Professional Sportsbetting

[redietz]

KewlJ tries to import math from closed mathematical systems and apply it to real-world open systems. He should probably ask Shackleford why he shouldn't do that. It's fucking idiotic.

If you're boxing someone, and he hits you in the head with his first 15 jabs, then it behooves you to prevent getting hit in the head. It really is that simple. Oddsmakers, believe it or not, are allowed to move their heads.

Also, I used KC in the Heritage Contest because the NFL is about as conducive to logical analysis (and Rob did give a fine, accurate analysis) as a 40-year-old Charlie Sheen was to marriage.

Having watched the first half, I do not see how KC can win this game, but usually that means they win the game. In any event, I teased the Eagles to +7 in a bevy of wagers so I would not be heartbroken if the Eagles won. Put some dinner money on Phila the second half at +1. I was a little surprised at the halftime line, as I thought the Eagles would be -1, not +1.

Well, if the Eagles win, I likely drop about a hundred spots in Heritage. If KC wins, I may crack the top 20.

[kewlJ]

This is week 2 of the 1st 2 weeks NFL underdog play. This play has NOT lost in 15 years. (3 even years and 12 winning years). Last week I went 7-7 with two pickem games that I didn't play. this week I also have two pickem or 1 point games that I saw no advantage in playing, the Eagles/KC and Denver/colts. So after Thursday night's loss, I am 7-8 with 13 games remaining.

I bet this play heavily, in addition to maxing out my online accounts, I spread significant money at a number of sportsbooks in Vegas. I know Redeitz is desperately hoping favorites win and cover so he can make some stupid comment about it not being a winning play. But I just want to pre-emptively say that whether this play shows a small win or a loss this year changes nothing about this play for me. I believe based on 15 years of results, that it is +EV. It will take more than 1 losing year in 16 to change my mind.

It would like going out and counting cards and having a losing day and saying "see counting cards doesn't work", when we know it does.

Good luck to those playing this play.

Kew, you're "+EV" here is rationalized by hope and not math. In-general past results have nothing to do with what may or may not happen with dogs during individual games today. You should know better.

Use your head: the game in KC today for example--you're shying away from it because of the tiny spread. But there is good value in this game. Right now the Eagles are -1.5 favs. You bet on them and you're getting a whole lot of that +EV you like to say you know about.

KC's best two wideouts are out today, Philly destroyed KC in the SB, Kelce has famous tits & ass & billions on his mind constantly, and Mahomes has been on a downward slide for the last 2+ years. Even if Rice and Worthy were playing Philly would cover.

Since you made a reasonable, non-trollish post, I will respond Rob. What you are doing looking at who is playing and matchups is called handicapping the game. THAT is NOT how successful sports bettors operate today. They look at things like how 1.5 dogs do and that type of things. It is all numbers today and less specifically what todays game is about. If you don't beleive me ask Mickeycrimm.

[MDawg]

There's no doubt I have the right guy. Like I said, "I can pick you out of a police line up"

[Rob.Singer]

This is week 2 of the 1st 2 weeks NFL underdog play. This play has NOT lost in 15 years. (3 even years and 12 winning years). Last week I went 7-7 with two pickem games that I didn't play. this week I also have two pickem or 1 point games that I saw no advantage in playing, the Eagles/KC and Denver/colts. So after Thursday night's loss, I am 7-8 with 13 games remaining.

I bet this play heavily, in addition to maxing out my online accounts, I spread significant money at a number of sportsbooks in Vegas. I know Redeitz is desperately hoping favorites win and cover so he can make some stupid comment about it not being a winning play. But I just want to pre-emptively say that whether this play shows a small win or a loss this year changes nothing about this play for me. I believe based on 15 years of results, that it is +EV. It will take more than 1 losing year in 16 to change my mind.

It would like going out and counting cards and having a losing day and saying "see counting cards doesn't work", when we know it does.

Good luck to those playing this play.

Kew, you're "+EV" here is rationalized by hope and not math. In-general past results have nothing to do with what may or may not happen with dogs during individual games today. You should know better.

Use your head: the game in KC today for example--you're shying away from it because of the tiny spread. But there is good value in this game. Right now the Eagles are -1.5 favs. You bet on them and you're getting a whole lot of that +EV you like to say you know about.

KC's best two wideouts are out today, Philly destroyed KC in the SB, Kelce has famous tits & ass & billions on his mind constantly, and Mahomes has been on a downward slide for the last 2+ years. Even if Rice and Worthy were playing Philly would cover.

