Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 103

Thread: Responses to Anti-Sports Gambling Op-Ed

  1. #41
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    And Mission, my clients included CEO's and presidents of companies and accountants and financial consultants. In general, they understood the logistics pretty well.
    I'm not criticizing you personally and any and all statements made should be taken as a general view of the sports touting industry not to include any specific individual, or set of individuals, unless directly mentioned.

  2. #42
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    I think what some people overlook with this is that I never mentioned my sports handicapping until Singer started giving terrible sports gambling advice. You can check it out. I have 6000 posts here. I went about 2500 here without ever saying what I did. Then Singer started with some parlay braggadocio, and that I just couldn't stomach. He was just wrong.

    So to those who think this is all self-promotion, well, I went 2500 posts saying nothing. Most of my blathering is a response to stupidity, which I feel needs to be corrected. You know, stop losses, machine telepathy, win goals, parlays that aren't open, parlays at one shop, just dunderhead stuff that Alan was clueless about.
    I don't think it is. You're not even taking new clients, are you?

  3. #43
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    That's his point. If you're in the mood to be even the slightest bit objective, then even you would have to admit it's too small a sample size to conclusively demonstrate anything. Of course he could lose; anyone could against anyone else in that sample. The analysis is no different than it would be of comparing a slightly biased coin to a neutral coin with each being flipped 32 times...if that helps.
    Can't conclusively conclude anything, no matter how many, or few, trials. A coin that lands head once must be assumed biased to land head. Conversely, a coin that lands head a million times in a row can't be expected with certainty to ever land head, again.

    The probability of head may be 1, but, it doesn't have to happen. There's nothing physically attached to the coin to ensure that it ever does. Same as its probability of 0 doesn't mean that it can't happen. As long as there is a coin, it can, still, happen.

    Certainty can't be defined, and, then, demonstrated, in a straight-up way. Same for trying to define randomness. Perhaps, a randomized coin must always land edge.

    So, so much for putting faith in death, and taxes, or, CEO's, and presidents, of companies, which, I guess, are just another form of formicarium. Let alone some bozo named Ben Affleck. Ha.
    Last edited by Garnabby; 01-13-2022 at 01:04 PM.
    Every one /everyone knows it all; yet, no thing /nothing is truly known by any one /anyone. Similarly, the suckers think that they win, but, the house always wins, unless to hand out an even worse beating.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsa6ojQcYXQ

    Garnabby + OppsIdidItAgain + ThomasClines (or TomasHClines) + The Grim Reaper + LMR + OneHitWonder (or 1HitWonder, 1Hit1der) + Bill Yung ---> GOTTLOB1, or GOTTLOB = Praise to God!

    Blog at https://garnabby.blogspot.com/

  4. #44
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post

    Well, you said it better than I did, so thanks. That lays it out pretty clearly.
    Yeah, you're welcome. They make money if they win and they make money if they don't lose too badly. They also sell the notion that their past performances are indicative of expected future results, which they may well sometimes be, but the sample size needed to know that for sure is ridiculous. It's more than 671 decisions, to be sure. I think some guys sell on fewer than that, yes?
    You treat this as if it's math, coin flips. And all straight plays. It's not. It's opinion. It's middle shooting based on familiarity with likely line moves. It's knowing what you don't know when you don't know. It is not at all coin flips or blackjack or some static exercise. This is where guys like you and Shackleford are halfway missing the boat.

    I always say five years is enough time to evaluate a handicapper in one sport. Three years is generally enough. One year gives you a sense of what he or she is trying to do, but anything can happen in one year. I think I was 72-36 in college football or something like that in a weekly paper, The Valley View Citizen Standard, back in 1979. I had a column as the sports editor. I knew I had won literally a dozen games I should have lost. The next year, I started up the sports service on a national level and had a losing year. That can happen variance-wise, but it is not flipping coins. It's asking the right questions and forming a matrix in your head of who can do what to whom. Sometimes that matrix coalesces and carries you through an entire year. Sometimes you never start off asking the right questions and it's all a blooming, buzzing confusion. But it's not coin flips.

  5. #45
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    I think what some people overlook with this is that I never mentioned my sports handicapping until Singer started giving terrible sports gambling advice. You can check it out. I have 6000 posts here. I went about 2500 here without ever saying what I did. Then Singer started with some parlay braggadocio, and that I just couldn't stomach. He was just wrong.

