Update on the KJ AP experience

[coach belly]

mcap is irrelevant...and quite the pussy.

No shit I'm irrelevant

And quite the pussy...

[Rob.Singer]

Would YOU want this creep as a neighbor?

As opposed to having an ancient, ugly angry wop parking their camper in the driveway next door?

I touched a nerve. Good! But I'm not understanding the camper in a driveway. Which driveway, in which state? One has a Nissan Leaf; the other has the Blackwing.

Stay annoyed!

[mickeycrimm]

What about the $100 to the Las Vegas Rescue Mission and the credit score to Druff?

What about... I have to ask...

Dietz has provide his phone number, and invited you to initiate an adversarial interview.

I'm going to call in. If you don't, then you are as big of a pussy as mcap is.

I already told redietz it's been so long I'm no longer interested in even listening to an interview. I've been interviewing redietz right here for 2 years about his stance on EV in sports betting. I know where he stands. There's nothing he can add to that in an interview.

That doesn't exuses the fact redietz lied about doing an interview on GWAE, Life is a Gamble and PFA Radio. Calling him and asking questions doesn't change that fact.

redieta said anyone can call him so if you don't call in you are a big pussy too. And if you do call him who do you think will be listening? On PFA Radio people would be free to call in.

[kewlJ]

I already told redietz it's been so long I'm no longer interested in even listening to an interview. I've been interviewing redietz right here for 2 years about his stance on EV in sports betting. I know where he stands. There's nothing he can add to that in an interview.

That doesn't exuses the fact redietz lied about doing an interview on GWAE, Life is a Gamble and PFA Radio. Calling him and asking questions doesn't change that fact.

redieta said anyone can call him so if you don't call in you are a big pussy too. And if you do call him who do you think will be listening? On PFA Radio people would be free to call in.

What happened?...Dietz provided a phone number and invited people to call him to ask questions that won't be aired anywhere? How fucking retarded, but par for the course.

Mickey is right. Dietz has had every opportunity to accept offers for several different podcasts type shows that would air to an audience. He has declined and thrown up road blocks every step of the way. He has also had this platform where he has made some of his bizarre statements like EV is an opinion, over and over again. So in a sense, anyone interested already should know all they need to know about Bob Dietz and his 40 year sports betting claim.

There simply is zero evidence Dietz made any money betting sports. He told us there was evidence in publications with 40 years worth of monitored contests, but when Kim Lee went over all the data, Dietz didn't have a winning percentage that would do anything other than break about even. And those contests aren't what he claims anyway. What they are is a tool for "touts", people that sell picks to use to attract new customers. They can use the good results to impress new customers and the bad results they just don't mention. Kind of like the baccarat dude who only tells you of winning days and doesn't mention losing days.

And even worse, throughout this stupid shit of an ordeal, Dietz adopted the very same troll tactic as trolls like Singer and Mdawg and that is to attack and lie about anyone that asked him any reasonable questions that he couldn't answer. THAT is always the tell to the "knows what he is talking about" equation. If a person knows what they are talking about they can answer reasonable questions asked and explain things in a reasonable manner. If they don't know what they are talking about, they attack and lie about the person asking questions.

Fucking retarded forum this is. There is like 3 people that actually play and know what they are talking about and the rest some level of asinine trolling.

[MDawg]

Kewlj, please tell me that this entire routine of yours is a years-long troll job. At least that I could respect.

[redietz]

I already told redietz it's been so long I'm no longer interested in even listening to an interview. I've been interviewing redietz right here for 2 years about his stance on EV in sports betting. I know where he stands. There's nothing he can add to that in an interview.

That doesn't exuses the fact redietz lied about doing an interview on GWAE, Life is a Gamble and PFA Radio. Calling him and asking questions doesn't change that fact.

redieta said anyone can call him so if you don't call in you are a big pussy too. And if you do call him who do you think will be listening? On PFA Radio people would be free to call in.

What happened?...Dietz provided a phone number and invited people to call him to ask questions that won't be aired anywhere? How fucking retarded, but par for the course.

Mickey is right. Dietz has had every opportunity to accept offers for several different podcasts type shows that would air to an audience. He has declined and thrown up road blocks every step of the way. He has also had this platform where he has made some of his bizarre statements like EV is an opinion, over and over again. So in a sense, anyone interested already should know all they need to know about Bob Dietz and his 40 year sports betting claim.

There simply is zero evidence Dietz made any money betting sports. He told us there was evidence in publications with 40 years worth of monitored contests, but when Kim Lee went over all the data, Dietz didn't have a winning percentage that would do anything other than break about even. And those contests aren't what he claims anyway. What they are is a tool for "touts", people that sell picks to use to attract new customers. They can use the good results to impress new customers and the bad results they just don't mention. Kind of like the baccarat dude who only tells you of winning days and doesn't mention losing days.

