*** Official Flying Stupidity Wagering thread ***

[GambleBotsChafedPenis]

This is the last weekend without “real” football for the next 23 weeks. Thank Christ.

I pray for your soul.

The football is already oblong and bounces randomly as Harolobob famously says.

Now you have added more randomness

The preseason week 2 was creepy. If this goes on during the regular season when games actually count, and the outcome of games are affected, it's not going to be good.

The prop player in you will be pounding the overs as they will be handing out 15 yards like popcorn. Unless, of course, they eject your player.

NFL was fun but let’s be serious. Pass interference is already more than I can bear with 50 yard random swings. The new rules just add to the fruitiness of the league.

Deep in my soul I suspect I will flip to college primarily for my entertainment and MAYBE wagering. It’ll be interesting.

I just don’t think I can keep from getting upset watching NFL. Who needs that?

If anybody can find an edge in the new rules changes it’ll be you. I trust you will share.

I think they're just throwing a ton of flags in the preseason to let the guys know that they are serious about this kinda thing...could be wrong, but I think 50/50 calls in the regular season are gonna be erred on the side of not throwing the flag...but I could be wrong...obv the NFL doesn't want another billion plus dollar lawsuit on their hands...

on college, I hear ya...ive posted way too many times on this forum about how I miss college football DFS...you talk about entertainment value...nothing like having a bunch of players in your lineup in a 60-56 shootout...the fighting kkkkkliff kingsburys, bowling green, western Kentucky, late nights sweating the really good Hawaii running back whose name escapes me right now...those were the days...

[Dan Druff]

Looking at 2 unders today: Cincinnati/Milwaukee and White Sox/Minn.

Don't bet them yet. Still deciding, but if I bet anything today, it will likely be one (or both) of those two.

[Daly]

Like I said when I called into speak to Druff - it’s a whole different ballgame now.




Already a hot-button issue in the United Kingdom, a controversial bookmaking practice is starting to spread in the U.S.'s growing legal sports betting market, too.

Bookmakers from London to Las Vegas are refusing to take bets from a growing number of customers whose only offense might be trying to win.

The full scope of the issue in the U.K. is difficult to determine, but it's believed only a small fraction of the roughly 8.5 million "punters" (the European term for bettors) are impacted. Gaming experts say sportsbooks might have closed as many as 50,000 betting accounts in recent years, and just as many punters have had their betting limits restricted to mere pittance.

As one U.K. bettor put it, "If you try to win, they don't let you play anymore."

Yes, bookmakers are severely restricting or closing accounts for what appears to be the fact that these people are winning," said U.K. gambling consultant Steve Donoughue, secretariat for an all-party parliamentary group that focuses on gaming.

"The hilariousness of it," Donoughue added, "is that they restricted one of my member's accounts, and he's a Lord."

The profit-minded corporations that have entered the bookmaking game, however, look at it from the perspective of their bottom line and wonder what business would ever choose to cater to customers thought to be "uneconomical." It's like encouraging a world-class competitive eater to dine often at your all-you-can-eat buffet.

American sports betting is not immune to the practice. Banning or limiting sophisticated players has been a regular part of Las Vegas sports betting for decades, and, like in the U.K., there's absolutely nothing illegal about it.

Bettors say the practice is increasing and has even occurred in some of the new states (such as New Jersey) that have entered into the now-legal bookmaking game in recent months.

Americans should be worried," said Brian Chappell, a founder for the U.K. bettor advocacy group Justice for Punters. "It's coming."

A reputation for sportsbook giant William Hill

In Nevada, refusing to take bets from any customer, from card counters to wise-guy sports bettors, is completely within any casino's legal rights. From Caesars Palace to the Venetian to more local spots like Station Casinos, every bookmaker in town will tell you -- albeit somewhat quietly -- that they've 86'd customers for one reason or another.

Seasoned bettors are concerned, though, that the practice of banning or limiting accounts is not only increasing, but the reasoning behind the decisions is becoming more and more suspect.

Many believe that the only thing betting intelligently will get you at some shops is a one-way ticket to being thrown out. An iconic U.K. bookmaker that's rapidly growing its footprint in the U.S. is said to be by far the most aggressive with the tactic.

ESPN communicated with 20 bettors for this article who said they had been banned from betting with William Hill U.S. in Nevada. Two said they already have been cut off at the new William Hill books in New Jersey, too, something the Division of Gaming Enforcement is reviewing.

