Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

#1
Q:

Fezzik got his butt kicked in his football picks this year. What is he going to do next year to adjust?A:


I'll likely stop spending so much time handicapping!
A curious answer? Maybe, but an honest one. The basic strategy here is to respond with the tried-and-true, "My year was due to bad variance -- all 54% handicappers will have a subpar year sometime ?," and so on. However, the truth is that I was probably unlucky and the game has gotten too tough for me over the course of the year.
The only sport I actively handicapped this past year was the NFL. And all went well the first few weeks, in that the plays I gave out moved dramatically in the marketplace and were embraced. I'd give out a play -4, for example, and it would close -6.5. All the time I'd spent on the NFL during the summer was clearly time well spent. However, it's clear to me now that as soon as the season got into full swing, my edge cratered.
All of this happened despite my setting my own initial lines a full 12 days before the games were played, then updating them constantly during the two weeks leading up to kick-off. I faithfully listened to the informed sports-betting talk shows, carefully weighing the opinions of the handful of guys who truly are expert handicappers, while simultaneously filtering out the frauds and media knuckleheads. I monitored weather reports. I followed injury reports. I had schedule dynamics laid out to the nth. I was keenly aware of key trends.

And I got my ass kicked.

The big picture is clear to me: This game has gotten too difficult for me to beat with handicapping alone. If I continue to do all these things, focus on one sport, and still lose big giving out mid-week plays against widely available lines, then I'm guilty of some seriously poor time management. The reality is, all that time spent actively handicapping carries a huge opportunity cost. Many a winning bettor (who can't name a player on many of the teams they bet) is out and about finding great plays and laughing at my efforts. Of course, it's optimal to actively cap and bet well, but there just aren't enough hours in the day, and I'm not good enough at the former to sacrifice the great value I get from the latter.
The other day I found myself at Lucky's, where they'd put up the prop, "Who wins more games, Lakers or Clippers," with the Clippers +200. I asked for the current line and it was +145. The Clippers at any plus-money is a good bet. So even after dropping to +145 it was still a great bet. Sure the NFL offers the important advantage that you can bet $100K on almost anything (instead of $500), and surely some are making a huge killing betting those huge limits. But, boy, those +145 overlays are pure gold.
You hear bettors say "I win every year," and naysayers come over the top screaming bullshit -- look at your record this year." However, the best bettors know that literally every day there's a bet like that Clippers prop to be found. It's true, but often it requires a lot of time and effort to get to it before everyone else, and the sheer time required for the searching eats mightily into handicapping time.
Call me a poker player eager to exit the tough "big game" and play more in the smaller, but vastly more beatable, games. I have no desire to continue spending 12 hours a day trying to get an edge vs. NFL lines when there are much bigger -- and more reliable -- edges to be had in props and season totals and all variations of derivatives. That's where I made my bones and that's where I want to operate again. It's time to find greener pastures.
 
#2
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

This is bullshit, modelers are ripping the NFL world apart this year. We're running at 65%+ on over 140 picks this year, and almost everyone else I know of (modelers) is at least in the high 50s. I expect the NFL to revert back to "normal" next year, so maybe Fez will get his edge back? Right.

But my point is, if he really knew what he were doing, and you are paying for this sh*t mind you, he'd have more than a single mode of operation. Look at RAS. They get into a slump, then the next year they improve their system and get back on track. This guy is simply not that good.

With an excuse like this, this clown simply has lost what little f*cking credibility he had.
 
#3
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

As soon as the season got into full swing? He did badly in the pre-season, too. Remember... "No more pre for me." Just say you had an atrocious year, Big Fezz. Don't go off on tout-speaking tangents.
 

dogball

EOG Dedicated
#5
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

I agreee lqqker, one has to adapt and take a week off from time to time I got pounded early
This season losing on bad endings. Dallas v det, indy v cinci fumble returnn td etc. I had the right side but wrong result. I almost gave up when i took a week or two off. The last month with a
Fresh perspective and after narrowing my focus ive been killing it and have a shot to have a very profitable season

I like and respect Fezzik but he is not handling his business well and that is part of it
 
#6
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

He made sure to get in all the catch phrases for the most part.

especially 'variance'. The go to word of the loser or guys who gets exposed with a 'bad' streak. The most over used term in sports gambling. Sure variance exists. But in a settign where youre looking to have an edge variance is (theoretically) nearly moot. Only time variance would be valid is if you were playing solely on math. Which for sports betting isnt possible because there is no formula. In the most absolute cases like dice, cards, lotteries, etc where there is a clear cut finite number of possibilities variances is already convoluted and its extremes can be quite wide. In sports betting where there are no clear cut 'odds' or probabilities based on actual math then it is basically impossible to find a variance parameter. Yet math guys still love to throw it out there because it sounds good.