And even worse, throughout this stupid shit of an ordeal, Dietz adopted the very same troll tactic as trolls like Singer and Mdawg and that is to attack and lie about anyone that asked him any reasonable questions that he couldn't answer. THAT is always the tell to the "knows what he is talking about" equation. If a person knows what they are talking about they can answer reasonable questions asked and explain things in a reasonable manner. If they don't know what they are talking about, they attack and lie about the person asking questions.

Fucking retarded forum this is. There is like 3 people that actually play and know what they are talking about and the rest some level of asinine trolling.

I think people are getting a pretty good idea of "who knows what they are talking about and who's just talking."

Case i point. Direct quote: "Kim Lee went over all the data."

Not even close. Kim Lee went over roughly eight years of "Tipsters or Gypsters?" -- he did not include any Wise Guys results (roughly 30 years); did not include the year PRIOR to my "Tipsters or Gypsters?" debut where my weekly column with the Valley View paper was astonishing. Did not include results from Bally's college football handicapping contest. And all the bad numbers from "Tipsters or Gypsters?" were the first year. So frankly, overcoming all that to wind up in the top five of every multi-year college football category by the time "Tipsters or Gypsters?" stopped publishing is a tale of pulling oneself up by the proverbial bootstraps.

But I'm sure KewlJ has a fine explanation of why he skipped this information in writing his erudite if dishonest post. LOL. Some of us indeed "know what we are talking about" while others just talk (or post -- dishonestly and over and over and over).

[mcap]

mcap is irrelevant...and quite the pussy.

No shit I'm irrelevant

And quite the pussy...

Meet me in Temecula, bitch

[coach belly]

redieta said anyone can call him so if you don't call in you are a big pussy too.And if you do call him who do you think will be listening?

An interview doesn't require a live audience, beyond the subject and the interviewer.

You've been hounding the guy for quite some time about ducking interviews, so he invited you to interview him and provided access.

Now you are agreeing that you are a big pussy, because you didn't call in.

Go get your shine box.

[kewlJ]

(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.

As someone who has either the best or second best lifetime record ATS in The Wise Guys Contest

the verification of a sports bettor being monitored by third parties

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.

the tout has to hit 55% for the investor to break even.

And when old investors wash out from losing….the continuous advertising brings in new investors.

Mickey has it right. Most touts don't even hit 51%, and virtually none have a long-term record of 55%+.

I merely know of Redietz from studying old handicapper records. It was possible to make money in the 1980's by shopping lines and exploiting casino mistakes and promotions, and this continued online. Many "handicappers" were also bookmakers or agents for offshore books. If Redietz's wife paid the rent, then he might have survived on these sports-related activities.

Sports 1-900 numbers, magazine tout ads, and tout Services fleece people for years while claiming outrageous win rate percentages. It was a huge fucking con.

Axel understates the cesspool of scamdicapping. They blatantly lie and cherry-pick records. They place newspaper advertisements months ahead of time bragging "9 out of 10 winners last weekend!"

By this standard, Redietz is not terribly scammy. But we all know that if Redietz could hit 55%, then he would have accumulated a lot of money over 4 decades. If he could hit 53% then he could shop a meager living in Vegas. I would have believed him if he said his wife paid the mortgage while he made money from shopping lines, booking, and selling picks while intermittently flipping real estate and irregular jobs.

But no, Redietz bragged about making big profits off customers while hitting 53%. He thinks he is a smart advantage player by taking advantage of customers, where their losses are his profits. He basically confirmed MickeyCrimm's suspicions that that Redietz used the sports handicapping publicity to fleece customers.

Redietz doesn't write about getting backed off from sports books or hiring runners. A dozen accounts is nothing special. He mentions $500K in action at one account, but does not mention the purpose of the account. Is it an agent account? Was it even profitable? Was it used for hedging? What were the bet sizes? This is typical tout cherry-picking - I hit 57% in 1989, and was #1 in preseason NFL last year (while losing badly at everything else)!

If Redietz was in Vegas hitting 55%+, then Billy Walters would have found him long ago. Redietz bragged that he is a tout who makes money at customers' expense, not by releasing winning picks. Many delusional people pretend to be pro gamblers/handicappers when they are losers, or making money from something else.

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 us with this bullshit, that what you claim must be true because you were "monitored", despite 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!!!

[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.

[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.

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.

As to the Kim Lee material -- he leaned into my freshman bomb-out with McCusker, which was quite real and true. The reason I didn't go on tilt, however, I have stated many times. I had an outrageous, monster year the immediate season prior to my freshman McCusker season. That season was recorded in a weekly column at the Valley View Citizen Standard and capped by a SB preview column in the daily Shenandoah Herald (now part of the Pulitzer-winning Pottsville Republican franchise). None of what happened that previous season was included in "Kim Lee's" assessment. And I can publish the final multi-season McCusker college football standings here if anyone is interested. Now as to the reason I didn't freak out after my lousy initial McCusker season -- I should have won a good chunk of games I lost. The previous season the opposite occurred; I won a good chunk of games (at least 10) I should have lost. So the God of Odds evened things out. Such is reality; you gotta deal with it.

