00:00 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
On this week's episode of Circles Off, episode number 94, demarcus Ware, one of my favorite players of all time. We're recapping the NCAA tournament so far, including two bets that were highly talked about. Steve Fezzik loses a minus 4,500 favorite. Rob Pizzola, the pizza man, loses a minus 750 favorite. Were they good bets? Were they not good bets? We'll get into that discussion. All that and more circles off starts now. Come on, let's go. Welcome to circles off, episode number 94, here on the hammer betting network, rob pazola joined by johnny from betstamp. How's it going? 

00:40 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
what week? What a week of march madness. Yes, in the books the old four-day weekend Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. How was it, Rob? 

00:48 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
Well, we're going to get into it. I'm always upfront and honest with the audience Suffered a horrible, horrible loss in the first week of March Madness. We're going to talk about that on the show today. For those who tuned into the live episode last week where we were talking march madness, you'll remember that I said I laid minus 750 on no number one seed to lose in the first round and I was very worried during the houston game. But ultimately it's the final game purdue that loses that bet. With that said, I've actually had a very good tournament. It's kind of like weird and mis. I hate saying stuff like that, but it's the truth. I one bet he gave out lost yes, minus 757 unit. 

01:32 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
Bangers guys down 30, 38.5 units. But yet he had a good tournament. 

01:38 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
All right guys uh, yeah, it was a big. It was a big loss. I mean, I there's's no doubt Like I'm obviously not chasing clout or I wouldn't post this kind of stuff. There's no benefit of saying something like this, right, because I've had two big bets that I've given out in the last two months that have been substantial favorites that lost, and I don't care. Oh yeah, the Super Bowl. Yeah, don't you remember Super? 

02:04 - Zack Phillips (Guest)
Bowl. No't you remember Super Bowl? 

02:05 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
no field goal to hit the upright minus 590 that's. That was, in my opinion, an absurdly good bet, better than the minus 750 on no number one seeds, which we'll talk about a little bit as well. But yeah, I mean it's been a good tournament. I've had betting success. I've had a lot of bets, I've had a lot of volume. I posted a thread to Twitter with like all my first round plays and those were just at the regulated books, which was like 52 over the course of the first two days, and on top of that I had other offshore and PPH wagers. It's, there's a lot of volume going on right now and it's been fairly good. 

02:43 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
So fair enough, we're going to talk about the bet. We should bring on Fezzik, our buddy, as well so we're going to talk about both of these. 

02:50 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
Um, I will remind everyone out there once again Circles Off brought to you by Pinnacle. Pinnacle is the world's sharpest sports book, now available to bettors in Ontario. Find out what pro bettors have known for decades. Pinnacle is where the best bettors play Not necessarily me, if you saw my Pinnacle account with. The favorites Must be 19 plus in Ontario. Please play responsibly. Not available in the US. So two talking points. Myself 750. 

03:21
I got skewered, rightfully so I would say Maybe not. I don't like getting skewered. Rightfully so I would say maybe, maybe not. I don't like it's getting skewered by people who are just like, oh, I would never lay that price on anything. I hate that more than anything. 

03:34
There's an argument to be made of whether or not you think it was a an actually a positive expected value bet or not, and I think that that's fair. Like there might be somebody who says like no, I just don't think that was a good wager. You need to have like 80, just under 88% implied in order to win this bet and you didn't have that Fair enough if that's the argument. If the argument is, oh, you should never lay big favorites, then we're gonna have a problem, but I got skewered. Our boy Fezzik I say our boy because we had him on the podcast within the last month. Steve Fezzik posted that he was trying to decide how much he should invest in Quote, unquote, invest, invest in Purdue minus 4,500 money line, 99% plus bet good value. And he got roasted, eventually had to defend himself in an espn chalk article holy 595k views on the tweet. 

04:31 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
This is a lot of guys roasting him on the quotes. 

04:34 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
I can probably assume there's nothing that people on twitter love more than someone losing a bunch of money. Would you, would you not agree? With that especially, especially so. Yeah, they especially someone that's polarizing, let's put it that way, and Fezzik is very polarizing. 

04:49 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
Absolutely, you're a hundred percent right. 

04:50 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
And so I want to walk through my process on why I bet the bet that I did, and then you can tell me whether or not you think it was a good bet or not and we can define what we think a good bet is fair, fair enough, okay. So minus 750. I mentioned this on the stream last week. Betstamp social media guy very aggressive for some of the people that don't know messages me out of the blue and says hey, rob, just wanted you to know that a certain PPH skin paperhead illegal book frankly not for the better but for whoever's running the book called Buckeye, has this bet minus 750. And I think that's a really good bet, like okay. So the first thing I did was I immediately went at the time and I took the best prices that were available in market at the time and I parlayed them to see what it would have paid, which was worse than this number. Then I went to a market-making book, circa, who was offering this prop at minus $1,100 on the no plus. I think it was $840 on the other side, midpoint price of like somewhere in the 950 to 1000 range. All right Then, for those that don't know, I don't, I don't, originate college basketball. 

06:12
I don't bet a lot of college basketball, but I work with people that do, and there's one person that we really respect that tends to send, that sends plays, but sporadically. Whether this is, I just have you know. I don't have the greatest relationship with the person, but it's either he sends when he's looking for more liquidity, either, I guess, because he's lost accounts or maybe because it's bigger place. So he sporadically sends us plays and some of the times I don't. I don't know why, but like he'll send plays for three or four days, then he'll disappear for like a week. I'm guessing we're not his number one partner, let's just put it that way. Right, like he comes to us at the low end of the totem pole, but he's been sending us plays college basketball plays going on three or four years now with really high success, both sides, and totals mixes it up. 

07:06
Anyways, one of the people that I've worked with in terms of automation in the past has worked with this guy as well on backtesting his models and so on and so forth. So he sends me. I ask him can you send me a sim of your bracket for this year so that I can have it? And he sends me a SIM of his bracket overall with the percentages, and I go and I plug in the numbers and he's substantially higher than market on the number one seeds. So he sends me 99.3%, purdue, 96.5% Houston, 99.3% on. 

07:45
Purdue on Purdue 96.5% Houston, 98% Kansas, 98.9% Alabama. That's a. If you multiply those it's a probability of 92.9%. So that's, that's significantly off market. So my first response to him is like hey, I actually checked T-rank Bart Torvik's numbers and they're they're much different. If you multiply Bart Torvik's numbers you get 85.1% Right. 

08:12
So I'm like are you sure your things are right with these one seeds or whatever? And we're just having a conversation back and forth. You know I don't want to reveal too, I don't want to reveal too much, but basically he says I'm fairly confident in my numbers. I asked him if he could send me one of the back tests that he's had for the year, which he does. So he sends me a back test of the entire season, which is like over 10,000 games of college basketball and his mean absolute error. So his error metrics on money lines are better than the error metrics of the pinnacle and circa closing prices. Okay, this isn't a lot, fairly. I know it's one season, but it's a fairly large sample. So I'm like you know what I'm going to go with it. I'm just going to ride this on March Madness, where one off-market prices or two bets based off of someone else's model that I'm personally just choosing to invest my money in because I'm using the investment term You're tailing I'm tailing right Like this is a person who's had success. 

09:18
He can prove to me via a back test that his models had success and whenever we've bet the stuff, it's had success. So I'm just going to ride it. Now somebody might say those numbers are wrong. Feel free to disagree, and that's completely fine. For me, I was confident enough to do that. The bet ultimately loses. He gave FDU a 0.7 chance of winning. They won. That's the. That was the biggest of the one seeds in terms of his probability to win. It is what it is. I swallow it, I eat it and I move on with life, because that's what betting is right. Now, I get it. We're not all robots right, and there's people who are on the complete opposite side of this right. Spanky made some tweets about this, which obviously I respect the opinion, but it's like. What did he tweet? I missed it. He basically said that he doesn't like there's too much risk of ruin. 

10:19 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
Oh sorry, in the mind betting a minus 750 in general. 

10:22 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
He just doesn't care to do that yes, and he responded to Fezzik as well about his tweet, but overall, he's basically of the opinion that I don't want to bet minus 750s because the risk of ruin is too high, and that's his prerogative. For me, I'm going to tell you this and, again, I'm not going to tweet out every single bet I ever make or every big favorite I ever make or every big favorite I ever make. I lose big favorites. I win big favorites on pretty much a weekly basis. I bet golfers not to win the tournament. Okay, some people would think that that's insane. Why are you going to lay one to 20 on this guy to win not win the tournament? Because I think that there's a probabilistic edge there. 

11:04
Formula one race last weekend in saudi arabia, I laid minus 820 on fernando alonso not to win the race. I'm not victory lapping this or whatever. Yeah, he podiumed, he, he had let's I would put it optimistically at a five percent chance to win that race. He didn didn't win. I can celebrate that win. I think probabilistically right, and a lot of people. What'll happen is the outcome happens, purdue wins and they're like ah, terrible bet. For me it's like well, I didn't say that they were not gonna win. I think there was like 1% of the time where they would win. The market thought that there was gonna be be like a 2.5% to 3% of the time where they were going to win that game and I think it just fell into that bucket and you get unlucky. It's no different than roulette, for example. Right Roulette. You know the whole argument of. I've been talking for a long time, I'll get your opinion on this in one second but the whole argument of never lay these big favorites right. The casino does this all the time. 

12:10 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
Yeah and roulette. If you get enough volume, it literally doesn't matter. If you get enough volume and the favorite is the edge, even if it's a minus 100,000 every time, if you have enough, like technically, think about what the better is playing on like a slot machine even right it doesn't matter they have a chance to hit progressive, I get it's a little different, but even not like on a roulette wheel. Sorry, that makes more sense. You're betting. 

12:33 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
They're essentially laying minus 3600 the houses every time exactly and and for me it's just like I would, let's say, the european style table. Right, you got your zero and your double zero. There's 37 spots. I'm so incorrect. It's absolutely not minus 38. Or 38 spots, whatever. 

12:50 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
Minus, 38, six to one. 

12:52 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
Double zero roulette. They pay 35 to one. The house edge is 5.26%. That's a known edge right. It's different than sports betting because on the roulette table you know, Like you actually know, the numbers In sports betting. It's not apples to apples, because you're coming up with what you think Sports betting could be fixed. 

13:09 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
that's why. 

13:09 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
Well, that's true, Some sports you never know right, but you know your house edge. In sports betting you're estimating probabilities, but ultimately it's not a deterrent for me, In hindsight. I mean, like I like the bet, like I, I've won money off of this person's plays for the whole tournament. So far this includes losing a minus 750. So who am I to say that? Oh, he completely priced everything wrong. I've done fairly well with that pricing. But I just don't understand, Like the I, I never will understand the arbitrary cutoffs of like oh, like never lay more than this, never lay more than that, and it's like no, I mean I just want to bet edges. 

14:02 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
I'll share my opinion on both these bets, all right, so here's what I'd say. 

14:06 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
And, by the way, I'm not commenting on the Fezzik wager right, I personally think You're saying you're a bet, well I'm commenting on your bet specifically. This is weird, right, because like minus 750 and minus 4,500 are very different things. Right, like an edge is an edge, I get it. Principle remains the same, like if you're willing. 

14:32 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
It's like I would be willing to lay minus 4500 on something I would. So would I, but I would. I would almost need to know, it's a certainty. At minus 4500, I've done worse than that. Well, I so I've lost worse than that. 

14:37
By the way, minus 4500, but I've also won bigger than that. Yep, um. So here's what I'd say Fezzik's both Rob's and Fezzik's in my opinion, bad bets, both Not based on the result. Obviously, that's easy to say after the fact. When Rob mentioned on the podcast, I quick-calculated after last week and I'll say this after, but we'll start with Fezzik's. Okay, so minus 4,500,. 

15:04
I'll explain why this is not a good bet. Very simple you could get a better price in market and market-making books. I just opened up bet stamp. I went to. I went to Friday, march 17. I clicked on Purdue versus fairly Dick. I'm looking at it right now. There are five books that close at a better price than this. If you're going to tell me that five books closed at a better price, I'll tell you right now it's not a good. It's not a good bet. If you're going to tell me that five recreational books closed at a better price, we might have a shot. If you're going to tell me that pinnacle closed at a what would be our, our show sponsor, pinnacle closing at minus 32 62. 

15:40
Fesic laid 4500 to win 100 times. Whatever multiple you bet, yeah, you could have laid,500 to win 100 Times. Whatever multiple you bet, you could have laid 3,262 to win 100. You didn't. You got a worse number. I would have played Fairleigh Dickinson at plus 4,500 All day long. I would not have Bet minus 4,500 and in reverse. What I'd say is I actually would have played the opposite of this play All day long, based on the fact that that line was available for high limits and it didn't get hit. So it's more efficient than Fezzik's number. That's a straight bet. It's very easy to determine Rob's bet. I also wouldn't have played Rob's bet. I actually did have a bet on the opposite of Rob's, albeit at plus 1,000. So what that means is I actually had a bet for a smaller amount than Rob is. I actually wasn't able to get a ton down on it. 

16:31 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
Also also, you're betting the. 

16:32 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
The underdog is always going to be way less money, yeah, but I would have bet more on it if I could have. But I did have a bet on plus a thousand for a 16 seed to beat a one seed in the tournament. Ended up cashing. I had the fair price for it, where it's like around what would have been 680 to 690. Meaning I probably would not have played you would have taken plus seven. 

16:56 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
Well, you wouldn't have played it, but you would have found value on plus 750. 

16:58 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
I would rather have taken plus 750 than minus 750. However, I would not have taken plus 750 if that was offered to me, meaning if 50, then minus 750. However, I would not have taken plus 750 if that was offered to me. Meaning if rob and I were messaging in a chat and he's like hey, I want to bet this at minus 750, you want to go on the other side? Handshake, gentleman bet, I would have said, ah, no good, I'm okay, I'll pass it was more advantageous for me to play that into a book anyways definitely. 

17:20
But what I mean? 

17:21 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
yeah, for obvious reasons, they think some, some of these people that are collecting this week think that this guy's a loser. Yeah, let's add more credit to this account, please. 

17:31 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
Point of the story being, I wouldn't have played the same price as Rob. I also wouldn't have played against his numbers. So I'm not saying Rob's was a bad bet, it's just something I wouldn't have played. Fezzik, I do think in this scenario, was a bad bet. No slight against him, but I think it's very obvious, given that Pinnacle closed at again minus 3,262, that you shouldn't be laying minus 4,500, and you should probably look at taking plus 4,500 on FDU With Rob's. 

18:00
I think one thing that people forget is you're still betting a parlay in that scenario. So what rob's bet was was like parlay of alabama, kansas, purdue and houston houston for four number one seeds. So this prop is probably not the most accurate indicator of what that market should be. The most accurate indicator is actually probably the money line odds or potentially even the spread odds, because they're taking higher limits. So if you were able to take the average spread odds, convert that to a money line probability, reference that with the money line and then find a way to parlay all four at a fair price, if you stripped out the juice and parlayed those, you're probably honestly getting like minus 500. 

18:42
Without the juice, obviously. With the juice in, you're getting around what rob got. So you could have achieved that same price by parlaying all four of the favorites. And, um, if you were to go shop around, book to book and mix and match sports books, not just taking just the pinnacle price, you would have been able to achieve a slightly better number than that. And for those asking like well, you can't, parlay across books doesn't make sense in this scenario, you can. Yeah, because the games are all independent events. So let's say rob wanted to bet there's no. 

19:16 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
There's no overlap on them either in terms of start times they may have honestly overlap, but for simplicity. Okay, for simplicity, let's say they didn't. 

19:23 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
But essentially what you'd have to do is, let's say you wanted to bet a hundred dollars total on this. What you do is you bet a hundred on the first game. You lay the money line price. It's going to pay back like five bucks. Then you bet 105 on the next game. Win that. You bet 110, win that, 120, whatever, etc. Etc. So you can in theory do that. If you're betting higher stakes you can't because obviously then the last bet you'd have to figure out a way to get down a lot more money which might not be feasible on the money line odds of a good price. So all in what I would say is that if you're a hundred dollar better, could have achieved a better price than this. If you're a $10,000 better, you could not have achieved a better price than this. 

20:01 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
Yeah, For what it's worth. I mean, even using the pinnacle closing lines, it's pretty much right on the exact price that I played it. Um, I mean, this is where we we probably would just be a neck. 

20:10 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
That would just be an even expected value. 

20:12 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
But of course. 

20:13 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
Rob's going off numbers which he believes are sharper. 

20:15 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
Exactly so. That's what I was going to get at it. It's your fundamental principle Like I don't, I don't. I don't originate college basketball, right, I originate NHL, I originate NFL, I originate some smaller market stuff as well, and that's where I'm making my own numbers. I'm testing my own numbers. I have the utmost of confidence in my own numbers. If somebody plays back at me on one of those numbers so meaning if I went and I placed a bet on a random NHL game Buffalo Sabres, whatever and someone plays back at me, line moves back to where it was before usually what I'm going to do is I'm going to try to find out if there's any unknown info on that game that I have not captured, which is rare but if there's not, I will just bet the same side again. 

21:02 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
Fair enough. 

21:02 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
I do that because I'm very confident in my own numbers. 

21:05 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
Well, in same side again, fair enough, I do, because I'm very confident in my own numbers. Well, in theory, then, you're shaping the market, yes, and then, as I've mentioned multiple podcasts before, you're either going to win a lot of money or lose a lot of money. 

21:11 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
Thus will indicate how much you're willing to shape the market in the future exactly closing in value always efficient right now that's the nhl, the sport I'm the most confident in, right, and I see the public numbers that are available from other models that are out there and people who are betting these models for real money and it's like no, I know this is why they're getting this number and this is what they're doing. Wrong. College basketball I'm flying blind. So, as I mentioned last week, I just I want to sweat on college basket, I want to sweat on march madness, right, and but I want to do it in a way where I think I actually have good bets. So for me, the easiest way to do that in the early going was, okay, on the first night selection Sunday. All the recreational books are open. Let's wait for pinnacle and circa and Chris to open, see what their numbers are, and I'll just pick off all these other. Quote unquote bad prices at other books. That went fairly well for me. I would say the. 

22:04 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
That went fairly well for me, I would say the other one went fairly dick for you. 

22:07 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
Yes. 

22:08 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
Yes, thank you, zach. 

22:11 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
Yes, fairly dick. 

22:14 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
Wow, the laugh track Laugh track that was? 

22:18 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
did that just come to you on the spot? Yeah, oh man, why. It actually couldn't have worked out any better. 

22:26 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
Hey, listen, I might get in the stand-up one day. 

22:27 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
It couldn't have worked out any better. Uh, anyways, we do a lot of educational content. I think one mistake I mean fezik got roasted way more than I did purely because of this tweet right, which is essentially advocating for other people to go and play. Step back. 

22:47 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
Yeah, that sucks honestly. Rob tweeted his like midway through when Houston was like tied, and I feel like he just was like by the way, I'm on this and I'm not feeling good about it. 

22:59 - Zack Phillips (Guest)
But yeah, this was at 11 pm. 

23:01 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
You tweeted this at 11 pm. When's the 16th For Thursday night? Yeah, thursday, 11 pm. Yeah, you tweeted this at 11 pm. When's the 16th? 

23:06 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
for a thursday night. Yeah, yeah, thursday night, this was I listen again, I don't know, like a bandit going into friday. 

23:10
You just needed a purdue money line win I saw some guy on houston like limping to the bench. It was a close game. I'm messaging around. I'm like, who's this guy? They're like, oh, he's houston's best player. I'm like, oh, this is, this is great. Like I made the mistake. The biggest mistake I made, in my opinion, was not the bet. It was tweeting about the bet. Yeah, no doubt like never there. In hindsight, there is absolutely no upside to this look at physics tweet. 

23:38 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
he had a zero. He says it's 99 plus bet. Yeah, he had a 99% plus chance of not winning on this tweet. I'll tell you why. If he wins this bet, nobody literally nobody, gives a fuck. They're like oh congrats, You're minus 4,500 won. If he loses his bet 585K impressions, 212 quote tweets of guys absolutely ripping him so pretty much. He wasn't a lose, lose, there's no. How is he going to win this? If he won this bet, it would be glanced over. This tweet would have barely any engagement, interview whatever. 

24:15 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
Yeah, I, I, I again. My biggest regret is not the bet. I overcame that bet already. Like I'll be, I'm, I'm, I'm pretty transparent guy, like when I'm going through a rough patch or I'm having a bad month, like I'll let people know that was a shitty bet to lose. I sat there for a bit and I'm like, damn, that sucks. Like I just gave away an entire day's worth of profit that I worked to get that day's worth of profit. You can't make that back on that day. Whatever you move on, it is what it is. The mistake was the tweet and, like I said, like I rare I make bets like this all the time I literally make a bet on a big favorite, weekly. Okay. 

24:58 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
I don't tweet it. No. Tournament winner. Yeah, Max Holman. No, he's been winning. 

25:03 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
I know, like I have bet golfers regularly to not win tournaments, period. I mentioned, like people tweet, dm me all the time around F1 races the hour leading up to the race. What did you bet on? What do you like this and that? And I'm like gun shy to tell them like I think the best bet on the board is is the field versus fernando alonso. Lance stroll, no podium. I actually bet lance stroll against fernando alonso, as you retired early in the race, but I caught a big bomb banger, a Logan Sargent, plus 333 against Alex Albon, nice, His teammate, who retired early in the race. 

25:42
But anyways, this is not about I will make a, I think probabilistically. And for people who are like, oh, sports betting's not a math problem, it isn't like, but it is. That's not to say that watching the games can't help you, or handicapping the game in some way, where you're using your eyes to kind of determine, like those can. There's lots of ways to peel the potato. We say it all the time. Right, there's lots of ways to do it, but inherently it is somewhat of a math problem. Right, it's. It's assigning a probability to an outcome and comparing that with what the market is offering you. That's essentially the name of the game. 

26:23 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
If if minus 4,500 Purdue would, it would have been a good bet. If that was the best number available in the market and the closing price was minus 6,000, I would have said, yeah, you know what Tough loss Loss is bet. But he made a good bet. The reason is not has zero to do with the fact that it's actually a minus 4,500. 

26:42 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
Agreed. So a lot of the people coming after me were just, you know the arbitrary and arbitrary numbers. People, right, like, never lay over this price price, I'd never lay over minus 200. And then you know what you do. You do a quick twitter search of their username and mayweather and you find that, like three quarters of these people all bet mayweather at higher prices. And this is like results-based analysis, right, mayweather is a great bet because he won and everybody won their bet. But if you lose a big wager, then it's not. It's results-based analysis at its finest. Now, again, I have no problem if someone comes at me and says you did not calculate this correctly. I don't think that the numbers you were using are correct. I would never have assigned a probability of 92 plus percent on this happening. I think it was closer to 85. And for that, like that's a logical reason not to make the bet. There's also the reason, the spanky reason, right, like, we are human beings, we're not robots. 