"In our world, our community," said Joe Fortuna, one of the professional bettors who says he was cut off by William Hill in Nevada, "everyone knows you'll get thrown out of there."

"It's not even really close," said another Las Vegas bettor who had been restricted by William Hill and requested anonymity. "They're by far the worst."

Founded in 1934 in London, William Hill was granted a Nevada gaming license in 2012. The company has grown into the largest bookmaker by volume in Nevada, serving more than 100,000 customers and operating in more than 100 locations -- including at casinos like Casino Royale and Hooters on the Las Vegas Strip. They have the most customers and, in turn, probably have the most complaints directed at them.

A vast majority of William Hill's customers are recreational bettors who wager small amounts and never test the limits, house rules or gaming regulations. Industry sources say it's the remaining sliver of bettors who make the book uncomfortable enough to eliminate some of them from the equation.


William Hill has a reputation of banning bettors in Nevada and the U.K. Danny Lawson/PA Images/ Getty Images
William Hill executives make the decision on which accounts to shut down during a weekly meeting in the Las Vegas corporate office, according to multiple sources familiar with the company's practices. In these meetings, often held on Wednesdays, CEO Joe Asher will scroll through a list of accounts, flagging any that stand out as potential threats. He will then ask his team of traders why they should continue doing business with these customers.

The traders, sources said, regularly resist, promising that a player ultimately will lose back all their winnings and then some. Their resistance, however, has not prevented hundreds of bettors from being put on a list that prohibits them from betting with William Hill in person or on the company's mobile app. "I would be surprised if it's not in the thousands," one industry source said.

William Hill says the bettors on the banned list belong there. Nevada bookmakers are heavily regulated and risk federal scrutiny as well as six- and even seven-figure fines from Nevada Gaming Control if they don't maintain anti-money laundering and know-your-customer protocols. If a bettor is found to be unsuitable and violating federal law or state regulations, the bookmaker who took their bet is often held responsible too. To stay in good standing with regulators, licensed operators must be careful.

Anyone named in illegal gambling investigations is put on William Hill's banned list, along with bettors suspected of sharing accounts on the mobile app, a violation of gaming control regulations.

There is, however, a select group of bettors, dozens of them, who insist they haven't done anything except try to place smart bets and yet were still cut off. Some are angle-shooting advantage players, who target oddsmakers' mistakes and any latency in updating the lines, while others on the list say they are simply avid sports bettors who try to play the best odds. All kinds have been shown the door at William Hill, according to the bettors and additional industry sources.

"It is completely false to say that we ban people simply for winning," William Hill U.S. told ESPN in a statement. "There are literally tens of thousands of customers in Nevada that are winners at William Hill. That's one of the great things about sports betting -- a lot of customers do win.

"In the rare situation where we do prohibit someone from wagering with us, there are a variety of reasons why. They include the sharing of accounts (usually tied to someone who previously has been banned), betting on behalf of third parties, screen scraping and other efforts to 'game' the system, as well as compliance reasons or being offensive to staff and/or other customers.

"If someone tells you that the reason that they are prohibited from wagering with William Hill is because they are winning, they are not telling you the whole story."

The company declined to answer further questions on the record and did not respond to follow-up requests to clarify the meaning of "screen scraping." Several bettors said they weren't certain what "screen scraping" entails.

At ESPN's request, bettors provided emails and screenshots from their mobile accounts that notified them they could no longer bet with William Hill. Some bettors said they were even in the red overall at the book, but might have had a recent hot streak or won on a long-shot futures bet that proceeded their being cut off.

It happened to Fortuna two years ago. After cashing a winning bet on the Golden State Warriors in the NBA Finals, he went back to the William Hill book the next day and was told he was no longer allowed to bet.

"They don't give you any reason," Fortuna said. "We called corporate and didn't get anywhere. It's almost like they're saying, 'We don't have to serve you,' which is unfair. You can't win. It's not really bookmaking."

Another bettor was informed of his banishment via email: "While we appreciate your previous business, the company has decided to no longer conduct business with you," a William Hill representative wrote.

The bettor said he sent three follow-up emails and left multiple phone messages asking for a reason for the decision but never got a response.

