^you said "99.999%"


Being a bookie, by definition, is charging juice. This guy isn't a bookie, he is just some retard who will bet you on anything, either side.

You should charge him juice

[Edited on October 3, 2007 at 4:05 PM. Reason : d]

10/3/2007 4:04:09 PM

i said "99.999%" in my example of Bank of America loans, math genius

10/3/2007 4:05:53 PM

^^ ding ding

10/3/2007 4:07:16 PM

So basically if your friend was a hooker, he'd blow you for free and wouldn't make you wear a rubber.

10/3/2007 4:08:41 PM

the only way for me to actually convince you, i would not be willing to do because of incrimination...so i'll just let you think i'm an idiot or i'm making the whole thing up cause when its all said and done, thats the story i want any potential LEI or IRS fucks on here to believe

10/3/2007 4:09:31 PM

I'm sure this place is fucking teeming with feds.

10/3/2007 4:09:56 PM

fuckers on here have gotten busted for a lot dumber and less significant shit

10/3/2007 4:10:24 PM

Wow, this thread has never been this active ever, even on the busiest Saturdays of college football, and this is a fucking Wednesday with one shitty college game on tap tonight. Hilarious.

10/3/2007 4:11:51 PM

I don't see the complexity of the situation.

He doesn't charge a vigorish on your wagers.

Stupid, yes, but hardly worthy of a hush-hush taboo explanation.

10/3/2007 4:12:27 PM

So how does baseball work with this guy, for example, would he give you

Cubs +119
Dbacks -119

10/3/2007 4:12:34 PM

Cubs +119
Diamondbacks even money

10/3/2007 4:14:03 PM

Quote :

"He doesn't charge a vigorish on your wagers."

CORRECT

however

- he used to charge me
- he charges most everyone else, except for a few of his other friends who have been betting through him for awhile

i've said enough though...believe it or not...and if you're a police officer or are affiliated with any branch of law enforcement, federal state or local, please do not believe it

Quote :

"So how does baseball work with this guy, for example, would he give you Cubs +119 Dbacks -119 "

i only do O/U with baseball

[Edited on October 3, 2007 at 4:16 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2007 4:14:10 PM

Quote :

"i said "99.999%" in my example of Bank of America loans, math genius"

dude, your "analogy" was that 99,999 people pay interest (juice) and since you are such good buddies you don't have to. You are truly 1 in 100,000.

10/3/2007 4:14:23 PM

Quote :

"i only do O/U with baseball"

just flip coins with the dude, your winning percentage will go up since you can't push

10/3/2007 4:19:28 PM

Quote :

"he charges most everyone else"

10/3/2007 4:20:38 PM

theres a gas station near where I live.... my uncle's ex-wife's brother's neighbor owns it... he charges most people for gas, but not me

[Edited on October 3, 2007 at 4:25 PM. Reason : f]

10/3/2007 4:22:53 PM

oh shit, what kind of gas stations have I been fucking with

[Edited on October 3, 2007 at 4:25 PM. Reason : d]

10/3/2007 4:25:00 PM

lol at a bunch of degenerate gamblers who cant conceive the idea of something as illegal and immoral as "hooking up your buddy"

10/3/2007 4:26:10 PM

oh, and by the way:

Quote :

"Services do not have godlike power. They cannot buck the realities of sports betting - it's hard to win. They cannot win at rates of 70% or 80%. What they can do, however, is put in a lot of time and energy and expertise to help you win at realistic rates (55%-60%). At those rates, you can do very, very well."

boom bitch


my 66%/74% is looking pretty damn good

[Edited on October 3, 2007 at 4:30 PM. Reason : d]

10/3/2007 4:27:28 PM

^^If you were a bookie

Would you do the same system with your friends?

[Edited on October 3, 2007 at 4:27 PM. Reason : v]

10/3/2007 4:27:37 PM

^^^ if u were to sell pot would u give your friends free 1/8ths all the time?