Also to think he actually handicaps is a frigging joke, and that he is putting time in is laughable. He might look at a site or two (if he cant get a play from someone else) and throw a dart at a side and maybe look at how lines have moved here and there and then pick a side, and then, as he does here, cite line moves in 'his favor' to justify the play as 'correct'. Then continually sit and watch plays burn up week after week.

If anything fezzik has shown that beating an opener or any number isnt clear cut success to winning. Picking the winning side is. That is as basic as it gets....picking a winner. THEN you go about looking for the budget methods like getting the best line, best vig on that line, best moneyline, basically looking to bet the team you want to play at the cheapest price so you get the maximum return on your money. Then you look at how much you bet. This is where people really make mistakes and what gets guys in a lot of trouble, picking an amount to play. Most will bet on what they feel their edge is. See above comments to see what I think of that. Some will use all sorts of fancy and elaborate methods or formulas to determine an edge (that doesnt exist) and use that to determine a percentage of their bank roll to play. Which sounds all well and good in theory, but considering there are no absolute edges in sports, only comparative ones, then figuring out a true edge on a game is impossible.

Example. Game is -2.5. -110. It moves eventually to -3 -110. Most guys would think they have a major edge in the game if they got 2.5. They dont. If the line was wrong in the first place they only have and edge over the -3 line. So if the 'true' line was -6 it is irrelevant both will have a high probability of winning. If the line should have been a PK they both have a high probability of losing. Only if the game is truly one where the favorite will win by a FG is getting -2.5 an actual edge. But 95% of the time getting -2.5 instead of -3 is a feel good position and not a relevant one. And since it will still not end up in a loss (only a push) it isnt even one worth sweating about. +3 and +2.5 is slightly different but still the same. But in most cases you shouldnt be betting +2.5 anyway you bet the ML and call it good. And betting a +3 in an NFL game to me is like youre betting against yourself and looking for the team to only lose by a FG, but HOPING they win SU. In which case you should have just taken the ML. I always laugh, and fezzik was more guilty of this than anyone. When they takes these small dogs for + points (and often buy vig to 'help' themselves) and the dogs win SU by DD and they crow about having them +3.5 (and they bought off 3 for 30 cents). So instead of having a ML bet at +150 or more they laid +3.5 -140 and their team won 17-10. So instead of getting 210 back for the same 140, theyre getting back 100. THAT is the major reason why guys lose money in the NFL, and most other spread based sports. Not knowing what bet to make. It can sometimes be the most advanced of the approaches but it also is the most imperative.

betting -110 or -130 or whatever on a spread is nice, and it gives you a cushion. But it doesnt make for a profitable approach. especially against lines that are probably not close in the first place. So you play the other side and use it against them. MLs arent going to be 'true odds' either (and that is why so called sharps dont play them) but theyre the best option within the system that is offered.

If I see a guy with a 50/50 split of dogs and favorites in their play list and they dont have any ML plays, then I know theyre not a successful gambler. Sure they might show a profit, but theyre not going to show a maximum or even optimal profit. So unless they can grind out a modest win raete versus the vig theyre getting they are going to be using the same excuses fezzik uses.

If they have 100plays and 40 of the are dogs. And they bet 30 of those dogs on the ML and those 30 go 14-16 SU they make money. Even if their other 70 plays go 30-40.(depending on odds) But if they go 44-56 on straight spread bets with vig theyre going to be buried.

But like I say it all sounds good in theory, but you still have to pick a winner.
 
#7
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

As soon as the season got into full swing? He did badly in the pre-season, too. Remember... "No more pre for me." Just say you had an atrocious year, Big Fezz. Don't go off on tout-speaking tangents.
He probably conveniently forgot the preseason and was talking about week 1. He did well vs the closing line week 1 and won 7.7u, leaving him at roughly even for the year, although I don't know how WA his week 1 lines were, since many of them were posted months in advance and I don't know how large the limits were at that point.
 
