Professional Sportsbetting

[coach belly]

AI Overview

AI is not inherently factual and should not be blindly trusted. AI models can generate misinformation and false content, a phenomenon often called "hallucinations". AI produces what it calculates to be the most probable response based on patterns in its training data, not based on a genuine understanding of truth.

Why AI is not inherently factual

Data dependency: The accuracy of AI is limited by the quality of the data it was trained on. If the data is biased, incomplete, or contains inaccuracies, the AI's output will reflect these flaws.

No true understanding: Unlike humans, AI lacks genuine comprehension, common sense, or reasoning. It does not "know" if its answer is correct. It merely follows programmed rules and identifies patterns to generate responses.

Fabricated information: AI can confidently invent facts, people, events, and citations that do not exist. A prominent example occurred in 2023 when two lawyers were sanctioned for filing a legal brief that cited six fabricated case summaries generated by ChatGPT.

Outdated information: AI models are trained on data collected up to a specific point in time. Because the world is constantly changing, an AI can provide information that is no longer current or accurate.

Hidden biases: AI can inadvertently absorb and amplify human biases present in its training data. This has led to unfair outcomes in areas like healthcare algorithms and hiring tools.

[mickeycrimm]

So let me get this correct. If Billy Walters hired me, because it was decades ago, whatever reasons he hired me for are not currently applicable. Okay, that would make me past tense. That's a reasonable argument.

Let me also get this correct. If I had the best or second best ATS record in The Wise Guys for a span of 20+ years, competing against a bevy of well-known handicappers and, in the case of Southern Comfort, pure gamblers, and I retired from that three years ago, then the intervening three years makes me dated. Okay, fair enough.

But I thought this was all about having sufficient data to go on? You know, years and years of plays and all that before anyone can evaluate someone's ability to make money betting sports.

Evidently, accountinquestion thinks not.

But that's okay. I won Week One this season, and Week Two, and Week Three, and Week Four. But I did lose Week Five.

I guess Week Five is what counts, according to account's professional evaluation.

Really, I'm a loser. I lost last week, and that's the evidence for it. I should retire (wait, I am retired). Well, I should double-retire then.

Thanks, account. I needed your clear thinking and AP insights to enable me to see the light. I appreciate it.

Meanwhile, how 'bout them Red Raiders? LOL. Not sure how long they'll last. They lost their QB last week.

I said nothing about any week. I don't care. I don't follow you closely. You and your riddle nonsense. Kim Lee seems far more sensible than you and his commentary tracked. I don't care about those publications. All the sports bettors I've known didn't either. Sure there are some big contests that people play kinda like WSOP and that definitely gives them bragging rights but outside of that? Who cares. Money speaks. All professional gamblers know this. The fact is you've been in this for decades and still asking for investment money. Something here is missing.

Again - since you managed to duck the below 6 times and counting - let me ask them again.

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 (or pro bettors)? 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 follow that the trend would be corrected. It simply does not make sense to the books. Given how sharps are always being limtied/cut-off, it helps ensure that the vast majority of action is with the public. If the trends being discussed consistently help the books and hurt "the public" then why would they change it???

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.

Why do we always hear about how Billy Waters hired you and never why he fired you?

I've actually told the Walters story while being interviewed by my filmmaker friend. We are saving it for a podcast because it's a good story with many gambling lessons and implications. Munchkin, surprisingly, while interviewing Walters for his Gambling Wizards book, came away with many of the same observation vis-a-vis Walters as I did.

If you don't understand the basic nature of bookmaking, buy a book. You got the process reversed or backwards in the post above. It's kind of scary that you think you know what you're talking about.

Sharps -- LOL -- do you wear a shirt that says "I'm a Sharp?" Do you carry Sharpies in your pocket protectors, you know, like an in-signal like hookers in LV wearing pink?

Read Munchkin's Gambling Wizards book, and you'll get a hint why, in general, people who win do not get cut off. Now we may get our bonuses slashed and promos cut, but very rarely will we actually be told to hit the dusty trail unless we are betting 50K a game or more. And sometimes we are told to hit the trail and then invited back.

You're saving it for a podcast? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!

[AxelWolf]

Real sport bettors are Advantage Player's who AP sports and ANYTHING +EV.

Are you assuming that all or most sports bettors AP ANYTHING +EV...or just the real ones?

How about APs, do all or most APs bet sports?

I think redietz is distinguishing between most sports bettors, and APs who may or may not bet sports.