27:46
Some of us are robots or can be more robotic than others right, but for somebody losing a minus 750 favorite might send them off like and put them in a mental capacity where they can. They just like they can't function as a human anymore. Or like they're so defeated from betting that they're now gun shy, like they don't want to pull the trigger on other games and like if that's going to be the case, then yeah, there's good reason for you not to make those types of bets. 

28:14 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
but that doesn't mean they don't come along regularly and are often very good wagers yeah, also, I see there was people like parading around wagers that had fairly dickinson money line and then you look at the price. It's like they post a screenshot from FanDuel plus 1,200. That's such a bad bet that I know you want it. But to get only plus 1,200, that's such a recreational-style wager and then I would have rather laid minus 4,500. I'd rather have laid minus 5,500 than taking a plus 1,200 on Fairleigh Dickinson. 

28:51 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
But there is the mentality. I think me and you are the same in this. I mean, I'm pretty confident that we are. But good bets lose all the time and bad bets win all the time. That happens regularly, on a daily basis. There's going to be tons of bad bets that win. 

29:10 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
For every good bet that loses, there's a hundred bad bets that won. 

29:13 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
For every good bet that loses, there's 100 bad bets that won. That's what I'm saying, so like for me it just comes down to. I personally try to make good bets. More often than not, I try to beat the closing line, unless I feel as though I am working off something that is more predictive than the closing line you're fair enough on that you want a plug for bet stamp here. 

29:36 - Zack Phillips (Guest)
Johnny, go for it on friday. I was doing something and so I was just watching bet stamp. I was monitoring the lines all day just getting a tattoo. 

29:45 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
Yeah, yeah, well, let's see it, is that your first? 

29:48 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
tattoo. No, from here, from my vantage point, I could not see him show the tattoo and I thought he was making a masturbation gesture. He just lifted his arm up like this and this is all I could see that he was doing. I was like what the hell is going on? 

30:03 - Zack Phillips (Guest)
here. What is this show? So I was just like on, I had my laptop, I was just watching march madness all day and was like scrolling through betsam and, uh, all of sudden I see the board start lighting up on Fairleigh Dickinson moving down. And it was just shooting down from. It was at like $2,200 was best price in market and all of a sudden it was dropping rapidly. And so I went and grabbed quickly on one of the books $2,100 I'm looking at here Yep Plus $2,100. And the100 I'm looking at here Yep Plus 2,100. And the book I betted at closed plus 1,500. And like, obviously it ends up winning. I just had a small bet on it, but it was like I was just watching BetSamp and BetSamp moved across. 

30:43 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
So you betted as a good bet at 2,100. Now imagine taking to FezX 4,500, betting at plus 4100. How good of a bet that would be. Yes, disgusting, disgusting anyways. Uh, one more thing I think I wanted to bring up, but, uh, drawing a blank now actually I had one more good thing. Oh, it was this. It's a funny one. Obviously. We all saw gonzaga tcu. Yes, that incredible last second incredible slash, devastating, depending which side you're on. Personally, had absolutely no side in this. 

31:16 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
Same with me. 

31:17 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
Didn't impact me, but, boy, I had the plus four and a half. 

31:20 - Zack Phillips (Guest)
You had the plus four and a half. 

31:21 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
Good, good win. I wanted to say it's tough. I saw Brad Power's tweet that it was his worst gambling day of his entire life, but really what I wanted to bring up was an absolute legend of the game, someone I hope we can have on the podcast one day. That game unofficially put him into retirement. Alan Boston tweeted it's over, he's done, he's not betting anymore. He's got to find something new. That guy on TCU with that flick bucket full court role put a gambling legend into retirement, the whole, it's. 

31:57 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
It's not just the bucket, though. Like I again, no side for me in gonzaga tcu watch the end of the game live, and I I'm I'm very in tune with what the point spreads are why people are watching the game, but like, but, like. The fouling with that amount of time left on the clock is ridiculous in the first place for one, but there's also no way he got that shot off in 0.7 seconds. 

32:24 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
He did, he actually did. There's no, he got it on. 

32:26 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
Think about how quick 0.7 seconds is to pick up the ball from that low. Because the ball was just bouncing, he let it dribble Like to that low to get it up high to release. 

32:36 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
Yeah, you're right, Actually it wasn't. It's impossible. 0.4 is like the tip they say you can do catch and shoot with 0.3. 

32:42 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
0.4 is the Derek Fisher back in the day, which was one of my greatest gambling wins of all time. As I'm just chasing all my losses derrick fisher, turnaround, jumper, but they're like it's, it's it. That's one of the most absurd things. Just like insane, I feel, for people you know. You mentioned this when I can't remember which bad beat it was, but like for every bad beat, there's someone who's on the other side of that. The shot, the shot that vsan posted from their studio in the circa in las vegas, is perfect half good, half. Just guys with their heads in their hands, people jumping up like the reaction. I I love sports betting. 