#8
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

wanit it all: If I see a guy with a 50/50 split of dogs and favorites in their play list and they dont have any ML plays, then I know theyre not a successful gambler. Sure they might show a profit, but theyre not going to show a maximum or even optimal profit. So unless they can grind out a modest win raete versus the vig theyre getting they are going to be using the same excuses fezzik uses.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you don't know much. We're over 800 plays, 9% ROI per pick, all sides and totals, no MLs.

Why do guys like you talk sh*t on stuff you don't know f*ck-all about?
 
#9
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

The most dishonest thing about this article, and all of the tweets from Fezzik and his brother trying to spin how this year is just an aberration, etc, is that it ignores the fact that Fezzik had three prior losing seasons to this one. The last time he had a winning season on a full season of service plays was 2004. One year might be an aberration, but it's almost impossible for a winning bettor to hit 48% over a 4 year period.
 
#10
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

wanit it all: If I see a guy with a 50/50 split of dogs and favorites in their play list and they dont have any ML plays, then I know theyre not a successful gambler. Sure they might show a profit, but theyre not going to show a maximum or even optimal profit. So unless they can grind out a modest win raete versus the vig theyre getting they are going to be using the same excuses fezzik uses.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you don't know much. We're over 800 plays, 9% ROI per pick, all sides and totals, no MLs.

Why do guys like you talk sh*t on stuff you don't know f*ck-all about?
LOL.... WE'RE.

Ok go look at those 800 play and see how many dogs you have. Then look at how many dogs won SU, then figure out what the difference in return would be.

Also 9% ROI, another new tout tool. So if a guy has put 100K in action he has made 9k? Some people do ROI differently so not sure what imaginary formula ***you guys*** use. Either way if it is 9K per 100K then that sucks. But it isnt losing I guess. Which is what I said, guys can show a profit just not an optimal one.
 
#11
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

LOL.... WE'RE.

Ok go look at those 800 play and see how many dogs you have. Then look at how many dogs won SU, then figure out what the difference in return would be.

Also 9% ROI, another new tout tool. So if a guy has put 100K in action he has made 9k? Some people do ROI differently so not sure what imaginary formula ***you guys*** use. Either way if it is 9K per 100K then that sucks. But it isnt losing I guess. Which is what I said, guys can show a profit just not an optimal one.
...not a tout Dick-wad. We don't sell sh*t to anybody, much less to clowns like you. MLs come out later and limits are lower.

And since you know so f*cking much about optimality, why don't you enlighten us dimwitted types?
 
#12
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

...not a tout Dick-wad. We don't sell sh*t to anybody, much less to clowns like you. MLs come out later and limits are lower.

And since you know so f*cking much about optimality, why don't you enlighten us dimwitted types?
way to side step all the questions. But you made sure to get one of the go to excuses in there "low limits". Not if you play at a place or places that will actually book a bet. So you might not be a tout but you clearly dont know what youre talking about. Or maybe part of some 'syndicate' that thinks they know what theyre doing. In either case it all boils down to the same thing.
 
#13
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

way to side step all the questions. But you made sure to get one of the go to excuses in there "low limits". Not if you play at a place or places that will actually book a bet. So you might not be a tout but you clearly dont know what youre talking about. Or maybe part of some 'syndicate' that thinks they know what theyre doing. In either case it all boils down to the same thing.
Talk about side stepping, YOU brought up optimal selections, talk about that. Your adoring public wants to know. Try using a little bit of math to impress us this time.
 
#14
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

Talk about side stepping, YOU brought up optimal selections, talk about that. Your adoring public wants to know. Try using a little bit of math to impress us this time.
I did talk about it, in this very post youre either too lazy to read it or too dumb to understand it.

As far as math, beyond balancing your bank roll or know how much to bet on each side of an arbitrage it doesnt have a place in sports betting. Beyond of course knowing that betting 110 on a -110 spread and getting back 100 isnt as profitable as betting 110 (for sake of balance) on a +130 dog and getting back 143. But that isnt really math that is common sense.