    So to those who think this is all self-promotion, well, I went 2500 posts saying nothing. Most of my blathering is a response to stupidity, which I feel needs to be corrected. You know, stop losses, machine telepathy, win goals, parlays that aren't open, parlays at one shop, just dunderhead stuff that Alan was clueless about.
    I don't think it is. You're not even taking new clients, are you?
    No, I'm not.

  6. #46
    Originally Posted by Garnabby View Post
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    That's his point. If you're in the mood to be even the slightest bit objective, then even you would have to admit it's too small a sample size to conclusively demonstrate anything. Of course he could lose; anyone could against anyone else in that sample. The analysis is no different than it would be of comparing a slightly biased coin to a neutral coin with each being flipped 32 times...if that helps.
    Can't conclusively conclude anything, no matter how many, or few, trials. A coin that lands head once must be assumed biased to land head. Conversely, a coin that lands head a million times in a row can't be expected with certainty to ever land head, again.

    The probability of head may be 1, but, it doesn't have to happen. There's nothing physically attached to the coin to ensure that it ever does. Same as its probability of 0 doesn't mean that it can't happen. As long as there is a coin, it can, still, happen.

    Certainty can't be defined, and, then, demonstrated, in a straight-up way. Same for trying to define randomness. Perhaps, a randomized coin must always land edge.

    So, so much for putting faith in death, and taxes, or, CEO's, and presidents, of companies, which, I guess, are just another form of formicarium. Ha.
    I don't know if I should be surprised when you make a really good point using direct language, or not. Anyway, you're absolutely right, nothing along those lines can ever be conclusively demonstrated...but that a given sports picker is achieving a particular win rate due to skill rather than variance can grow ever more likely as the sample size increases. I guess you never could be absolutely sure of it, though.

    Making a point against me with the exact same argument that I'd sometimes use...I love it.

  7. #47
    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    You treat this as if it's math, coin flips. And all straight plays. It's not. It's opinion. It's middle shooting based on familiarity with likely line moves. It's knowing what you don't know when you don't know. It is not at all coin flips or blackjack or some static exercise. This is where guys like you and Shackleford are halfway missing the boat.

    I always say five years is enough time to evaluate a handicapper in one sport. Three years is generally enough. One year gives you a sense of what he or she is trying to do, but anything can happen in one year. I think I was 72-36 in college football or something like that in a weekly paper, The Valley View Citizen Standard, back in 1979. I had a column as the sports editor. I knew I had won literally a dozen games I should have lost. The next year, I started up the sports service on a national level and had a losing year. That can happen variance-wise, but it is not flipping coins. It's asking the right questions and forming a matrix in your head of who can do what to whom. Sometimes that matrix coalesces and carries you through an entire year. Sometimes you never start off asking the right questions and it's all a blooming, buzzing confusion. But it's not coin flips.
    I don't even bet sports unless it's impossible for me NOT to profit, which would have to be something outside of the bets themselves causing me to lose money. I know that not all picks are ATS, ML or TOTALS...and even when they are, it's not always about making a straight up pick and sticking with it. I know there are better margins to be had than picking 53.x% on straight up type picks. I still don't love the margins, but maybe I would if I knew the best plays and tactics.

    I guess what I am saying is that I'm on dry land and what knowledge of sports betting I do have is very rudimentary; I'm not even trying to catch the boat. I do not deny that this is so. I don't know what you bet or sell, but I do know there are services that just sell picks on the vanilla lines.

  8. #48
    Nice... I learned a new word... Formicarium.
    Auto Correct does not like this word.
    I however, love to watch ants.

  9. #49
    Originally Posted by monet View Post
    Nice... I learned a new word... Formicarium.
    Auto Correct does not like this word.
    I however, love to watch ants.
    You should come with me on a vulturing run one day; you'll have a great time! Watch me collect my little crumbs and bring them back to my...my...whatever ants live in.

  10. #50
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    I would like to see them disclose to the clients what the average bet would need to be in order for the client just to breakeven AFTER accounting for each win being accompanied by a fee.
    Is there any reason why the ditz couldn't disclose this on this forum?

    He was quick to dismiss your $10 per pick fee as insignificant to his clients, but he's not charging $10 per pick.

    It's significantly more.

  11. #51
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    I would like to see them disclose to the clients what the average bet would need to be in order for the client just to breakeven AFTER accounting for each win being accompanied by a fee.
    Is there any reason why the ditz couldn't disclose this on this forum?

