00:00 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
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. We'll circle back right here on the Circles Off channel. 

00:52
Part of the Hammer Betting Network and presented, as always, by Underdog, this is the show where we cover the latest and greatest from gambling Twitter. And we say the latest and greatest. This might be one of the greatest of all time. We have a legendary topic to lead us off into this one here today, with prop swap causing all sorts of controversy, joined, as always, by the Friday crew. My name is Jacob. I'm the host. We got in the top right corner here Jeff Nadeau, underneath me we have we have Flup, no lie Chris Dierkus, and we also have in the bottom right corner Joey Kanish. Yeah, before we started recording here, the guys were already talking about this one, so let's not waste any time, let's just jump into things here. So here is the story on this one. You're going to have to bear with me because this is a bit of a long-winded explanation, but we had this topic already planned for today's show and it got even better in the lead-up to our recording here, so we got some fantastic stuff to talk about. 

01:53
So it all centers around this company called PropSwap, a platform that most of us know for letting users buy and sell sports betting tickets. So it acts as a way for you to sell your positions and to buy others out of their positions. So one of their buyers at the cat one, two, three, four, five, four on Twitter says he's been shorted over $12,000 after purchasing a long shot Eagles Super Bowl ticket back in December to bet cash. But the seller only got paid out $25,711 out of the $38,292 owed, blaming taxes and confusion about the listing pre-tax value. Prop Swap's official response says they're not a sports book, they don't guarantee winnings and they've taken steps to prevent this kind of thing in the future. 

02:39
But the backlash has been absolutely brutal because we have Isaac at round robin 42, who's actually been one of the panelists on a previous circle back episode, say wild to do so much reputational damage over 12k, just pay the guy. Ferris, prominent member of gambling twitter, said anyone else learning for the first time that prop swap doesn't actually take the ticket into possession after it's sold on their site? And we also have uh d underscore fustle who says prop swap sold a ticket and the buyer didn't get paid in full. This business model is now doa. No sane buyer would ever use this. Sellers and scammers, sure, and we'll have one more tweet here. But just overall, like this was the start of it, like what was your guys's initial perception on this? Did you feel as though prop swap kind of owed to pay out the person here? 

03:33 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
I think the first thing that I want to comment is I was actually not surprised they didn't take tickets into possession. I don't know how you take, like a fan, duel or draftkings ticket into possession yeah, that seems like when they like original prop swap. 

03:47 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
When they first came around it was like all paper tickets, and now that model has changed and so, yeah, obviously in some aspects then the liability has changed. 

03:58 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
Yeah, and then I think what was surprising to me is they see, like I just I was confused. I was like is the seller refusing to pay because he thinks he got a bad deal? I don't understand what was going on. 

04:11 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
So do you know? What Do you want to explain? 

04:12 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
Yeah, I do, I know what happened. 

04:14 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
So let's explain here. So the person who was selling the ticket did not take into account that they were going to be taxed on their winnings. Therefore they did not winnings. Therefore they did not. The person selling the ticket did not get paid by the sports book the $38,292 that they were supposed to get paid out because of taxes. They only got paid out $25,711. However, the onus, as explained by PropSwap, is on the person selling the ticket to know that and list it as such, but that person is not paying back, despite legal threats made by prop swap it sounds like their problem, doesn't it? 

04:49 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
yeah, yeah, I guess it like when we were just on uh, you know, yeah, we'll call it. Yesterday, uh, hearing the elf spaces and the guy says, well, you know, this slipped through the cracks to me, if you're saying something slipped through the cracks of your company, you probably should just pay the balance here. I can't imagine. Maybe they didn't think it would blow up like this I'm assuming probably not and it goes to twitter. And then, uh, there were some other disparaging comments made from this, uh, prop swap ceo about gambling, twitter and people not using our platform. It just seems like a scenario where you would pay the $12,000 to keep the business. I understand their argument. That, like, we can't fully guarantee. In this instance, though, when you kind of let it slip through the cracks, in your own terminology, you got to make it whole, you gotta make it whole. 