Since you made a reasonable, non-trollish post, I will respond Rob. What you are doing looking at who is playing and matchups is called handicapping the game. THAT is NOT how successful sports bettors operate today. They look at things like how 1.5 dogs do and that type of things. It is all numbers today and less specifically what todays game is about. If you don't beleive me ask Mickeycrimm.

What today's game was about:
1. Kelce almost always being distracted. CHECK.
2. KC's lack of a consistent wideout. CHECK.
3. Mahomes continued deterioration as an elite & feared accurate passer. CHECK.
4. Philly being the same superior NFL team that won the SB. CHECK.

1.5 dogs and whatever you meant?? This game had massive value from the start, because it had high +EV. It's the only game I bet on.

[redietz]

This is week 2 of the 1st 2 weeks NFL underdog play. This play has NOT lost in 15 years. (3 even years and 12 winning years). Last week I went 7-7 with two pickem games that I didn't play. this week I also have two pickem or 1 point games that I saw no advantage in playing, the Eagles/KC and Denver/colts. So after Thursday night's loss, I am 7-8 with 13 games remaining.

I bet this play heavily, in addition to maxing out my online accounts, I spread significant money at a number of sportsbooks in Vegas. I know Redeitz is desperately hoping favorites win and cover so he can make some stupid comment about it not being a winning play. But I just want to pre-emptively say that whether this play shows a small win or a loss this year changes nothing about this play for me. I believe based on 15 years of results, that it is +EV. It will take more than 1 losing year in 16 to change my mind.

It would like going out and counting cards and having a losing day and saying "see counting cards doesn't work", when we know it does.

Good luck to those playing this play.

Kew, you're "+EV" here is rationalized by hope and not math. In-general past results have nothing to do with what may or may not happen with dogs during individual games today. You should know better.

Use your head: the game in KC today for example--you're shying away from it because of the tiny spread. But there is good value in this game. Right now the Eagles are -1.5 favs. You bet on them and you're getting a whole lot of that +EV you like to say you know about.

KC's best two wideouts are out today, Philly destroyed KC in the SB, Kelce has famous tits & ass & billions on his mind constantly, and Mahomes has been on a downward slide for the last 2+ years. Even if Rice and Worthy were playing Philly would cover.

Since you made a reasonable, non-trollish post, I will respond Rob. What you are doing looking at who is playing and matchups is called handicapping the game. THAT is NOT how successful sports bettors operate today. They look at things like how 1.5 dogs do and that type of things. It is all numbers today and less specifically what todays game is about. If you don't beleive me ask Mickeycrimm.

What an idiot. The people at Playbook (and Marc Jr. is a programmer) have been doing this stuff for at least 25 years. 24/7 programs seeking the trends for every sport. There is no Golden Fleece. Sports books are capable of running the same programs, and they do.

What, you think some genius "APs" have uncovered the keys to the kingdom with the kinds of simple trends you're talking about? And you think the books aren't aware of all these trends and do not adjust for them?

See, the books are like people. If you hit them in the head 15 consecutive times, they tend to move their head. You don't get that, do you?

So basically, your "bet the dogs the first two weeks" recommendation was a complete bust. No surprise. Do it again next year. And send some lunch money to any geniuses who listened to you.

Meanwhile, The Riddler won each time he suggested something. You know, kewlJ, have you considered the "trend" that The Riddler wins?

I find it hard to believe a professional blackjack player is this dumb. Bottom line. Naive and dumb and with no blessed idea how trends have been X-rayed, categorized, and analyzed every which way for the last 20 years. It's mind-blowing that an alleged professional gambler allegedly living in Las Vegas would be this out of touch with reality.

[redietz]

Kew, you're "+EV" here is rationalized by hope and not math. In-general past results have nothing to do with what may or may not happen with dogs during individual games today. You should know better.

Use your head: the game in KC today for example--you're shying away from it because of the tiny spread. But there is good value in this game. Right now the Eagles are -1.5 favs. You bet on them and you're getting a whole lot of that +EV you like to say you know about.

KC's best two wideouts are out today, Philly destroyed KC in the SB, Kelce has famous tits & ass & billions on his mind constantly, and Mahomes has been on a downward slide for the last 2+ years. Even if Rice and Worthy were playing Philly would cover.

Since you made a reasonable, non-trollish post, I will respond Rob. What you are doing looking at who is playing and matchups is called handicapping the game. THAT is NOT how successful sports bettors operate today. They look at things like how 1.5 dogs do and that type of things. It is all numbers today and less specifically what todays game is about. If you don't beleive me ask Mickeycrimm.

What today's game was about:
1. Kelce almost always being distracted. CHECK.
2. KC's lack of a consistent wideout. CHECK.
3. Mahomes continued deterioration as an elite & feared accurate passer. CHECK.
4. Philly being the same superior NFL team that won the SB. CHECK.

1.5 dogs and whatever you meant?? This game had massive value from the start, because it had high +EV. It's the only game I bet on.

Rob, the team lost on a bobbled pass by a point and a half. That's not exactly lock-of-the-year material. Given all of what you said, and I agree with all of it, how do the Eagles win by just a field goal? It's actually mind-blowing that a team with no wideouts stayed in a game with the Eagles, but such is the NFL. I have no words for how the Eagles blew coverages twice in the last five minutes with a 10-point lead. That was stunning.

[kewlJ]

Kew, you're "+EV" here is rationalized by hope and not math. In-general past results have nothing to do with what may or may not happen with dogs during individual games today. You should know better.

Use your head: the game in KC today for example--you're shying away from it because of the tiny spread. But there is good value in this game. Right now the Eagles are -1.5 favs. You bet on them and you're getting a whole lot of that +EV you like to say you know about.

KC's best two wideouts are out today, Philly destroyed KC in the SB, Kelce has famous tits & ass & billions on his mind constantly, and Mahomes has been on a downward slide for the last 2+ years. Even if Rice and Worthy were playing Philly would cover.

Since you made a reasonable, non-trollish post, I will respond Rob. What you are doing looking at who is playing and matchups is called handicapping the game. THAT is NOT how successful sports bettors operate today. They look at things like how 1.5 dogs do and that type of things. It is all numbers today and less specifically what todays game is about. If you don't beleive me ask Mickeycrimm.

What an idiot. The people at Playbook (and Marc Jr. is a programmer) have been doing this stuff for at least 25 years. 24/7 programs seeking the trends for every sport. There is no Golden Fleece. Sports books are capable of running the same programs, and they do.

What, you think some genius "APs" have uncovered the keys to the kingdom with the kinds of simple trends you're talking about? And you think the books aren't aware of all these trends and do not adjust for them?

See, the books are like people. If you hit them in the head 15 consecutive times, they tend to move their head. You don't get that, do you?

So basically, your "bet the dogs the first two weeks" recommendation was a complete bust. No surprise. Do it again next year. And send some lunch money to any geniuses who listened to you.

Meanwhile, The Riddler won each time he suggested something. You know, kewlJ, have you considered the "trend" that The Riddler wins?

I find it hard to believe a professional blackjack player is this dumb. Bottom line. Naive and dumb and with no blessed idea how trends have been X-rayed, categorized, and analyzed every which way for the last 20 years. It's mind-blowing that an alleged professional gambler allegedly living in Las Vegas would be this out of touch with reality.

You are too emotional Dietz. You are too hell bent on making this personal. It isn't. It is advantage play.

First it wasn't me that brought this "trend to light. It was Half Smoke. And he used Wizards numbers from the last 15 years.

Second, I didn't recommend or twist anyone's arm to play this play. I simply made people aware of it.

Now, last 5 years Dogs have covered 89 and not covered 68. Over 15 years it has been even more pronounced, with not a single year of favorites covering more than they lost. This may be the first. Based on those numbers this play has between a 6% and 8+% advantage, depending on how many years you look at. THAT is an advantage play, since you don't seem to have a clue about advantage play.

And if you looked at even a few of the videos mickeycrimm has linked to in recent months, you will see that this is exactly the kind of thing most of the top winning sports bettors are doing.

I didn't invent it, nor think I discovered any secret. I am just looking at an advantage that top sports bettors are using and doing likewise. Same as I didn't invent card counting. But I sure as hell have used it to my advantage for 20 years. THAT, Dietz is what advantage players do. Find an advantage and play it.

This play for me for the first two weeks is currently 11-14 with 3 games remaining. Likely first time in 16 years favorites have covered more. But whatever happens these last 3 games, this was +EV and again since you seem to have no clue.....that is what advantage players do. Find and play and advantage.

So just stop with your silliness and trying to make it personal. It isn't personal. It is advantage play. And you are just embarrassing yourself with you petty comments directed at me.

[Rob.Singer]

Red, the game was an advantage play to me, or I wouldn't have bet it.