His point is that there are 10x (or maybe 100x) more sports bettors who do not AP ANYTHING +EV, than the community that includes the publicly known players that you listed.

Don't you agree that he is correct?

I should have clarified, real PRO sports bettors.

[mickeycrimm]

AI Overview

AI is not inherently factual and should not be blindly trusted. AI models can generate misinformation and false content, a phenomenon often called "hallucinations". AI produces what it calculates to be the most probable response based on patterns in its training data, not based on a genuine understanding of truth.

Why AI is not inherently factual

Data dependency: The accuracy of AI is limited by the quality of the data it was trained on. If the data is biased, incomplete, or contains inaccuracies, the AI's output will reflect these flaws.

No true understanding: Unlike humans, AI lacks genuine comprehension, common sense, or reasoning. It does not "know" if its answer is correct. It merely follows programmed rules and identifies patterns to generate responses.

Fabricated information: AI can confidently invent facts, people, events, and citations that do not exist. A prominent example occurred in 2023 when two lawyers were sanctioned for filing a legal brief that cited six fabricated case summaries generated by ChatGPT.

Outdated information: AI models are trained on data collected up to a specific point in time. Because the world is constantly changing, an AI can provide information that is no longer current or accurate.

Hidden biases: AI can inadvertently absorb and amplify human biases present in its training data. This has led to unfair outcomes in areas like healthcare algorithms and hiring tools.

I'm well aware of the pitfalls of AI. But in this case, at the start of this thread, I profiled several famous professional sports bettors who all have been limited by books to chickenfeed bets because of winning. You can go back and read all about them right here in this thread. Redietz is plain up full of shit about winning bettors not getting limited. If you do your homework you will find hundreds of stories about it online.

https://www.espn.com/sports-betting/...harp-customers

https://www.9news.com/article/money/...5-9f5160162d19

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/won-sp...ry?id=57307967

https://www.wsj.com/business/media/s...DcS792YA%3D%3D

Restricting sports bettors in Tennessee where redietz lives is so bad that they are writing editorials about it:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/opi...s/69850772007/

[coach belly]

I should have clarified, real PRO sports bettors.

How many real PRO sports bettors are there, and where do they live?

[redietz]

AI Overview

AI is not inherently factual and should not be blindly trusted. AI models can generate misinformation and false content, a phenomenon often called "hallucinations". AI produces what it calculates to be the most probable response based on patterns in its training data, not based on a genuine understanding of truth.

Why AI is not inherently factual

Data dependency: The accuracy of AI is limited by the quality of the data it was trained on. If the data is biased, incomplete, or contains inaccuracies, the AI's output will reflect these flaws.

No true understanding: Unlike humans, AI lacks genuine comprehension, common sense, or reasoning. It does not "know" if its answer is correct. It merely follows programmed rules and identifies patterns to generate responses.

Fabricated information: AI can confidently invent facts, people, events, and citations that do not exist. A prominent example occurred in 2023 when two lawyers were sanctioned for filing a legal brief that cited six fabricated case summaries generated by ChatGPT.

Outdated information: AI models are trained on data collected up to a specific point in time. Because the world is constantly changing, an AI can provide information that is no longer current or accurate.

Hidden biases: AI can inadvertently absorb and amplify human biases present in its training data. This has led to unfair outcomes in areas like healthcare algorithms and hiring tools.

I'm well aware of the pitfalls of AI. But in this case, at the start of this thread, I profiled several famous professional sports bettors who all have been limited by books to chickenfeed bets because of winning. You can go back and read all about them right here in this thread. Redietz is plain up full of shit about winning bettors not getting limited. If you do your homework you will find hundreds of stories about it online.

https://www.espn.com/sports-betting/...harp-customers

https://www.9news.com/article/money/...5-9f5160162d19

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/won-sp...ry?id=57307967

https://www.wsj.com/business/media/s...DcS792YA%3D%3D

Restricting sports bettors in Tennessee where redietz lives is so bad that they are writing editorials about it:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/opi...s/69850772007/

You are missing the point. Nothing new. Go read Gambling Wizards by Munchkin.

[mickeycrimm]

AI is not inherently factual and should not be blindly trusted. AI models can generate misinformation and false content, a phenomenon often called "hallucinations". AI produces what it calculates to be the most probable response based on patterns in its training data, not based on a genuine understanding of truth.

Why AI is not inherently factual

Data dependency: The accuracy of AI is limited by the quality of the data it was trained on. If the data is biased, incomplete, or contains inaccuracies, the AI's output will reflect these flaws.

