[00:00] Tell me if I'm missing something. Thisis very obviously take the cat. Wouldyou rather 15k or a bet that if it winsyou get 20k? I can just bet 15k on the

[00:11] thunder at plus 135 and get $35,000 ifit wins instead of 20k. Disclaimer: Thecontent presented in this show isintended for entertainment purposesonly. All opinions expressed are those

[00:23] of the hosts and do not necessarilyreflect the views or opinions of anyindividuals or organizations mentioned.Statements made about public figures orentities are based on publicly availableinformation and are not intended to harm

[00:34] or defame any person or business. Thisshow relies on fair use of social mediaposts which are presented in good faithfor the purpose of commentary andcriticism. Viewers and listeners areadvised to form their own opinions.

[00:53] For this week's show, we found a lot ofpeople giving out what they consider tobe sports betting advice. We're going toanalyze that with the first threesections of today's show, but a wholelot more also coming at you today onCircle Back here on the Circlesoft

[01:07] channel, which is part of the HammerBetting Network and presented by Cali.This is the show we cover the latest andgreatest news that comes from gamblingTwitter. I'm your host here onCircleback. My name is Jacob Gmena. I ama creator and producer here at the

[01:18] Hammer Betting Network. Joining me fortoday, we have a little bit of adifferent cast for today. We have JoeyKenish as normal, co-host on the Hit theBooks YouTube channel, which is theHammers College Football Content

[01:30] Division. But no mic today. Instead, wehave two other guests joining us.Firstly, we have China at China Maniacjoining us in the bottom left corner.And then in the top right corner, wehave Porter at BA Analytics_. Firstly,

[01:43] China, how you doing? Nice to have youback on the show.>> Doing great, man. Can't wait to jumpinto all this great stuff today.>> And uh Porter, we got you again here.You feel like we got a a good list oftopics for today.

[01:56] >> Do I do? First time I've been on theshow back toback. Hopefully I can keepmaking stuff up that people like tohear.>> All right. Well, we're going to jumpinto things. There was a bit ofexcitement to cover this one before westarted recording today. It's a tweet

[02:07] that comes from Jared Smith at JaredSmith Bets. Does a lot of sports bettingcontent, especially on Twitter, which iswhere we're covering this tweet from. Sohe says, "How can you make solid bets on

[02:19] random mid- major conference tourneygames without doing any research aboutthe teams? One, let the sharps planttheir flag on the side or total. Two,the line will steam in that direction.

[02:30] Three, bet the other side. These mid-major games typically have lessliquidity, which means the linetypically move too much whenprofessional groups give them out totheir clients. Will you win every time?No. Will you likely be making plus EV

[02:43] bets? Yes. His approach requires zeroknowledge about the teams, just a goododds screen and access to a lot ofsports books. He provides an example forJacksonville Bellerine, which is a gamethat was happening when he tweeted this.

[02:54] A professional gave out under 148, thetotal steam down four points. The gameis flying over again. It's not alwaysgoing to work out that way, but over 144was a great bet. So, using a specific

[03:06] example there, let's start off withPorter. Uh, do you think this is soundadvice that could actually lead towinning at sports betting? So, I reallylike this topic because it reminds me ofwhat I go through really often. This is

[03:17] like the classic example of having alittle bit of knowledge in the industrycan create a lot of damage. And hecovers his ass a lot in this by likemaking a lot of happen stance comments

[03:27] about does it always win? Is is it plusEV? Will you win every time? No. So, heI almost feel like he knows this kind ofBS. But here here's the problem withthis one. If you don't have a model or

[03:39] you know where the number is going tomove, who says that you shouldn't betthe number after it moved one point,after it moved two points, after itmoved three points? He doesn't know.What if he bet it after it moved twopoints, but then it moved two more. So

[03:52] now he's in the dead middle. So this isjust kind of your classic Jared createscontent. Doesn't really know sportsbetting that well. He even writes thathe's not a pro. Like somewhere else inhere, he wrote that he's not a pro

[04:03] better. And this is your classic exampleof like he's seen something that soundsgood. He's seen it work a few times.Anecdotally, it feels right. He has alittle bit of knowledge about the space,but doesn't understand all theintricacies and like why this isn't

[04:17] good.>> All right, let's go to China next. Ourother guest for today's show. Yourthoughts on the advice we have here.Yeah, like there's spots in certainmarkets where you you might be able to

[04:28] win with less information, but like NCAAhoops is probably not one of thesemarkets. Um, the bottom line is ifyou're not on the side of theorigination, like Border alluded to,

[04:39] somebody that has a top flight model. Imean, you either got to be on that sideor you got to be going with the steam asit goes. And, you know, with this angle,if somebody goes in and and tries to

[04:51] shoot this angle, they may win for ayear. They may win for two years, butthe bottom line is over a large sample,this is just going to probably getdestroyed. At the end of the day, like

[05:02] like Porter said, the best syndicates inthe world know how far that line shouldmove. And if that line does move toofar, they're going to bet it back. Andwhen they do bet it back, um, you know,

[05:15] they're going to be getting value onboth sides because it moved so far. So,how do you know how how does somebodythat's not a professional better orsomebody that has any idea where thisline should be, how do they know how far

[05:27] that line is going to go? Um, you know,some of the groups I work with, I knowfor a fact the line moves a certainamount of points, they know they can betit back. And like I could probably hearthe cheers from Spanky's office when

[05:39] these middles hit and he's three statesaway. And again, like not the averageeveryday guy that just fades this isgoing to know where to fade it likePorter said.>> And over to you, Kenishh. Uh, your take

[05:52] on things.>> I almost can guarantee who he got thisfrom and where it's coming from. Andthis is he's a he's a fez. I don't knowif they're they're like, you know,

[06:02] distant relatives or but I guaranteethis was Steve Fezic telling him thisinfo which might have worked circa 15years ago like a lot of the you know the

[06:13] the fez methodology here of a servicelikely in this case you know right anglesports releases a total it moves way too

[06:23] far and then you bet it back. a simpleit it it it sounds good but one as theother guys alluded to you don't knowwhere the bottom is if you don't know

[06:35] what you don't know you don't know whenthat number should come back and ifyou're just going right before post likeokay the numbers move four points now

[06:45] I'm going to bet back because like therewould be somebody else in the marketespecially for like college basketballconference tourney games that if there

[06:56] was still value at the number wouldlikely bet the number back. So yes, it'smoved four points, but if there wasvalue on betting over 144, there would

[07:07] be people out there, especially beforepost when it's most liquid, that wouldthen bet the over on 144 and it wouldmove back up. So there's a lot of holes

[07:16] in this. Um, I I think at some maybe atsome point in the past, could this haveworked theoretically in certain markets?Maybe. But no, just as like a oh, I'm

[07:28] just going to fade the steam and thinkit'll win. Um, no. I I don't think thisis a a good generic approach to goodadvice to take for somebody that doesn'treally know what they're doing.

[07:40] >> Yeah. Sorry. I mean, this is like theclassic like he got the first 20% of thestory kind of right and then missed allthe like complicated things that youneed to understand afterwards, which

[07:52] makes sense cuz he has just a little bitof knowledge.>> Yeah. So, on on the the feds that Keshmentioned here, uh somebody asked him inthe replies, "Have you back testedthis?" He said, "No, just it's just

[08:04] anecdotal and confirmed by some pros Itrust." As soon as I saw some pros Itrust, I I I kind of had an idea of whothe pro he trusted who told him to dothis. They estimate they being the pros

[08:15] about 90% of the time the line moves toomuch, especially total. So 90% of thetime apparently you're getting a plus CVposition here. I mean if you if youactually were getting a plus CVposition, you know, like the guys have

[08:26] covered here, this would get bet backtowards going like so let's say in thiscase 144 that would get back bet backtowards the over. So unless you arefinding this bet at the absolute bottom

[08:38] like the absolute dip and it's going toget bet back up and you're going to getgood sylvv that's going to be a positionwhere you're going to have a plus TVwager in this circumstance. But yourability to find that with the claim herebeing your ability to do this without

[08:51] doing any research just there's just noway that's going to happen. How do youknow when you're getting the best numberthere when you're you're getting it atthe dip or even close to the dip there?I don't think this is a strategy that is

[09:02] viable towards winning at all. Andcherry-picking one example that fitsintothe idea that you gave out here.Cherry-picking one specific example is

[09:13] not at all doing anything to convince meotherwise.>> Yeah, I got something to add here. So,syndicate bets it, syndicate moves it.The syndicate's going to have bettersoftware than the average Joe, and

[09:25] they're going to know when to bet itback. like you're you're almost neverreally going to get to the right pointto jump in and if you and if you do,you're just guessing.>> Yeah. Yeah. Agreed. So, I I don't I

[09:38] don't see where where this is comingfrom here. I do not recommend followingadvice just like this. But some advice Ican give to the people watch the channelis to subscribe. And we got a messagecoming at you here. I appreciate every

[09:50] one of you that watches our contentevery week, but there are also peoplewho watch who aren't subscribed yet.Now, listen. I will forgive you and callit an honest mistake. Do me a favor andsubscribe right now as we push for22,000 subscribers. The larger the

[10:04] channel grows, the more content we canprovide to you. Now, let's get back tothe content. Next topic, sticking withthe theme, we have some more advice thatwas brought to the fry on gamblingTwitter. This time from Ashcon Bets who

[10:16] says, "Sports betting advice. Stoptrying to turn 5K into 100K. Turn 5Kinto 8K. Withdraw 5K. Turn 3K into 8Kslowly. withdraw 3K. Repeat, repeat,

[10:28] repeat, repeat until bankroll growsbigger. This way, if you ever make amistake, which everyone does at somepoint, it won't kill your profits. So,I'm a little bit confused by some of theterminology here, especially saying, you

[10:39] know, withdraw as your bankroll growsbigger. But, uh, perhaps we could go toKesh on this one. Do you have anyreaction to this sort of advice? I meanthis is almost like mirrors the first

[10:50] topic of a little bit of like in inessence is there some like logic alittle bit maybe like that 20% thatmakes sense to where if you're trying to

[11:01] like okay in in the essence of shouldyou try and turn like you know your your12 leg parlay into you know betting $5to win a thousand and like that type of

[11:12] betting I I can see like shying awayfrom But in that instance, a a lot ofpeople, it's not granular enough to belike like if if someone's going to then

[11:23] turn like five and if they're using thesame type of betting strategy likerecreational betting strategy to go andto like go five to eight or 3 to eightor one of the it's not going to make a

[11:34] difference. So there's an element ofyes, you shouldn't just like go fromlike the the lottery ticket stuff thatto go from like oh I want to make it all

[11:45] right now. However,it's missing the steps that actually getyou to like win five to eight and thenbe able to withdraw or go three to eightand then withdraw it. Like there's

[11:57] layers in there that again, it's onlyone tweet, but you're not going to beable if you're if you're a losing betteror your your betting strategy is not

[12:07] winning. Just saying like, "Okay, I'mgoing to try and like win slowly andthen do it." Not going to changeanything. You have to be able to win to

[12:16] to even like make this a fact at all.>> Yeah. U with you on that one. Let's getPorter's thoughts on this this set ofadvice.>> Yeah. I mean, that's pretty much spoton. This kind of reminds me though a

[12:28] little bit of this guy's watched a lotof like old ladies at the slot machinewhere they'll like hit a hundred bucks.They'll take it out and then they'll belike, "All right, now I'll just play20." And they're like, "All right, Imade like $6. Let me take the $6 out."

[12:41] But eventually the strategy almostalways has you putting it all back in.Also like Nish said like you first haveto have like a winning strategy to likebankroll won't fix winning or losing.

[12:53] Bankroll might keep you in the gamewhich might be worse by the way longerto lose you know waste your time. Butyou can't like solve your problems bybankroll management. But I think thisguy just watched like some people on theslot machine taking out their winnings

[13:05] and thought you could somehow apply thisto sports betting. It doesn't apply forslots either, by the way.>> And and China, how about your thoughts?>> Yeah. So, like slowly winning like 3 to

[13:16] 5K, that implies that you already knowhow to win, which not everybody does.So, the bottom line is I think this guyis implying like you make mistakesdusting your bankroll if you do that. I

[13:28] mean, you're just not cut out for this.So, you know, the key to moving yourbankroll to like new heights is justtaking calculated risks on plus EV bets.So, like Porter said with the ladyputting the money in and out of the slotmachine. I have a friend that does this.

[13:41] He goes to the casino and he thinks hehas an edge because he just hits andruns blackjack, but almost inevitablyhe's going to go on a bad run and he'sjust going to wind up feeding it allback. So, the bottom line is you just

[13:52] want to be betting the max to where youwon't bust yourself and just let themoney pile up as you're betting on plusEV stuff. I I just don't understand thethe message here, which is like buildyour bankroll, but like you're taking

[14:05] money out. If like like you guys said,if you're turning 5K into 8K, you youand it's not just like one lucky win,for example, you know, you'veestablished you can win, you should beincreasing your unit size. That's howyou actually properly build your

[14:19] bankroll. If you want to build yourbankroll, you need to keep that money inthose accounts. Now, you have to behonest with yourself and you have toestablish like, yes, am I a winningbetter? If that's the case and you'reable to do things like turn 5K into 8K

[14:30] like we saw there over time,you should probably keep that in there.That's the proper way to build yourbankroll. I I just see it verycounterintuitive to take the money outof your account if you actually like

[14:41] want to avoid, you know, making mistakesand and going bust. Like your unit sizeis a percentage of that bankroll. So ifyou start to lose money, well, the unitsize decreases. That's how you avoidgoing bust. So,

[14:54] >> I'm going to I'm going to make a wildguess here. Yeah, I'm going to make awild guess here that he has experiencedsomething like this before where hethought he had an edge and he thoughthis error in ways was the bankroll

[15:06] management that could fix it when it'sprobably not. And I'm just saying thatcuz I've kind of heard this story beforefrom others who win for a period of timeand then don't really understand whythey lost and then have to put a story

[15:18] together to themselves. I don't mean topublic of why things didn't work out. Sothey create, oh, I didn't have properbankroll management or a little bit of adream of like, man, I wish I put aside alittle bit of money so I could use themoney for something else. So, it kind of

[15:30] reminds me of other stories that I'veheard before. Well said.>> I didn't exactly look into this guy'sprofile, but would he happen to beselling anything?

[15:40] >> Uh, let's let me have a look.>> I love how we do the research live. Imean, he had pile he had a picture withlike a hundred $200,000 sitting there

[15:51] and saying, you know, you just take out35k at a time.>> Yeah. He's selling a uh it's a pigselling service.>> Shocking.>> Yeah. All right. There. There it is. Um

[16:03] we'll get back to more betting advice injust a second here. My advice to youthough is to check out the other contentwe have at the Hammer Betting Network.Uh let's hear more on that now. Alreadymissing out on the college footballseason? Then look no further. The Hit

[16:16] the Books team of Joey Kesh and BradPowers are back giving you some morecontent on the channel. In the nextweek, we'll have four videos coming outto satisfy that appetite for NCAAfootball. To make sure you don't missout on the videos, make sure you

[16:28] subscribe to our college footballdivision, the Hit the Books channel. Thelink is in the description to go andcheck out that channel right now. Thirdset of advice, we're once againrevisiting Raheem Palmer at I am

[16:39] Rastradamus. Uh, my thoughts on CLV,it's simply the most sustainable way ofgetting an edge and winning long term.There's a reason sports books limitpeople who beat the closing line. Thatsaid, although I can beat the closing

[16:51] line consistently if I want to, I'vepersonally been very successful bettingright before game time because I'm abetter handicapper if you give me themaximum amount of time and informationto process and make a decision. Sports

[17:03] betting is a multiplayer game. You'renot playing against the bookmakers.You're playing against the entiremarket. Thus, I can capitalize on spotswhere I think Sharps and the public arewrong or I have a different opinion.Here's two scenarios from this week

[17:14] alone. Sunday, Sharks/Public bet theSpurs up to minus1 on the road. My modelmakes the Knicks minus 1.8. I take theKnicks at almost even money right beforetip off. Monday, Sharps/Public bet

[17:26] Pistons up to minus 2 and a half as roadfavorites. I bet Cavs plus 2 and 1/2right before the game time because Istrongly disagree with the market.Ultimately, there are times when it'sbeneficial to bet early and there aretimes when it's beneficial to bet late.It's just about timing the market

[17:40] according to the game you're playing. Ifyou follow my NFL best bets on theRinger Sunday NFL pregame show the lastfew years, I've consistently had awinning record essentially betting intoclosing NFL lines every Sunday. So, that

[17:51] should tell you there's more than oneway to be successful doing this. Um,let's start with China on this topichere. Do you agree with what he's sayingor do you have disagreements here? Uh, Imean, he said one thing that was pretty

[18:04] good, but like in the grand scheme ofthings, like a three-year sample in theNFL isn't much. Like, I get that in oneday betting, a three-year sample in theNFL. I get that in a in in a week, youget that sample just betting every

[18:17] single day. So, that sample size isnothing. Um, if you do get CLV, you willwin over a large sample size. I thinkeverybody agrees on that. Whether hewins or not at post, I have no idea. But

[18:29] I will say, you know, beating the marketat post is extremely difficult. And thepeople who do beat markets at post,they're not taking time to process and

[18:39] figure things out. They have the answersand they're just hoping that that stuffhangs around long enough so they can betbig enough at post. So, I don't know.

[18:49] They It's just um I don't know. It seemslike a lot of hokeyp pokey um BS in hereto me.How about you, Porter? Uh, what's yourtake on this?>> So, I feel like we're going through

[19:01] these slides and like maybe each one isgetting a little bit more knowledgeable,like we're going up the scale, but we'restill only at like 50% of the way there.So, obviously, actually, I've always had

[19:13] a hard time explaining that's a prettynice succinct way to write his likebasic thoughts on CLV. Uh, whether thisguy wins that post, I have no idea. Iwould not recommend most people do that.

[19:26] and it kind of turned into anadvertisement at the end of the message.But I do think there's like some decentthought process in here. I don't know ifI wouldn't recommend the audience try to

[19:38] win, you know, post, especially NFLpost. Um, but in general, like the theme

[19:44] here is correct is like the final answerreally he wins and this can work out.Not for 99.9% of people.

[19:56] >> Okay. And how about you, Kenishh?>> Jacob, put the put the slide back on thescreen here because here I'm I'm I'mgonna help Raheem out. If you delete outthe second paragraph and the lastparagraph, this is a great tweak. like

[20:09] this is a great alt that's all he had todo was just axe that second paragraphwhich I can beat the closing line if Iwant to and the and maximum amount oftime and then axe the the promo where I

[20:20] beat that and and like I could be likeoh yeah good point he nailed it. Did Ineed, you know, the 8 thou 8 millionthuh, you know, CLV argument, you know,

[20:30] discussion here? No, probably not. Buthe he had it if he just the the I'm abetter handicapper if you give me themax amount of time and information likethere's no

[20:43] difference assuming like you let's sayyou've got an NBA game and you get thefinal reports at whatever time and likethere's no difference in let's say at

[20:54] 3:00 and if the game's going to tip offat 7:00 and you know who's playing forboth sides that four hours of an likethere's zero zero difference in what youknew between three and seven or what

[21:07] your model's going to show between threeand seven and who's going to play. Theonly difference is like final liquidityand the people that are waiting until

[21:16] that 658 or 659 are at the absolute veryvery very top of the food chain. Um andthose aren't people you want to betagainst and for the most part for for

[21:27] 99.999%of people. So I think Raheem just he gotyou know he's probably you know keeptyping this and it seems like also thathe put this into like a chat GPT orsomething the way it's laid out. So Ithink he was feeling himself. He got a

[21:39] little bit too high high on his ownsupply there. High horse and if he wouldhave just taken out those two paragraphsit would have been a nice run but um hehe dipped his toe a little bit too much

[21:50] into the the I can beat you know NFL atpost waters.>> Yeah. So in that second paragraph thatyou mentioned, he says, uh, if you giveme I'm better handicapper. If you give

[22:02] me the maximum amount of time andinformation to process and make adecision. Guess who else is much betterat pricing things when you give them themaximum amount of time and informationto process and make a decision? The

[22:14] sports book. The limits go up at thesepoints. if if if he's genuinelyconfident he's beating these major

[22:21] markets, NBA sides or NFL sides at post,there are massive limits to takeadvantage of there. So, yeah, I I Iguess, you know, if you do trim that

[22:34] away, it does look a little bit betterbecause sure,CLV is a is a phenomenal indicator of ofsuccess. that is the you know the thethe the true way of of determining

[22:45] successful better as he mentions alittle bit in the first paragraph but II don't think this is a viable strategyuh and and going on China's point with asample size over an over extreme long

[22:57] term I'd be a little surprised if therewas if there was a lot of success hereso I think a lot of these posts areactually really interesting they giveyou glimpses of what people who are kindof in the content space a little bit in

[23:09] the betting space kind of their mindsetsand it kind of shows you almost howdangerous it is and almost probably whyit's addictive to a lot of people tolike stay in the game because they feellike they're on the cusp of

[23:21] understanding and someone who's sharpeven sees that there is someknowledge they're they are expressingsome knowledge of value but then there's

[23:30] so much else in there that's kind oflet's just say for what it wrong thatlike it's almost it's dangerous for thepublic to consume this Because at facevalue, if you really know nothing, it

[23:43] doesn't sound that bad. The problem iswhen you're going 50% away of thisindustry and the way that difficultythat it is to win, especially in largemarkets, you can't just have 50% of theknowledge. And having 50% of this

[23:55] knowledge is probably more dangerousthan not having any at all. I I justthink there's good seeds of informationin here, but maybe like a bit of like K,a bit of overconfidence in some otherareas of it as well. up. That'll get us

[24:08] into the next topic on the show, whichcomes from Joe Weisenthal, who said,"Huh, big whiff here." And it was a aprediction market graph of the odds on

[24:20] the Texas Republican Senate primaryfirst round winner. So right near themarket close, John Cornin was around 10%

[24:30] then all the way vaulted up to 98% asthe eventual winner ahead of uh Ibelieve it was Ken Paxton who went fromthis very very large favorite and ended

[24:40] up losing. So he says big whiff here.One of the replies from uh at 80 highsays, "Joe, don't make me tap to sign."And it says, "Events with a 10%

[24:51] probability tend to happen 10% of thetime." So, how do we feel about this?Becauselarge amount of the people in thismarket, and there's not a ton of volumehere, but a large percentage of people

[25:04] in this market thought felt like it wasgoing to go towards Ken Pax and then itdidn't. So, that it didn't, excuse me.So, who's right here? like do we need toacknowledge sometimes these unlikelythings happened or was it a big whiff

[25:17] from the betterers ridgely? Let's go toPorter first of all.>> Yeah. So, actually super interestingthat this market came up today cuz Ifollow some Twitter guys and they werecommenting about this two days ago. Whyis Ken Paxton so high? So, I feel like

[25:30] somebody must have made quite a bit ofmoney. I mean, whatever the volume ishere.>> Well, so the volume uh is 62,000 here.>> Yeah. So, there were a few peopletweeting on Twitter about this thistopic that Ken Paxton shouldn't be so

[25:41] high, but yeah, I mean, I always usethis that statement I think is reallyspot on. Like a 90% event loses 10% ofthe time. I think when you have a lot ofuh skills that cross other gambling

[25:52] ventures like being an AP or playingpoker, you have a better ability tounderstand what odds actually meanbecause it's super common in poker tocome up with spots where you're like8020 and and yeah, you you lost 20% of

[26:05] the time. I think it's a lot of thislike broken taillight syndrome wherelike, oh, I see the broken tail lightall the time. It's broken. It's broken.When really it's not. You're justfocusing on that event when it happens.And it's the same thing here. when a 10%

[26:17] event happens, you know, one out of 10times, like it's not that common. So,when it happens, you really lock in onit. And that's a perfect example ofwhat's going on here. It's just verylike now, I'm not saying that that you

[26:30] know, Cali or wherever this was bet isis 100% accurate at close, but they'restill like indicatively pretty close, myguess is in the right direction. Though,again, I I did see some like smart

[26:42] people say that they felt this marketwas totally off. Yeah, you liken it topoker. Like you even go to like a sportsperspective where yes, sometimes a teamhas a 90% chance to win is not going to

[26:53] win. March Madness is coming up soon. Wemay see examples of that there. So itit's just in markets like this. I thinkit's tough for some people maybe not asfamiliar in the prediction market. Ithink it's tough for them to to

[27:05] understand it when they see 90%. And Ithink even a lot of recreationalbatters, super square recreationalbatters will see like a team has a 90%chance to win. They go there's nopossible way they lose. But of coursethere is that chance of it happening. UhKenesh, go over to you next. Give us

[27:19] your take on this.>> Yeah, I mean I was going to have youpull the slide again cuz I don't 62,000in volume to me seems like uh I I I Imean if I'm looking at a market and I

[27:29] only see 62K traded, I'm not going tohave like the full fate of like, okay,we've gotten a lot of, you know, likethis has been like absolutely traded,you know, through the ground where I'mhaving a lot of confidence in that

[27:41] number. The other thing would be, andthis is more of a macro point, and Idon't know, I can't even like formulateit in my head. It feels like United

[27:51] States politics on a smaller level likethis where we're talking like a aprimary runoff, e even going up, you

[28:01] know, a few levels. the unpredictabilityof the American voter right now I I Ithink has just made these where like

[28:11] it's almost like a distrust in pollingin general has kind of led to a factwhere I think you get a little bit moreI how can I put it in this way I don't

[28:22] know if theAmerican political climate like breedsitself to like hyper efficiency in termsof like predicting markets because

[28:34] you've seen you just see in a lot ofareasuh like constant swings now betweenvoter demographics between like overall

[28:45] I I don't know I would say it's a maybejust and I haven't worn this out as veryanecdotal like an opportunity out therefor people that are grinding politics uh

[28:56] that it is definitely not a solvedmarket in a lot of cases around thecountry especially when you get down tothese lower levels where in both Texas

[29:06] races here, the the longer term favoritelost in both the Republican and theDemocratic, you know, barriers. So, andI think you you get that across a lot of

[29:16] races where it now seems like as peoplejust demographics change, people'sopinion change, it just flips on kind ofmore of a a notion than than I don'tknow, I guess what I'm recalling. Again,

[29:27] not a lot of data to back that there.Um, but it feels like something likeopportunistic if you're if you're reallygrinding the political realm.>> I I think prediction markets are reallygood sources of information for news and

[29:40] especially like in politics. But as youmentioned the volume here, I wouldn'tsee that and be like, oh, like this mustbe close to a lot, 90%. We're talkinglike, you know, hundreds of thousandsgetting towards a million. Now I'm like,

[29:51] okay, I'm quite confident this isaccurately priced, but maybe not quitethere with that volume. Uh, finally overto China on this one. What do you think?>> Yeah, in these type of markets, if likeany type of information gets out there

[30:03] that's bad, they're they're liable torun the wrong way as well. Uh somethinglike this happened in the Super Bowl, Igot a few DMs like, "Hey, Travis Scott'sat the game. I talked to so he's goingto he's going to perform. He's going to

[30:15] perform this and that." And then I talkto somebody super sharp that comes backand says, "Hey, there's no way this guyis performing unless he's a headliner."So like, I think the wrong informationcan get out there. a market can run and

[30:28] yeah like you know this happens in pokerall the time. You could be a 98%favorite on the flop and lose to arunner runner straight flush. It's justwhat happens in gambling. And I think toecho what Porter said it's the same

[30:40] thing. You see the broken tail light youjust remember the broken tail light. But>> you know the so many events this isgoing to happen once in a while.>> I want to add a semih hot take to this.

[30:51] So let's just pretend there was a ton ofliquidity. uh when a market is live, Iactually believe at every single momentlike let's say the liquidity was reallywas really high. I believe at every

[31:02] single moment the market is pretty closeor effectively correct. So it didn't gofrom 9010 to 0 uh 98. There was a momentwhere it went from 90 to 89, from 89 to

[31:14] 88. Now sometimes those percentages movetoo fast for the human eye becausethere's a bots firing off. But I wouldargue that at every one of thosemoments, the odds were relativelycorrect. It's just sometimes those

[31:27] moments, you know, you could have a 40%40 cent drop in one second. But withinthat 1 second, as the odds change, theywere correct for that moment. So I don'tknow if that's a hot take, but my ideais like every moment as the odd is odds

[31:40] are changing, it is correct. It's justsometimes that moment is very condensed.>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, compare it to likeNBA team down by 20 as they're makingthe comeback. Maybe it's a bit slowerthan in in a case like this, but as a

[31:53] team is coming back, the odds arechanging. Every basket, every point thatthey're making up on the opposition, theodds are are are slowly changing at thatdirection. So, I I definitely see yourpoint on on that one there. Uh we'reabout to get into our next topic, but if

[32:06] you want to get involved with marketsjust like that, you can head over to ourpresenting sponsor here on circles offthe channel. Go to head over to Koshi.We have the link in the description boxbelow. You can get involved with Kouchi,get involved with prediction markets,

[32:18] and find unique markets like this thatyou won't find everywhere in the bettinglandscape. Now, we're going to head intothe comment from the previous week'sshow to get your take on things, getyour perspective on things, and see if

[32:30] you can give us a new perspective attime. So, the leadoff of the previousshow we did was the minus 10,000 debaclethat occurred at DraftKings where every

[32:38] golfer was priced at minus 10,000 and itwas priced so so that anyone who hadbeen on the tournament could cash out onany of the futures or any of theoutrights that they had. We learned a

[32:50] few things about this after we recordedthe show. First, first of all, at thecommission 1976 says what it reallyhappened was the odds provider forDraftKings was doing price adjustmentsand made a change that they messed up on

[33:03] and it caused an error for all of theparticipants to move a decimal price toa decimal price of 1.01.The trader should have suspended themarkets before doing that essentially ona non-playing tournament day. Someone at

[33:15] DK should have caught it quickly, but itseemed like it was up for a while,especially when someone has time to takea picture and tweet it. And a lot ofpeople were able to take advantage ofthis and get their cash outs in. So, itwas up for a significant amount of time.

[33:27] But Jeff O'Reilly added here in in thecomments, DK locked the accounts forabout 24 hours and then reopened themall with money intact. They only got hitwith some limits didn't get a full limit

[33:38] hammer. So, I I said I said on lastweek's show, anybody who got the moneyout, congratulations to you. But,DraftKings, to my surprise, just let itbe. Whoever took the cash out, they gottheir money. Maybe some limits were

[33:51] involved, but the people who had themoney in their account were able toallow it to see the light of day. Kesh,first of all, you um any take on this?Was that surprising to you that

[34:00] DraftKings allowed the people to cashout? Yeah, my my theory would be thatthey didn't get hit that hard becausethere was a, you know, a DraftKingsthing we talked about, you know, about a

[34:12] month ago where there was the the playerprop mistake on their pick six thingwhich I think they got absolutelyhammered on and then were, you know,like doing whatever they could to

[34:23] eliminate. The fact that they did itthis way now a month later makes methink because if you think about it, youwould have already had to have a betearly. I think this happened on a

[34:35] Monday, right? So early, you would havealready had to have your bet in for theweek for the golf tournament that'scoming up. and then you would have hadto like put two and two together and

[34:45] catch this that you could go in and cashit out and especially and it really likeis beneficial for the guys that werebetting you know the the 5,0001 thattype of thing. So my thought is that

[34:58] they didn't get absolutely crushed onthis so they just kind of let it go. Um,and that was figuring like, okay, we'llinstead of trying to do what we didn't

[35:09] take the whole like the PR, I'm notgoing to call it a win, but instead ofdoing what happened with the uh the picksix thing, they just kind of let it fly.>> Okay. Uh, Porter, we had you on last. We

[35:21] talked about this. So, with this newinformation, any update to reaction onthings?>> Yeah, it's weird to me because actuallythey didn't get that much publicity onthis. So, they didn't even I don'treally think they even capitalized on

[35:32] the PR. Maybe I don't have a great Idon't have a great take on this. Youknow, we joke that DK does a lot ofthings wrong. Maybe they did somethingwrong that was good for the players one

[35:42] time.>> Yeah, good point. Um, it's probably liketwo sides to it. On one hand, they couldhave been like, you know, we made amistake, but every better who cashed outgot their money and got paid. But also,

[35:54] that would be acknowledging the verylarge mistake that they made with this.But like I feel like acknowledging thatis fine for bettererss to accept like itit's beneficial to the better. So Ididn't think about it from a marketingperspective. They probably could have

[36:06] taken that angle there and turned thisloss of money into basically marketingspend. Uh China, we didn't have you onlast week, but your take on the minus10,000 thing that happened or any of thecomments we saw here.

[36:17] >> I'm kind of with Kesh on this. I meanthey just probably didn't get hit thathard. knowing DraftKings if if they didget hit pretty hard then they would theywould have probably reversed everythingand you know there'd be all kinds of

[36:30] chaos going on about this. So I don'tknow they probably nuked some accountsand you know that's it. Uh I'm happy foranyone that got the money out.>> Okay, good good stuff on that commentthere. Those two comments, thank you for

[36:41] the additional information. Secondcomment comes from uh Delhi2313says, "One hilarious point missed here.The guy who bet $5 at 5,000 to1 to win

[36:52] 25K draw got just under 22k cash onsomething priced at over 99% winprobability tells you something aboutthe old cash out offers. I didn'tconsider this element too, but yes, wedid showcase some screenshots where the

[37:05] betters, sorry, the golfers were atminus 10,000 and in that case, uh,extraordinarily likely to win based onthat price, even though we know, ofcourse, it was a mistake, but the cashout wasn't really that close to, you

[37:17] know, the full amount. So, uh, maybe anexample of cash outs, the predatorynature of cash outs at times. Um, China,we'll go first with you on this one.What do you think on that?Honestly, I got nothing to add to this

[37:31] one.>> Okay. Uh, Porter, how about yourself?>> Yeah, it's a nice it's a nice find bythe guy. You know, this is kind of aslap in the face of all the touts thatdon't know what they're talking aboutand start mentioning stuff about cashing

[37:43] out, betting two slips, cashing one out,all this like nonsense. This basicallyties that up very nicely into why thatisn't a great idea.>> Kesh, anything to add before we go tothe final comment? Yeah, I mean we've

[37:55] talked cash up. It is not the way to Imean this was one of the rare scenarioswhere cashing out was a great idea.Yeah. When your 5,0001 goes to minus

[38:04] a,000. Yes. Cash her out. Um but usuallyI mean I've said the only time where Iwould utilize it's information. It'seither a mistake like this or

[38:14] information where you know if you gotlike a a player future to an MVP and yousee you know the the Shams noty pop upthat he tore his ACL and you can run inthere and cash it out for whatever you

[38:26] can then that that's one of the rarescenarios that I think it works but inmost cases yeah cash out uh is not agreat idea for the better. And finalcomment comes from Kyle Karns. He had a

[38:37] couple of possible topics. I preferredthe first one so I featured it here. Hesays, "If a tout sells on a pig sellingplatform, are they vouching for thelegitimacy of everybody else on that

[38:49] platform?" I will start with China onthis one. Uh, probably the most anti-tperson on this panel, I'd say. Not tosay that the others are not anti-tout,but like do you feel like this is the

[39:01] case? Like, what if somebody that yourespect as a sports better for onereason or another decides to startselling on Dub?Yeah, I mean if somebody that I like if

[39:12] Porter started to sell on a dub clubthen yeah whatever. I mean what whatwhat is the actual question? Do do does>> does does so let's say in that example

[39:22] if Porter starts selling on Dub does heprovide legitimacy to Dub as a platform?>> 100% no. And but if he did, he wouldprobably start backing all the other

[39:34] guys there. But yeah, they definitelywould not provide legitimacy for it. Noway.>> You know, I don't often see like dubclub cappers going like at each other.Um maybe I just am not privy to it and

[39:46] maybe it does exist, but uh you'reright. They typically try to big eachother up essentially. Uh Kesha, I'll goto you second on this one. What's yourwhat are your thoughts? Yeah, it's funny

[39:55] cuz you the way you said that like thethe actual touts that I have in like Ithought they would win. I thought theywould v are almost always

[40:08] a solo like a sole proprietorship orlike a solo operation. I can't think ofmany scenarios where there's beensomeone who I would say like oh thatperson wins and they've been part of

[40:19] like a conglomerate like a dub club or a[ __ ] It's almost like this model starteven going back to like you know like apregame or one of those. It was usually

[40:28] kind of like a a way for the company toif you got now like okay you got 50touts well 40 of them might be losing

[40:39] but 10 of them are probably on some typeof actual like short-term hot streak.So, it's like I can always go to like,you know, the next guy who's had ashort-term winning record, which but at

[40:50] the same time, like would that if youhad one, you know, like I I mean, I'llgive it to like Hitman who works for thenetwork now, who I think is a very goodbetter. He was part of uh I think it was

[41:01] pregame for for a while. So, would Ihave expected him to then vouch for thelegitimacy of like the other 30 peoplethat worked then? No, because like most

[41:12] of them are losers. So, like, no, I Ithink it's a little unfair forthe the solo person to that, but at thesame time, I've never It's a very rare

[41:23] find to find somebody that worked forthese that's an actual legitimate personwho I think could then like go out ontheir own and have success. And Porter,finally, over to you.>> Well, hearing the hitman story thatKenish just said, I guess I could go

[41:36] sell there and still be invited on theshow. So, that's that's one that's onegood sign. Uh, I actually feel like it'sshould kind of be the reverse. Thecompanies that put on these touts

[41:48] technically shouldvouch for them or have liability forthem, but obviously we don't see it thatever occurring. So, I think just for theviewers, it's just very important to

[41:59] note both from both ends, the owners ofthe platform and the sellers on theplatform, they're looking to make abuck. They're not out there to protectyou. So in general,at least for now, I'm not going to be on

[42:13] Dub Club.>> Yeah. So, so to answer my my take on thequestion here, I I don't think somebodygoing to that platform is vouching forthe legitimacy of everybody else there.

[42:23] I I think we often times like lumppeople together on the platform. Butperhaps maybe we should maybe we shoulddissect it more as as individuals withinthe app. However, you know, you do

[42:34] question if somebody is selling on theplatform,you have to question why are they notjust betting these things themselves.So, if it is somebody I respect, I'dhave to find the reasonings why that is

[42:45] the case. But there are uh certainoutliers to the pixelling debate forsure. We're get more on pixelling alittle bit later on in the show. Uh butbefore we get into our next topic,comments are a great way to continue the

[42:58] conversation with us. So, make sure youcomment something down below. If youhave a reaction, you have a take,something that you want us to talkabout, leave it in the comment sectiondown below. We always check all of thecomments and give some great littletidbits for us to talk about on next

[43:11] week's show, and it can help extend theconversation. But if you want to extendthe conversation even further, you canhead over to the Discord we have at thehammer. Let's hear more about that. Ifyou're not in the Discord yet, you are

[43:22] missing out. We have nearly 1,800members and it is absolutely cooking.It's a great place to chat during games.Our creators are sharing banger bets andso is our Hammer audience. Join us atdiscord.gg/hammer

[43:35] and see what you've been missing out on.The link is in the description to jointoday. But let's get back to the show.Up next, we have Fanatics Sportsbook

[43:43] posting a would you rather 15k cash or15k bonus bet on the Thunder to win theNBA finals at plus135. China. Uh, which one would you

[43:56] rather?>> Give me the 15,000. Um, 100 times out of100. Like, I would rather chew glassthan have a piece of any future that'sanywhere close to the price that they're

[44:09] going to give me. I don't care how much.If I have to give up a little bit of EV,I give up the EV. Just give me the cash.>> Okay.Uh, let's go to Kesh. I have a strongtake on this one. Let's see everyone.

[44:21] This I agree with you. Like this isstill I [ __ ] fanatics drives me insane.Like all around the company itself likeevery facet of it drives me insane. Ththis would be a interesting question if

[44:32] you made it like Thunder plus 500. Youknow what I'm saying? Or plus 800 orplus like a 10 to one or something whereyou're getting like a a nice payoutthere but you're but you have to hold

[44:44] the you're not getting the cash inpocket at plus 135. This is not eventhis is not even a cool. What are youtalking about? Like, okay, if you'regoing to give me some great odds, thenokay, we got we got like an actual

[44:55] debate, but no, this is like anyrational person takes the cash here.Okay. Okay. Tell me if I'm missingsomething. This is very obviously take

[45:03] the cat. Would you rather 15k or a betthat if it wins, you get 20k? That's thepayout. You don't get the return on the

[45:12] stake. I can just bet 15 [ __ ] K onthe Thunder at plus 135 and get $35,000if it wins instead of 20K. Like, likewhat are they even asking here? Yeah, if

[45:24] it's plus 500, now we're talking about amuch larger uh a much larger a muchlarger payout. But like still, I'drather have the cash. And if I want tobet the plus larger, I can with that

[45:34] cash and I can still have the cash andthe winnings of the bet. Like whothought of this question? like you canjust bet the cash on it. Would I rather

[45:45] have bonus bet or actual physical money?I'm gonna take the money and bet withit. Um Porter, uh give us your your takeon it.>> Right. So, I'm going to assume that at

[45:56] Fanatics, they don't really know howsports penning works and they meant>> it's some intern who posted this.>> They meant to write what you just said,I think, so that you would get the 15K

[46:07] back. Otherwise, this is literallyabsurd. But a fun little uh thing onthis, this is a moment where you can,and we talked about this last week,where you can use AI chat GBT and type

[46:19] out a question and get the answer. Now,assuming it's the way that you know, Ithink they intended where, you know, youget 15 back, not as a bonus bet. You canliterally just type this into chat GBT.

[46:32] And I recommend people do this all thetime. You just put in the free rate,whatever the bond is, two month, threemonth, and you can, this is the way touse chat GBT where you're just writingthings. This is a great example of where

[46:44] you can just plug something in. Youdon't need to use claude. You don't needto use formulas. So, I think it ties inbeautifully with last week's segment onthat where you literally can just plugthis into chat GBT, write this question

[46:55] out, and it tells you your exact rate.Now, again, this is totally insanequestion cuz I don't think I don't thinkthey meant it like this. I think. Butwho knows what the interns know overthere.>> Well, like even if Okay, let's take itlike the way you're saying like let's

[47:08] say it wasn't a bonus. Would you ratherhave a 15k ticket on the Thunder? Likeyou could just also have the cash andthen decide to make that bet if youwanted to. I I I I can't see any

[47:19] >> They're trying to say that the plus 135is like a good price. And they're Ithink they're trying to say that it's a15K. You could take the cash cuzotherwise or maybe this is their

[47:30] customer. Maybe think this is close.>> Like the the way it would have to beframed is would you rather have just 15kor would you rather have the 20k if thethunder win? But it's not accounting

[47:43] that I can just make this wager with themoney that you're giving me. I I okay II can now based after you explain I cansee what they were trying to say. Wouldyou rather have the chance at 20K or

[47:55] have 15K right now? But uh a lack ofunderstanding of sports books and howthey work from a sportsbooks directaccount is uh how we've led to thispredicate.>> Maybe may maybe they really just know

[48:06] their customer really really well.>> Yeah. You know, I actually should havecombed through the replies a little bitmore to see if uh to see if there was alot of people like, "Oh, I can I candefinitely take the try and get the

[48:19] 20ks." I looked through the a little bitof the comments and they're all kind oflike on the same point like this isreally stupid. Uh but yeah, there's somepeople like, "Oh, this is the freest

[48:29] money on the Thunder." So, um yeah,okay, maybe comments are worse than Ithought. I'd bet like 50% of theirpeople that have an active fanaticsaccount in their own name would take the

[48:41] plus 135.>> Yeah. Well, there's a people are sayingthe 15k, but like cuz the Thunder havebeen bad recently or like why risk it?

[48:52] Likeyeah, this is a this is a sad this is asad conversation unfortunately. H it'sit's so obvious to take the cash in thisscenario. Please. Uh, hey, if you

[49:05] disagree, I'd love to hear your thoughtsin the comment section down below. Uh,two more to talk about on the showtoday. Uh, before we get to those two,let's learn about a brand new toolthat's hitting the market that you canadd to your betting arsenal. If you're a

[49:17] better building your own models andyou're not watching Khi and the rest ofthe market in one unified feed, you'reprobably missing edges. Prediction dataaggregates and normalizes data from KImajor prediction markets and sports

[49:30] books into a single API built for backtesting and live trading. You get liveprices and historical data in one cleanschema with no data engineeringheadache. If you want a trial key,you'll need to book a quick demo. Click

[49:42] the link in the description or scan theQR code to get your trial key. So, theselast two topics are kind of goingtogether a little bit here. It's uh Isaid we're going to talk a little bitmore about touts and we have the first

[49:53] one here that comes from Eddie uh atWalls Edwards. I'm so bored withanti-Town sentiment from shows broughtto you by Cali DK and FanDuel. So uh

[50:04] direct shot at us, not direct shot,indirect shot at us there. Uh it's beenthe same damn curriculum since 2006.Either put the content out for free withno sponsors, no referral packages, no

[50:14] kickbacks, or it's pot/meats kettle withno high horse. I'm not against touts,and yes, I know most touts are awful.But if you're trying to convince me thatyou're against profiting off of betters,

[50:25] you're doing arguably more damage byoffering nothing actionable and justsaying go gamble your brains out ontoday's show, today's sponsor of theshow. Um,

[50:37] obviously I'll have push back on this,but let's start with Porter on this one.>> Yeah. So I think we've continued ourclimb this episode of you know toutsbetterers who know more and more and hit