Now some people will like to try and put math into it and say "you need to win 52.4% to make money at -110, and that getting a 'better' spread will be what makes the difference in youre win probability.' As in if a game lined -4 has a 52.5% chance to win/push, then If I get -3 that raises my win/push chance 57.5% Which is total bullshit. But math guys like to make those sorts of claims. Same is true with ML, guys will say that MLs are manipulated and a +130 dog which only needs a 43.5% win rate to make a profit only has a 'realistic' win chance of 42% and they took vig off it to make it even." Which is not only a flawed logic it cant be proven.

These of course or made up numbers, but the reasoning is exactly what I have heard for why people make plays and how they determine odds and probability of plays and why they make them. Putting math into something that doesnt matter. Sure the math is correct in terms of the vacuum in which you placed it. But that still doesnt determine the 'right' side.

So look at a game where the teams are -2.5 -110(home)/+2.5 -110, Total of 52 (some people think that matters) with a ML of -135/+115. What set of numbers offers the best (optimal) pay out? Or look at another game -2.5(away)-110/+2.5 -110, total of 38, ML of -130/+110. Now what? Numbers are similar in some respects not close in others. One is home one is away, does that matter?

In the long run none of it matters. If youre going to bet the dog, regardless, you take the ML. Obviously in a 'perfect' world you look to get the best number available. So If you can get +120 on both you have improved your edge directly. If you bet -2 instead of -2.5 you havent really improved anything but given yourself a chance to push instead of getting a bad beat. In the long run that wont matter either. Most people pay way too much attention to wins and losses instead of the bottom line. The only time you might want to look at the win and loss column is if you arent making enough money on the wins youre getting. Which is my point.

Most people here dont care, theyre only looking at the next game and have a very short sighted approach to it. Including fezzik. But if they stopped sweating the small stuff and simply put in a simple and easy to follow plan then they would grind out a profit year in and year out. Well maybe not fezzik since he wont change. But guys that are willing to keep it simple would.

The problem with sports betting, particularly the NFL is people always want to be the big shot and call the upset or blow out. When in 99.9% of the cases it doesnt mean shit. Sure they get a few back slaps and good jobs from a bunch of degenerate losers but in the long run does it matter? Anyone that posted Indy onthe ML last night. Will that +260 to 280 matter if they cant pick winners consistently? Not in the least, but if theyre a grinder and are not paying attention to 'big' wins or losses that +280 is a nice addition to their bankroll.

NFL for the most part is a suckers game, but there are a couple of approaches people can take to make some good money at it. But they all pretty much require betting more than one should to get back a return that probably isnt large enough to justify the risk. But grinding it out in the NFL is pretty unforgiving, even with tricks and manipulations and all the perks it offers the system is too house favored to give players enough of an advantage in enough places to make grinding worth it. but it does open up a few cherry picked spots where one can take a shot. So I call it the all or nothing strategy. Not sound advce by any eans but it actually has more chance of being profitable than a sound handicapping approach.

Now I doubt you read all of this since you know everything anyway but whatever, no excuses now as to what I meant by what I said.
 
#15
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

hows that record looking once we include his hilton contest picks that he was screaming had to be added to his total record 2 years ago? whats that? contest picks are only added when they take your shit season and turn it into a positive season? youre a complete joke
 
#16
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

He made sure to get in all the catch phrases for the most part.

especially 'variance'. The go to word of the loser or guys who gets exposed with a 'bad' streak. The most over used term in sports gambling. Sure variance exists. But in a settign where youre looking to have an edge variance is (theoretically) nearly moot. Only time variance would be valid is if you were playing solely on math. Which for sports betting isnt possible because there is no formula. In the most absolute cases like dice, cards, lotteries, etc where there is a clear cut finite number of possibilities variances is already convoluted and its extremes can be quite wide. In sports betting where there are no clear cut 'odds' or probabilities based on actual math then it is basically impossible to find a variance parameter. Yet math guys still love to throw it out there because it sounds good.

Also to think he actually handicaps is a frigging joke, and that he is putting time in is laughable. He might look at a site or two (if he cant get a play from someone else) and throw a dart at a side and maybe look at how lines have moved here and there and then pick a side, and then, as he does here, cite line moves in 'his favor' to justify the play as 'correct'. Then continually sit and watch plays burn up week after week.

If anything fezzik has shown that beating an opener or any number isnt clear cut success to winning. Picking the winning side is. That is as basic as it gets....picking a winner. THEN you go about looking for the budget methods like getting the best line, best vig on that line, best moneyline, basically looking to bet the team you want to play at the cheapest price so you get the maximum return on your money. Then you look at how much you bet. This is where people really make mistakes and what gets guys in a lot of trouble, picking an amount to play. Most will bet on what they feel their edge is. See above comments to see what I think of that. Some will use all sorts of fancy and elaborate methods or formulas to determine an edge (that doesnt exist) and use that to determine a percentage of their bank roll to play. Which sounds all well and good in theory, but considering there are no absolute edges in sports, only comparative ones, then figuring out a true edge on a game is impossible.

Example. Game is -2.5. -110. It moves eventually to -3 -110. Most guys would think they have a major edge in the game if they got 2.5. They dont. If the line was wrong in the first place they only have and edge over the -3 line. So if the 'true' line was -6 it is irrelevant both will have a high probability of winning. If the line should have been a PK they both have a high probability of losing. Only if the game is truly one where the favorite will win by a FG is getting -2.5 an actual edge. But 95% of the time getting -2.5 instead of -3 is a feel good position and not a relevant one. And since it will still not end up in a loss (only a push) it isnt even one worth sweating about. +3 and +2.5 is slightly different but still the same. But in most cases you shouldnt be betting +2.5 anyway you bet the ML and call it good. And betting a +3 in an NFL game to me is like youre betting against yourself and looking for the team to only lose by a FG, but HOPING they win SU. In which case you should have just taken the ML. I always laugh, and fezzik was more guilty of this than anyone. When they takes these small dogs for + points (and often buy vig to 'help' themselves) and the dogs win SU by DD and they crow about having them +3.5 (and they bought off 3 for 30 cents). So instead of having a ML bet at +150 or more they laid +3.5 -140 and their team won 17-10. So instead of getting 210 back for the same 140, theyre getting back 100. THAT is the major reason why guys lose money in the NFL, and most other spread based sports. Not knowing what bet to make. It can sometimes be the most advanced of the approaches but it also is the most imperative.

betting -110 or -130 or whatever on a spread is nice, and it gives you a cushion. But it doesnt make for a profitable approach. especially against lines that are probably not close in the first place. So you play the other side and use it against them. MLs arent going to be 'true odds' either (and that is why so called sharps dont play them) but theyre the best option within the system that is offered.

If I see a guy with a 50/50 split of dogs and favorites in their play list and they dont have any ML plays, then I know theyre not a successful gambler. Sure they might show a profit, but theyre not going to show a maximum or even optimal profit. So unless they can grind out a modest win raete versus the vig theyre getting they are going to be using the same excuses fezzik uses.

If they have 100plays and 40 of the are dogs. And they bet 30 of those dogs on the ML and those 30 go 14-16 SU they make money. Even if their other 70 plays go 30-40.(depending on odds) But if they go 44-56 on straight spread bets with vig theyre going to be buried.

But like I say it all sounds good in theory, but you still have to pick a winner.

Winner
 
#17
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

hows that record looking once we include his hilton contest picks that he was screaming had to be added to his total record 2 years ago? whats that? contest picks are only added when they take your shit season and turn it into a positive season? youre a complete joke
You said "his picks" :lolxmas

You mean the picks that were made for him the second the Hilton posted lines?

The +7 when the line is +6 picks.

The picks a 4th grader could come up with if they have a basic understanding of math. I mean really basic ......

I bet you he takes a lot of time coming up with those picks. :lolxmas:lolxmas:lolxmas
 
#18
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

Actually, I read it and it's a nice post. You've not proven any sort of optimality, but a decent explanation non-the-less.

Optimal betting is a tricky business, and while we run Full Kelly, calculating a "correct" ML is sometimes difficult with our methods, and we found it to under perform straight sides and totals situations when we did, so we dropped it, especially in terms of limits and most especially, timing.

But at end, I still have to disagree with your original post, ML can give you some slight advantage at times, but not enough that it give you all that much advantage against "straight" sides and totals betting. If you eek out a 1-2% per situation, it can be a good advantage, but it tends to wash out at 55% and above, increasingly.

