00:18 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Coming up on today's episode of Circle Back a bunch of money already and couldn't post big tickets. You don't have a good enough personality for sure.
00:24 - Flup (Host)
There's no way, okay first of all inspect element like not exist.
00:29 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Do you work for the catchers union. What's the problem?
00:32 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
just get the picture to throw in the zone and you'll be okay who cares?
00:38 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
who cares? That's what I think.
00:40 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
Disclaimer the content presented in this show is intended for entertainment purposes only. All opinions expressed are those of the host and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of any individuals or organizations mentioned. Statements made about public figures or entities are based on publicly available information and are not intended to harm or defame any person or business. This show relies on fair use of social media posts, which are presented in good faith for the purpose of commentary and criticism. Viewers and listeners are advised to form their own opinions. You know what time it is. It's time for circle back.
01:33
Here on the circles off channel, it is our entertainment and educational content division of the hammer bedding. There we also do lifestyle content, but with circle back, this is the show we cover the latest and greatest news from gambling twitter and twitter, I think, as a whole as well. We do it with myself as your host. I am jacob gromenia, host here of circle back. I am also a creator and producer here with the hammer betting network. In the bottom left corner of the screen, it is our resident one-time contest winner. It is our liquidity filler in prediction markets. It's Chris Dierkus, otherwise known as FluffNoLied, in the bottom right, host on the Hit the Books channel, which is the Hammers NCAA content division and the guy you call when you need to get a fill. Joey Kanish, in the top right corner of the screen, it is writer better and responsible gaming advocate, isaac Isaac, how you doing. Thank you so much for joining us today as our fourth on the show.
02:29 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Pretty good. Always a pleasure to be here.
02:32 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
It is a pleasure to have you as well. We have a absolutely loaded episode today. If you guys don't know, we have a list of topics pre-show where we all vote how much we want to cover that topic, and there was so much today that would normally make the all vote how much we want to cover that topic, and there was so much today that would normally make the cut for how much people want to do it. But are is not on the show at all because we had just so much stuff that could have that could have easily been a focal point of the show over the last few days. Let's just just jump into things here. The title of the episode today is talking about people exposing themselves in the betting space and I think we have an example here to lead ourselves off. It is from Farley Betts.
03:10
At Farley Betts, who we've covered on the show before. He says we've been tracking the most significant line moves every week and in week three oddsmakers and bettors were wrong in six out of eight cases. Even if you don't count the Ramsams, it's still five and eight, and he's not counting if you don't count because it was a horrific beat because of the block. Punt return or block field will return for a touchdown. Anyways, even if you don't count the rams, it's five and eight that moved in the quote-unquote wrong direction. The lesson don't blindly chase line movement. The market is not god. I want to start with you on this one, flip. Do you see any flaws with the logic here? As he goes through the eight games that did have the most significant line movement on week three of NFL.
03:55 - Flup (Host)
Yeah, I mean, the most obvious error here is just short sample size. I mean, what are we supposed to do with eight bets? If you track these line movements over a significant sample, I guarantee you you'll do it better than 50%. So going five for eight or six for eight in the wrong way in one week doesn't really mean anything, and to draw a conclusion out of that is like laughable. It's almost as silly as like using a trend from a couple years where like one and no teams play, oh and one teams in like week two or something like that. That's how ridiculous this is.
04:32 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
Anything from you on this one, Isaac, to add on to that.
04:36 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Yeah, it's funny. Whenever I see stuff like this, I just remember the old I think it was it was Betstamp Johnny who said if someone tells me they're nine for their last 10, I know for a fact they're nine for their last 11, right, like you're looking at just really tiny sample sizes. Obviously, it's just going to be so much noise there and the fact that you're selecting it like I have no idea if he ran the numbers for the last two weeks, the last three weeks, but you know, if he ran it for three weeks and it didn't hold for, uh, how about you, kanish? What do you?
05:11 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
think I mean this is.
05:12 - Joey Kinsh (Host)
This is low-hanging fruit content, right of like you can tweet something like this and then be like, yeah, nobody knows. Like you get people like, oh, yeah, nobody knows what's going on. Or just like the market's always rather sharp's always wrong. It's just easy to engagement farm with something like that and like, do a quick, like well, you know what I don't think the market, or like you can, it helps people make justifications for stupid bets of like, well, why do I, why better, why get CLV? Clv doesn't matter anymore. Like I can just bet on Sunday and so, yeah, that, yeah, I'm not surprised to see it. You know in that format from from Rob's buddy Far, buddy farley bets, a big friend of the the hammer betting network I would say rare, wait, rare particularly good take from joey there.
06:03 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
That's, uh, I think, very astute. Noting. Yeah, like the incentives of play here, right, like you just kind of fire that off, you know you're going to get a bunch of likes, bunch of followers, bunch of clicks. It's, yeah, it's, uh, it's. It's a part of the ecosystem. That kind of is unfortunate If you go to the lowest common denominator.