    He was quick to dismiss your $10 per pick fee as insignificant to his clients, but he's not charging $10 per pick.

    It's significantly more.
    Is he selling something here? Why would he disclose his fees at a place where he is not attempting to make a sale? When I sold furniture, for example, I didn't go to the cafeteria at the university and tell all of my friends about the sales we were having on mattresses that week.

  12. #52
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    Because losing is detrimental to his reputation as a picker
    So he won't take up Singer's challenge because he's afraid to lose?

    Where would his reputation suffer?

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    So to those who think this is all self-promotion, well...

  13. #53
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    Is he selling something here? Why would he disclose his fees at a place where he is not attempting to make a sale? When I sold furniture, for example, I didn't go to the cafeteria at the university and tell all of my friends about the sales we were having on mattresses that week.
    Yes.
    He is indirectly and directly selling his touting on this site.
    He is not helping people who have a gambling addiction.
    He is indirectly and directly profiting off of their addiction.
    Leech, Vampire... etc. etc.

  14. #54
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    Why would he disclose his fees at a place where he is not attempting to make a sale?
    The discussion is about selling sports picks.

    You wrote above that you'd like full disclosure, he would disclose the information to help you with your examination, not necessarily because he's trying to make a sale.

    I recall him mentioning his fee structure, so he can explain why he's done that here.

  15. #55
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    Why would he disclose his fees at a place where he is not attempting to make a sale?
    The discussion is about selling sports picks.

    You wrote above that you'd like full disclosure, he would disclose the information to help you with your examination, not necessarily because he's trying to make a sale.

    I recall him mentioning his fee structure, so he can explain why he's done that here.
    I would want the people selling sports picks to disclose these things wherever they happen to be selling them. If they disclose them where they are not selling them, but not where they do sell them, then it wouldn't accomplish anything.

  16. #56
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    Because losing is detrimental to his reputation as a picker
    So he won't take up Singer's challenge because he's afraid to lose?

    Where would his reputation suffer?

    Originally Posted by redietz View Post
    So to those who think this is all self-promotion, well...
    Maybe not reputation...more like he'd never hear the end of it on here. On the other hand, if he were to win, "Oh, yeah, but he's a pro."

  17. #57
    Originally Posted by monet View Post
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    Is he selling something here? Why would he disclose his fees at a place where he is not attempting to make a sale? When I sold furniture, for example, I didn't go to the cafeteria at the university and tell all of my friends about the sales we were having on mattresses that week.
    Yes.
    He is indirectly and directly selling his touting on this site.
    He is not helping people who have a gambling addiction.
    He is indirectly and directly profiting off of their addiction.
    Leech, Vampire... etc. etc.
    Well, not much I can say there. By that standard, I do the same thing in both writing and vulturing. Vulturing because, if nobody lost over the long run, then there wouldn't be any casinos. If other people don't lose, then I couldn't win. The websites, of course, because we literally advertise for casinos.

    The only difference between the two of us in that regard is that I do not directly charge gamblers for anything and do nothing to negatively influence their gambling habits directly.

  18. #58
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    he'd never hear the end of it on here.
    I don't think he's avoided that.

  19. #59
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    he'd never hear the end of it on here.
    I don't think he's avoided that.
    You can't stop the inevitable, but you can sometimes mitigate it a bit.

  20. #60
    Originally Posted by coach belly View Post
    Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
    I would like to see them disclose to the clients what the average bet would need to be in order for the client just to breakeven AFTER accounting for each win being accompanied by a fee.
    Is there any reason why the ditz couldn't disclose this on this forum?

    He was quick to dismiss your $10 per pick fee as insignificant to his clients, but he's not charging $10 per pick.

    It's significantly more.


    Good to know. Who's been getting the money? Coach, had you been poaching my income without me noticing?

    (Coach probably thinks it's a gotcha moment, so I'm letting him know in advance that it's not. I'm kind like that with civilians. Coach will now not mention the "it's significantly more" because he'll figure it out how wrong he was, so kudos to coach.)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Anti gambling, anti casinos
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 151
    Last Post: 04-06-2019, 06:36 PM
  2. Anti Facial Recognition
    By ZenKinG in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-03-2019, 10:07 AM
  3. A Theory About Anti-AP Posters
    By redietz in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 01-17-2018, 04:48 AM
  4. Estimating Responses to the Dice Question
    By redietz in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 06-05-2015, 05:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •