[00:00] The fact that they've gone so over thetop with this, he might as well justmake it legal at that point. Likeclearly this is going to kill benning inthe state as we know it.>> Yeah. I mean, this just shows how likeidiotic the whole state of Ohio is and

[00:11] all the, you know, citizens of it.>> Yeah. At at the end of the day, it's ait's a golf tournament, right? And thisis the benefit you have because I can

[00:21] see into the mind of a voter cuz mybrain is right here. This was so I Ihonestly this is so brash that I have toquestion is like is Diana Rinian in an

[00:34] open marriage>> horrific take when you put up the tweetsof the year and you have you know worsttakes this needs to go high on the list.>> Disclaimer: The content presented inthis show is intended for entertainment

[00:46] purposes only. All opinions expressedare those of the hosts and do notnecessarily reflect the views oropinions of any individuals ororganizations mentioned. Statements madeabout public figures or entities arebased on publicly available information

[00:58] and are not intended to harm or defameany person or business. This show relieson fair use of social media posts whichare presented in good faith for thepurpose of commentary and criticism.

[01:09] Viewers and listeners are advised toform their own opinions.

[01:19] Debating what's better between stocksand gambling. the NBA Rookie of the Yeardebate, what's going on with Brousiniand Ray Bull. And we're going to leadoff with a potential ban coming togambling in Ohio. All that and so much

[01:31] more today on Circle Back here on theCircles Off channel, which is part ofthe Hammer Betting Network. I'm yourhost here in Circleback. My name isJacob Dermena. I'm a creator andproducer here for the Hammer. Joining me

[01:43] today, we've got Mike aka Mr. PeanutBetter. Joining us is Norma. We alsohave in the bottom right corner JoeyKesh, host on the Hit the Books YouTubechannel with Brad Powers, our college

[01:55] football content division here at theHammer in the top right of>> one of the most beloveduh figures in the betting space. BradPowers, I might add. Uh just a pleasure

[02:05] to do a show with him. Never met neverharmed a fly in his life. Old BP. Uh soyeah, good to be here. And uh it mightnot be the favorite show I do every

[02:16] week, but uh I'm still glad I'm here.>> Well, it it won't be your favorite thisweek because our our for today used tobe on the show every week with us, butnow plays a part every once in a while.It is Chris Deerkiss at Flopup Noli.

[02:29] Flop, thank you so much for coming back.How you doing?>> Glad to be back. Might have something todo with your current sponsorship status,but uh excited to be back.>> Uh I like the tag. Didn't miss Kesh.

[02:41] Kesh usually comes in with the don'tmiss fluff and uh not today. He'sstanding with Brad Powers today.>> I'm very insulted to see that so I hadto bring it back.>> Yeah, of course. Well, let's just jump

[02:53] into things here. Big topic to start usoff today. Uh as I mentioned, apotential ban coming to gambling inOhio. Uh, reporter Mogan Morgan Troutsaid, "Now, Republican Ohio Republican

[03:05] lawmakers are introducing two differentbills to overhaul the sportsgaming/gambling system." Uh, listing outstuff that are involved, no online bets,

[03:15] ban on in-game prop and parlay bets,limits wages to $100, no ads duringgames, no using credit cards to bet.Clay Travis, another reporter, uh, does

[03:26] radio work in sports, says no onlinesports bets is in Ohio is insane. Is it1986?The result is twofold. One, people willcross state lines to play sports bets,meaning tax dollars go to states that

[03:39] border Ohio instead of Ohio itself. Ortwo, even more people will go tooffshores, which also crushes revenue.So, would like to get everyone'sthoughts on this one. Let's first of all

[03:50] start off with Mike. Um, I don't know ifyou have I don't know if you live inOhio or live there. I know you're anOhio fan for some sports. So, give usyour take on this to start.>> Uh, I do live in Ohio and first I want

[04:03] to say I hope Klay Travis knows it'sreally just one thing. They're going togo offshore. They're going to go out ofstate. Like they're just going to leaveOhio. It's really just one thing hesplit into two.

[04:12] >> But either way, the good part about thisbill is it's so ridiculous and over thetop and performative that it's not goingto pass. if they went with something,you know, I want them to have as little

[04:24] regulation as possible. Obviously, thathelps me run uh things for my end moreappropriately. If they went withsomething like, hey, you know, we reallywant to limit the amount you can bet or

[04:36] they did something a little bit more,you know, passable that could getthrough, that would worry me. The factthat they've gone so over the top withthis, you might as well just make itlegal at that point. Like clearly thisis going to kill bennetting in the state

[04:48] as we know it. Uh, I don't think theyhave any kind of chance of passing that.So, to me, this is pretty much this billis going to be dead on arrival.>> All right. Interesting perspectivethere. Uh, let's go to Flopup next on

[05:00] this one. Are you kind of in agreementwith with PB there or give us yourthought?>> Yeah, I mean, this just shows how likeidiotic the whole state of Ohio is and

[05:09] all the, you know, citizens of it. Um,but I wonder if their goal is to justsay they did this so that like they canpretend to their constituents that they

[05:20] tried to get sports betting banned or doanything or if like like what is thepoint of this like like Mike said likethis is never going to get passed. Sowhy are they doing it? I never I don't

[05:32] understand the politics of it. I wouldlove someone had more insight as to likeis there lobbying groups behind thisthat just like want to do this for show?Is there something like this? I can'tunderstand this.>> So to me, I you know, obviously I don't

[05:44] have any inside information on this, butit seems like the perfect way to comeout to your core constituents who areagainst gambling is I try to voteagainst gambling and then the people whoactually know what's going on, the

[05:57] people, the businesses that you don'twant to piss off with this, they aregoing to be like whatever. You know, youdon't upset them because you're notactually passing it. So you can say,"Oh, I'm go, you know, I'm making astand against this." Not actually haveto do it to upset anybody who's got any

[06:09] kind of dollars to donate. And it kindof works that way. It's like thosestupid performative, you know, you can'tplant a flag here or like these stupidlaws that they know aren't going topass, they don't really care about. It'sjust to get it on record, uh, you know,

[06:21] for the average Joe to look at.>> Okay. That interestingly, that sort oftheory on are they just doing this to beperformed and say we tried somethingthat'll come up a little bit later onsomething else we'll talk about. Kesh,

[06:33] let's get your perspective on things.>> Yeah, you know, uh, we touched on this alittle bit on Hit the Books earlier thisweek with, uh, the brilliant and belovedBrad Powers who weighed in. Um, I swearif you just took out the first three

[06:46] lines here, the first three bulletpoints and said, "No ads during games,no using credit cards to bet." I thinkyou'd have a lot of support. It's justlike, oh, we're going to kill sport.

[06:57] We're literally going to kill sportsbetting in the state. And then also, youknow, a couple of ideas here. So, Iagree with the other guys. It seems justtotally performative politicalgrandstanding. But if you pair it down,

[07:10] I don't know, maybe you start with thisand like the last few things kind oflike what they've done uh smoking whereyou can't advertise smoking around. Youcan't have like, you know, Camel Joe orwhatever it was that you know like or

[07:21] Newports or anywhere around. If you dosomething like that, I think you've gota little bit more like I I don't know,like tangible reality of something thatcould happen as opposed to uh you know,we're just gonna go back to the stone

[07:34] age.>> So, you brought up those two points thatyou think could pass. Do you guys wouldyou guys Sorry, I'll frame it like this.Would you guys understand support for a

[07:46] bill that that has no ads during gamesand no using credit cards to bet? Nowobviously I think you know you guys wantyou know as as simple as possible forfor the businesses and operations that

[07:58] you're involved in but would youunderstand at least that perspective?Oh. Oh, absolutely. It would be if theydid exactly what Kesh suggested, itwould be hard for them in my opinion for

[08:08] them not to pass. Like if you areagainst that part of it, like do youjust like irresponsible gambling? Like Imean credit cards and advertisementsduring it. It's just like the only

[08:20] contingency that really matters is likeirresponsible gamers are going to bemore inclined to not be addicted. Solike I think that would pass withoverwhelming support and you know Iguess selfishly like you hope it doesn't

[08:33] pass because you want more like losingrecord in the space but it's probablybetter for the uh economy and the>> environment as a whole. The other thingjust to even like I'll play devil

[08:44] devil's advocate on my own point here isno ads during games but now we'vecrossed the line where like FanDuelSports Network is the local likebroadcast authority for a lot of

[08:56] different games in a Midwest across thecountry. So how could you say no like ifthat they literally own the networkthat's broadcasting how can you say noads during games? So, it's this weirdnow we've crossed the thing where like

[09:07] almost too big to fail where it's like,well, if DraftKings or FanDuel areliterally going to be broadcasting thegames to people, you can't just be like,"Oh, well, take off all your other don'tfor so I don't know. It's uh it's a

[09:20] weird space to be in in terms of likethat second part of it now that they'rethey've morphed into like broadcast>> and and I mean, so can predictionmarkets advertise? Can Koshi come on and

[09:30] say it? We really kind of interwoveneverything here so much without settingit up. We didn't set it up properly andnow we've like we're trying to go backthrough and regulate it like post hawkand it's all messed up. I Yeah. To

[09:43] Joey's point, I don't know. Can theyjust Maybe you can say, "Hey, you can'trun ad spots here, but it just seemsright now it's such a messed up web thatit's going to take a while to untangle>> for you. You guys mentioned like there's

[09:56] just way too much here for this to gothrough. Is it possible for like theytake away things to pass bill or wouldthat just have to be an entirelydifferent procedure? Like could theysay, "Okay, this is a bit extreme, butthese two we kind of agree with." Is

[10:09] that how it could work?>> You're asking for like procedural umrules for like the Ohio Senate or likethe Ohio like like government as awhole. Like Mike's probably the only onethat might have a sliver of chance of

[10:21] understanding it.>> I know nothing. I I couldn't tell. Youknow, I don't know how many members ofCongress there are, so I'm not going togive you all the Ohio statewidelegislation rules.>> Right. Okay. Well, fair enough. Hey,maybe someone in the comments section

[10:34] can give us a little bit moreinformation here and give us yourtheory. Potentially, anybody who has anytheory or ideas or thoughts on thistopic, leave it in the comment sectiondown below. And if we go through anytopic you've got some thoughts on,

[10:47] comment something down below. Keep theconversation going. We check everycomment. We reply to most of thecomments. While you're down there, takea second to hit the like button andconsider subscribing to the channel as

[10:58] well. Now, we're going to get into oursecond topic, prize picks, joiningforces with the NBA. They're excited toannounce we're that they are an officialpartner with the NBA. And we had a user

[11:09] here saying that the problem and I I I Iblocked out the name at the request ofStorm from a previous episode for thisuser. Um, doesn't want anyone gettinginvolved with this account. That's whyit's blocked out. Uh the problem they

[11:23] say this the problem with gamblingcompanies being partners with the leaguethey get all injury reports firstminutes restrictions etc. For examplethey know when is hurt how hurt us

[11:34] regular people we don't know when comesback in 2 weeks they'll make his Psomething ridiculously low to bait usinto taking it 25 I guess would be that

[11:44] number only gets 15 minutes and we allfell for the bait. This is just a primeexample. There's dirtier waste they playus. Undisclosed injury not known to the

[11:54] public. They hand us a bait line becausethe player is playing hurt. Okay, firstlet's go to flop. Is this how it works?Does the NBA get the injury news before

[12:05] the public does?>> Absolutely. Um well there could be somecases that that is true they do get thenews but because of the reporting to thethe league and whatnot but like that's

[12:16] not getting affected to gambling linesand and also there's two sides of everybet especially now with like predictionmarkets and exchanges coming out toforefront like you could get any side.

[12:27] So if they're using a bait line just betthe opposite side. It just shows howridiculous this is. It's unfortunatethat I'll never know who who posted thisaccount and I can't look up the exactwords to find this tweet, but I wouldlove to respond to that.

[12:40] >> Hey, it's just it's just a little bitharder, you know? It's like it's liketaking away credit cards from betting.You're people are still going to findways to bet, but it's just become alittle bit more difficult now. Uhalthough saying it probably is making

[12:52] more people look it up. Uh Mike, yourthoughts on this one here? So, back inthe day when we were trading, we wouldwait for the NBA injury reports to comeout and people would snipe us, you know,before and sometimes they would get itbefore the underdog tweet and we

[13:06] couldn't figure out how they weregetting it. They would get it, you know,before even the NBA would post the linkfor the injury report. They wouldsomehow figure it out. And then someonewent on a podcast and said, "Hey, if you

[13:17] refresh, if you change the URL of thewebsite and you hit refresh, it pops upbefore the link on the site." So, oneuser found this and was able to snipe abunch of different books. So, let me

[13:30] tell you, they don't have insideinformation. Sometimes somebody willingto type in a URL link is beating them tothe information. So, like the idea that

[13:40] the San Antonio Spurs are like, "Hey,you know, Victor's out. We're not onlygoing to try to like not hide this fromour opponent." Like everybody saw thePatriots used to just lie on theirinjury report all the time to try to get

[13:53] a little bit of a competitive advantage.The idea that like Bill Bich's going togo ahead and give his injury report toFanDuel ahead of time, like it justdoesn't make sense. People want to findthe conspiracy in these people having

[14:04] more information than you. Uh whenreally it's mostly just you're not verygood at handicapping the game.>> Yeah. Uh good point, Kesh. How aboutyou? Yeah, it's just, you know, it's

[14:16] more of the hashtag it'sfixed crowd thatlike it gives you a great excuse to belike, well, you know, I lost this, youknow, eight leg parlay because uh, youknow, prize picks had the info for notcuz I'm an idiot because, you know, I'm

[14:28] getting scammed here. And if you've everBB's worked in trading flops, you know,part of Nova, we've been in thebackground of a little bit. If you'veever like had any connection with a a

[14:40] sports betting provider or like a like aprize picks or a you know a book or aFanDuel the trading the actual tradingdepartment and the people that would

[14:50] like modify the lines and do that thecommunication between those people andthe marketing media social mediafrontend people you might as well be on

[15:01] like two different planets like there'susually like literally and FanDuel thereIt's we're talking about people indifferent parts of the world are like sothere's not a lot of overlap between youknow like the guy who's going to be

[15:13] doing the social for prize picks or likethe the reporter who might get it whenthe you know the injury comes out andthe trader who might be halfway acrossthe world who's actually like in thesoftware changing the line. So even

[15:26] though that's like you got to go throughmore complex steps of logic to get tothat conclusion and it's easier to sayoh it's rigged they know everythingthere's just not it it just doesn't worklike that in reality. Another thing is

[15:38] people overrate the sophistication ofthese trading rooms so vastly. Yes. Ihave a buddy who uh works for a book andhe introduced me to his friend buddysmart guy very some would say genius. He

[15:51] introduced me to his friend who's atrader there and that guy was eat gluedumb and he's in charge of like theselines trying to move them. I'm tellingyou it's way less sophisticated than youthink. Just look at flop works at one of

[16:03] them. So obviously can't know you can doit without knowing much about sports. So>> yeah. Uh something I want to add also,I've gotten some like tweets or likecomments like why why does this line ofNovig and I'm like I didn't do that.That was the marketing team. Like they

[16:16] didn't tell me that they're broken.>> Right. Right.>> And don't blame me for this. And thenanother thing point out is like SteveBalmer is worth more than DraftKings andFanDuel combined. Do you think that he

[16:29] is going to abandon his team? Likethat's probably the only thing in thisworld he really cares about is theClippers winning to help companies thatare worth less than his net worth. Likeit doesn't make make any sense. And then

[16:40] there's plenty of other very wealthyowners. So it's just ludicrous. It's thesame thing with like the breaking of thedraft law right now. Yeah. Great pointsby Mike on the sophistication of liketrading rooms. I I would say and youguys correct me if I'm wrong because

[16:54] you've got experience there. It feelslike trading teams are are playingdefense rather than offense. They're nottrying to set a bait line. They'retrying to react to information just asyou are. And a lot of the times when

[17:05] injury reports are coming out, uh, likewould there not be some bets that comein that lead you guys to be suspiciousthat well there must be something goingon with injuries here before it's made

[17:16] public by the NBA.>> It's very funny. Like even me doing itnow at Novig, it's like I know it'shappening. I was the one takingadvantage of these like injury lines offour and I can't even defend against itbecause there's so many like it's just

[17:30] too difficult>> and for a book to have this informationlike if information is going to leakit's going to leak to an individualwho's betting or a small group. They'renot like these people that think like

[17:41] you know DraftKings is able to have allthis information but they're not able tothese 22-year-old traders are just theylearn this information nobody's able toleak it. Like it just doesn't makesense. uh you know it's again it's way

[17:53] less sophisticated than you think.>> Also correct like you can call it youcan correct me if it's a skill issue butlike if I've I've ever heard anyrumblings about injuries that aren't

[18:03] public yet that's like you've got like15 20 minutes at absolute most to reactusually probably less than that. So,it's not like the NBA knows for hoursduring the day and are providing these

[18:16] lines to a sports book to set thesethese trap or or bait lines there. Likethe these things happen very quicklyhere. So, like it's not going to affectit's it's it's really not going tohappen like what what's being described

[18:28] here in the tweet where they're settingthose bait lines. And if you're like ifyou're genuinely concerned about this,just know when the injuries are postedby the NBA and then let the lines settleand don't bet until then. I wouldn't dothat if I were you. But like if you are

[18:42] seriously concerned about thishappening, you can just not bet at atthose specific times of day.>> Also, we know it's not accounting forthe line because as soon as theinformation comes out, they all react toit. So if it was already, why the hell

[18:53] are they moving the lines right now whenit's released? And if you're like, well,they already knew, but now they'removing again. Like then bet the otherside because they already reacted to ittwice. So the fact that these lines moveas soon as you see the news means people

[19:05] did not know the news.>> Perfectly explained. Absolutely. Let'sget into the next topic. Uh, a lucky dayhad this post about like and and Flipkind of mentioned this in the firsttopic where you want these people to betbecause you need counterparties. You

[19:19] need to win off somebody. And this iswhat he says. All gambling profits comefrom losers. Gambling markets existpurely for speculation. The stock marketexists for completely different reasons.

[19:29] Gambling is purely a wealth transfer.Stock markets create wealth. That is thefundamental difference. One is minus EVon average, one isn't. Interestingperspective there. Uh let's start from

[19:41] Kesh on this one. I I I kind of wantedto get your perspective on when you'rewinning wagers. Like does it dawn on youthat in order for you to win like you'retaking money off other people? Does that

[19:52] affect you? Do you care?Uh I mean, no. But you know what? SpankySpanky had a quote uh some years agowhere he said, you know, if you'relooking for like meaning or fulfillment

[20:03] in this bid, like you you you've got todo that's that's like purely outside offinancial, like you've got to dosomething else. Cuz I I agree with thatlike Lucky Day his general uh philosophy

[20:14] of this tweet is correct. If there's oneor if I'll try and push back on it or adifferent perspective would be that ifyou're in if you're involved in theAmerican economy right now things aren't

[20:25] exactly you know like uh booming aswe'll say the one of the few areasthat's creating jobs or different likelike you know like investment capital is

[20:36] market speculations is you know thedifferent prediction markets is gamblingbeing legalized different states. Soyes, and in just like the pool of money

[20:46] that is wagering people, you know, winsversus losses, I understand that. Butsome of that like growth and some ofthat actual money does get extracted to

[20:57] pay people salaries to build, you know,like to to market to revenue. So I getit from the whole like yes, is it as

[21:07] um I don't know is it used in the samemethod that the stock market is? No. atthe other point of it like does gamblinghave no effect on like everyone's nowhatso I don't think it's just a pure

[21:19] like wealth transfer on a oneto onethat's leaving out a lot of thedifferent aspects that create likemarkets and these companies to evenexist>> uh why don't you go next flop since you

[21:30] were mentioning this kind of earlier>> um I actually init explain it quite wellhere um the one thing I just would wouldadd is there's parts of the stock market

[21:41] that is not entirely like that. Optionsfor example, options is a purely uhpeer-to-peer zero EV and you could arguenegative EV if you can um consider the

[21:52] fees applied to trading them. Andtypically it's with an extremelysophisticated counterparty and not onelike you know a Citadel or a Jane Streetor something like that. So from that

[22:04] point, like I would make the argumentthat's that's gambling. And even inindividual stocks, you know, some pennystocks, stuff like that, you can arguethat's gambling as well in the stockmarket. But if you just buy like an

[22:16] index fund and you close your eyes anddon't look at it for like 10 years, yes,that is not gambling. I think it's verydifferent and and would agree. I want to

[22:26] push back on what Flub said. So options,yes, they are largely used for gamblingand there's people gambling on them,speculative all the time, but thatdoesn't mean that that's like their solepurpose, right? You know, there's

[22:37] businesses who have options in order tohedge risk. And like to me, what thiskind of reminds me of is uh you know,not to get political here, but there's agun and a car debate and they say, well,

[22:48] cars kill people, too. It's the purposeof a car is to get around and one of theoffsets is it has, you know, deathsattached to it. the purpose of the otheris to you know lead to that. So to me,

[23:00] like there is gambling in the stockmarket, but what the stock market allowsyou to do hopefully is create a systemwhere money can exchange freely andstuff like that. Create a free market,yada yada. But I I think I get annoyed alot of times when people are like, well,

[23:13] the stock market that's just gamblingand that's and yes, people are misusingit. But I there is a fundamentaldifference to me between somebody who'smisusing something and it's resulting ingambling and something that was made

[23:24] purely driven by gambling.>> Absolutely. But one thing I would Iwould push back on you because I I don'tI don't agree with you here isI would argue I don't have any data to

[23:35] back this up but just like having workedin the industry for 90 95% plus maybeeven close to 99% of option trades arefor pure speculation and not hedging.

[23:46] And you can make the argument that likeoh um I'm I'm actually financiallyhedging my risk on like Zion 25 plus ifI have you know you can argue that too.And sure, maybe there's a couple people

[23:58] that place those those wagers thatactually hedge risk, but the generalpurpose of it is being used for it isgambling. So, and I I was very clear

[24:07] that I only picked specific parts in theor parts rather in the stock market, notthe entire stock market as a whole.>> Yeah. Well, to push back on your pushback of my push back, I would say

[24:19] yes, theoretically you could argueyou're hedging Zion's points, but welet's live in the real world here andrealize that that's not actuallyhappening. The options, I agree with youthat they're not being used correctly.

[24:31] But there is a certain financialrestrictions that once you put the onceyou put a regulation on it and say,"Hey, you can't do that." Now, you'repreventing someone from creating anoption that they might really need. So

[24:42] that's why you allow it to exist. Notbecause you want these people gambling,but you need it to allow uh thecompanies that aren't gambling to haveit. And then, you know, once it's there,people are going to misuse it. But you

[24:54] can't do anything about that.>> Okay. Little bit of a disagreementbetween some panelists. So, would liketo hear your opinions in the commentsection down below. But next up, let'sgo to this conversation that was taking

[25:07] place on gambling Twitter, kind ofheating up in the golf betting world.And uh we want to discuss it becausethere are some ties to a recent changeon Kali. It all started with Golden

[25:18] Pants who raised concern about Khi's newdescent pricing for golf markets. Heargued that this change could fragmentlive liquidity, make large bets harderto place, and create a messy experience

[25:30] for serious active bers who are postingbig amounts in real time. Now, foranyone unfamiliar, desiccent pricingsimply means that bets can be posted intenth of a cent instead of whole cents.

[25:40] So, instead of a bet at $1 or $11, youcan now post it at 1.001.The idea is to allow finer, more precisepricing, but it also makes the orderbook more crowded and can cause quotes

[25:52] to quote unquote dance quickly,especially during live betting. Uh, Addiresponded pointing out that it'sactually one of the most requestedfeatures for golf on Koshi. Many usershave been frustrated that the pre-desicicent pricing made certain markets

[26:05] difficult to play. So in theory, thisupdate was meant to fix the problem.Then Rufus Peabody got involved andweighed in with a different perspective.He acknowledged that it might createsome short-term challenges for live

[26:17] market makers, but argued that Desicentpricing ultimately rewards smarterpricing and better odds rather than justwho can get their bets in first. in hisview, it makes the market morecompetitive and in the long run that

[26:29] benefits both serious bers and casualusers who want more accurate odds. Sothe big question that we kind of want togo into here, does this change orimprove the golf betting experience or

[26:40] does it create new challenges for thetraders who drive the most volume? Sowe'll start with Chris who can kind ofexplain I guess his perspective on it.Yeah. So, I was actually pretty shocked

[26:52] that Rufus said this um because I knowRufus is not a fan of top down uhbetters and I I agree that this set wasneeded for past 99. So, like there's a

[27:04] lot of golfers that are 20 to1 300 to1and you like 99 cents can only cap atyou know 99 to1. So, you can't reallythat doesn't really encapsulate anything

[27:13] past that. But anyone,you know, shorter than 100 to one, it'sI think it actually helps people likemyself that doesn't have an underlying

[27:23] model. A good example I I would say isjust last last night in the last coupledays, I was able to load up on BrysonDambo know by penny jumping someone by0.1. I put 90 no him to win at 93.1 and

[27:37] I would not have gotten the full fillthat I wanted if it was all on 93. um orI would have had to aggressively jump to94 which I would have not wanted to do.So

[27:47] like sure I think like it's going to endup eating at him because like a lot ofpeople can now like jump you for likevery cheap like 0.1 is not an expensivejump at all and and if I you know I I

[28:00] find it hard to believe that a lot ofsomething is going to be a big buy at 94but not a buy at 94.1 like that. We'redealing with very very thin edges that Idon't think anyone like Golden Pants orRufus is going to want to play. So for

[28:12] below 99, totally understand, but theythey did this up to 90, which I I don'tthink is really going to help, you know,the true originators in the world. Icould be mistaken, but that's just whatI'm seeing the first couple days ofbeing out.

[28:24] >> Okay, let's go to Mike. A lot ofexperience with prediction markets. Idon't know how familiar you are withgolf betting, but why don't you giveyour perspective?To me, once you start getting into the

[28:36] range where it's like like Flip said,where it's 99 98, it seems like you haveto have something there. Otherwise, theprices aren't differentiated enough. Uhonce you get closer, there's always kind

[28:47] of this battle on tick size of wantingpeople to post liquidity. How what's theincentive for you to post liquidity? Uhyou know, it's get Q position. So once

[28:56] you start getting into ranges like youknow where it's 45 50 or I guess they'reonly doing it up to 90 in this but to meit like it disincentivizes you to wantto post liquidity if you're not getting

[29:09] that top space because if you're Rufuswhy do I want to come in early postsomething and then have someone likeFlop just come in and you know pennyjump me like that. I think that Flopmade a good point that, you know, he can

[29:20] do his top down thievery, steal from uhthe hard workers who are originatingthese numbers and get away with it whenyou have these small decimal senses. Idon't really bet a ton on these reallytail outcomes at any of the prediction

[29:32] markets. So, I don't have a strong takeon it, but just as flop lays it out, tome, it makes sense that you want to keepthat, you know, to that end tail of thedistribution as much as possible. And I

[29:44] don't understand why you can't dodesiccent at 99 and up, you know, likehalf a cent at 95 to 90 or somethinglike that. Like why can't you graduallyincrease it up uh by percentage points I

[29:56] guess?>> Okay, interesting take there. Why don'twe go to Kesh? Any thoughts from you onthis?>> Um I'll just say you know what if you goa few floors up in this building there'ssome quantitative conversations that I

[30:08] will say are above my pay grade. Uh andI'll put that in this category. So goodto hear from those two. I I don't haveany idea or any opinion on what's Icompletely agree with Mike here. One of

[30:20] his few good ideas is you should havetiered U like Desi sends for 99.98 youknow maybe one or one half ticks from 98

[30:30] to like 90 and then maybe you know backto the full ticks from 90 plus. Likethat's like the most logical thing. Itit it really helps everyone in myopinion.>> Yeah. If only we knew somebody who couldimplement a system like this at one of

[30:43] the production markets.>> Man, I don't know. I don't know aboutthat.>> Maybe uh something we'll see soon fyou'll put in a good word, right?>> Unironically, we have discussed this.So,

[30:55] >> okay, there you go. Uh anyways, talkingabout golf there, Masters going on asthis episode is released. And there wasa tweet regarding the Masters here fromSam Roberts at real Sam Roberts saying

[31:07] having Pat McAfee, Jason Kelsey,Bertrisher, and Kevin Hart at theMasters is the epidome of ESPN'scultural degradation of sports. Augusta

[31:17] National should be the ultimate place ofdignity and reverence. And these uhignominous dullards, hope I said that

[31:25] right, debate debase it with theirsophomorish hy jinks. Soft soft morishhij jinks, sorry. Um, old buzzy says,"The only thing I find more annoying

[31:38] than the spectacle are people who actlike the masters is mass at St. Peters.It is a golf tournament in Georgia. Theysell pimento cheese sandwiches. Everyone

[31:47] needs to relax. It will be okay." So,I've I've seen a few people kind ofcomplain about this and, you know, it'sthere's a lot of prestige in an eventlike the Masters, maybe the most

[31:59] prestigious golf event. I'm not a biggolf fan, so I I I can't say forcertain, but that's my perspective ofit. Um, Kesh, let's start with you onthis. How do you feel? I mean, I'm sureyou're aware of the significance and the

[32:11] prestige of this event. How do you feelwhen voices like this are a part ofESPN's coverage of the event? I you knowit's it's got I know it's tough becauselike yes those people are annoying you

[32:23] know too much McAfee too much Kelsey andthat at the same time though like I lovethe old Buzzy like yeah at the end ofthe day it's a it's a golf tournament

[32:33] right and they do a ton of pageantry andit's got a ton of tradition but at theend of the day like some of the peoplethat act like this is you know likegoing to I I I don't even like there

[32:47] there's people that think there's like,you know, the Vatican City or somethinglike that where you're walking on likeholy ground here. Um I can see it forIt's funny cuz I I could make both casesfor this one for the most part. I think

[32:58] it's a little overdone, but at the sametime, you do like you do want to hold onto some of those traditions and seeing,you know, Jason Kelsey out there, you

[33:09] know, be being a [ __ ] is like, eh,could I go without that? So, it's moreannoying versus like, oh no, I want tojust keep this up because I want tolike, you know, put my, you know, thumb

[33:20] in my hair and, you know, pretend likeI'm a proper gentleman at the Masters,>> right? Uh, Mike, give us yourperspective.>> Joey so blue collar he doesn't know thatyou put your pinky in the air. You don't

[33:29] put your thumb in.>> Yeah. Uh, I can understand why they wantto do this. They want to open it up tomore people. But to me, one of the worst

[33:41] things that we do is when someone does amove like this, people are like, "Well,that's going to draw eyeballs. That'sgoing to make people uh, you know,that's going to get ratings. That's whatpeople are going to pay for that." Idon't care. I'm allowed to say, "Yes, I

[33:53] understand it's like a financially agood move. I understand business-wiseit's a good move." You're allowed tohate it if they're taking something thatyou like and they're trying to, youknow, change it from what it is toappeal to a more wide broadening uh,

[34:06] base of customers. I don't have anyproblem with snobs getting mad at thatfirst tweet has to be at the end of thatthat has to be like intentionally uh youknow obtuse>> [ __ ] language.>> Well yeah watching you read that on it

[34:19] by itself was uh>> whatdid he do to me here man?>> Yeah I I think that that had to be likeuh purposely set up that way. But ingeneral I don't have a problem with

[34:30] people being like hey this has been welike it this way. you don't have to goahead and change and kind of adapt toeverybody else. With that said, I'm notreally a fan of that kind of, you know,pageantry and stuff like that. So, I

[34:43] don't personally care for it, but if youdid, I don't have a problem with youbeing like, you know, this sucks. Don'tchange the thing I like.>> What I don't understand is I I haven'tseen them at like the coverage of them.

[34:55] Are they not dressed up in like a suitand like very well like attired oranything like that?Is there issue that they're justcomedians and you know it's a seriousevent? Like what I don't understand whatthe true issue is here.

[35:08] >> I would guess that it's you're nottaking a golf analyst or taking peoplewho will take the event seriously andit's instead I mean every time JasonKelsey's on TV the bet is oh look heeats a lot of food. Like I just don't

[35:20] find it's like it's a pretty low bar ofhumor. But I agree with you. It doesfeel a little harsh to be like JasonKelsey's not even allowed in the goddamnbuilding. Like just because of who heis, we can't let Jason Kelsey in. I do.

[35:32] Yeah, I understand that part of it.>> Yeah. From my perspective, I I thinkMike kind of said it best where it'slike, you know, you don't want to seethe thing you like change. And whenyou're like ser seriously into a sport,

[35:43] you want that coverage of the sport toappeal to you. You want it to appeal tothe people who really follow and likethe sport, not to kind of like thelowest common denominator, the supercasual fan that's tuning in. But of

[35:56] course, the broadcast are going to gointo that sort of direction. It's just,yeah, I wouldn't like it. You know,there's there's uh I like a new sport Ilike is darts. And when that starts toappeal to a more general audience, I get

[36:07] frustrated. And and I kind of feel thesame way. not enough to, you know, openup a theorus just to [ __ ] write atweet. But, um, I I would also get alittle bit upset in a situation likethat. But

[36:18] >> I would like to know when darts isreally appealing to the masses. But, um,do you think we see this similar in uh,like me and Joey have seen in football,college football, now we have these OhioState verse USC in the same conference

[36:30] and they're like, well, people want tosee this. It's a big broad like I don'tcare that more people are going to beinterested and I liked having theregional thing and I think it's okay.that if you were a college football fan,you're like, "This new version sucks. I

[36:42] liked the old version. That's what mademe like it. I don't care if they'reappealing to some guy who watches threefootball games a year.">> There's there's perfect not worthexplaining because nobody will get it.There are perfect parallels to darts uh

[36:55] on the situation you just explainedactually, but I'm not going to boreeveryone with that. So, let's get toyour comments from the previous week'sshow. Starting off with this one fromChum43. This was about the NFL kind of

[37:07] sending a warning to prediction marketsor at least requesting them to not putmarkets that could be easily manipulatedon their platform like mention marketsfor commentators for example. Chum says

[37:18] the NFL doesn't care what predictionmarkets offer. The very public requestis a preemptive see. We asked them notto and not to and they did anyway.Passing uh off the buck on the off

[37:31] chance that there is a future scandal sothey can wash their hands of anyresponsibility. Behind the scenes, theNFL secretly hopes this stuff happens aslong as they aren't held accountable. Sothis is I kind of teased this at thestart of the show when we talked about

[37:44] Ohio and the gambling regulations. ifsomething goes wrong, there was amention like, well, they can just saythey tried to instill something. That'skind of the what Trump is pointing athere from the NFL. Had thought about itthis way. And I do kind of wonder if

[37:56] that's maybe the approach they werelooking for. Why don't we go to Mikefirst on this one?>> Uh, I wouldn't go as far as he saysthat, you know, they don't care at all.I'm sure they don't want that to happen,but I do I it's not impossible to me.

[38:09] They're like, "Hey, let's just get thison the record that we don't want it andthen, you know, we can fight backlater." I think that that's probablyit's like basically they're trying toget people to sign a waiver liabilitysaying, you know, we absolve the NFL of

[38:22] any wrongdoing here. So, yeah, thatactually I don't think totally disagreewith him there.>> Uh let's get Flub's perspective workingwith a prediction market. Uh how wouldyou how would you guys approach thesituation? Uh or maybe how have you

[38:35] approached the situation if you couldshed any light onto it? The NFLrequesting markets like this not exist.>> We don't really do markets like thisanyway. we just focus on, you know, thereally important market to this economyis sports only. Um, but I think it's a

[38:48] good thing to be quite honest with you.I mean, these were always likeclickbaity like to get like audience inhere, but now it seems like they'retaking it more seriously and you cannothave this like very easily rigable

[39:00] things. To me, it sounds like a great Ithink Mike even talked about this on anearlier circle backwards like he thinksthey're gonna just like do it right. Isthat if I'm speaking you correctly,Mike? Yeah, I I would think so. I think

[39:12] if you're a company that has a large Iat least think the big dogs will do it.I don't think that there's any reason torock the boat. Um, you know, somethingsimilar came out when people were like,you know, will Bad Bunny not perform?

[39:23] Will like and I said, listen, they'renot going to upset the NFL. Whateverthey do as far as like punishments,everybody just bows down to the NFL andthey probably should because they make alot of money.

[39:35] >> Yeah. If if this someone if they send arequest like this, this is totallyreasonable. I'd be shocked if we didn'tdo everything they asked immediately. Itwould be this is the most reasonablerequest.>> Okay. Interesting. Uh Kenesh, anythingto add?

[39:47] >> I just I disagree with Chum's fact oflike they don't care. I I think this isa league that cares very very stronglyin terms of imaging. I mean, this is aleague that got playmakers, you know,the TV show uh canled on ESPN after one

[39:59] year. It's a league that's gotten a, youknow, a stake of ESPN to be able tocontrol some narrative. I think they'revery highly sensitive to imaging and how

[40:09] it's portrayed and that. And so I I froma an actual like we're going to takedirect action, yes, it kind of absolvesthem of that. But if things that werereally bothersome or were giving them a

[40:21] lot of negative light was, you know,kept on being portrayed at at a certainprediction market, I do think they wouldtake certain actions to lean on them. Imean, they've sued like from licensing

[40:33] where people have been selling like, youknow, knockoff NFL gear. This a leaguethat's pretty airtight when it comes totheir standing and their how theyportray out in the masses and how people

[40:43] want to reflect on them. So, I don'tthink it was more than a just a cursorycover our ass. I think that was a reallike if you're going to offer stuff thatmakes us look bad, we're going to leanon you at some point.

[40:55] >> Okay, interesting perspectives there.Second comment to feature is from Stefanwho says in many instances cash out isvaluable. We talked about cash outs lastweek and he provides two examples ofwhere he thinks they're valuable. One

[41:08] live odd live odds for futuresoccasionally are not updated immediatelyand you have an opportunity to exploitthis. Number two, in tennis when aplayer you bet against is close toforfeiting the match and you want to

[41:19] avoid the voiding of the bet. Plus, ifyou have uh if you don't have time forhedging, the best option sometimes is tocash out. Flop. Uh, we didn't have youlast week, so let's get you first inthis.

[41:30] >> This is well done. This is actually aton of alpha leaking here. Like, greatcomment. Well, 10 out of 10.>> Mike agree.>> No, he said there's many options and helists two. Two is not many. List more.

[41:42] If you haven't>> I listed three, just didn't just didn'tnumber the the third one. The third one,no time.>> Then then it's still a bad commentbecause it's poor readability. Either

[41:54] way, I'm saying>> Kesh good or bad.>> I thought we also kind of like alludedto the fact that some of like the liveodds for I mean in some essence I I do

[42:04] think that uh it has some benefit butsure if you want to be you know ifStephan feels good that he got in theniche and got granular here and calledit good good for him.

[42:14] >> Right. Last one from no economy. Same tsimilar topic on cashing out saying thepeople complaining cash out value alsohave to take in effect. If you hedge,

[42:24] you are paying 10% of tax uh 10% tax oflosses from hedging. Also, I toldIllinois handlers any cash out was faircuz they had no shot of beating Yukon. I

[42:36] talking about his bet. I hammered Yukonmoneyline in that game. As a Big 10 fan,Brad Underwood never wins big games inMarch. as the Illinois head coach.Houston is the only big win in his

[42:48] tenure. So, uh, okay, nice flex. Nice.You want to bet? Good job. On the topicof cashing out, uh, versus hedging, does

[42:58] it ever play on any of your minds thetax implications when you're hedgingversus thinking about cashing out?>> Uh, nope. I like that this guy tried tobait us in with a conversation about tax

[43:10] and then just started ripping CBB takes.know it was a nice like nesting doll oftakes in there and I respect his gamefor it.>> Yeah. Uh flip don't care about taximplications on that.>> I do but like>> he's just

[43:24] >> not enough.>> He's wrong. He's wrong here. Does>> Well, if it's the 90% the big beautifulbill T. That's what I think he's tryingto say.>> No, I understand what he's saying, butlike

[43:35] talk to a good accountant. He not is notright. And I think Rob repli I think itwas Rob replied to this one from thecircles off account saying like do youtake it into account but it it's not

[43:46] significant enough to for for the mostpart for cash outs to be valuable overover hedging. So>> I wish I listened to this guy thoughbecause I actually had Illinois futuresand I should have known that they cannot

[43:57] beat uh Danurley in Yukon,>> right? You you should have checked heythe comment they he knew. You shouldhave talked to him beforehand. Uh,anyways, to keep the conversation going,you can always comment something downbelow. And we like to feature your

[44:10] comments in our shows like this onFriday at 8 a.m. and Mondays live at 1p.m. But you can also keep theconversation going into the Discord wehave at the Hammer Bang Network. Ifyou're not in the Discord, you'remissing out. We have nearly 1,800

[44:22] members. It's absolutely cooking there.It's a great place to chat during games.You can talk about different bettingstrategies. We have our creators duringBanger Bets and our Hammer audience aswell. You can join us atdiscord.gg/hammer gg/hammer to see whatyou've been missing out on. I made it

[44:36] easier for you. The link is in thedescription to join our Discord today.Anyways, the NFL, as Kenish said, caresa lot about their image. Not a greatlook for the NFL, I'd say, with some of

[44:47] the allegations spreading around.>> It depends who you ask.>> That's true.>> Some thought this was a very platonic uhlighthearted friendship.>> That's true. Um and he he had to leave.