It was played in KC, one of the toughest venues for visitors in the NFL. I considered that. And it's not about what the final score was. It's about expectation BEFORE the game.

[kewlJ]

Red, the game was an advantage play to me, or I wouldn't have bet it.

It was played in KC, one of the toughest venues for visitors in the NFL. I considered that. And it's not about what the final score was. It's about expectation BEFORE the game.

Rob, you are trying to Analize the game individually based on matchups and such.....just like 100 million other weekend warrior sports bettors. 99.999% will lose money long-term because of the vig. I doubt you are that 0.0001 that can will long-term.

Winning sports bettors today are using computer generated analytics based on years of results that really have little to do with the actual teams playing. And as Deitz will tell you, this isn't new. This has been going on for decades. To win long-term, you have got to get out of that mindset where you are looking at the teams playing and looking at individual matchups. That is like a blackjack player playing a game with a house edge of .5% and thinking he can win long-term just playing basic strategy. (no card counting or anything that gives him an advantage).

Now, here is another little "angle" that half smoke has mentioned based on decades of data provided by Wizard. If you play away dogs plus points, you will win a very small percentage something like 1.5% That is based on decades of data.

If you are looking for a common sense reason why this angle (along with the first two weeks dogs angle) works, it is because the public tends to over bet both favorites and home teams, making away dogs value. (slight +EV over decades).

But what you are doing Rob, is just degenerate sports bettor gambling. Have fun if that is what you want to do. But you are NOt playing at an advantage (+EV) no matter how much you think you are.

[accountinquestion]

Red, the game was an advantage play to me, or I wouldn't have bet it.

It was played in KC, one of the toughest venues for visitors in the NFL. I considered that. And it's not about what the final score was. It's about expectation BEFORE the game.

Rob, you are trying to Analize the game individually based on matchups and such.....just like 100 million other weekend warrior sports bettors. 99.999% will lose money long-term because of the vig. I doubt you are that 0.0001 that can will long-term.

Winning sports bettors today are using computer generated analytics based on years of results that really have little to do with the actual teams playing. And as Deitz will tell you, this isn't new. This has been going on for decades. To win long-term, you have got to get out of that mindset where you are looking at the teams playing and looking at individual matchups. That is like a blackjack player playing a game with a house edge of .5% and thinking he can win long-term just playing basic strategy. (no card counting or anything that gives him an advantage).

Now, here is another little "angle" that half smoke has mentioned based on decades of data provided by Wizard. If you play away dogs plus points, you will win a very small percentage something like 1.5% That is based on decades of data.

If you are looking for a common sense reason why this angle (along with the first two weeks dogs angle) works, it is because the public tends to over bet both favorites and home teams, making away dogs value. (slight +EV over decades).

But what you are doing Rob, is just degenerate sports bettor gambling. Have fun if that is what you want to do. But you are NOt playing at an advantage (+EV) no matter how much you think you are.

Redietz might be able to understand the lessons you're giving but 0 chance with Singer. Just let it go ..

[Rob.Singer]

Red, the game was an advantage play to me, or I wouldn't have bet it.

It was played in KC, one of the toughest venues for visitors in the NFL. I considered that. And it's not about what the final score was. It's about expectation BEFORE the game.

Rob, you are trying to Analize the game individually based on matchups and such.....just like 100 million other weekend warrior sports bettors. 99.999% will lose money long-term because of the vig. I doubt you are that 0.0001 that can will long-term.

Winning sports bettors today are using computer generated analytics based on years of results that really have little to do with the actual teams playing. And as Deitz will tell you, this isn't new. This has been going on for decades. To win long-term, you have got to get out of that mindset where you are looking at the teams playing and looking at individual matchups. That is like a blackjack player playing a game with a house edge of .5% and thinking he can win long-term just playing basic strategy. (no card counting or anything that gives him an advantage).

Now, here is another little "angle" that half smoke has mentioned based on decades of data provided by Wizard. If you play away dogs plus points, you will win a very small percentage something like 1.5% That is based on decades of data.

If you are looking for a common sense reason why this angle (along with the first two weeks dogs angle) works, it is because the public tends to over bet both favorites and home teams, making away dogs value. (slight +EV over decades).

But what you are doing Rob, is just degenerate sports bettor gambling. Have fun if that is what you want to do. But you are NOt playing at an advantage (+EV) no matter how much you think you are.