33:29 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
That was like what you live for in sports betting to get that win. But that's the thing it really is that Whenever you get a really bad beat I said this a couple weeks ago with the NHL All-Star Game referencing Kanish lost one of the worst beats of all time and I was on the other side I got a lucky win. For every lucky win that you have, remember when you're celebrating that lucky win, remember you have remember when you're celebrating that lucky win, remember someone else was literally on the other side of that and lost probably way more money than me on that bet. And then vice versa, think about it when you're losing money on a really bad beat. Think of it. Someone was on the other end. Eventually, it's going to be me. Don't get too high off the wins and then don't get too low off the losses do you remember? 

34:10 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
I don't know if we've talked about our worst betting losses of all time I've mentioned a few, but yeah, some of them do stick in my head a lot. 

34:15 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
It's honestly so frustrating they're all player props, though. 

34:18 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
Oh, so yours are prop. 

34:19 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
No, I'll tell you, they're props, because I'm so numb to what could happen on a prop that a game is never going to affect me even be close to my worst loss, because that's still a regular game, I agree. 

34:34 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
I mean for me it's circumstantial right, because my worst loss is not the biggest monetary amount, but it's it's like what got me into the darkest place as a better like when I was a casual better wreck early 20s, terrible at stuff. I bet an 18 point nfl four team 18 point teaser. I might've told this story before, but it's Buffalo bills, oakland Raiders and I needed the bills to cover some like a stupid number, whereas like people would laugh at what I took Like I teased them to like plus I don't know, 24 or something like that Right Dumb, like really really dumb shit that I'd never do now. Like that right dumb, like really really dumb shit that I'd never do now. But I'll never forget and I've hated this guy my whole life. 

35:16
Running back for the oakland raiders, zach crockett came into the game in garbage time and the raiders could have just been kneeling on the ball but they wanted to get crockett to like a certain amount of yardage and he was like he was ripping off these runs and he was getting like super excited about it and he was just they basically just kept feeding him the ball for no reason and they ran in a meaningless touchdown like absolutely no reason and that was the absolute worst loss of my life because it's already down bad and I was thought I was playing like this great teaser to get all my money back. Classic, horrible for sure, yeah, you know. And then just like, all right, you know, they pick up a first down and me and my buddy are high-fiving, we're like game over, they can kneel it out. And zach crockett's coming back into the huddle and he had like longer hair out of his helmet. It's shaking. He's like fired up. They like they want to feed him the ball. 

36:09 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
That's what I'm saying. That can't be the worst loss, because because that is just a regular game state it's always possible for them to score oh, of course, but like, but it shouldn't actually be possible, it shouldn't be. But like it's still the game, it's still. There's no sense in them running plays like I mentioned when, like steph curry shot the half court shot like that. 

36:29 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
That was in was in Toronto. I'll start. It was yes, yes. 

36:32 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
That one was like Holy shit, like how the hell did that just happen? But at the same time you're like it was possible to happen, he could have shot. It's possible. There've been ones that are literally like not basically not possible. Yeah, I've had a pitcher under seven and a half 95 pitches come out for an inning at 95 pitches and get a four strikeout in three strikeouts and a strikeout wild pitch throw to first and lose an under seven and a half case. Yeah, that's not possible. Like that, it's barely possible to think that that could happen. I'm saying, once you get losses like that, I'm never gonna complain about like oh, are you kidding me? There was like a 20 point last 60 seconds and I lost an under an nba. Like I'm never gonna complain about. Like oh, are you kidding me? There was like a 20 point last 60 seconds and I lost an under an nba. 

37:15 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
like I'm never gonna complain about that because that's still possible as per the game where do we stand on uh, the replacement ref game seahawks and packers, because I lost that one see that's, but that was a physical game. But but, but literally. He picked it off, I know, and they reviewed it, but dude, it was. 

37:32 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
There's not a person in the world like, even if you're a fan of that team, there's not a person in the world that could have saw that any differently than that replacement ref who just decided like nah, fuck it, we're going with this call the amount of like player props you might lose because they gave like just an extra yard and a half spot and you're like no, that was it. And you look at it. He was not a yard and a half forward, but that's the spot. 

37:57 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
Do you bet NHL shot on goal props? 

37:59 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
I don't too much but I know there's been some crazy stuff with their shots on goal. You just don't count them. 

38:04 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
It depends on the rink at this point there's actually an edge. Edge depending on who the home scorekeeper is. Yeah, if you know it there, there are, there are certain teams all right here. Breaking news give rob has only giving away some of his edge. 