10/3/2007 5:12:45 PM

Obviously, we're jealous of your situation and would all welcome the chance to bet under those circumstances. The barbs in this thread aren't directed at you, but at the business sense of your bookie.

10/3/2007 5:17:16 PM

^^the infinitely better analogy would be if my friends were already buying a pound from me every week, and had been buying one from me every week for the past couple years...would i make it a little heavy

^to reiterate, its not like he does it for everybody...i just happen to have a good long time friend who also happens to be a bookie

back to the actual thread...

I like Texas +11, Florida +9, Va Tech +5.5, KSU -3, Illinois -2.5

for the time being

[Edited on October 3, 2007 at 5:21 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2007 5:18:40 PM

What do you guys think about the Rice/Southern Miss game tonight? I like the under 54.5

[Edited on October 3, 2007 at 6:32 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2007 6:32:20 PM

Rice +21

Under 54.5

10/3/2007 6:40:57 PM

I think I like Utah +15 Friday, the Utes will try to shorten the game against Louisville, and they won't turn it over 5 times like we did

10/3/2007 7:19:45 PM

taking a small bet on Southern Miss -20.5

10/3/2007 7:45:07 PM

yeah I took rice at +20.5 for a small bet just so I have something to watch tonight.. public is at about 50/50 on this game. South. Miss. playing at home for the 2nd time this year I think, but starting the 3rd string and looking like pieces of shit against boise last week.

Took rice because I start out winning by nearly 3 TDs.. and it is less stressful until deeper into the game.. hope it ain't a runaway.

let that clock TICK TICK TICK!

I had to pay VIG though LOL.

10/3/2007 7:59:48 PM

^ what type of bookie do YOU use!!

10/3/2007 8:01:10 PM

i guess when you've got it good and you tell people about it, they often don't know how to take it

10/3/2007 8:03:39 PM

and I guess when people think that some situation is normal and others "have it bad" or have "weird bookies" they dont know what they are talking about

10/3/2007 8:05:07 PM

naw I like you treetwista .. if you can get a bookie to not charge vig then I'd be betting a lot with him myself.

and I do believe you, but I think your bookie ain't that bright.

10/3/2007 8:05:43 PM

I agree with that... but he was retarded for making it sound like it was normal, and that we had the weird bookies for charging juice

10/3/2007 8:07:30 PM

aside from my own bets, nowadays i'm more used to seeing people taking parlays a lot (with no vig) or just making straight up bets with a fan of a rival team or even making online bets with no fees, but just shittier odds/spreads...

10/3/2007 8:13:07 PM

hell yes Rice .. add that shit on! ~4 TDs now

10/3/2007 8:34:35 PM

13-6-1


Loving my Rice +21

Loving the under

HATING my Angels moneyline



Thinking of placing a D-Backs moneyline bet and taking the under 7.5


D-Backs are terrible on offense. Both teams rely on pitching and Webb is far superior to Zambrano this late in the season. The under has covered between these 2 teams 5 out of 6 times this year with the other being a push. Both teams obviously have their 2 aces going tonight. Under looks promising, but as usual, nothing is 100%



[Edited on October 3, 2007 at 8:57 PM. Reason : 6]

10/3/2007 8:52:01 PM

both teams do NOT rely just on pitching FYI

[Edited on October 3, 2007 at 9:03 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2007 9:01:18 PM

Quote :

"The Chicago Cubs, who relied on pitching all season, face the AL West-winning Arizona Diamondbacks, who also depend entirely on their arms. In the other series, the Colorado Rockies, who bashed their way into the postseason, collide with the Philadelphia Phillies, who boast the NL’s best offense. "

Direct quote from an article on Covers.com But I suppose you know more than those guys huh?

This is the main reason I am taking the under....