No true understanding: Unlike humans, AI lacks genuine comprehension, common sense, or reasoning. It does not "know" if its answer is correct. It merely follows programmed rules and identifies patterns to generate responses.

Fabricated information: AI can confidently invent facts, people, events, and citations that do not exist. A prominent example occurred in 2023 when two lawyers were sanctioned for filing a legal brief that cited six fabricated case summaries generated by ChatGPT.

Outdated information: AI models are trained on data collected up to a specific point in time. Because the world is constantly changing, an AI can provide information that is no longer current or accurate.

Hidden biases: AI can inadvertently absorb and amplify human biases present in its training data. This has led to unfair outcomes in areas like healthcare algorithms and hiring tools.

I'm well aware of the pitfalls of AI. But in this case, at the start of this thread, I profiled several famous professional sports bettors who all have been limited by books to chickenfeed bets because of winning. You can go back and read all about them right here in this thread. Redietz is plain up full of shit about winning bettors not getting limited. If you do your homework you will find hundreds of stories about it online.

https://www.espn.com/sports-betting/...harp-customers

https://www.9news.com/article/money/...5-9f5160162d19

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/won-sp...ry?id=57307967

https://www.wsj.com/business/media/s...DcS792YA%3D%3D

Restricting sports bettors in Tennessee where redietz lives is so bad that they are writing editorials about it:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/opi...s/69850772007/

You are missing the point. Nothing new. Go read Gambling Wizards by Munchkin.

You are a broken record. I already read it a few times. You are referring to Bob Martin. Yeah, I know, he used info from sharp bettors. But he is not the entire industry.

Refer to your friend Munchkin about bettors getting restricted. He will tell you.

Read the articles above. They even had hearings in Massachusetts about the books restricting winning bettors.

Restricting winning bettors is so well known these days that you look like an idiot by denying it.

[accountinquestion]

AI Overview

AI is not inherently factual and should not be blindly trusted. AI models can generate misinformation and false content, a phenomenon often called "hallucinations". AI produces what it calculates to be the most probable response based on patterns in its training data, not based on a genuine understanding of truth.

Why AI is not inherently factual

Data dependency: The accuracy of AI is limited by the quality of the data it was trained on. If the data is biased, incomplete, or contains inaccuracies, the AI's output will reflect these flaws.

No true understanding: Unlike humans, AI lacks genuine comprehension, common sense, or reasoning. It does not "know" if its answer is correct. It merely follows programmed rules and identifies patterns to generate responses.

Fabricated information: AI can confidently invent facts, people, events, and citations that do not exist. A prominent example occurred in 2023 when two lawyers were sanctioned for filing a legal brief that cited six fabricated case summaries generated by ChatGPT.

Outdated information: AI models are trained on data collected up to a specific point in time. Because the world is constantly changing, an AI can provide information that is no longer current or accurate.

Hidden biases: AI can inadvertently absorb and amplify human biases present in its training data. This has led to unfair outcomes in areas like healthcare algorithms and hiring tools.

I'm well aware of the pitfalls of AI. But in this case, at the start of this thread, I profiled several famous professional sports bettors who all have been limited by books to chickenfeed bets because of winning. You can go back and read all about them right here in this thread. Redietz is plain up full of shit about winning bettors not getting limited. If you do your homework you will find hundreds of stories about it online.

https://www.espn.com/sports-betting/...harp-customers

https://www.9news.com/article/money/...5-9f5160162d19

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/won-sp...ry?id=57307967

https://www.wsj.com/business/media/s...DcS792YA%3D%3D

Restricting sports bettors in Tennessee where redietz lives is so bad that they are writing editorials about it:

https://www.tennessean.com/story/opi...s/69850772007/

Yet another thing he has completely ridiculed me for not knowing what I was talking about.

[coach belly]

Yet another thing he has completely ridiculed me for not knowing what I was talking about.

You're a crybaby and a fag...a whiny blabbermouth bitch, just like tewlj.

[jdaewoo]

This retard has never posted a single thing of value in this forum.

[coach belly]

This retard has never posted a single thing of value in this forum.

I'm emulating you, Dandry and twpot.

Thanks for reading, and your prompt reply, Mr. retardwoo primarioo.

[TomasHClines]

This retard has never posted a single thing of value in this forum.

I'm emulating you, Dandry and twpot.

Thanks for reading, retardwoo primarioo.

Coach posted up that bit about Redietz not paying the taxes on "his" house. And, much more, but, to show a "single thing". Ha.

