New Tout Article...Fezzik has some bad bad math skills

Heim

EOG Master
#2
He's just puffing....he knows 55% is closer to the truth. IMO Fezzik has holes in his game but math isn't one
of them.
 

Foresthill

EOG Senior Member
#4
As a point of information, Fezzik doesn't have a math degree, he got a BS from Northwestern in Industrial Engineering.
So how did he end up as an actuary working in the insurance industry before he quit to pursue current activities? Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will), but doesn't industrial engineering involve time and motion studies among other things?
 
#6
This can't be real. Who would say this?

“Note, some enjoy just being able to hit slightly over 50%,” Fezzik explained, “and that experience makes sports betting more enjoyable. They would rather pay a fee, hit 53%, and break even. Similar to the golfer that will get the best hybrid clubs to shoot 88 instead of 90.”
 
#9
I have no clue how Fezzik became an actuary, it might be interesting to hear if he (or his brother) wants to clime in.

One clarification I'd like to make to the article is that, as stated, the first year of my BLAP monitoring started in Aug. 2015. The overall 2015 figure of +4.62u includes the first 7 months of Pregame (Jeff Scott Sports) monitoring which resulted in +26.86u while the last 5 months that I monitored resulted in -22.24u.

Overall since the start of my monitoring, the BLAP record is 1776-1541-116, +1.27u, with a total of 7259.49u bet/risked.
 
#10
I have no clue how Fezzik became an actuary, it might be interesting to hear if he (or his brother) wants to clime in.

One clarification I'd like to make to the article is that, as stated, the first year of my BLAP monitoring started in Aug. 2015. The overall 2015 figure of +4.62u includes the first 7 months of Pregame (Jeff Scott Sports) monitoring which resulted in +26.86u while the last 5 months that I monitored resulted in -22.24u.

Overall since the start of my monitoring, the BLAP record is 1776-1541-116, +1.27u, with a total of 7259.49u bet/risked.
Also something to add to this. How many months have been +5u (which was the proposed "break-even" point at $200 per suggested unit) and how many have been below that amount which results in a free month.

So how many months have triggered the pay of $1,000?
 
#11
Also something to add to this. How many months have been +5u (which was the proposed "break-even" point at $200 per suggested unit) and how many have been below that amount which results in a free month.

So how many months have triggered the pay of $1,000?
Assuming a BLAP customer began in August, 2015 when I started monitoring, they paid an initial $1,000. Sequentially, they would have paid in an additional 5 months for $6,000 total.

In 47 months, there have been 15 months with units won >= +5u (not counting this partial month of July).
 

andyfezzik

EOG Senior Member
#12
For a $200 per play recreational Vegas bettor, keep in mind that they will normally be losing $9.10 per pick due to the house vigorish. If they make 300 plays a year, that's $2730 in loss expectation which can take quite a bite out of a family budget. If, notionally, we assume that a 53% handicapper exists and is selling a season package, say Football, for $500 after discounts than it makes quite a bit of sense for that punter to reduce his loss expectation, and mirror the package instead of making his own plays.
 
#14
For a $200 per play recreational Vegas bettor, keep in mind that they will normally be losing $9.10 per pick due to the house vigorish. If they make 300 plays a year, that's $2730 in loss expectation which can take quite a bite out of a family budget. If, notionally, we assume that a 53% handicapper exists and is selling a season package, say Football, for $500 after discounts than it makes quite a bit of sense for that punter to reduce his loss expectation, and mirror the package instead of making his own plays.
Interesting sales pitch
 
#15
For a $200 per play recreational Vegas bettor, keep in mind that they will normally be losing $9.10 per pick due to the house vigorish. If they make 300 plays a year, that's $2730 in loss expectation which can take quite a bite out of a family budget. If, notionally, we assume that a 53% handicapper exists and is selling a season package, say Football, for $500 after discounts than it makes quite a bit of sense for that punter to reduce his loss expectation, and mirror the package instead of making his own plays.

Or not bet at all, maybe!!!!:unsure:
 
#18
For a $200 per play recreational Vegas bettor, keep in mind that they will normally be losing $9.10 per pick due to the house vigorish. If they make 300 plays a year, that's $2730 in loss expectation which can take quite a bite out of a family budget. If, notionally, we assume that a 53% handicapper exists and is selling a season package, say Football, for $500 after discounts than it makes quite a bit of sense for that punter to reduce his loss expectation, and mirror the package instead of making his own plays.

JFC. What a dumbass. I am not sure what is worse. Him saying it the first time or you trying to convince a board full of people who should know better that the premise is not incredibly stupid.
 

andyfezzik

EOG Senior Member
#20
If someone is going to bet on sports no matter what, i.e. they are a recreational gambler who enjoys it, than why is it irrational to buy a package and reduce their loss expectation? That is rational behavior (assuming the capper is legitimately 53%+)
 

Heim

EOG Master
#22
If someone is going to bet on sports no matter what, i.e. they are a recreational gambler who enjoys it, than why is it irrational to buy a package and reduce their loss expectation? That is rational behavior (assuming the capper is legitimately 53%+)
If that's the case then why not market it like that rather than the ad-nauseam short sample streaks that imply your brother is actually
making money at this?
 
Top