[44:59] He's so upset about this topic, he's noteven sitting here anymore. Um, I'llexplain what the allegations goingaround as laid out very nicely by

[45:09] Fearbuck at FearedBuck. Patriots headcoach Mike Rael and New York Times NFLreporter Diana Rousini were seen holdinghands, hugging, and spending time

[45:19] together at a luxury hotel in Sedona,Arizona. Both are married. Mike Rabbelhas been married to his wife since 1999.Diana Rini has been married to her

[45:29] husband, uh, a a Shake Shack executivesince 2020. Our spy spotted Rabel Riniagain that evening on the privaterooftop of one of the hotels bungalows,

[45:40] which feature glass walls, offerpanoramic views of the state's famed redrock formations. Both Rusini and Vrabelinsist they were there with friends and

[45:49] say they simply weren't visible in thepictures, but other eyewitnesses told usthat they did not see anyone else withVel and Rousini. Good. Good that youdidn't dodge this one, Mike, because

[46:02] we've got one of your tweets going tofeature eventually. Uh so anyways, uh assaid here by Tommy Ken, they're denyingthis. They think the photos aremisleading. They're taken out of contextout of context and they're laughable.

[46:14] But um some people thought there wassomething to this for sure. Uh onecomment from Will Lis said, "Whatever,it's their life. They can do what theywant. This has to suck to see for theirsignificant others." However, the small

[46:27] football part of this is interestingbecause for years, Rousini, since theRabel firing with the Tennessee Titans,has been [ __ ] on the Titans anychance she got. Whenever Titan fanscalled her on it, everyone brushed it

[46:38] off. But it makes more sense now why shehad so much hate towards the team thatfired Vrabel. Uh, this is Mike aka Mr.Peanut Better. Yeah, I saw you changeyour Twitter name. It's just Peanut

[46:50] Better now. Anyways, I feel like I'mtaking crazy pills with Rousini and FreeThing. It's a picture of them greetingone another and then they're sittingnext to one another at a pool. If they

[47:01] were having an affair, do you think theywould they would be uh sorry, do youthink they would be uh so dumb to do itin public? I mean, the photos don't lookgreat. The reporting doesn't look great.

[47:13] Uh one more slide here just to kind offurther the speculation. There's a clipof Diana Rousini talking about how shedid some things in Miami, uh you know, a

[47:23] a place known for well, not acting veryfaithful, I think, to significantothers. And she also had a clip whereshe said, "I married someone average. Idon't post a lot about him. If I was

[47:36] married to someone beautiful, I'doverpost, too." So, lots of thingsadding up. But let's let's give Mike achance to defend his take or backtrackhis take. What do you think?

[47:48] >> Horrific take. When you put up thetweets of the year and you have, youknow, worst takes, this needs to go highon the list. Listen, I was watching theNBA game. I was live betting at some and

[48:00] I saw it pop up. I didn't see the zoomedout photo. When I pictured this, Iassumed this was at the hotel pool. Likeif you're talking about like circusswim. So I was like, "Oh, it must have

[48:12] been an awkward like hug to start andthen they sat there because they weresitting next to each other in the pool.If there was that many people around,they wouldn't be so dumb to do it in

[48:22] public." I see the zoomed out photo. Iimmediately realize I'm an idiot.Not a lot of people there.>> It's it's the fact that it's privatechanges everything about the uh

[48:34] conversation.I'm wrong. Uh you know, people areyelling at me, tell me I need to do myresearch before he even takes. Maybe Ishould next time. Uh yeah, I don't know.I sometimes you just fire off a takefrom the hip and it doesn't go poor uh

[48:47] doesn't go well. And that was one ofthese.>> Hey, you admit you're wrong. You admitwhen you got it wrong. Uh, Kenesh, whatBrad Powers, your co-host on Hit theBooks, uh, was harsh when Mike postedthis, was he not?>> Well, you know, he was harsh and for

[49:00] good reason. I think he was trying toteach a lesson to young PB there as asyou know, the the godfather of CFB uh,usually normally does. This was so I I

[49:12] honest this is so brash that I have toquestion is like is Diana Rini in anopen marriage? Like I I is there someshot? They're both married.>> So brash.

[49:23] >> So brash that maybe you would think it'sunbelievable if you rip that off as ateam.>> It was so brash that Yeah, maybe it

[49:32] couldn't even be real. Um from theverbal side of thing I I'll say like>> is it a surprise that co I mean how manycoach stories have to be out there that

[49:43] have gone out on their wife? That isn'tsurprising to me how she and I mean yesyou've got some of the tweets pulled upbut I mean people are pulling stuff upfrom the last like 10 years of her

[49:54] quotes got a lot of a lot of bad looksrumors of what she's done. Um, I thinkit's a tough look for women in theindustry that she kind of portrays thiscuz she, this feels like something out

[50:06] of like, you know, 1940 sports reportingwhere you're a female and, you know,she's trying to work her way up, uh,using a certain asset to get up there.

[50:15] Um, I don't know. It seemed like the NewYork Times like initially is backing herup. She fired out a tweet. This wouldhave be yesterday morning now. And the

[50:27] comments were like>> it was it was just like a a general NBAreporting. Sorry, NFL reporting. Itdidn't address anything. It was justbusiness as usual.>> I don't know how she's going to continue

[50:39] like on the like maybe every news cyclegoes away. I don't know. This one seemslike it's got staying power.>> Yeah. I mean, this is an NFL head coachand an NFL reporter. This this isn't

[50:50] going anywhere. Uh, Philip, I I I'd liketo task you. You're on the trading team.Um, what would you set a price of ofallegations, these allegationsessentially being confirmed if just off

[51:03] the rip, off the dome?>> Oh, like minus 400us500. And the only thing that I can nowI've had the suspicion for a while, butI think we could safely say that Mike is

[51:14] almost for sure a cuck at this point. Itwas so obvious like the whole dog thingmust be like he likes to be a dog andget have like someone walk him orsomething like that. Like it it is how

[51:25] he missed this is unbelievable to me. II heard his excuse. It's terrible. Likethis is so obvious.>> You know, some of us were so confidentin ourselves. We know that something

[51:38] like that would never happen to us. Youguys I thought he's always got to be onthe lookout. He's trying to check out.Um, you know, that's why I said I did iton Hammer Daily. I'll do it again here.

[51:48] Uh, I want to apologize to Powers. I'msure he must feel like a cuck going outgiving college football picks and makinghis money that way, pretending to besomething that I am, which is a winning

[51:59] college football. So, I would feel likea cuck like that. I'm sure he feels forRini's husband. And that's why he jumpedout so harshly at me. And to that, Brad,I'm sorry. Yeah. I mean, what do you

[52:12] tell your when these photos come out?What the hell do you tell yoursignificant other? You're you're you'reyou're saying to the press media thatlike it's fabricated, it's taken out ofcountry. What the hell do you tell yoursignificant other?>> This is right. Like, this is bordering

[52:25] on they might just have an openmarriage. I mean, this is insane. I Ithe as I've thought about this afterbeing called a cuck a hundred timesonline over the past day. Uh I my guess

[52:36] is so who would have photos of thesepeople at a lounge like private hotelthing unless somebody was tipped offthat they were there possibly if you're

[52:46] talking like a private investigator kindof wife husband who probably has>> I like this angle. There's not it's notlike there's paparazzi hanging aroundArizona hotels.

[52:58] >> If you're at like a a you're at a hotelin Arizonaand you know football, you're going tonotice Mike Rabel immediately. You'reprobably going to notice Diana Rousinias well. It could just be like, "Holy

[53:09] [ __ ] that's that's Mike Rabel withDiana Rousini." And then>> you get the photos are like someone fromlike across the like>> Yeah. It could you know what I'm saying?

[53:20] >> It's a long distance photo. It's got tobe this this this must have beencoordinated in some way. Like>> this doesn't look like me on my iPhone.>> Yeah, you're right. This looks likesomebody got to jump on it. And you're

[53:32] right.>> Maybe maybe>> maybe paparazzi just knew that they werehere and just they were just hoping fora photo of Mike Vrabel on a scouting

[53:42] mission out in Arizona and then holy[ __ ] he's now with Diana Rini. I don'tknow.>> He was scouting something. know>> he was scouting something for sure. Um Iwe we'll monitor this one, but this this

[53:55] isn't quite sports betting, but this wasuh the biggest topic on sports Twitter,I think, of the week. Anyways, uh let'sget into the next topic on on the NBAside of things. Monday panelist Kirk

[54:08] Evans said, "Flag winning rookie of theyear would be spectacularly dumb." Sovery large battle between Khan Canippleof the Charlotte Hornets and Cooper Flagof the Dallas Mavericks to winning theNBA's rookie of the year award this

[54:20] year. Now Coniple at the start of thisweek was the favorite to win the award,but Cooper Flag has put up someoutrageous performances in the last weekthat have now made him the favorite for

[54:30] this award. Now Cooper Flag, I think, iswidely anticipated to be the betterplayer over their entire NBA careers. Aconiple is also having an incredibleseason on a Hornets team that is winning

[54:42] and is going to be at the very least inthe playin tournament but have a goodchance of making the playoffs as well.Let's start with Mike on this one. Justa general sports debate here. Are you on

[54:52] Cooper Flag side or Khan Canipple side?>> I'm on Khan pretty heavily here. I to methe poll came out a poll released whereuh where they said who would you take

[55:04] Con or Flag and it was 8020 in Khan'sfavor. This was about a week ago. Flaghas had two games since in games thatdon't matter because his team isn't goodenough and he's playing in this sillyseason and now he's getting bolted up.

[55:17] If you thought count or if you thoughtflag was better at the start of theseason or halfway through the season,okay, you know what? I'll hear yourargument. We can discuss the differencesbetween increased efficiency versushaving to soak up more usage. We can

[55:30] talk about that. But if we're talkingthe end of the season, all of a suddenFlag's playing in games that do notmatter and he's able to up his usage andplay because the games like becausethey're able to just force feed him theoffense. To me, that's anothetical to

[55:42] what award should be, which arerewarding players who help their teamthe most. Obviously, Khan, if I'm notsaying just because Khan's team isbetter that he deserves it. I'm sayingbecause Khan made his contributions inthe part of the season that matters. He

[55:55] should be the one who's given the award.>> Okay, Kenishh. Uh,>> I love I love when I know when CharlieKirk Evans has a losing award position.

[56:07] >> And and he goes he goes on an onlinetantrum. And this is another L. This isa classic. This is what I get for beinga casual and like a wreck. And that this

[56:19] is the benefit you have because I cansee into the mind of a voter cuz mybrain is right here. Whereas when you'rea guy like PB or a guy like Kirk and

[56:30] you're like oh the the Darko says Khanis you know 2.8682win shares better. [ __ ] that. Cooperflag backto back like 50 point games.

[56:42] And you know what people were justwaiting. All they wanted if I'm a casualand I got a vote. All I wanted to seewas a couple of banger flag games.That's all I'm going to remember. WhenI'm filling out my ballot and I was

[56:54] going to vote Cooper flag for most ofthe year and then oh I guess I got tovote con now. Oh look, 50 spot 40 trip40 point triple double. I'm back on theflag train. Odds flipped. Maybe I have a

[57:06] small financial position in Flag. It'ssome plus money myself, but that'sobjective. Totally objective. I don't Idon't let that influence my opinion.Flag's going to win it. Kirk's taking anL. PB's taking an L. Second L of theweek for PB.

[57:18] >> The I just want to say the voting thisyear is probably going to get pushedback because of the Luca Donuch appeal.So it may occur after the playing game.And let me tell you, Joey, when bigConnie K

[57:31] getting the Hornets into the playoffswhile Flag sitting at home, who do youthink the voters are going to vote onthen? They're going to see one guy he'splayed most recently give him the award.Flop, uh, your perspective.

[57:43] >> There's I think a couple things here.One, Nish is totally right in the factthat Kirk and PB are struggling tounderstand what a voter is saying.Absolutely. Anyone with a ball knowled

[57:54] knows that Khan is clearly the betterrookie this year, but it's also truethat Flag will end up being the betterplayer. I don't think I don't think Kirkor PB would disagree with with either ofthose statements. However, who will

[58:06] actually win the award? It's funny. I Iwas looking at the price.Nish is completely right. 250 pointgames is enough to slip a lot of votersbecause that's going to be the lastthing they're going to be remembering.

[58:18] But it was 8020 in this draw polebefore. I thought it was closer to50/50. I would make this around a pickright now. I think it was a true pick.And I saw you could get Con at plus oddsand I thought that was a good a good

[58:31] value there. I was trying I I bought alittle bit up to I think like plus 200or plus 160 something like that. I don'thave a major position or anything likethat, but right now I think it's around

[58:42] a 50-50. And if if Flag has another like50 point game in a meaningless, itdoesn't matter if it's meaningless ornot, he's going to win it easily in myopinion. These games are way tooimportant to these voters.

[58:53] >> So, I have a position on Khan and I havea bet with Kirk on I have flag. So,either way, I will dig. I just want tobe clear there. Whatever happens, I will

[59:03] act like I won the game. Uh, so off frommy side on this, I also think Khan I I Idon't have any skin in this game, but Ialso think that Khan Canipple has beenthe superior rookie this year. Uh, from

[59:15] a the mind of a voter, I do also thinkthat they're going to look at CooperFlag from these games. I can't takegames very seriously right now. LikeJulian Ree is putting up like Prime

[59:26] Shack numbers right now for the Wizardsand I people telling me like cuz he waswith the Raptors 95. like, "Why didn'tRaptors sign this guy? Look how good heis." I'm like, "Guys, it's it's it's

[59:37] April. It's April games and these areteams suck. These these stats don't meananything." So, I have to kind of takethat same approach for Cooper Flag. Froma the way people have voted in the past,

[59:49] like I think of I don't know the twothat stick out to me. The these are notrelevant because of how long ago theyare. But like the LeBron Carmelo year,Carmemelllo Anthony was the better

[59:59] rookie and his team made the playoffs,but LeBron was this just ginormousfigure in the sport that he got this wayof votes. Then I think to the EvanMobley, Scotty Barnes year, the Raptors

[60:12] vaulting up to the fifth seed in thelast week of the season probably pushedenough voters to say he's contributingmore to winning and gave him the vote towin rookie of the year. So, uh, tough tosay, but I think, uh, Cooper Flag will

[60:25] get more of the votes, but I do thinkCanipple is the more deserving player.So,>> who's winning coach of the year, Jacob?>> Who's winning coach of the year?>> And you better be one answer, cuz ifit's not, I'm

[60:37] >> uhI don't think you I don't I don't thinkanyone's not going to vote for for BakerStaff. Really, Missoula is not I thinkBaker Staff's going to win.>> Yes,>> Joey May should win. I think you couldmake a very good case for Missoula

[60:51] though.>> No, no, no. Cut that out of the podcast.I don't even want it out there. There'sthis one I do have a big position on. Idon't want to hear any Missoula.Missoula, I don't even want the chance a

[61:03] voter listens to this show and think,"Oh, Missou.">> The Pistons are the one seed. They werethe five seed last year. The Celticswere uh are going to be the two seed.They've been one of the best teams for awhile, even though the situation was

[61:17] very different this year. I>> was going to say they did, you know, oneguy was kind of injured for a part ofthe season for the Celtics. They kind ofmade a big difference.>> No, I'm with you. I'm with you. I'm notdenying that either.>> Yeah.>> But how are voters going to treat it notgoing how I wanted? Let's move on. It's

[61:31] JB Bicker Staff.>> We'll move on. Yes. One more.>> One more topic on the show. Before weget there, I want to plug the newsletterwe have at the hammer betting therebecause I don't know, we've been livingunder a rock, but it's a great

[61:43] newsletter that we've been doing forfootball seasons and on football, buteven though the NFL is in the offseason,doesn't mean we're not still putting outnewsletters. Alex Moro continues hishockey thoughts on Wednesdays and onMondays, it'll be packed with NFL news,

[61:56] free agent rankings, draft stuff, andmuch more. Go to the hammer.bet tosubscribe, or again, simple, go to thelink in description, sign up to ournewsletter today. Last topic. Uh Bo

[62:07] Nickel, UFC fighter, says, "If you're aregular person, do you think you have abetter chance of beating Jon Jones in afight or beating LeBron in a 1v one?"

[62:18] So, two player, sorry, two athletes whoare arguably the greatest of all time intheir respective sportswould love to hear the comments on this

[62:28] one. Um, I'll give I'll give my answerfirst cuz I um I've thought about this alittle bit. Um, let's say I have to playLeBron to 11. I'm gonna score zero

[62:39] points of obviously I'm gonna lose 11nothing. And even if I fluke in onejumper, I'm still going to lose 11 like11-11. If I'm fighting Jon Jones, I'm

[62:50] going to thumbnail obviously.>> But like there's at least I think uh aminuscule of a chance more that I couldland some sort of punch that wins thefight. I'm going to>> I'm GOING TO LOSE BOTH. I'M going to

[63:02] lose both. No, this is this is the worsttake. You You're dying versus John. Youhave zero.>> THAT'S WHAT I SAID. I JUST SAID THAT>> you lose. But no, but you actually canbeat LeBron. Here's how you here's how

[63:13] you do it. It's a very low. But what youdo you first you need to [ __ ] gettingthe ball because if he gets the ballfirst, you're losing 11-0 every time.But if you get the ball, all you have todo is literally jump backwards, throw it

[63:25] like this because you can't drive onhim. And you can maybe bank that shotevery now and then. And then you do that11 times. We're talking about one.>> If I miss once, he gets the ball and Inever get it back.>> Right. Right.