How other Nevada sportsbooks operate

Some professional bettors have accepted that the books' right of refusal is just part of the cost of doing business that comes along with their chosen career. Some bettors said they go to great lengths to try to stay off the radar. They'll keep their bets under the limits and will even intentionally place wagers at less-advantageous odds.

"My personal experience here is that they have not backed me off," said Ed Miller, a Las Vegas-based sports bettor and accomplished poker author. "I have won here in Nevada. I know other people who have won. If you don't want to get backed off, you've kind of got to play it on their terms a little bit."

Not every sportsbook in Nevada takes a hardline approach to dealing with sharp bettors. Some Vegas veterans believe it is part of their responsibility as a bookmaker to accept decent-size wagers -- anywhere from $500 to $2,000, for example -- from any bettor in good standing. Some even welcome wiseguys, to an extent.


The Westgate Las Vegas SuperBook divides bettors into eight categories, based on how sharp they are perceived to be and previous betting history. Ethan Miller/Getty Images
"We like having wise-guy action," said Chris Andrews, sportsbook director at the South Point Casinos and a nearly 40-year Nevada bookmaker. "You can use their information if you manage them properly, and it will help your bottom line."

Ed Malinowski, sportsbook director for The Stratosphere, divides wise-guy action into two categories: handicappers who bet their opinions, and advantage players who might place arbitrage bets on both sides of games and target off-market lines and odds.

"The advantage players are the ones who are just scalping prices and taking advantage of weak numbers," Malinowski said. "Those are more of the undesirable-type players we don't want in here."

The Westgate SuperBook, which is known to accept sharp action, creates a profile on every bettor in its database. Similar to The Stratosphere's practice, the SuperBook places bettors in eight different categories.

"We categorize them from the sharpest of the sharp -- the guys who bet their own opinions and we respect greatly -- to your average Joe," said Jay Kornegay, vice president of race and sports for the SuperBook. "We get a lot of sharp players in here that we deal with on a daily basis. We monitor them very, very closely. We profile to a point where we know exactly what they're doing and mold their limits accordingly."

In the end, you have two professions, each trying to increase profits, but only one side gets to make the rules.

"It's a cat-and-mouse game with these guys," added Malinowski, a 25-year-plus Nevada bookmaker. "Obviously, they're doing their job, and we're trying to do ours."

'A business, not a public service'

The crux of the debate can be boiled down to two quotes from a January seminar in the U.K., hosted by the Parliamentary All-Party Betting & Gaming Group titled, "Are Bookmakers unfairly closing customer accounts?"

During the meeting, members of Parliament listened to industry stakeholders, including bookmakers and punters, state their cases.

"Risk management should not be taken to equal risk elimination," said Simon Rolans, chairman for a horse racing bettors advocacy group. "Betting on horse racing, by its nature, involves risk -- whichever side of the counter you are on -- and that is a significant part of its appeal compared to some alternatives."

Richard Flint, CEO of U.K. online bookmaker Sky Betting & Gaming, spoke next.

"We are ... a mass-market leisure and entertainment business," Flint said. "And that word, 'business,' brings me to my first major point. We run a business, not a public service. And we run it to be a commercial success. I'm not embarrassed about that."

In shooting for commercial success, should bookmakers be allowed to refuse to take bets from customers who take steps to try to win? On the other hand, should a business be forced to take on a customer they fear will repeatedly damage its bottom line?

The debate is getting ready to play out in state legislatures across the U.S.

[Dan Druff]

Probably skipping today.

Took a hard look at KC/TB and White Sox/Min, but can't really come to a decision.

[Sanlmar]

Everyone and their mother is on the Jays tonight. Baltimore is the only team that the Jays can reliably beat.

Jays -1.5 +110. I guess I'm in on it too now. Estrada showcasing his stuff tonight. W

Pirates -115. Battle of two AL pitchers. Hoping Archer is finally settled down and he will be fired up to pitch against a top team. Cancelled

Cardinals +150 Wand under 8.5. W One team heading up, one heading down. Both pitchers pitching well lately.

You are running good since you started posting again. Undefeated tonight.

Gausman scratched for Atlanta so Pitt was cancelled, right?

The Dodgers money is the sweetest, of course!

[simpdog]

On a roll yes and even Tesla is back up this AM.