06:19 - Flup (Host)
I've got a. This made me think of a question I've got for what do we think like an average square better believes is a good winning percentage on minus one tens? Like if if they said like a professional better is winning 55%, would they say that's, that's awful. Like you should be winning 70 or 80%. And like I think it would kind of help like frame of references to like maybe why they would be more susceptible to like this kind of like misinformation.
06:45 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
So that's a good point. What well you asked it? You've thought about it. What do you think the number would be?
06:51 - Flup (Host)
I actually think most people would, most squares would think it's like 70% plus.
06:57 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
but I'm curious what Isaac, Isaac, I think like that's the sort of the thing that people misunderstand the least, right? I think a lot of betters have heard at some point, maybe like the uh, 52% or whatever. Like they know if you win even more than like 51%, you're probably doing well. I just think it's the slightly more complex things, like the line movement, like you know the value of buying the point, whatever, like understanding the VIG when you're just looking at, I think most people would know if you're winning 60%, most people who've like placed more than 10 bets in their life would know that if you win more than 60% of minus 110, you're probably chilling.
07:37 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
I would probably think more like 60%, because I think for the casual better. The thought process is like I know sports and if I'm taking very low juice I should know because I know sports so well. So I think it would be 60%. But you brought up a good point. That does make me think it's hard for them to to understand CLV. This is just one of the barriers to understanding CLV, because they don't understand, like, the very fine line between profitability and losing money in situations like this. So that's something I will definitely think about going forward.
08:09 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
But wait, sorry, I don't want to. We can cut this out if you want. Sorry, we can cut this out if you want. One thing I think is a similar question there for Chris is what percentage of bettors could win betting into zero VIG. If they were actually betting into no VIG pregame or live, what percentage would they win? I think a lot of people would actually win if they were just betting early and live at 1% or 2% VIG. Actually, I think a lot of people actually win.
08:36 - Flup (Host)
I think if pregame about 60% to 70% of bettors would win at a zero VIG would be my opinion and live I actually think well over 80% would win. Joey's skeptical no, because we know it. I've asked what live holds are like straight bets Minus 115 lines, and they're only like 3-ish percent, like they're not, like they're holding massive.
09:01 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Yeah, but that's inclusive of rec and sharp bettors. That's inclusive of everybody. You don't have it isolated for only the really bad people.
09:08 - Flup (Host)
Sure, sure, but like, even so, like there's just so many little tricks that you can do to like get your boost, your winning percentage to like 50.5% and it's like you're just now winning. If it's zero-vig, so I think a majority of people. That's why you have to have the minus 110. It's like you got to protect yourself against that.
09:30 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
It's a very interesting question as well. I would love to hear the thoughts in the comments down below. Kanish, you looked a little bit skeptical. What percentage of bears do you think would win if they had no juice to bet into markets with?
09:43 - Joey Kinsh (Host)
The 60% to 70% and again, I'm not the quant of this panel, but the 60% to 70% and the 80% live seems a tad aggressive to me. 70% and the 80% live seems a tad aggressive to me, I don't know why. Why would it not just maybe I'm thinking of it too simplistically, but why would it not just be just over 50% or where? Where you're calling like of winning better if you're like really deep, vigged it and got down, cause you're thinking most people would get around if they're just coin flipping right and just picking aside would be around 50. So if you devig it, wouldn't you have around 50 of just the square population.
10:29 - Flup (Host)
I talked about this in other podcasts before but, like going on the actual topic, we started with the line moving thing. If you actually just bet in favor of the steam at post, you will win about 51 of your bets. So like if you literally just zero vigged and bet in the favor of steam, you are winning better by definition, and that kind of leads me to believe that, like people's raw intuition and raw, even casual sports fans do have some amount of ball knowledge that is actually probably superior to a random trader who has to do every single game and every single prop come up. Yes, I would agree 50% would probably be probably even less than 50%, but if you can just selectively pick a couple games you're most confident on and you can bet in zero VIG, I do think you'd have 60% 70% winners per game and 80% plus live, because there's just so many little things that you can do and you don't need to be that intelligent to do it. Just like going from 50.5 half to 51.
11:33 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
One probability to like 54 is just an absolute canyon and that's why most can't do it and that's why a 97 to 99 of people lose before we move on to the next topic, because I know if farley sees this he won't understand this conversation because he he put this out like clv doesn't matter. Look, six out of the eight games in which there was heavy CLV didn't even win at the original number where people were moving it from, and because Circles Off is just at 20,000 subscribers, by the way. Thank you so much, everybody. We have a very vast audience who also may not be as well-versed in these CLV discussions. Could you quickly because I think you'd be the best at explaining this with no disrespect to anybody else in the panel what is it about CLV that is so important, if you can say it in like a minute or less?
12:27 - Flup (Host)
I would say, simply put, clv is the combined intellectual powers of all winning sharps and if you get CLV, that means the majority of winners agree with you. And if you have the majority of winners agree with you, you're in all likelihood going to have an above 50% chance and have a winning bet. And in theory, if you believe in the efficient market hypothesis that every bet at post should be 50-50. That every bet at post should be 50-50. And if you got CLV, that means your bet was profitable versus the closing line, which is supposed to be a 50-50 bet. So, since it's profitable versus that, it's therefore a winning bet long-term. And if you just continually got CLV, you would be a long-term winner. Most people subscribe to this belief and it's been proven for decades. At this point, I don't know how it most don't know how I think that's good.
13:20 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
In a way, I like to describe it if you're betting on a market that has, at the time, uh, implied probability of 52 percent and then, at the time of close, your win probability is now 55, you've got, you have a strong position because your win probability exceeds the implied odds at which you bet at. So that's why there is such a significance on on clv in these discussions. But, as I said, kind of the theme for the start of this episode, uh, people kind of exposing themselves in the way they discuss betting. And the second example is our second topic here. From at barstool tate of barstool, it says Ohio State opened at minus 13 and a half and now we're down to minus seven and a half. Because he's a fan, I'm begging, begging in all caps, the public, the public to get us one more point. Get this thing under a touchdown, please. And I say this because we have a second tweet from Barthetate that I just brought up for contextual purposes, which showcases that this is a person who does tend to discuss betting topics.
14:26
And he got called out for saying that he wants the public to move a line. And the degenerate came to his defense at the DGN Weekly. He said, this guy is getting shit for not knowing the difference between public and sharp betting. Can we relax? Sports bettors love being know-it-alls. I mean hell. I didn't know what our betting was until just recently, and now I'm the Arb King. So a couple of things I want to touch on in this one. But I did want to go to you first of all, isaac. On this one there's kind of two discussions. I guess I'll let you pick which one you want to lead with. First of all, do sharp bettors come on far too strongly when somebody gets it wrong? Second of all, should somebody who's giving out picks has indirect sponsorship with this company, with this sportsbook? Should they know better in situations like this?
15:16 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Yeah, I mean, I think a lot of people can pile on and it's probably not good if it's just a normal person. But when you have a huge audience or you're selling picks, there's sort of a different level that you should have to reach. And so, yeah, I mean it's kind of funny, it's not really going to do anything, right, you insult them.
15:34 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
it's not like it's going to change his opinion or anything, but uh, yeah, it's pretty, pretty sad to see and how about you on this one kanish kind of both the questions, whichever one you want to tackle, well, I mean I love a good dunk on an idiot as much as anybody.
15:50 - Joey Kinsh (Host)
So, uh, yeah, I mean I think people out there can be a little bit you know know-it-all-ish, uh, in the frame and wanted to, but I, I mean I would be very hypocritical if I didn't say that I've done that or didn't enjoy many a thread that did that. So, um, I get it from that standpoint and again, like I don't know, should people know better? This guy's not really like just because he works for Barstool and has bet a few games or something Like I don't think the majority of people would like, would know. But now is he cherry-picking?
16:25
I'm going to do the whole like thing that he you know the generous accusing people of here of like this didn't really open. Third, like the look ahead was 13 and a half, it didn't really open 13 and a half, this was opening like it's. It's opened like really under 10. So it's not like there's this like begging to get the public one more, you know point thing. So it is a stupid example of like that, but like should he be massively shamed for it? I don't know, and a lot of times that the shaming kind of happens in our like you know sphere, in our niche sphere where, like you know, people who know what they're talking about are kind of laughing. It's not like this gets like 20k, you know 100k likes of everybody being like look at this idiot.
17:07 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
So I think that the tricky thing is that, like I don't know at least for me, that used to be me for so many things and it like there are still sometimes where it is, I don't know. Like, obviously, most of the time, as we talked about you know the steam is in the right direction, but, like joey, surely there are times when you just see the entire market moving against you and you're like just give me those couple extra points so I can add on and like this side, oh yeah I disagree with everybody.
17:33 - Joey Kinsh (Host)
That exact example Exactly. I probably bet a little Ohio State at seven. But am I, you know, out there? You know chiming for the public telling. You know you know Fluff and you know his friends, the public squares to go put a little more on. You know Washington, no, no, I'm hoping that you know some service release it or something Chris does not agree, chris is not a fan.
17:57 - Flup (Host)
I hate fading Steam. I think fading Steam is a very bad thing to do and it's a recipe for failure in general. There's always some slight, slight exceptions, but I hate fading Steam. Also, the public can move lines. I don't know what people are dunking on him for. I agree with the DJ completely here.
18:19 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
I can think of new. Would this be an example, you think, where public money would be able to move a line?
18:24 - Flup (Host)
There'd be a Not this particular game, no, but in a national championship, yes, absolutely, the public can move lines, et cetera. How many fights have we had where the public has moved lines?
18:39 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
so these are specific examples, like I'm thinking like the tyson paul fight. Clearly there was public, uh, the public had a very large factor on that, but these are very, very rare examples I just like.
18:52 - Flup (Host)
I don't even think he meant anything by it. He just meant like someone's moving the line, like people are, people are stupid because they disagree with him. This is reading way too into this tweet and I, as much as I do enjoy ducking on people on twitter and getting dunked on all the time on twitter, I think, uh, he's kind of right. You, sometimes people are a little too harsh. You can dial it down a little bit, um, but overall I thought the tweet is pretty innocent enough and I kind of find it funny you know I now that I do think about it as well.
19:22 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
At least he does have some presence of mind over a price. He wants to play where he's like. If it gets to this I'll feel like it's a good enough bet, and I haven't edged it six and a half. I don't think this would ever touch 6.5, and if it did, I don't think he would be quick enough to get a bet in before it moved away from the 6.5. But at least some level of understanding of price sensitivity does exist there, so perhaps that is good.
19:47
We're talking about college football here. I'll tell you where. We talk a lot of college football at the Hammer Bet Network that's hit the books. We're going to get a word on that right now. I might be biased, but this is without a doubt the best college football show around Brad Powers and Joey Knish every Friday at 5 pm Eastern time on the Hit the Books YouTube channel. Come for Brad's insights and Knish's off-color remarks. They answer a ton of questions on all the games you're curious about, plus best bets will be given.
20:19
Next one and kind of final one that goes with this theme and Philip's already laughing if you're listening in audio form, we have Taylor Lewin of Bustin' with the Boys, the Bustin' with the Boys show, former NFL player, who put tomorrow they die. Tags FanDuel. Fanduel partner posted a $50,000 wager on Michigan Moneyline at minus 138 odds. Now his co-host and the creator of Bustin' with the Boys, will Compton, also a former NFL player, replies with a photo of his FanDuel screenshot of a $50,000 wager on Nebraska the team that Michigan are playing at plus 102 odds, and Jack Settleman quotes it or takes some screenshots, and says we can acknowledge why this is funny. Right, and because fluff was already laughing, you found it funny. Uh, what is it about this that we we need to acknowledge as humorous?
21:14 - Flup (Host)
well, there's honestly a lot of different things here. Okay, the few. Yeah. First of all, shout out to the sponsor of the show. I mean, calci, they could have just been against each other on an exchange and paid a lot less VIG. That's what I was thinking. Yes, I figured that was what most people were thinking. Another thing I thought was funny is if you notice the lines like it was minus 138 and plus 102. Clearly like it moved against someone, because there's no way Fandor is posting a plus 102, minus 138 line. It's horrible. So someone like took it at a bad price and moved against him, and then the other guy came way. So I thought that was also funny as well. But yeah, and then you know. Furthermore, like they probably didn't even need an exchange. They they're on the show together. They could probably just say like whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa okay, you can't be betting against each other.
22:04 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
Our responsible gaming advocate could tell you that it's illegal in certain states.
22:09 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
No, I mean it's just. It's honestly hilarious, like I want to just keep these together and it's so also intuitive, like why these guys lose. You see these tweets and if you kind of think about it, I think it's just just perfect.
22:21 - Joey Kinsh (Host)
I'm looking to keep these and show them to people in the future about why sportsbooks win money and how about you kanish, I mean I just I let you the the biggest tell here is always and I, I it's, I can't even do it myself when people and this was a thing for like priming accounts I couldn't even do is he's betting flat 50,000 not to win 50,000. And that is the ultimate like if you see somebody like that 50,000 wager on like a minus 138 money line is like that square, like high roller square, that's a guy I want to get some accounts from, or that like the biggest hell, hell. And even though, even knowing that like I still I can't, like my brain would be like no, I can't do it, I can't do it, I'd be like placing a win. So, um, yeah, always enjoy seeing that, also enjoyed that sweet michigan victory. I was on the same side as Mr LeJuan there, I'm assuming you got minus 38.
23:27
Actually. No, I got a better price. There was way better prices out there throughout the week than minus 138 at multiple times. It actually closed way lower, as we see.
23:39 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
Sorry, Go ahead Flo.
23:46 - Flup (Host)
I've always been bothered by this like people not price shopping, but to be fair, like in other industries, to like when you guys go to the grocery store, do you like go to several grocery stores to buy like products like that are cheaper, or like search for the cheapest gas station, like I'm assuming a lot of people actually do that and like I think I think it's, you know, to the recreational person it probably doesn't matter, like they're not shopping around because like they just do what's convenient to them.
24:09 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Yeah, but it's different. Like if this if the person was betting $10, then it'd be like yeah, you know the same thing. Like not shopping for gas, dude's betting 50 grand. Like the difference between that and a good price is like three or four thousand dollars, like that's like saying you're gonna buy, you know, a five thousand dollar tv or like something really expensive, and not care. It's ridiculous. Also, joey, I've always bet and will always flat stake. I love it. I love that.