Redietz might be able to understand the lessons you're giving but 0 chance with Singer. Just let it go ..

Dumb and dumber....and it's just one loner.

Kew, I have no interest in "long term" sports betting, and other than the bonus-betting I've done in the past I may place 3 or 4 bets a year--all on NFL games, and only when there's a clear advantage. It's the people who find themselves betting multiple sports almost weekly, year-round, who do "degenerate betting". In fact, because of one large parlay win I had in Tahoe maybe 10 years ago now--a bet that was also +EV by a LOT (a rarity in parlay betting) I'll never be a sports betting loser.

Once again, you took a thousand words to say something that could have been articulated in a hundred words, thoroughly exciting the old man with no family. Usually, that means you're struggling to criticize. First I was "handicapping"--then it was degenerate betting. Snap out of it.

[redietz]

Rob, you are trying to Analize the game individually based on matchups and such.....just like 100 million other weekend warrior sports bettors. 99.999% will lose money long-term because of the vig. I doubt you are that 0.0001 that can will long-term.

Winning sports bettors today are using computer generated analytics based on years of results that really have little to do with the actual teams playing. And as Deitz will tell you, this isn't new. This has been going on for decades. To win long-term, you have got to get out of that mindset where you are looking at the teams playing and looking at individual matchups. That is like a blackjack player playing a game with a house edge of .5% and thinking he can win long-term just playing basic strategy. (no card counting or anything that gives him an advantage).

Now, here is another little "angle" that half smoke has mentioned based on decades of data provided by Wizard. If you play away dogs plus points, you will win a very small percentage something like 1.5% That is based on decades of data.

If you are looking for a common sense reason why this angle (along with the first two weeks dogs angle) works, it is because the public tends to over bet both favorites and home teams, making away dogs value. (slight +EV over decades).

But what you are doing Rob, is just degenerate sports bettor gambling. Have fun if that is what you want to do. But you are NOt playing at an advantage (+EV) no matter how much you think you are.

Redietz might be able to understand the lessons you're giving but 0 chance with Singer. Just let it go ..

Dumb and dumber....and it's just one loner.

Kew, I have no interest in "long term" sports betting, and other than the bonus-betting I've done in the past I may place 3 or 4 bets a year--all on NFL games, and only when there's a clear advantage. It's the people who find themselves betting multiple sports almost weekly, year-round, who do "degenerate betting". In fact, because of one large parlay win I had in Tahoe maybe 10 years ago now--a bet that was also +EV by a LOT (a rarity in parlay betting) I'll never be a sports betting loser.

Once again, you took a thousand words to say something that could have been articulated in a hundred words, thoroughly exciting the old man with no family. Usually, that means you're struggling to criticize. First I was "handicapping"--then it was degenerate betting. Snap out of it.

The problems with making general know-it-all betting statements are as follow. Now please note that KewlJ attempts to import the probability theory and jargon of random events and then assign them to non-random events while simultaneously stating that he can win precisely because NFL games are non-random events and have trends.

LOL. You cannot make this idiocy up.

But, anyway, here is a thumbnail list of the basic logical problems with what the kewlJ is touting vis-a-vis the NFL (see what I did there?):

1) He makes statements regarding "the public" betting this or that. There is no "the public," technically speaking. There is only money. So assigning yourself to one gnostic category ("the sharps," "APs," the in-the-know crowd) while assigning others to "the public" is not only over-stepping your expertise, it's self-aggrandizing and inaccurate.

2) Of course, if lines move, and you are betting at the bitter end and those are the numbers you use to assign wins and losses, then what you are doing is arguing that the original lines were more accurate than the closing lines. So you are allowing "the public," -- AKA the money -- to do the wrong thing, then exploiting the idea that they are doing the wrong thing. Yet this inherently suggests that injury reports and weather do not play a part in the line moves actually being correct, which is a fair position to take (especially if you think orchestrating is happening, at least on occasion). However, "the public" seems to be betting on injury reports and weather, so you must determine if "the public" is (A) stupid for betting based on injuries and weather, (B) you, the sharp, are smart for ignoring injuries and weather, or (C) games are rigged so line moves lose despite injuries and weather.

3) Obviously, the demography of sports betting changes every year based on availability, advertising, social mores, which country you are in, and so on. So the idea that there is some crystalline chunk of the population called "the public" is just wrong. The demography has changed dramatically over the last 10 years.