[63:36] >> But you can you admitted you can makeone. And if you can make one, you couldactually win the game. It's it's a lowenough probability. But if you fight JonJones, you're just dead every time.>> But like I need to do that 11 times

[63:48] against LeBron.>> I'm not saying it's easy. I'm sayingit's like there's a theoreticalpossibility.>> Okay. My theoretical possibility withJon Jones, I just miracle right hook.

[64:02] It's a punch me if you if he sat thereand put his chin out for you and said,"Jacob, please punch me in the face."You would punch him and then he wouldkill you.>> I would die. I said I would die. But I

[64:13] think that there is a greater percentagechance of of just something connectingthere. You know,>> hold on. In oneonone, you usually mostof the time you start at the three-point

[64:24] line, right? So, and then the guyusually doesn't def. So you would stepback.>> He wouldn't look AT YOUR GOD IS NOTLETTING ME SHOOT. WHY DON'T YOU let meshoot?>> Usually like the guy you're like you

[64:37] usually check the ball, right? And thenthe guy can't come into in in let's saythis variation.>> WHAT KIND OF IN WHAT WORLD ARE YOUPLAYING THAT you can't go up and defend?>> LEBRON IS GOING TO CHECK THE [ __ ]

[64:48] ball to me. Can I even get the ballfirst? We're probably going to shoot forball. He's going to win. So even if Ijust I somehow get that even if he letsme start he is soon he checks the ballhe's on my ass. I'm not going to make

[65:00] >> you have you have to turn backwards andshoot it like likeyou're right and now I I made one I gotto do that 10 more times. the the 5%

[65:11] shot I just put up, I got to hit 10 moretimes and I need to get the ball back at>> I would argue with the amount of drugsthat Jon Jones has done. The chance ofhim dying regular as you go to begin

[65:23] this fight just randomly from heartfailure is as high as making those facI've listen a guy literally died on afootball field because somehow a helmetconnected with his chest at like just

[65:35] the absolute worst spot at the worsttime. But just just putting it outthere.>> What's that?>> You're going to get You're going to getOkay,>> we're going to get demonetized.

[65:48] >> Also, he got his heart stopped becausesomebody flew into him at a pace thatwas insane. A pace you'll never get tois Jon Jones kills you. But just itlisten, I'm not suggesting I'm gonna

[65:59] It's just I think there is the the flukechance is greater in the Jon Jonessituation than the LeBron situation. I'ma little stunned by the vote here.

[66:09] >> Friend, we used to have our friends>> could three if we played threeon-oneversus LeBron, is there a shot we couldwin?>> No, because you wouldn't be able to youwouldn't be able to get a stop.>> No,

[66:21] you could just make five threes. You youhave two guys on either side of thebasket and then once he goes down, youpass it back to the open guy at the topof the key and that guy has to continueto hit shots.>> Yeah. I'm not saying we're favored, but

[66:34] we can there's a there's a world whereyou win.>> Right. Right. Right.>> Yeah. Okay. Fair enough.>> All right. Well,>> but it's three versus one rather thanone v one.>> You you don't you agree though in thatsituation, Mike, that you need to [ __ ]

[66:46] getting the ball first because if hegets the ball first, you cannot stop himand you're losing 11 110 every time.Well, you've never seen me lock up.>> I was gonna Yeah, I was going to say ifyou you know to play a little zone,

[66:58] force him to shoot jumpers.>> Watch him force him. He's going to go.>> He's getting to the rim every time.Okay.>> Yeah, he's going to dunk it all times.>> No, you know what?

[67:11] >> He'll back you down, then just turnaround and dunk over top of you.You give me myself and a couple otherpremier athletes which is gives youthree premier athletes.

[67:20] >> Do push-ups and run tread buddy.>> I think uh you know it's not going to bea cakewalk for old Bronnie.>> All right. Uh yeah, we're divided here.

[67:32] I mean we're split similarly to thedistribution in the poll here. Uh we'rewe're we're one against three in thisone. It's it's almost threequarters ofvote for LeBron in this poll. would loveany any comments down below. Would you

[67:44] would like let's say fade of theuniverse on the line. You got to beateither Jon Jones, LeBron. Who are youtaking?>> How many average people do you think you

[67:54] need to beat up Jon Jones?>> Like could the four of us do it? I'msaying probably no.>> No.>> So, three three nerds in a superathlete. Uh no. I think it would uh I

[68:07] think you start to get>> I think you start to get close withfour. You can just overwhelm him like>> Yeah, if we get to>> fighting is very tiring beforehand howwe're going to attack him.If we get, you know, practice time of

[68:20] learning how to fight someonefouron-one,>> I think four we'd win.>> We have to grab his grab his like legsand then just like understand that likewe're going to get our ribs snapped.

[68:30] Like one of us might die, but we lovesacrifice immediately. We have him getkilled and slot and then go on swarmingthreeon one.>> If we had two more guys, I think if wehad six,

[68:42] >> six is good. Yeah, six.>> Six is no. Four, I think, is enough. I Ithink three is on the>> four is tough. You give us twopractices. I think four can get it done.>> Yeah. I I I'd say even like just an hour

[68:54] just to learn how to at least cushionlike a blow to your face and like>> oh we're not cushioning blows from theface. I want immediate just>> you know like in uh in the in theAvengers when they're fighting Thanos

[69:07] and they just have everyone's got onejob. One person's on this arm, oneperson's on this arm, somebody's got toget his head like>> really. So I said Jacob said that hecould knock him out by himself.

[69:19] >> That's true. Yeah.earlier. Honestly, cheering them on.>> I got this one. I got this one. Youleave it to me.>> That was the worst thing about thatstick. He's like, "Oh, I have apuncher's chance." No, a normal humandoes not have a puncher chance. You only

[69:32] have a puncher chance if you train forlike years.>> Like, like you said with the LeBronthing, I could miracle fluke one shot inon LeBron. I got to do it 10 more times.I But I could get a shot off. I could

[69:44] get maybe maybe I could get a punch offagainst Jon Jones.>> And if I do I probably won't doanything, but I think there's a greaterchance of doing something than me havingto do that 10 more times against LeBron.

[69:55] That that I'm not going to be convincedotherwise. And uh I think we got to moveon because we've talked about enough.Get in the comments on this one, guys,please. Uh last thing on the show today,let's give the floor to Mike. He wants

[70:07] to shout something out.>> Yeah, someone uh very close to me hasstarted a charity organization in uhColumbus, Ohio, working with teenagersand young adults with autism. um kind ofhelping them create a community where

[70:20] they can get together. A lot of thecommunity nowaday is basically it'scaretaking in a way that's not excitingfor them uh or fun. So, uh they createda charity and they're working to help

[70:31] get them to engage with one another andyou know hang out and have a good time.I will be tweeting out something uh witha link that provides it out uh and we'llput something in the show here that youcould go ahead and donate to.

[70:44] >> Yeah, I'll put the link for that in thedescription for you to check out. Uh,great messaging there and look out forMike's Twitter as well for moreinformation which is also linked in thedescription below. But that is the end

[70:53] of the show. Um, no chopping block guys.What do you think?>> One more of these and I'll go on protestagain. I'm telling you>> fought for this and we deserve it.

[71:05] >> So, our biggest fan's going to be verydisappointed and you're going to have toanswer to them.>> He's going to start replies. You're notgoing to>> have like eight or nine topics on theshow. Uh, and and one of those sometimes

[71:17] a chopping block. Everything that's noton the show that didn't make the cut,Mike specifically voted no, I don't wantto talk about this. So,>> I if you would have told me it was forthe chopping block, I would have put

[71:30] Yeah.>> Okay, that's true. Uh, all right. Well,anyways, that's the end of the show. Wehad some serious topics, some goodbetting insights. We had some fun topicsas well. Uh, if you enjoyed what yousaw, let us know by hitting the like

[71:42] button and consider subscribing to thechannel. You get this panel Fridays at 8a.m. for the pre-recorded version, butwe also do Circle Back Mondays live at 1PM Eastern time. We'll be back there onMonday, and we hope to see you there.