[50:48] like for sure on this episode kind oftowards the top end of people who kindof know what who know what they'retalking about. I I think sometimes weall kind of get trapped in our bubble of

[50:58] how we make money. And I think I'veheard I've heard Spanky on episodes ofhis where, you know, you sort of I don'tknow if it's show respect, but maybe you

[51:09] can learn something from hearing otherlegitimate people's perspective of howthey earn that also feel like they'reproviding value for their customers. Solike there are extreme levels of this

[51:22] where we started at the beginning withpeople who don't really know whatthey're talking about and got into anend where people do know what they'retalking about and I feel like they dohave a right to defend how they earn if

[51:33] how they earn in theory is supposed tomake customers money.>> And next we will go to Kesh on this one.How do you feel about what said what's

[51:44] said here? I mean, this is Eddie and Ihave had a little chirping over theyears, but like this is the old like Iwant to defend my business model, which

[51:54] is touting so I can like I'm going tolike, you know, kind of mold and shiftit and then be able to like, you know,throw it back at people who are doing

[52:05] something not like touting whatsoever,but it can like I can make the argumentthat like, oh, it's just as bad. Um,Listen, I I don't think putting out

[52:17] content also like a lot of likeeducational and informative content justbecause it's sponsored by a book doesnot indicate like hey just go gamble

[52:28] your brains out on today's sponsor ofthe show. Um I again I think this is avery much a false equivalency betweentouting and content.

[52:39] >> Uh yep definitely agree on parts there.Uh China anything to add? Yeah, prettythese guys hit the nail on the head. Imean, touting is just the worst. 99.9%of these guys are just going to take

[52:51] your money and drag you through the mudslowly and you're just going to keeppaying them and paying them and payingthem and paying them. So, I don't know.Not much to add here. Just doubts arebad.>> Yeah, that's it.

[53:02] >> I I I find it we I just find this thisconversation weird because there are alot of shows like I think this one thatthere's never an advocation for gogamble your brains at a Today's Showsponsor. A lot of the content that we do

[53:14] here is educational and the theanti-touchout sentiment that you getoftent time from this show and you justgot from China there is is on like theselikeif these people were successful sports

[53:26] betterers like you have to question whythey would not just be betting thesethings themselves why they have to go toclients why they have to go to customersto to get profitability out of the

[53:37] industry. Um it's just educationalcontent from our perspectiveand we feel strongly often most of thetime 99.9% of the time against touts.But the last topic on the show is

[53:50] staying Oh, sorry. You have something tooffer there? Yeah, I was going to saywithout circles off or bet the processor Spanky's podcast, like the amount ofstuff that I've learned from listening

[54:02] to these podcasts in just listening toother people talk, like Porter alludedto, it's absolutely invaluable to whereyou can take your betting and what level

[54:14] you can take it to. It's just it's it'snight and day. The two two things thathe's talking about.>> That's a that that's a great point. likea legitimately great I agree with youwhere not only and I'm not just gassing

[54:26] a bar like podcasts I've listened toover the years that have taught you likemethodologies different ways to windifferent like other is so much more

[54:35] than you would ever get from following atout even a winning tout service. Um soyeah I'm I'm with you there 100%. Therethere there are episodes out there, this

[54:47] podcast, other podcasts where I havelistened to before and I'm justliterally sitting there like stop and itis amazing to me that not enough peopleare finding those resources where I I

[55:00] I've actually heard not too long ago anepisode where I believe he gave out theentire formula of how to win app props.It was crazy and the viewership was kindof low and I was just like this iscrazy. What's going on? So for the users

[55:11] out there that are trying to learn,there is great content circles backcircles off. There is great content outthere to actually become a better sportsbetter that has nothing to do with just

[55:23] hey get behind a computer model. Thereare so many other components where youneed to be thinking like lucidly,clearly, creatively and putting it alltogether and these kind of shows helpyou do that.

[55:36] >> Well said.>> One more thing. The other thing is thatand the reason why people aren't goingto take the time or not not everybodybut most people just want the answersfast and they just want the answersgiving to them and they don't want to

[55:48] put in the work but if you put in thework you'll get the results. Go find thegood stuff.>> Yeah. Last topic. Same kind of deal withuh touts and the predatory nature

[56:00] sometimes that we see with touts uh anda platform like Dub. Dubco is propromoting at Chile Bets who might soundfamiliar from some of the coverage we'vedone on the show. Uh they were promoting

[56:12] him. They were saying, you know, sign upto to get his picks. And Kirby pointsout something that we mentioned on theshow previously. Dub Club promoting aknown scammer is all I need to knowabout their platform cuz and Foszenreplied and said this is the guy that

[56:23] got exposed for editing 9 cent ticketsby the way. Pretty sure issued anapology. I I actually I don't know if itwas the guy who did it said he did. No,I don't think it was this guy. There wassomebody who said they they they didn't

[56:37] edit their tickets, that it was proventhey did, and a paid apology. I don'tthink this was an example, but this wasa person who w who had very very verycredible and solid evidence to suggestthey were editing their bet slips to

[56:49] make themselves look better and promotetheir pelling service. So, you know,there are there exists people who sellpics and do so uh ethically andeffectively towards their clients, but

[57:02] there are so many that don't. This isjust another prime example of ways youcan be deceived by somebody and coercedinto buying their picks. Um, let's starton this one with Kesh. What's yourreaction here?

[57:14] >> I only have one thing to say on thistopic and it's this belongs in thechopping block. Zilbo, we're fightingthe good fight for you. Bring back the

[57:24] chopping block. Uh, if I got to go tothe office and uh, you know, may makethis up with Jacob to it, we'll do that.I forgot to go to Toronto. Uh, sohopefully the chop is back sooner than

[57:36] later.>> Uh, anybody else anything to add?>> I mean, I I I wish I'd seen this beforeI made a comment the last time. This isthe best example of like, you know, the

[57:46] head drug dealer and his little minionsunderneath them. Dub Club is like the,you know, the the mothership that isallowing Kingpin that's allowing all

[57:57] this flow of the poison into thecommunity. And these other people,they're just the sellers and the pimpsof this of Dub Club and WAP and allthese other poisons.

[58:09] >> Uh, China, anything to add before wesign off?>> Yeah, I mean, anybody that's editingtheir bet slips or anything like that isthe ultimate scum. And anyone that

[58:21] promotes that is the ultimate scum.That's about all I got to say there.>> All right, good way to end off the show.Thank you so much everyone for tuning into this edition of Circle Back. If youenjoyed, hit the like button, subscribe

[58:33] for more content like this on CirclesOff. We have tons of exciting contentcoming your way very, very soon. We'redoing a lot of new things that you'regoing to want to check out. So, makesure you stay tuned on the channel. We

[58:43] will, as always, see you again nexttime.