Keep swingin', kewlJ. Let people identify who knows what they are talking about as opposed to just talking.

I will try to find the interview from the year prior to my debut with "Tipsters or Gypsters?" It'll be embarrassing, I'm sure, but fun to read.

[kewlJ]

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.

I am showing you the courtesy of reading (and responding to) your reply, despite that you are blocked, because it is only fair to have you be able to respond. But if all you can do is the same old responses, that don't fly....don't bother.

I have no idea what all this phone number shit and trying to get people to call you privately is about?

I am thinking it is another part of you trying to accumulate all kinds of information from members here. Real names, email addressed, phone numbers. Next thing you know we will all be bombarded with text messages and emails from Dietz soliciting his "tout" business, as he apparently did with Rob Singer.

And finally....You don't learn about Kelly Criteria from fucking Wikipedia. WTF!!! Can't think of anything more disqualifying of yourself and claims that that statement.

[redietz]

Update for tonight (as promised): Call into 714-244-6853 at 10 PM (same as last night). If you so desire, record the call and catch the aging handicapper being wrong about something, then put it on YouTube.

Looking forward to a fine tete-a-tete or two. Ten PM Eastern, baby. Be here or be square.

And as soon as I'm back from errands and dinner, I will update regarding last night's conversation.

[redietz]

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.

I am showing you the courtesy of reading (and responding to) your reply, despite that you are blocked, because it is only fair to have you be able to respond. But if all you can do is the same old responses, that don't fly....don't bother.

I have no idea what all this phone number shit and trying to get people to call you privately is about?

I am thinking it is another part of you trying to accumulate all kinds of information from members here. Real names, email addressed, phone numbers. Next thing you know we will all be bombarded with text messages and emails from Dietz soliciting his "tout" business, as he apparently did with Rob Singer.

And finally....You don't learn about Kelly Criteria from fucking Wikipedia. WTF!!! Can't think of anything more disqualifying of yourself and claims that that statement.

I guess if KewlJ and Wiki's Kelly Criterion descriptions are at odds, the kewlJ must be the correctimundo one. Ah, to be a Leonardo Da AP.

[MisterV]

wha tis the point of you people continuing to jump down this rabbit hole?

Seems awfuly damned silly to me.

[kewlJ]

whatis the point of you people continuing to jump down this rabbit hole?

Seems awfuly damned silly to me.

It IS silly MisterV. But somewhat necessary.

Bob Dietz is following EXACTLY in Rob Singer and Mdawg's footsteps. Right down to the attack trolling when he can't answer questions.

AND just like Singer and Dawg, when they were completely 100% debunked, they don't let up. They keep coming with their bullshit stories. I mean Singer has been so thoroughly debunked, you would think he would never post again. But he does. Mostly attacks, but every so often he STILL trys to revive his claims, with some sort of comment about "when he was playing this or that...." Same with Dawg.

As long as these people pop their heads back up and try to revive their completely disproven claims, I think it is fair to "remind" them.

[MisterV]

KJ, I was referring to the attempts to have redietz participate in some sort of call in show, which I think is mainly a ploy of Mickey to embarrass redietz?

Whatever...I cannot imagine such a call in program would be worth listening to: I've no interest in sports betting and the few callers the show would get would likely be VCT members with their knives out.

I also have difficulty following the EV in sports betting arguments.

FWIW redietz seems to be what he claims he once was.

[kewlJ]

This continues to be the bottom line for me about this shit.

Whether Singer, Dawg or now Dietz, if you are going to come to a gambling related forum, your claims need to work mathematically, and realistically (fit the way things actually work).

And if you are going to come to forums, populated by real advantage players and players that play for a living, and you spout off nonsense that don't work, either mathematically or fit the way things actually work, then you should be prepared to answer reasonable questions in a reasonable manner without all the attacks and lies of those real players asking the questions. IT IS THAT SIMPLE!

Like me or not, approve of my personal life and sexual orientation or not, think I am arrogant and an asshole or not, my gambling claims do not defy the mathematics, nor the way things work and for good reason...I am just sharing some real experiences. And even that seems to irritate people...that I live and play Las Vegas and actually KNOW how things work. It is my fucking business to know how things work.

[coach belly]

I cannot imagine such a call in program would be worth listening to

If a PFA interview with red happens, are you asserting that you will not listen to the broadcast?

[MisterV]

I cannot imagine such a call in program would be worth listening to

If a PFA interview with red happens, are you asserting that you will not listen to the broadcast?

Yes.

i've no interest in sports betting, none whatsoever, so what would be the point, unless it would be akin to ogling a two-headed calf or gawking at a burning bus full of nuns?

You do you and I'll do me, OK?