05:49 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
Um, and a couple of other like not only the original statement but then the double down, trying to take it out to people like it's like they're just. 

05:52
Let's finish the story here so here's, here's the rest of the story here. So, amidst the backlash over not just paying the guy to twelve thousand dollars, prop swap have doubled, tripled, quadrupled, quintupled down on their position here. This was the followup tweet that we got pretty close to our recording time here, saying here's the deal we will continue to work with the Eagle seller. We wanted to come forward with a solution. Prop swap will come out of pocket, out of the goodness of our hearts. They didn't say that part, but with 6,000 today immediately paid to the cat one, two, three, four, five, four and uh, I actually didn't go over the terminology used in this initial post here. Look what they said in this initial post here. The 25 700 we've obtained for you so far is hopefully exemplary of the work we've put in to reach out to the seller. So really follow themselves here. But but I can't believe this is an actual post here. This is what they said. I'm going to read it exactly as they wrote it, if everyone comes together. 

06:53
Who said they'd never use PropSwap? Because a lot of people this is what they said. But a lot of people saw the first post and said, okay, clearly I'm never going to be using PropSwap if this is the business model. If everyone comes together, who said they'd never use PropSwap, and can find 1,200 new users, any deposit of $10 for a new user in the next 24 hours will fully reimburse the cat, no questions asked, with a $12,561. Deposits can be used for any ticket on PropSwap. Your choice Sound fair to everyone. You can also use a unique promo code the cat to get a free, 100% match on whatever you choose to deposit. 

07:32
So basically, this is exactly what they just said here. Basically, they have said in this scenario oh, to all the people that said you're never going to use PropSwap, you're never going to use our platform, well, if you don't use our platform, we aren't going to pay this guy back. So what are you going to do about it? As if the onus is on us, on the people who don't want to use this platform, to give this guy the money back. This is crazy. We'll go to you Flop to make the reply here. 

08:06 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
I cannot believe they chose this outcome, Like there were so many better solutions, they had so many different outs and they somehow managed to pick the absolute stone worst out. First, when you realize that it's a tax situation. They could have tried to do something like hey, we will front the 12,000 when the taxes is solved, you can get that money back from the government because we'll pay it out then and we'll get there. That was one solution they could have. And now they've come to the. All it reads is hey, we don't have $12,000 to pay you out, so we need to run a Ponzi scheme where we need 1,200 members to front us $12,000 and we have no money. And I know I said on a previous Circles Back that you should take risks and risk getting stiffed. Well, they've shown that the risk of getting stiffed here is super high, because how could they have any money? So why would anyone ever use this service? 

09:05 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
ever again, and they just educated everyone that if you want to scam somebody on this site, there's nothing they can do about it. 

09:12 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
Exactly so. It's like what service do they actually provide If they don't guarantee the tickets? Like, should I not just sell my ticket there and then scam everyone and it's all gravy on my end? And if I'm buying a ticket like, am I just now gambling on if the person I'm buying from is a scammer or not? So I don't understand what their service is. Don't they take a fee and they make money on providing the transaction where they're guaranteeing both sides. I'm not sure I understand what their business model is anymore guaranteeing both sides. 

09:47 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
I'm not sure I understand what their business model is anymore. Yeah, I don't. I mean also 1200 signups in 24, like you're, you're, you're trying to like that would be hard for, like you know, a major but like book to get like 12. That number is so ridiculous that we're actually like you're trying to the the target. There was never going to be achieved. 

10:03 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
Yeah, do you? Do you think they even have 1200 available200 available things to purchase, available tickets to purchase? Because I don't think they do. 

10:10 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
That was the other end of this debate was like I've never used PropSwap, so I can't say that. I went and looked at the site when all this was going on and was kind of shocked at the lack of just liquidity that was on there. I mean, the majority of Future were like $20 tickets to win like a K or two, and so I don't know, maybe their business isn't in the position to take you know this much of a hit or anything like that. But it seems like in retrospect I tell you what if PropSwap was a stock, I wouldn't be I'm not the economist on this panel but I wouldn't be investing going long at PropSwap. 

