 250-300 or thereabouts for basketball ... need a starting bankroll somewhere between 250K and 500K to make this work.

Point Number Two for all you "APs" out there: When a handicapper ... wins 53% of the time, depending on how many clients he has and what they are paying him, he has generated income as if he'd hit 55% or 58% or 60% or more. ... It's classic "AP" methodology.

No, this is mathematically wrong. The number of games per season does not affect your bet size. The Kelly bet for 57% is roughly 10% of bankroll. That means $5,500 to win $5,000 on a $50k bankroll. You do not need this entire bankroll liquid. You might have only $20k, plus the ability to scrape up more over the next year. And you can bet on credit. It might be rough the first season or two. But you expect to double your bankroll in one season. And the college season is only 12 weeks long! You can spend the rest of the year living cheap and working a job to get the bankroll.

KewlJ and DD' from BJ21 followed this approach at blackjack.

THIS Final Post is very telling. Bob Dietz didn't have a grasp on Kelly Wagering!!! How in God's name can someone claim to have been a professional sports bettor for 40 years and not understand Kelly Wagering?

Bob Dietz, just STOP this nonsense. For years you have bombarded tus with this bullshit, that what you claim must be true because you were "monitored", despit that that monitoring is cherry-picked and not what you claim.

YOU opened the door, inviting Kim Lee here as you expert, and he completely debunked your decades of bullshit claims.

JUST FREAKING STOP!!!

Actually, as it turns out, I have a fine grasp of Kelly Criterion. It's exactly as advertised. And that's why it's somewhat inappropriate (at best) and really, really inappropriate and stupid (at worst) to apply Kelly Criterion to sports wagering.

I mean, kewlJ, you cannot be this stupid. Just google Kelly Criterion and read the first couple of Wiki paragraphs. Did you ever take a probability course at Villanova? Sorry, that is what's called a rhetorical question.

Or -- LOL -- better yet, call into 714-244-6853 when I'm next available. If you're worried about me not taping the interview, I have a fine suggestion. You record it. Play it here. Play it on YouTube. Play it on American Bandstand.

And as soon as I get back from a few errands and dinner, I will post here about the fine conversation last night at "Dietz Call-In Time." Be here or be square.