As for NFL being for suckers, you are behind the knowledge curve, it is very profitable this year, and OK in others. As a short season, rapidly changing sport in terms of rules, and market shifts (probably as a result of rules changing and impacting the sport) it is the very worst to handicap, but the large limits are the attraction, and you can be rewarded given you do enough work. The lockout was most likely the cause this year, so I'm expecting a reversion to "normal" form next year.
 
#19
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

love the "variance" excuse as well. its been 6 years of "variance" i guess. hope you stocked up on those placemat coupons
 
#20
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

The only way for me to beat the NFL is to limit my bets.

I mean really limit them.

The % of NFL games worth betting is far less "per game" then any other sport. There are just not that many weak lines and most of the games are a toss up.

:pop:
 
#21
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

wanitall4moi, my post above is in response to yours. For some reason, I neglected to "quote" you. Sorry.
 
#22
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

The only way for me to beat the NFL is to limit my bets.

I mean really limit them.

The % of NFL games worth betting is far less "per game" then any other sport. There are just not that many weak lines and most of the games are a toss up.

:pop:
Absolutely false. Read my post again.
 
#24
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

It's not false for me.

It's not false for a lot of bettors.

:+clueless
Yep, the average punter has no fricking business betting the NFL except for fun bets. It will absolutely saw your dick off if you bet large into it, if you've not done the work.
 
#25
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

Yep, the average punter has no fricking business betting the NFL except for fun bets. It will absolutely saw your dick off if you bet large into it, if you've not done the work.
Yea it's a lot of work to make a Saints/Packer (-1 each) 6 point teaser.

If waking up is work.

4 times this year all I did was make 1! ... 2-team 6 point teaser for the whole weekend.

Much easier then betting 9 games hoping to go 5-4 and win a tiny amount.

:btj:
 
#26
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

Nobody beats the NFL. People are stupid for even trying. It's like waking into a casino playing slots and thinking your going to win in the long run.
 
#27
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

Nobody beats the NFL. People are stupid for even trying. It's like waking into a casino playing slots and thinking your going to win in the long run.
Shit, our name must be Nobody, and at least 1/2 of the modeling community, plus a bunch of the Squares this year.

...go back to sleep.
 

kirkmuller

EOG Senior Member
#29
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

don't see why all the trashing for this post. he says straight up that he can't beat the nfl: "the game has gotten too tough for me "
nothing wrong with that
 
#30
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

this is the same guy who just a short year ago threatened to "take all the value out of the football markets by betting early in the week" even though he was coming off 4 or 5 straight losing seasons. this is the same guy who promised 55% or better. this is the same guy who his brother just claimed would hit 60% next year because he is due.
 

Heim

EOG Master
#31
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

"Call me a poker player eager to exit the tough "big game" and play more in the smaller, but vastly more beatable, games. I have no desire to continue spending 12 hours a day trying to get an edge vs. NFL lines when there are much bigger -- and more reliable -- edges to be had in props and season totals and all variations of derivatives. That's where I made my bones and that's where I want to operate again. It's time to find greener pastures."




Reading between the lines it looks like Fezz is indirectly admitting he's a fraud....

And to think of all those years Fezzik was adamant about not being a contest and props
specialist...

Somewhere out there Alan Boston is smiling....
 
#33
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

Glad this got back on a more reasonable line of thinking.

It comes down to approach. Football has always been the suckers bet, thats why touts have always been in the NFL business. That is why they have evolved and changed over the years.

Back in the late 80s it was about inside info and this guy knew that guy and who was screwing who on the road and whose wife was going to divorce them. "inside info' played better in the colleges but they sold it there so they took the next step and used it for their NFL business. Obviously long before any social stuff, even before the internet, so no way to confirm or deny it. So it worked for some.

Then it became about handicapping games and having a team of handicappers who worked night and day to get the irght side through breaking down mismatches and match ups on all sides of the ball.

Then it morphd into computers and stats and trends. They sold formulas and systems and super systems. That played for a few years, helped immensely by the Billy Walters MIT group stuff. So 'regular' people fell ofr that load too.