38:16
I won't give you the exact teams, but there's certain rinks in the nhl where they count shots on goal differently than others you got to figure it out some, some arenas if you dump it in from center ice and it hits the goalies pads or he stops with a stick and puts it in the corner, counts as a shot on goal. In other arenas it doesn't and it's not consistent. It's not like an. 

38:38 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
NHL Like, but you guys, but you guys are literally saying like I'm not even numb to the fact of like if I have a guy I've had players on like, let's say, like mitchell, under three and a half turnovers, yeah, and he's at three turnovers and then they get a double dribble out and at the end of the game he dribbles it out and it's a turnover shot, clock violation, he gets a turnover there. Like that happens, it's gonna happen in the game sometimes, like it's funny. But once you get like those types of losses like I'm not even numb to that one because I've had so many bad ones where it's like I told you my worst one was kenyan drake because they literally the ref, said this play will be disregarded it was a penalty the game. 

39:18
It doesn't make sense. They ended the game anyways. He's never been done before and they gave him the yards like once you get, once you get that. I can never complain about actual points being scored in the game. If points were scored, it's not that bad to be I agree. 

39:33 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
I mean, it's also the style of betting in the sense that, like point spreads, make things more painful of course, because, like, if you win the game, there's nothing. 

39:43 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
You can really even that seattle one. Okay, fine, it was a bad call, but like you, the nfl team lost a game. That's still a big deal. 

39:50 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
Yes because point spreads. When you're betting a spread and like you're watching another team come in, go into, like backdoor, the spread, you're not thinking rationally as the better right. You're like, oh, why are they doing this, why would they do that, this and that? And it's like, well, like these guys on the field that are playing the vast majority, I'm convinced that some players are aware of what the spread is and they might like chuck up some shots late in game and in basketball. 

40:15
But aside from that, I think the majority of these people don't know and they don't care and they're just going on and like they're, like they're they're playing, because they're playing a sport like, okay, the game's over, the nfl game's over, but this quarterback wants to throw a touchdown in garbage time because he's, you know, playing for something and people can't put themselves in that shoe. And they're like, oh, the game's over. Like are they risking injury? Like why are they gonna risk injury? It's like, well, it's not, it's the backup quarterback. He's like they're trying to see what they have in him. Like people start to think irrationally because of the point spread the the amount of bad. 

40:47 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
Yeah, no, I agree with you for sure. The amount of bad beats that have came on behalf of the spread, like backdoor covers and stuff like that are ridiculous. But people don't even realize the amount of stuff that happens that just doesn't gain public appeal because it never actually impacted the spread or whatnot. There's so many times where just like what the hell? Now that I look at games, I'm like imagine that impacted the spread. I was watching Portland the other night, dame. I was watching Portland the other night, dame Lillard. 

41:11
End of the game. They were probably down like maybe 15, 16, something like that. There's 17 seconds left in the game. Other team scores Dame Lillard gets the inbound. Literally, he's like acting as if he's just going to dribble the ball. He's obviously going to dribble up. They're down 17 points. Like have some respect. Guy just at half court launches up a three. I'm like, from half court, with 17 seconds left in the game it missed. I'm like holy shit. Like imagine you had a live spread or something or that like impacted a total. I didn't even know what it would have impacted, but it's crazy stuff like that. Now I look at it from a fan and I'm like wow, that actually like impacted the. Oh yeah, that could have impacted the total spread anything with and with live betting. 

41:52
Now, someone could have had I don't know Portland plus 17 and a half or plus 15 and a half, and they needed that bucket. 

42:01 - Zack Phillips (Guest)
A kid did it in March, madness. He took a lot of second shot to cover the spread and it was like a 23 and a half it might have been the NIT tournament or something. 

42:10 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
I remember exactly what you're talking about because someone at Barstool PFT comments. 

42:15 - Johnny Capo (Co-host)
Did you see the guy who missed the dunk? The guy went up for that dunk with like a disrespectful dunk and missed it. Imagine that was for the spread. You guys see, when Purdue lost out, right that would have been crazy, you see, when Purdue lost out right Zach. 

42:26 - Rob Pizzola (Co-host)
Eadie, zach Eadie, I can't even get this. The first time I've watched Purdue play all year. I've never been as close to vomiting in a game as I was there. 

42:37
Anyways, it is what it is next week very special episode. It's going to air Tuesday instead of our typical Thursday. Why is that? We have a very special guest. His name is Barry Horse. We will be breaking down the MLB season, which starts on Thursday next week. So programming note if you're expecting a Thursday episode, you're not getting it. You're getting a Tuesday episode next week with Barry Horse. Thanks everyone for tuning in. Once again, if you like our comment or if you like our content out here on Circles Off and the Hammer Betting Network, smash that like button, Subscribe to the Circles Off channel. Tell people you know about Circles Off. We'll be back next week with episode number 95. Peace out.