24:33 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
Chris knows it's like I love oh, my god, yeah, that's why the sports get those accounts off him.
24:38 - Joey Kinsh (Host)
Kanisha, love him because he's round robbing some tennis match from Australia and putting the whole ladder and going 0-287 in a round robin. That's why they love him.
24:50 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Chris, when you started, did you bet to win or you bet the flat amount, flat amount, nice. Do you still do that? I never did, never.
24:59 - Joey Kinsh (Host)
At any point in my life. Even when, I was a complete moron. No pun intended that things haven't changed, but it depends where I'm betting.
25:10 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
If I'm betting on like PPH, Okay, yeah, in the chat, let's see the discussion. Sorry, the comments. Are you a flat stake better or are you to win the flat stake the flat amount? Give us your thoughts. I started betting just a flat amount. Now I bet to win the flat stake the flat amount. Give us your thoughts. I started betting just a flat amount, now I bet to win the flat amount. But on the conversation that Chris brought up before, I say what I want to say.
25:32
But what's funny about this to me? For, like price shopping grocery stores, I go to like what I think is the cheapest in my area and do all my shopping there. But if there was three grocery stores side by side, I would probably pick and choose which items I get from which place. And I think sports betting is kind of that easy where you can just go side by side. And for gas, people do drive further or make a detour to go to a cheaper gas station if they know one's in the area. So, yes, you should do it. They are hashtag FanDuel partner, it says here. So I'll concede they're betting on the book that they're sponsored by. But I know this is a big game, but they bet $50,000 each. Is that not above what a FanDuel limit would be, because also it moved a lot after this. It isn't even being bet at post. Can you get $50,000 down on a FanDuel side on a college football game? You're muted. Chris, you can't even get $50,000 down on a FanDuel side on a college football game you're muted.
26:24 - Flup (Host)
You can't even get $50,000 on an NFL.
26:28 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
So that's the fourth thing. I think that's funny about this.
26:31 - Flup (Host)
At post On a fresh yeah.
26:33 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
On a fresh, yeah, I'd say. This account is minimum, like double or quadruple.
26:38 - Flup (Host)
It's just 4X. It has to be 4X at minimum.
26:41 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
So I mean we've kind of covered four things here, acknowledging what's funny about this. I mean, one of them got horrific CLV. They could have done peer-to-peer betting, especially for I know they're sponsored, but for that much money, like you could just say you're betting something and then I guess you could just do it on a prediction market for peer-to-peer betting. There was just the amount of limits on this and, um, what was the one knish said? That was the fourth one I'm blanking on right now oh the uh, the flat stake at fifty thousand dollars. That's what it was, so a lot to unpack for this one here. But we did say you can bet with prediction markets. Maybe prediction markets have gone a lot more mainstream after Wednesday's South Park episode. I actually thought it was fake when I first saw the info for the episode that it was going to be about prediction markets. And exactly that's what the episode was about. South Park promoted it by saying Kyle and Carmen are at odds when a prediction market app gets popular with their fellow students in an all-new episode. And this was on Wednesday, september 24th If you're listening slash watching this on the day it came out. This is on the 26th, but this would be a couple days ago, but yes, it was very heavily focused on prediction markets and Carmen's ability to manipulate the odds or percentages on the prediction markets based on factors within his control and within the episode. It looked very much like Kalshi interface on the phone Cartman is using. Alex M says a year ago finance nerds sorry to our sponsors Kalshi hope prediction markets would take off with the elections.
28:26
Tonight, south Park dedicated an entire episode to this new layer of the Internet. Kalshi was then directly mentioned in the episode and directly shown on screen in a market on the gender of Donald Trump and Satan's baby. And then we had people handicapping on these markets Crunching. We have Noah at Nostroa says I've crunched the data from 100 plus South Park episodes and found yes, shares for the word hell are a steal. On Calci, dive into the detailed stats and he posted a thread and it was markets, based on what word was going to be said in the episode. All right, a lot of details for myself on that one, so let's go to the panel for some more. On this one, isaac, a responsible gaming advocate. They touched on some of this stuff within the episode on maybe some morality issues, with some markets being offered on prediction markets. I don't know if you saw the episode, but do you think this is good or bad for the prediction space?
29:24 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
I mean, like, normalization is probably good, I would imagine. I mean you can tell that the sponsor of the show is very happy about that. Yes, and I think there is also a difference between, like, the morality of the markets being offered and the responsible gaming issue. Maybe they're a little bit related, but I kind of see them as different things. I mean, yeah, it's pretty funny. I will say, uh, I was with chris yesterday and he saw I took a pretty solid position on them saying draft kings, uh, which unfortunately did not happen, so lost that comment.
29:55
Oh my god but uh, yeah, I mean it's. Uh, it's pretty pretty funny like we, we live on such a niche corner of the internet and then you see it become quite mainstream. It's crazy stuff.