4) Nobody has any way of knowing who or what has moved the numbers. All you know for a fact is that money moved the lines. You can speculate, but there is no way of assigning truth value to your speculation. For example, in college football, Mr. Walters was notorious for going after mid-week Sun Belt or MAC games that he was trying to middle. He would launch on one side as soon as the lines appeared, everybody would jump on the bandwagon, he would wait and let the lines move three points or more, then whack the other side, all in pursuit of middles. Usually, my money went along for the ride.

5) Thinking what happened for 10 years is going to hold up in-the-now requires you have some sensitivity to what you are talking about. Let's assume that there are power ratings at the heart of the NFL lines, and those power rating have yielded a -7 for Team A versus Team B for 10 years. And Weeks One and Two, the underdogs have won 65% of the time ATS for those 10 years. So now what? If in 2025 you have the same power ratings for Teams A and B as you had in the past, as an oddsmaker you now assign a -5 1/2 or -6 to Team A versus Team B. The bettor who sticks with the blind idea of taking the dogs is now in the same position as the guy playing blackjack who is trying to count cards while blackjack itself pays even money, only he does not actually know blackjack itself is paying even money. He is cutting his own throat because he naively assumes lines are static.

6) The entire idea of static-ness is an issue with the kewlJ approach. If underdogs using closing lines yielded a one percent advantage for 10 years, the key question is how did faves do with opening lines? If you haven't checked this, why not?

7) Given the ubiquity of injury reports and weather and all that, if line moves in the NFL are consistently wrong, what is the logical conclusion? That "the public" -- AKA the money -- is consistently wrong? Or that injury reports and weather are irrelevant? Or that line moves yield value going the other way? Or that some of the games are manipulated so line moves become wrong?

Please send all gratuities to 1412 Forest Dale Lane, Johnson City, TN. Thanks in advance.

[accountinquestion]

Isn't there a general consensus that tends to drive the money? A shared set of views outside those of the fans of either team? And would this sentiment which translates into wagered money have value in being labeled for discussions? Ie "the public"

Also if a trend wins for many years then redietz claims it will be corrected in the lines but what if the same mistakes are made by "the public" every year and the weakness in the lines helps the books in general? It does not make sense the trend would be corrected.

Let's be clear - since there seems to be more confusion. It isn't the games that have trends it is that the lines have trends. At least that seems to make more sense to me.

[kewlJ]

Please send all gratuities to 1412 Forest Dale Lane, Johnson City, TN. Thanks in advance.

What happened to the "new townhouse in the shadow of the Motor Speedway"?

[kewlJ]

Red, the game was an advantage play to me, or I wouldn't have bet it.

It was played in KC, one of the toughest venues for visitors in the NFL. I considered that. And it's not about what the final score was. It's about expectation BEFORE the game.

Rob, you are trying to Analize the game individually based on matchups and such.....just like 100 million other weekend warrior sports bettors. 99.999% will lose money long-term because of the vig. I doubt you are that 0.0001 that can will long-term.

Winning sports bettors today are using computer generated analytics based on years of results that really have little to do with the actual teams playing. And as Deitz will tell you, this isn't new. This has been going on for decades. To win long-term, you have got to get out of that mindset where you are looking at the teams playing and looking at individual matchups. That is like a blackjack player playing a game with a house edge of .5% and thinking he can win long-term just playing basic strategy. (no card counting or anything that gives him an advantage).

Now, here is another little "angle" that half smoke has mentioned based on decades of data provided by Wizard. If you play away dogs plus points, you will win a very small percentage something like 1.5% That is based on decades of data.

If you are looking for a common sense reason why this angle (along with the first two weeks dogs angle) works, it is because the public tends to over bet both favorites and home teams, making away dogs value. (slight +EV over decades).

But what you are doing Rob, is just degenerate sports bettor gambling. Have fun if that is what you want to do. But you are NOt playing at an advantage (+EV) no matter how much you think you are.

Redietz might be able to understand the lessons you're giving but 0 chance with Singer. Just let it go ..

It just further highlights the difference between real advantage players, players that find an advantage and play it, resulting in LONG-TERM winning, and these degenerate, losing gamblers (gamblers in every sense of the word). The person you mentioned thinks and continues to believe that progressive wagering can overcome -EV. THAT is degenerate gambling 101.

There has always been a divide between real APs and these types of "gamblers" on this forum, dating back to the forum founder, who had many voodoo beliefs.

No wonder the casinos treat some of these guys well with comps and offers. They have proven to be long-time, long-term losing players. Just the kind of players casinos drool over.