10:52 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
Was there any stock you'd be investing in right now? I don't know. Seems like maybe the wrong time. 

10:56 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
This is the end, though, of going back to the same old thing that I'll keep talking about. Whether it's a company or a normal person, people have no consequences for what they do, so they keep doubling down, and it's for content. At the end of the day, you have to behave like a business, a functional business. You dropped the ball here. You, through your platform, didn't notify someone, and it's on the onus of you. Just like when you go to a restaurant and the meal's not up to par, they give you either it back or your money back, and yeah, it sucks, because no one that owns a business wants to do that and the restaurant isn't guaranteed to give you the money back if you know you have a terrible experience. 

11:37 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
But in most cases right and, as you're right, they'll try to make it right. 

11:42 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
Yes, yeah, and when we've talked about this before, with, like other things, there's a certain business model where at some point, you're going to have to do stuff you don't want to do to. You know, make your company look good and up to par, and so people want to use it again. This company, time and time again over the last 24 hours, has doubled down and doubled down, and doubled down, and did you know what we're going to? All then try to make this into a big marketing ploy. And remember all publicity. I know they want to tell you that all publicity is good when you're a company like this in this space. It's not, and the whole falling off of, well, we're just doing its content. Well, how's that working out for you now? 

12:18 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
Yeah, so you mentioned. Sorry, I just want to add one more thing before you mentioned like a marketing ploy here. I actually think there was a great opportunity to get some good marketing out of this and it's crazy that somebody else took that opportunity. So I just added this one here. 

12:31
Spanky posted let me counter this bullshit attempt of a company trying to turn their tragic fuck up into a marketing ploy. Prop swap is useless if they don't guarantee their customers. So Spanky says if we can get 1200 likes, retweets, comments to never use prop swap again, my friends at at wager while will personally come out of pocket and make the cat hole on the 6k. So all like like prop swap. When this became public, like first of all, the fact that it's been months and this guy had to like get a big stir up on twitter for this to even come to light is it's pretty bad on props, but like the safe face they could have said look, we understand everyone's frustrations, we hear you loud and clear. We're going to make this right pay out of pocket. And that would have been some great publicity for the brand and probably would have gotten people more on board with using the platform. But like they just completely missed the mark continuously on this one and kept on doubling down. As you said, go ahead, flo. 

13:26 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
Yeah, I think. What's crazy is I think Joey said earlier if this was a couple hundred thousand dollars and the fuck up was six figures plus, I could understand it, and I think that's the whole point. It's like if you're going to this length to avoid paying out $12,000 or and again, remember they could probably get the $12,000 back when taxes are resolved, which should be happening in the next month or so. If they can get the result, they can get the money back. So if they need the $12,000 this badly, how broke is this company? And if the company is this broke, you now have to worry that they might go under at any moment. 

14:08
So this just signifies the death of this company. So to me, they might have been in a situation where they couldn't have won because they don't have the money. There's nothing they could do. But even then they could have said like, hey, we have all the liquidity to hide up for whatever BS reason they want to make up. Once taxes are resolved, we'll get this money back. That would have been a better response, but instead they went with this Ponzi scheme like we should just make some look even worse. 

14:37 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
I couldn't believe that was a real tweet, and also too the CEO of this company, luke, who I've actually talked to before. I've done a show with him. At one point. He was an all right guy up until recently, and he still may be, but this is a way off as far as what he was saying on the L space he's talking about. Oh, someone said, how is your company going to continue after this? How would everyone ever want to use it? And he goes oh, we'll be just fine. And it's like no, you won't. I mean, this is pretty bad and the whole gambling world is watching it. Who is your customer base? 