Jays/Baltimore over 9. Both pitchers are questionable. I wanted to take Jays but I would have had to do -1.5 since everyone is on them again (avoiding that 2 days in a row)

Nationals -140. I don't love the price but Roark has been hot lately with good run support

Giants/Mets over 8. Both pitchers are shite.

Yankees -1.5 -140. Tanaka lost 9-1 vs Miami in April. Not happening again despite his recent struggles. This will help him get back on track.

Yankees over 7.5. I say Yankees because they are hitting well and they likely will do it themselves.

[Dan Druff]

I didn't make picks on Sunday or Monday.

I'm coming roaring back today with three of them. And you even have time to bet them!

What a world!

Baltimore (Bundy) at Toronto (Gaviglio) - Under 8.5 -105 (9 up to -130 ok) (sorry simpdog)
Cleveland (Bieber) at Boston (Eovaldi) - Under 9 -105
Cincinnati (Romano) at Milwaukee (Junior Guerra) - Under 9 -115

[PLOL]

I didn't make picks on Sunday or Monday.

I'm coming roaring back today with three of them. And you even have time to bet them!

What a world!

Baltimore (Bundy) at Toronto (Gaviglio) - Under 8.5 -105 (9 up to -130 ok) (sorry simpdog)
Cleveland (Bieber) at Boston (Eovaldi) - Under 9 -105
Cincinnati (Romano) at Milwaukee (Junior Guerra) - Under 9 -115

Passing because all my lines are worse. Gl

[Dan Druff]

I didn't make picks on Sunday or Monday.

I'm coming roaring back today with three of them. And you even have time to bet them!

What a world!

Baltimore (Bundy) at Toronto (Gaviglio) - Under 8.5 -105 (9 up to -130 ok) (sorry simpdog)
Cleveland (Bieber) at Boston (Eovaldi) - Under 9 -105
Cincinnati (Romano) at Milwaukee (Junior Guerra) - Under 9 -115

Passing because all my lines are worse. Gl

#stalelines

Also get a Bovada account. Hot tip.

[Sanlmar]

Pretty much blind betting Simp & Druff.

In the case of Toronto Druff - Simp has proven himself time and again. I even took his Jays lean.

MOBILE - BASEBALL - MLB - 914 BALTIMORE ORIOLES/TORONTO BLUE JAYS OVER 8½ -112 FOR GAME

MOBILE - BASEBALL - MLB - 914 TORONTO BLUE JAYS -131 FOR GAME

MOBILE - BASEBALL - MLB - 906 SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS/NEW YORK METS OVER 8 -116 FOR GAME

MOBILE - BASEBALL - MLB - 927 NEW YORK YANKEES -1½ -127 FOR GAME

MOBILE - BASEBALL - MLB - 928 NEW YORK YANKEES/MIAMI MARLINS OVER 7 -119 FOR GAME

Disclaimer Druff:
I bet the following without any thought or prejudice

Druff shall agree to hold me harmless and indemnify me against damages, losses, & judgments.


MOBILE - BASEBALL - MLB - 908 CINCINNATI REDS/MILWAUKEE BREWERS UNDER 9 -121 FOR GAME

MOBILE - BASEBALL - MLB - 916 CLEVELAND INDIANS/BOSTON RED SOX UNDER 9 -101 FOR GAME

[simpdog]

Pretty much blind betting Simp & Druff.

In the case of Toronto Druff - Simp has proven himself time and again. I even took his Jays lean.

MOBILE - BASEBALL - MLB - 914 BALTIMORE ORIOLES/TORONTO BLUE JAYS OVER 8½ -112 FOR GAME

MOBILE - BASEBALL - MLB - 914 TORONTO BLUE JAYS -131 FOR GAME

MOBILE - BASEBALL - MLB - 906 SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS/NEW YORK METS OVER 8 -116 FOR GAME

MOBILE - BASEBALL - MLB - 927 NEW YORK YANKEES -1½ -127 FOR GAME

MOBILE - BASEBALL - MLB - 928 NEW YORK YANKEES/MIAMI MARLINS OVER 7 -119 FOR GAME

Disclaimer Druff:
I bet the following without any thought or prejudice

Druff shall agree to hold me harmless and indemnify me against damages, losses, & judgments.