30:08 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
We were here first, what did you think, Chris? Did any of you watch this episode by?
30:13 - Flup (Host)
the way I did watch it. I watched it. Yeah, you watched.
30:16 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
Dickham yeah, I love South Park. And, in preparation, I didn't watch it yesterday because I couldn't didn't have time, which I was. I wanted to watch it live, but I watched it today in preparation for this. Yes, um, but go ahead. Chris, what did?
30:28 - Flup (Host)
you think I thought it was hilarious. It's so funny because one of the group chats I'm in, someone said this almost looked like one of the prediction markets paid for, like product placement, in the beginning, but then like midway through the episode you're like, okay, no, definitely was not paid, because I know Kalshi and Pauly Market were excited about this, but they just there are some pretty clear negatives and attacks on them which I found hilarious. I don't want to bash the sponsor too bad I've already done enough of that but I thought the show, I thought that South Park did a great job. They were very fair. In my opinion. They showed the pros and the cons of it and they just kept it real, which I think South Park always does. They really they will offend anyone. They don't care, they don't discriminate on who they offend. So I thought it was a well done episode and it shows how big prediction markets is, but it also showed, like how corrupt some of them could be and the problems that could happen with them.
31:26 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
The episode is directly titled Conflict of Interest, which is why I asked, like it wasn't painted in the best of light prediction markets, but would they still see this as a positive? What are your thoughts on it, Kanish?
31:37 - Joey Kinsh (Host)
First, probably the only semi-interesting thing, I have to say, I've never seen a single episode of South Park ever in my entire life. Yeah, like not one. But having followed it just a little bit, you know, like culturally and you know media wise, this is kind of like the next it's. So this is kind of reminds me of like when crypto started taking off a little bit just in terms of its mainstream popularity, where now, like your mechanic, the guy who's changing your oil, would be like hey, have you heard about Cal Sheik? Like what's going on and it's starting to infiltrate like just normie society. Wait, wait, wait.
32:22 - Flup (Host)
Have any of you in a herd of normie actually mentioned a prediction market, though yet? Like, maybe I don't talk to enough people? I would love to see what college campuses are like. Like, are people actually suggesting like?
32:35 - Joey Kinsh (Host)
is your mechanic said something to you kanish no, um, but that was the example because, like I just I remember a time where, like I was getting an oil change and the guy mentioned bitcoin at one point, um, but I, you know what, let me do a, a joey corporal, do a tester, um, uh, and report back the findings on a next episode to see how many how many?
32:58 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
water cooler talk. Yeah, yeah, how many of them are at the water?
33:01 - Joey Kinsh (Host)
cooler. No Like what a prediction marketer I've heard of Kelsey.
33:04 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
Right, and you're. What are you going to? How do you play it? Do they know you bet at work? Are you like? Ah, prediction markets. What the hell are?
33:10 - Joey Kinsh (Host)
Yeah, some people do, and I'll smoothly filter it in and be like hey, have you guys you know, like are there these new prediction markets that are kind of like you know? And so I'll filter it in casually, like I don't know what I'm talking about.
33:25 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
And then when they say they bet on a rec book, you go oh, do you have an account that you maybe don't use anymore? Yeah.
33:33 - Joey Kinsh (Host)
Oh, would love to share.
33:36 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Joe, have you ever seen an episode of Family Guy or?
33:38 - Joey Kinsh (Host)
what? Yes, family Guy. Yes, south Park no, Interesting.
33:43 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
I'm a big South Park fan over Family Guy as well, so I was excited to see this and obviously directly in line with our sponsor on the show, which is Cal State. If you do want to sign up to Cal State hey, they've definitely hit the mainstream now. You can sign up with the QR code that is on screen right now. If you're watching in video, if you're listening in audio or at any other time over the course of the entire watching experience, you go to the link in the description sign up to Cal Shea. Get involved with the peer-to-peer, get betting, get involved, get involved with the prediction markets and support the show at the very same time. Don't end up like Will Compton and whoever the other guy was, betting $50,000 each into all that juice. You can do it peer-to-peer and you can earn more money in the process.
34:31
On the conversation of prediction markets, it does take us into our next segment as well. We have a tweet from PJ who says so many prediction market whales are ex-professional poker players. It's unreal. Similar conversation to what we had last week fluff. Can you think of any examples? The headline says notorious pm bull. Can you think of any examples of this?
34:50 - Flup (Host)
uh, yeah, myself, I guess. I mean I I never was fully pro, uh, poker, but I did play like semi-professionally for a few years and know several guys. I think it's just like I think you might be overreading it. It's just like they're in the pro gambling space. A lot of poker players transition to sports betting, and that's you know. They just view prediction markets as another out, which you should, in my opinion, and that's really there all is to it. There's nothing like super deep into it. It's not like the sophisticated traders or anything like that.