15:11 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
So, yeah, I don't know that it's going to be real good. Yeah, I would be interested. Like the fallout from this will be interesting to monitor, because I agree with you and the other aspect is not like it seemed like on the spaces he said, okay, at this point we're going to make the guy whole, but the double down and the triple down and the awful PR, it's like now just paying the guy, it doesn't win you any bonus points. You totally missed the opportunity here and now it's almost like the bare minimum now. 

15:41 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
It's just like the guy gets paid and you've still taken, like the you know, hundred bullets of bad pr quick little editor's note here, because some new information has come to light after we finished recording this episode of circle back and in the end, prop swaps succumbed to the pressure of the gambling twitter community and ended up fully reimbursing that twelve thousand dollars to the cat, the user that we mentioned in this segment here. But I think all of our points will still remain here because throughout the entire process, just how smug they were about the fact that they owed this person money and how smug they were about the fact that they were going to be fine, like, evidently not evidently they have changed their mind now, but the fact that it took us this long and took all of this to get here still has a very negative reflection on prop swap. But let's get you back to the episode. 

16:31 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
Yeah, I think the only solution to this for them is just to write another apology and say we're paying the 12 000. We cannot believe our actions, they don't reflect our company. And then they try to do like maybe turn this into a promotion, we're going to give the next hundred users a free $10, like nothing, they don't have to post, or something like that, and try to turn this into some sort of positive marketing and even that might not save them. 

16:57 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
Well, one thing I've noticed about companies is like a lot of the time they'll always kind of throw someone under the bus and be like oh, it was some intern that tweeted that out or something. It's more concerning to me that it seems like the CEO this was his idea. 

17:09 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
Yeah. 

17:12 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
It's kind of concerning, because I would have like no offense. 

17:16 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
I would have just been like oh, it was some intern we just hired, we'll take care of it internally. But it was like no, no. 

17:29 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
We were actually going to do this and this was our idea. Yeah, it feels kind of too late to even take that route at this point. Yeah, that's a very good point. 

17:32 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
You could always blame a stupid low-level person, but when the ceo is on spaces defending this decision, also, I always love when you get new people on these spaces and they you hear someone get called up that they're going to ask a question you you're like, oh no, this guy does not know who he's dealing with here, especially this guy. He doesn't know who Manda the Vig is. And Manda the Vig just take it in the fucking school, yeah yeah. The Manda, the Vig renaissance he was going in the lines down there. 

17:57 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
Yeah, I agree, I don't think he knew totally what he was walking into, totally what he was walking into. 

18:02 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
Yeah, absolutely not Crazy story. Maybe we'll have some more info to cover on next week's show, but we'll move on to the next topic in just a moment, right after a word from our presenting sponsor, Underdog. 

18:11 - Rob Pizzola (Announcement)
I'll get you back to Circleback in just a second. But first let me tell you about our sponsor, underdog, one of the smoothest platforms out there for player pick'em. As someone who spent three years as a product manager for the score, I care a lot about recommending platforms that I truly believe in. From a product perspective, underdog's Pick'Em is simple, fast and easy to use. No dealing with complicated odds. Just pick whether a player will go higher or lower than their projection and you build your entry. And with clean design and zero clutter, the experience is seamless from start to finish. 

18:45
The best part you control the risk and reward. You can play it safe with a two-leg entry or you can go for a big multiplier by stacking up to five picks. The choice is entirely yours. And right now Underdog is offering Circles Off listeners an exclusive deal. When you sign up using promo code CIRCLES, they'll match your first deposit up to a thousand bucks. That's free bonus money for you to start playing with. If you want a top tier pick'em experience, make sure you check out. Underdog. Link is in the description below. 