Then it went back to the inside info angle for a short time. And they used the internet and the ease of getting info as a reason as to how they could find stuff out, yet no one else cvould. They had 'secial' access to this info not available to the public. That didnt last long so they morphed that insot inside info on what 'sharps' were betting and who was doing what where and what side the casinos were leaning or gambling on and what games were balanced. That sales pitch actually still exists to this very day so that one has had legs.

The big one after that was calling it a 'market' which is sort of hand in hand with the who is betting what angle. But goes deeper and tries to equate the whole system to the stock market and buying and selling. The emergence of betting exchanges helped fuel this even more where you could literally buy and sell sides of a game on commission. But clearly not anywhere near a 'fair' price offering, mostly just a place to get slightly off what the line was set at.

Also during this time the LVSC stopped controlling the opening line, so the system was taken off its own form of the gold standard, and the opening line was created by who knows what. Which in my opinion gave books even more control over listing lies that didnt make sense but due to lack of volume and exposure they could afford to gamble a little bit more. Plus many were ponzi schemes anyway with little to no consideration of paying anyone.

So now we have the market one still going as well as the one where guys worry about sharp and square money and or steam. Although steam has lost some steam, pun intended. But the others still all hold some sort of place for gamblers. Who have since renamed themselves...advantage players, handicappers, market guys, math guys, or any other flavor of the month definition/monicker they want to use.

Most of the stuff gamblers try to cite as a reason why theyre good or better than someone else was created and promoted by a tout somewhere in the past. Every angle or reason has an origination. No one has an original idea anymore, well except for me maybe. Usually those origins arent ceded in anything factual or even worthwhile. It was a harebrained concoction bastardized by a tout to sell snake oil to idiots who didnt know better. Sure some of the stuff is valid but it gets so twisted and convoluted it is impossible to tell where the truth begins and the make believe stuff ends. Sort of like religion.

Fezzik has run the gamete of almost all these things. He has no real "fezzik' approach. He just takes bits and pieces of everything and tries to use them.

Now with all that being said he has scoreboard with the hilton wins. But that seriously begs the question on how he did it? It isnt like he could take steroids and get a boost. So the mystery to that will remain. And it isnt as simple as "he bet stale lines' Everyone has access to the same stale lines he did, he just consistently got them right more than everyone for a full year ....twice.

So he is definitely an enigma.

But I have generally focused my criticisms of hi to dynamic live lines and not the contests and pick shows he does for radio. But I never thought he was all that great at those either. But I have been around Fezzik since the time I hit the internet, so about 13 years or so now. So long before he dreamed of winning the hilton. But he still didnt show any acumen then either beyond the typical rhetoric.
 
#34
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

On Fez and the Hilton, I'm fairly sure he had a modeler to do some work for him, His picks were similar to a lot of ours, and many non-flex approaches will not do well when the league changes as much as it has from 2010 to 2011, thus perhaps his falling off in the contest this year. This does not explain his poor showing in his tout picks over the years. When he did well in the contest, he should have done well as a tout also, but he could front-run his picks and other Hilton players gain advantage, so releasing early (before Sat morn when picks were generally released by the Hilton) is problematic. So, on his sides picks at least, it's a mystery why he didn't do better touting last year and year before. Totals a different matter, but he didn't do well in those as well, I'm told.
 

John Kelly

Born Gambler
Staff member
#35
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

Fezz always overreacts to a short-term run of results, positive or negative.

A shrewd gambler once told me an amateur gambler's biggest mistake is drawing erroneous conclusions from a short sample.

The name of the shrewd gambler: Fezzik.
 
#36
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

I like Fezzik 1st qtr plays, good stuff. also a likable guy and not just because he bought me lobster.
 
#37
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

Fezz always overreacts to a short-term run of results, positive or negative.

A shrewd gambler once told me an amateur gambler's biggest mistake is drawing erroneous conclusions from a short sample.T

The name of the shrewd gambler: Fezzik.
your go to with this. But yes it fits.

I remember that discussion at wongs place with he, baker, yzerman and the usual band of misfits back in probably 2000 or so. And we were all discussing 'long term', and tried to pin them down on what that meant? A number of years/seasons, a number of plays, or just an arbitrary number picked out of thin air? What constitutes long term?