Yet another thing he has completely ridiculed me for not knowing what I was talking about.

You're a crybaby and a fag...a whiny blabbermouth bitch, just like tewlj.

Got this right, too.

In fact, I've never had a problem with Coach, who stays in his own lane. Unlike the eternal dork, AiQ, who keeps talking about stuff, but, never does anything about it, anyway.

[coach belly]

I've never had a problem with Coach

That's because you are a brilliant judge of character, and possess exceptional reading comprehension and a sophisticated sense of humor...compared to most of the slugs around here, anyway.

Now excuse me while I get back to the MNF game...I have 170 bets working on this game alone.

[accountinquestion]

Coach posted up that bit about Redietz not paying the taxes on "his" house. And, much more, but, to show a "single thing". Ha.

Yet another thing he has completely ridiculed me for not knowing what I was talking about.

You're a crybaby and a fag...a whiny blabbermouth bitch, just like tewlj.

Got this right, too.

In fact, I've never had a problem with Coach, who stays in his own lane. Unlike the eternal dork, AiQ, who keeps talking about stuff, but, never does anything about it, anyway.

What are your blabbinger on now? We didn't miss you. Did you steal the keys to your looney asylum cell again?

Call it whining if you want but I'm not sure how that is the case. I don't think I'm a victim of Redietz due to him not believing me - I'm not kewl. So I'm not sure what I'm whining about. What I am pointing out is how wrong Redietz is about common everyday cash sports betting stuff.

Coach has a hard-on against anyone who professes having the knowledge to beat gambling. You're a nutter and thus not on his radar.

The catch about the property taxes though - we have to give CB credit for that. lol. poor redietz. All he has to do is not be so arrogant and just talk about stuff from 30 years ago when he was a young man about town having his coffee downtown as he surveyed the latest tipsters and gypsters and yadda yadda. But nope - he has to ridicule people for what are now WIDELY ACCEPTED occurances and terminology and even an understanding of sports betting.

[coach belly]

Coach has a hard-on

That's right fag, send your beard my way and she'll be wanting to marry ME!

[TomasHClines]

Coach has a hard-on against anyone who professes having the knowledge to beat gambling. You're a nutter and thus not on his radar.

That's just it. This site has been up for around 15 years, but still not a shred of proof of anyone making any decent money, let alone the obvious downside. On the contrary, the truly physically and mentally ill likes of KJ, Redietz, Singer, Axel, and dare I say it, MickeyCrimm. Never a truly normal person, but always a non-starter good for nothing but the internet. Why is this? No big mystery.

[mickeycrimm]

Coach has a hard-on against anyone who professes having the knowledge to beat gambling. You're a nutter and thus not on his radar.

That's just it. This site has been up for around 15 years, but still not a shred of proof of anyone making any decent money, let alone the obvious downside. On the contrary, the truly physically and mentally ill likes of KJ, Redietz, Singer, Axel, and dare I say it, MickeyCrimm. Never a truly normal person, but always a non-starter good for nothing but the internet. Why is this? No big mystery.

Who gives a fuck what you believe about it? You’re irrelevant.

[AxelWolf]

Coach has a hard-on against anyone who professes having the knowledge to beat gambling. You're a nutter and thus not on his radar.

That's just it. This site has been up for around 15 years, but still not a shred of proof of anyone making any decent money, let alone the obvious downside. On the contrary, the truly physically and mentally ill likes of KJ, Redietz, Singer, Axel, and dare I say it, MickeyCrimm. Never a truly normal person, but always a non-starter good for nothing but the internet. Why is this? No big mystery.

Just curious, what kind of proof would one want or need? Pictures of gold, silver, and cash? Must we let you come to our houses and log into all of our trading accounts, bank accounts, sports/casino accounts, crypto accounts, show you property deeds, and give you access to safe deposit boxes? And all for what, just to convince the few anti-APers who will never benefit you whatsoever, of something?
None of that seems very smart, and most certainly it would be -EV.

People with AP knowledge can figure out what's what fairly quickly when it comes to other Advantage Players after having a conversation with them about various plays and information, and asking around.

[MDawg]

The only forum member, across all three of these forums, who has been verified or provided proof in any way, is MDawg.

https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...l=1#post173701

[MDawg]

On the other hand, there is no forum member who has been proven to have lied so many times, as UNKewlJ, the forum clown.

Very well written summary, MDawg.

KewlJ, you have repeatedly lied on this and other forums. You have admitted to many of these lies.