MOBILE - BASEBALL - MLB - 908 CINCINNATI REDS/MILWAUKEE BREWERS UNDER 9 -121 FOR GAME

MOBILE - BASEBALL - MLB - 916 CLEVELAND INDIANS/BOSTON RED SOX UNDER 9 -101 FOR GAME

Glad you were able to take Jays and over. I couldn't bring myself to back them -1.5 two days in a row. But it is Baltimore and the only team they can crush.

[Sanlmar]

Lost about a unit to juice.

I blame the Yankees. I don’t know who they are anymore. They are totally unreliable until Judge & Sanchez return.

7 bets and I didn’t watch a single pitch.

You know what I regret, Simp?

Listed pitchers K. Gausman C. Archer
Kevin Gausman Pitched an Entire Start From the Stretch and He Was Filthy against Brewers

Gausman was pushed back from yesterday to today. I thought I had a great read on an undervalued guy with lousy numbers. He made a mechanical adjustment and was god. The numbers and the public hadn’t caught up with the news

Gausman threw 8 scoreless innings and allowed only 4 hits.

I saw the matchup today. I thought about it but decided to play blind man’s Druff and just tail you guys.

I rarely have regrets but that will haunt me. Such a quality spot.

Edit

Oh, not fading the Dodgers. That too

[snake_in_the_ass]

St. Louis Cardinals futures, let's discuss.

9-1 last 10

Now 4 games behind the Cubs in the NL Central.

Currently occupying 2nd wildcard.

NL Central +800
NL Champs +1600
World Series Champs +3500

Clearly World Series at +3500 is the worst value, as the AL team is almost surely to be fairly favored if the Cards make it there.

I think NL Central is probably the best bet.

Why?

Cubs pitching is questionable.

Cards are just 4 games back, and are super hot. Matheny's firing seems to have energized them.

Brewers are fading, and fell behind the Cards.

I think them being NL Central is probably more than twice as likely than for them to win the NL. Why? Because if they only make it as a wildcard, they have to win the wildcard game, then win TWO series.

What do you guys think? Do you like either of those bets?

Cardinals are about to be 2.5 games back. They are going to win the World Series by defeating the Oakland Athletics in 7 games.

[Sanlmar]

Stealing the keys to Simp’s Jays over machine

MOBILE - BASEBALL - MLB - 964 BALTIMORE ORIOLES/TORONTO BLUE JAYS OVER 9½ +107 FOR GAME

MOBILE - BASEBALL - MLB - 964 BALTIMORE ORIOLES/TORONTO BLUE JAYS OVER 5½ +105 FOR 1ST 5 INNINGS

[simpdog]

Stealing the keys to Simp’s Jays over machine

MOBILE - BASEBALL - MLB - 964 BALTIMORE ORIOLES/TORONTO BLUE JAYS OVER 9½ +107 FOR GAME

MOBILE - BASEBALL - MLB - 964 BALTIMORE ORIOLES/TORONTO BLUE JAYS OVER 5½ +105 FOR 1ST 5 INNINGS

I held off because the Jay's pitcher was a no namer and I was worried he would sneak through the order once.

I may bet live in the 4th or 5th depending on what the total is.

Nationals -158
Cubs -188
Yankees -1.5 -110
Nationals under 8.5 -105

Chalk heavy today wish me luck

[simpdog]

Top of 6.

Jays/Orioles over 3.5 -110.

1 hitter (no walks) and a no hitter (2 walks). Who the f are these pitchers?

[simpdog]

Top of 6.

Jays/Orioles over 3.5 -110.

1 hitter (no walks) and a no hitter (2 walks). Who the f are these pitchers?

I got some 8th inning magic San you are going to need some 9th inning magic

Or hopefully you added on as the total came down

[Sanlmar]

I took a couple

/22/2018 1:53:11 PM
DESCRIPTION:
BALTIMORE ORIOLES AT TORONTO BLUE JAYS [BATTER PROPS] TOTAL OVER 3.5

Kid had a no-hitter going. Oops

[Sanlmar]

Look at Rockies Padres for me

[Dan Druff]

Went an ugly 0-2-1 yesterday. Boston game was annoying because it had just 2 runs after 5 innings, and barely ended up squeaking out a tie. I was also at risk of losing due to a 2-out, bottom of 9th dropped pop fly (seriously), but thankfully the next batter got out.

No picks today.

Would've picked Oakland under (and won) had I been up earlier. Oh well.