Originally Posted by Rob.Singer View Post
Here's the scoop max. Any professional gambler who wants or needs to be paid for anything else related to gambling, is an out-and-out fraud and liar. That's also why I gave away all book profits to family, charity, and friends.

This is why you keep seeing a phony twit like kew keep evoking Wong as some sort of gambling authority who would back up his ridiculous claims and assertions. All Wong is is a gaming business profit who're, just like Frank Scoblete, Jean Scott, Anthony Curtis, Bob Dancer, Dan Paymar, and that late fool Skippy Hughes. If these people had any clue how to play their games to win, there'd be no need to go after other people's money in the process. Just gamble more.

Since there are few sports bettors on this forum, let me explain briefly how "selling picks" would be considered an advantage play, and how Argentino isn't grasping the concept.

If one is a legitimate honest handicapper, charging for selections flips the odds. If handicappers charge for selections only if they win, the additional income from winning plays can negate the juice or even make it possible for a marginally losing handicapper to turn a profit. So someone who, for example, wins 55% of plays over a hundred-play season, will make more money if he has people "buying picks" during the season. His bankroll grows. This is a perfectly legitimate way to make a living as the people buying the selections win, the handicapper garners additional income, and the added bankroll enables him to wager more on future plays.

"Just gamble more" is what a degenerate would say. If a formal bankroll system is used, then deviating from that to "just gamble more" is a mistake. The "just gamble more" can refer to betting more per play, which increases risk of ruin, or it can mean betting on more games or additional sports, which means stepping outside one's strength. I have seen very good handicappers financially collapse, and usually the latter is the problem.


Charging for winning selections flips the odds. If the handicapper wins, the buyers win. Not a moral conundrum. Does everyone see the simplicity in this?


Now, having said all that, I stopped "selling picks" a long, long time ago. I work differently. So this is not some defense of what I myself do. It's just an explanation of why and how winning handicappers can amp up the odds in their favor by "selling picks." It becomes an advantage play of the most basic kind.