Fezzik in this surrender basically breaks the football betting options into a season per season anomaly, where seasons differ in regards to approach necessary to beat them. Same as he did back then. By which I said if the seasonal approaches change from year to year then how does that make a long term approach or record keeping valid? If the criteria for making bets changes from year to year then all a long term 'success' would show is that you were able to adapt with the changes better than someone else. is that 'proof' of your ability to pick a winner or just shows you have enough brains to recognize a 'trend' and modify your own approach. Obviously that is on the deep end of theoretical thinking in regards ts sports betting. But it has some basis.

Because basically if you can win year after year and show the ability to change with the times it shows a multi faceted 'skill level'.

So maybe Fezzik is as good as he thinks, but the system has changed these years and he refuses to. So the question is if Fezzik is right and the system is wrong will the system every come back around to where the plays fezzik makes using his tried and true approach will be winning again? Still more theory obviously but interesting nonetheless.

But that is why football is football and why you have to look at the overall game and go from there. I bet the NFL for the first time in maybe 5 years and I cleaned up. Why? because they made so many rules changes. So I took something within the GAME, not anything based on gambling and used it to make money. Then I used the system against itself and made money fading the gamblers fallacy approach, then I switched up again using another gamblers fallacy so the pattern became as clear a piss trail in the snow. I commented on it a couple weeks ago, and I probably shouldnt have but it is out there.

Bottomline is you cant beat the system, all you can do is let it cannibalize itself with the way you make your bets. Short term results are valid but it is how you manipulate they short term results into a long term pattern that makes the difference.

So IMO fezzik is probably half right (as usual) with his approach, he just doesnt follow through on it enough or recognize what he needs to do to make it completely valid.
 
#38
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

This does not explain his poor showing in his tout picks over the years. When he did well in the contest, he should have done well as a tout also, but he could front-run his picks and other Hilton players gain advantage, so releasing early (before Sat morn when picks were generally released by the Hilton) is problematic. So, on his sides picks at least, it's a mystery why he didn't do better touting last year and year before. Totals a different matter, but he didn't do well in those as well, I'm told.
He only had one Hilton year that overlapped with his service. After 2005's horrible performance (which only got worse with a late season Yosh), he swore he'd never sell picks again, but after winning the Hilton in 2008, the allure of selling picks must have gotten to him because he ran a service in 2009. So 2009 is the only aberrant year, and he was also posting a lot of CFB sides and totals that year. Not only is the Hilton contest a small sample of only 85 picks, if he picked sides and totals equally, NFL sides would only be 1/4th his total picks, and there are far more CFB games than NFL ones.

I distinctly recall in one 2009 game, he posted some CFB total as 4 weight at something like un47.5, it closed 48.5, and landed on the 48. So for all his boasting of how he beats the closing line, that particular game was an 8.4u swing.
 
#39
Re: Fezzik responds to "haters" in LVA newsletter....

He only had one Hilton year that overlapped with his service. After 2005's horrible performance (which only got worse with a late season Yosh), he swore he'd never sell picks again, but after winning the Hilton in 2008, the allure of selling picks must have gotten to him because he ran a service in 2009. So 2009 is the only aberrant year, and he was also posting a lot of CFB sides and totals that year. Not only is the Hilton contest a small sample of only 85 picks, if he picked sides and totals equally, NFL sides would only be 1/4th his total picks, and there are far more CFB games than NFL ones.

I distinctly recall in one 2009 game, he posted some CFB total as 4 weight at something like un47.5, it closed 48.5, and landed on the 48. So for all his boasting of how he beats the closing line, that particular game was an 8.4u swing.
Interesting.

BTW, 2005 was a bitch of a year for everyone in the modeling biz. So FEZ wasn't out of step then. This year's FEZ train wreck is opposed by everyone including Squares cleaning up.
 
#40
If JK had bothered to attend my overpriced Seminar he was comped to..........

If JK had bothered to attend my overpriced Seminar he was comped to..........

He would have learned that a KEY evaluation of your abilities in major liquid sports is how well your plays do VS. THE CLOSING NUMBER.

I don't give a crap about 3-15, 15-6, 51-22 runs.

remember I'm the guy that warned everyone after 66% Hilton back to back years that is was "an aberration....no one hits over 55% in the NFL longterm sides".

I DO WORRY GREATLY when more than 1 or 2 plays gets released and the market flips it the bird.
 
Top