35:21
Um, I think like a big problem that's going to happen, though, is so many of like the crypto, like day traders or like meme coin traders they're going to hear, and a lot of the guys that are actually good at like trading, these small markets and and whatnot, are having a lot of success because they're not really competing against anyone notable or anyone big, but like they. This wouldn't work in traditional finance, and if, if prediction markets does hit this, the growth that every single prediction market twitter account is tweeting about does hit it in like 10 years, it's going to cause a lot of problems when these same strategies that you're doing don't work, because now there's a lot more sophisticated and sharp money and you get blown up. So I just would like, I worry what's going to happen to some of these people that are like making a lot of money swing trading and day trading, these, you know, these kind of markets.
36:19 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
I think the other thing to keep in mind is that a lot of ex professional or even like fairly regular poker players got really rich not necessarily because they were really good at poker, but because they got lucky with Bitcoin Right. So I know a bunch of guys, for example, who played poker and they were good not incredible but because they played poker online. They kept basically like their entire bankroll in Bitcoin and so accidentally then just made a crap ton of money that way. So, like the people I know from poker who are really good at poker who are now in, prediction markets are normally pretty sharp, or if're not sharp, they're at least like trying to get good prices. I would guess that a lot of the former poker players who are big whales or dumping huge on prediction markets are the ones who maybe got a little bit lucky along the way, but it's better to be lucky than good also isaac, before I think he's using.
37:10 - Flup (Host)
He's using whales big, better it's not the negative.
37:13 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Yeah, fair enough, that's the other thing. Yeah, it doesn't have to be a necessarily big loser.
37:17 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
Anything from you to add Kanish.
37:19 - Joey Kinsh (Host)
Yeah, I mean, this is the you know table poker player to crypto trader to sports, better to prediction market. You know one of those you know like a graph that goes.
37:31 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
We had that last week, we had that last week.
37:33 - Joey Kinsh (Host)
Yeah, yeah, graph that goes, we had that last week. We had that last week. Yeah, yeah, we're like, you know, like people like fluff that, uh, you know should be out there where they belong in the financial markets or in the poker room and have now come over into our space and infiltrated it with the. You know the are being their fancy, my all that when it should just be, you know, a space for true, tried and true sports bettors.
37:56 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
So it's sad to see All right, I've said it a few times on the show so far today, but make sure you do get in the comments on anything throughout the show, but a couple of times there's no specific things you could discuss in the comments down below? We always appreciate the discussions there. While you're down there, you can hit the like button. You can subscribe to the channel. Help us keep on pushing forward. After we hit 20,000 subs, and let's get into some of the comments from last week, Maybe yours can feature. Next week we have JJHuda. Hopefully I said that right At this point. The only thing stopping me from becoming a scam tout is my lack of personality. Now it does seem like it could be a little bit easy with the amount of people we bring up on the show today. But, Kanish, we talked about last week the vast enterprises that exist in order to make these discords and these services profitable to the people selling the picks. What are your thoughts?
38:51 - Joey Kinsh (Host)
Yeah, I mean, it's like that's just kind of it's not the old way of. You know, like I remember when I was first getting on Twitter you could almost just build it up doing like your classic like tweet, high volume tweet, you know, look recaps with the emojis, do that, and that was kind of like you're basically if you wanted to get a tout Twitter account off the ground, that that would be the way to to go about. You know you put you have fake the record, all that type of stuff. Things like have kind of, especially with the dub clubs and the Y.
39:28
It's like it's scaled now to a much different level of sophistication if you're doing it right, and also much tougher to what you know, what I think you know porterhead light, a lot, much tougher to kind of poke holes in. If you're doing home run sgps, you know eight different things putting out 20 different plays on there. So it's not like tickets. Yeah, it's almost like a marketing company now that like a marketing tech these small marketing tech, small businesses better that's releasing plays much more difficult, much more to end Like. It's just I don't know. It's much more sophisticated, very tough to break through.
40:26 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
Yeah, I agree. Sorry, just I want to make even the last three years. I've seen like a dramatic shift in the way it's marketed. It's like when McDonald's realized they were in the real estate business rather than like the food service industry. That's kind of what's happened the last few years, where you're not in the betting industry, You're in the marketing industry. As you said. There, it's just about marketing yourself as best as possible. Sorry to cut you off, Isaac.
40:51 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
No, no, no, I was going to say I agree with Joey and think that comment, while I kind of agree with it, doesn't give the touts enough credit, right, like I would imagine. There are a lot of touts and only a few can make a bunch of money. I'm not saying like what they're doing is good, but I don't think it's as easy. As you know, you just post one or two tickets and you do it Like I haven't seen the numbers, but I would guess the distribution of earnings on WAP or Dub Club is similar to OnlyFans, where it's like you know, 1% are making 80% and then you got a heck of a lot of cappers who have like one or two subs. So yeah, you know it's you got to give them some credit. I don't think it's that easy. I disagree.