Quote :

"The 7 ½-run total for the Cubs and Diamondbacks is the lowest number this matchup's seen all season. In six meetings between these two in 2007, the under cashed five times with their first game playing to a push on an 8-run total. Chicago’s staff, consisting mainly of Carlos Zambrano, Ted Lilly, Rich Hill and Jason Marquis, kept a 4.04 ERA and ranked among the leaders in most defensive statistics. The Cubs bats, on the other hand, didn’t produce, hitting .271 at the plate for just 4.64 runs per game. The Cubbies finished the regular season as the NL’s top under play, recording a 66-86-10 over/under mark. "

[Edited on October 3, 2007 at 9:08 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2007 9:06:37 PM

Quote :

" Direct quote from an article on Covers.com But I suppose you know more than those guys huh?"

apparently. The Cubs don't just rely on pitching. Why the fuck would they spend millions on the fonze? Derek Lee? Aramos Ramirez? DeRosa? They are NOT the fucking padres. However I do think it is good to ride Webb tonight but I'll be rooting for the cubbies.

[Edited on October 3, 2007 at 9:17 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2007 9:13:45 PM

yeah i would call that an inaccurate statement

the pitching was never dazzling and the bats won games

10/3/2007 9:15:11 PM

it's an overstatement about the cubs, but still basically true:

NL:
Cubs 8th in RS, 2nd in ERA
Dbacks 14th in RS, 4th in ERA

compared to

Phillies 1st in RS, 13th in ERA
Rockies 2nd in RS, 8th in ERA

10/3/2007 9:16:59 PM

Go ahead and mark down Rice +21 as a win, and So Miss as a loss. If Rice blows a 5TD lead I will never bet on sports again, ever. Not liking this scoring though, its really starting to creep up on the under.

^Thanks

I didn't really wanna argue with him over it.

[Edited on October 3, 2007 at 9:18 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2007 9:18:05 PM

^ you can't argue with me about it. The cubs have great bats and great pitching. They don't rely on their pitchers to win games for them. STFU. Don't jinx my fucking Rice bet either.

10/3/2007 9:21:25 PM

Split on my favorite runlines from earlier, but won money thanks to them being +115 and +135.


Taking the Dbacks runline tonight at +170.

Much better value than taking them straight up at -117 IMO.

A 1000 dollar bet wins 1700 compared to 854.

10/3/2007 9:22:29 PM

^^if you define "great" as "NL average" then you are right about the hitting

10/3/2007 9:31:34 PM

^ why don't you look up the average scores and get back to me. To say the Cubs RELY on pitching to win games is wrong. Not saying that the Cubs haven't won some games with good pitching, but you can't deny the Cubs score a lot of runs also.

For example, I was at the game they played the Astro's and were down by 5 in the 2nd inning and guess what, they came back to win it. Of course this is just 1 game of 162 games but it sticks out in my mind since I was there.

10/3/2007 9:35:16 PM

^I already did, they were 8th in the league in Runs Scored. There are 16 teams in the league. That's "middle of the pack"

10/3/2007 9:36:35 PM

^ cubs score about 4.64 runs per game in the 2007 regular season .. they do NOT rely just on pitching. To call the Cubs a one dimensional team is absolutely wrong.

10/3/2007 9:41:32 PM

Charlie, not trying to argue like I said, but stats, a columnist on betting, and everyone in this thread is agreeing you are wrong. Its ok to admit it. We are showing stats and pro opinions, and all you can say is "Well the Cubs signed some big bats last off season"

Quote :

"^ cubs score about 4.64 runs per game in the 2007 regular season .. they do NOT rely just on pitching. To call the Cubs a one dimensional team is absolutely wrong."

Who said they are one dimensional? Sure, they may score some runs, but they rely on their good pitching to keep that 4 run average in tact and win the games. Nobody ever said that the Cubs ONLY win games because of their pitching.

[Edited on October 3, 2007 at 9:45 PM. Reason : ..]

10/3/2007 9:43:06 PM

^^The NL average is 4.71 runs a game.


[Edited on October 3, 2007 at 9:44 PM. Reason : 0]

10/3/2007 9:43:59 PM