41:27 - Flup (Host)
I hope the comment also meant to add that, like none of your lack of personality, but you're also your lack of morality, because I think maybe I'm too arrogant. I feel like if I actually had these low morals I could make good money touting and scamming.
41:43 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
Yeah if you started a pick-selling package tomorrow and promoted the contest.
41:47 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
But that's only because you have a lot of money. If you didn't have a bunch of money already and couldn't post big tickets, you don't have a good enough personality.
41:53 - Flup (Host)
There's no way, Okay first already and couldn't post big tickets. You don't have a good enough personality for sure. There's no way. Okay, first of all, the inspect element like not exist. I mean, like we just saw this, like in last last week. Photoshop the tickets, photoshop is not that difficult, like isaac, it's not. This isn't that hard and like the strategy is pretty simple. You just post a bunch of like long shot scps, you hype it up, yeah, you keep retweeting yourself, you spam it and you, you keep getting the hype.
42:17
I mean I I just don't think it's this is. I think really what it is is just like it creates a natural barrier, because if you were actually good enough and like talented enough, you could probably could just make it more natural. Like I think if you most people that had this level of talent that could actually market in an ethical way, would be able to just make more betting sports, those smart people are just naturally gone. So then it just stuck. All you're left with is who has the lowest morals, and those are the people that are going to make the most money. So not a lot of people have that low of morals and that's why I don't I think you guys are giving them too much credit. I don't think it's that hard to market to what they're doing using disgustingly scummy tactics, which is what they do.
43:03 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Most people just wouldn't want to cross these lines, and if you're willing to, what percentage of dub club or WAP pick sellers do you think have more than like 10 subs per month?
43:14 - Flup (Host)
Probably no. No, I agree with like the distribution is like that, but I just think, like you're okay, those people that have under 10 are probably very, very stupid and probably don't. Their morals aren't that low like they. They try to do some some level where, like, the people that are at the very top have truly the lowest morals and are at least somewhat average intelligence jacob, all I got from that is I need you to clip up the part where it says fluff.
43:42 - Joey Kinsh (Host)
Maybe I'm too arrogant and pure hard. Stop it right there and just send me that so I can complete tweeting it on a loop for the next, you know, for all of eternity this is a good call.
43:51 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
I I do have a time stamp on isaac roasting. Uh, chris right there, so that that'll probably make the intro uh of this one here. Uh, on the next comment, charming I don't know why uh.
44:07
Next comment comes from kyle kerms the sauce he says. Joey kanish is spot on about kimmel. In our discussion last week about Jimmy Kimmel, the ceiling sorry, the ceilings in privatized media are much higher these days and the quote unquote cancellation certainly gives him a huge initial boost in his next project. Wouldn't be surprised. The whole situation is strategic marketing. We talked about Jimmy Kimmel's show potentially getting canceled. It already returned within the week of us.
44:36 - Joey Kinsh (Host)
Already returned.
44:37 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
It's already back, even though uh me and porter said uh, uh that, yes, it would get canceled, uh, by december oh god, he brought, he brought actual, like receipts.
44:48 - Flup (Host)
No, I don't when I'm wrong, I don't like the receipts uh, and we have flup who says uh, no, uh.
44:56 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
On the market currently it's sitting at 13 percent uh, and it settles december 31st 2025, so we do have a little bit more time here. But, yes, the show is is already back after less than a week and, uh, if anything, the the show is going to be more popular now because it absolutely crushed in viewership on the return and I think that the whole situation has kind of had an adverse effect because, again, there is even more eyes on this one than before. But, kanish, you were directly mentioned in the comment here, so you give your thoughts thoughts.
45:37 - Joey Kinsh (Host)
I mean just uh, just like the most anecdotal example ever is I haven't listened to a jimmy kimmel monologue in I don't know 10, 5 years, 10 years. I don't remember the last time that I like even watched, I listened to the whole thing. I like, I saw that like the 17 minute monologue, I actually listened to it, see what it said and, as the rating said, like it's probably his highest rated show and who knows how long. So, um, yeah, yeah, and I thought you know Fluff had a great comparison last week in a more morbid sense, around the charge, the Charlie Kirk, like you think about people like Martin Luther King, jfk, tupac, biggie, like with those people, not to say those people like wouldn't have had impact or message those people, not to say those people like wouldn't have had impact or message well, but when something like this happens or something like you get like a mass cancellation, where a government is trying to silence you, and then you, you know you can phrase your rise up and take it on, it makes you, you know, into this, as you said, a martyr and like now, as kim said, like his, whatever his next project is, it can kind of then spear front that I'm I'm sure his people like wouldn't have been you know crying for uh also, you know crying tears if he, if he did get canceled, because that next thing then becomes even bigger.
46:45
So yeah, it's just, it's kind of the all that when you try and silence people more times than not, it just blows up in your face uh anybody else.
46:55 - Jacob Gramanga (Host)
Uh, chris, you had thoughts this last week.