19:15 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
Use code circles some say that taylor mathis walked so that we could juggle, but others might say that Lucy Burge walked so that Taylor Mathis could walk, because there's been ongoing beef between Taylor Mathis and Lucy in the past talk about who is the real creator of walking bets. But Lucy's got herself back into spotlight here. This time she's doing something a little bit different with juggling bets. Yes, yes, actual juggling, at least attempting to do so. She's pitching it on Twitter with a BetMGM promo code and a video where she juggles in this instance, old iPods while giving out picks. She's reinventing herself again with this juggling content here. People are just asking what is content coming to? I mean you could say that maybe with this. What? What is what is content coming to? I mean you could. You could say that maybe with this show, but what is content coming to do you? You seem interested. What? What's your take on this? 

20:13 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
well, look, I have to be very careful with how I talk in here, because I have to remember that this is not my company and and my views could very much affect. Um, let me just say this what I would ask these people is particularly females like this whatever happened to just coming on a panel properly dressed and just using your intelligence to try to help people win? Whatever happened to that? Why do none of these people, why can they never be anonymous on here? They always have to come on and we have to see. She has to wear the low-cut shirt or the. You know it's. It's just like you said. I mean, where is content going? This is where we are. This is not content. This is nonsense, brain rot. Um, and this is a girl who, by the way, she was the same girl that was whining because taylor took her ID and did it better. Maybe you're just not good at content, lucy. Maybe it's just time to stop the antics and do something else. 

21:12 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
Well, listen, they do. I know she's a little too skinny for your type but, Lucy, listen, this isn't a Joey K Willow house. I might be in the DMs here after this. She even did a little ploy off of swimming bets after after joe the creator of the creator of swimming bets yes, a little bit, and so I'm the one here that has maybe the most beef. 

21:34
Um, uh, listen, I I think she got laid off recently from odyssey, and so you know what, if she wants to? Uh, you know, maybe I've watched a couple. She's also not the greatest juggler in the entire world. I thought it would be like a thing where maybe she had that talent and stuff and so it's not real. Hey, but listen, if she's looking for an opportunity, maybe the hammer brings her. Maybe the Lucien Canis show would be. You know, put that up to Moreto and see if you can bankroll that, jacob. 

22:07 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
All right, I'll pass it up to the higher ups. 

22:10 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
Yeah, bring it up to the higher ups, absolutely. 

22:14 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
When I saw this as a potential topic, I watched a video on it and I was surprised to learn as well that she has no talent in juggling. It's pretty obvious, like what's going on here. I don't need to spell it out for everyone, but what I just hate about this whole situation is both her and Taylor pretend as if they're knowledgeable about the props and it's like that's not what you're doing. You're advertising effectively your body for men who find you attractive. Just own it. There's no problem. If a man wants to tail her or Taylor because they find her attractive and whatnot and they want to support her, no problem about this. But when they go on and they say people follow me for my insight, I, this whole new juggling thing is clearly just a pull to try to one-up taylor I don't know what kind of men there are out there. 

23:14 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
Okay, I don't care if a woman's laying on my bed naked saying come do me, but then bet this after I'm not doing it, I don't care, I have no, interest, nothing. You can tell me he's gonna want to make me bet that just again. Like I'll go back to just like if I try to tell her how to buy the right nail polish or the right you know what are we doing here? 

23:34 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
I'm seriously well, I mean like it's, it's just way of getting out there doing content. It's on the show now. It's it's promotional that's again. 

23:43 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
We go back to the same stuff. We're platforming this stuff so people are going to keep doing it, but in the end it's brain rot nonsense. And again, this is a person who has already been fired for what she didn't do correctly, so like maybe you should do something else. 

24:00 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
I thought we were taking a much worse turn when you led into this conversation. 

24:04 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
No, I have to keep what happens in this household in this household, and that's it. I'll just leave it at that. 

24:14 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
All right, that's good to hear. We'll move on to our next topic then. This is about steak, and they've got into a little bit of hot water as of late in a legal sense, which is pretty incredible. 

24:28 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
I was hoping we were talking about New York strips. 

24:33 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
I saw that video the other day I thought, yeah, that was. It was going to be a little won by. Everybody knows the rules here. 

24:39 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
So did I. Well, we'll get into steak, the betting site, the casino site, in just a sec here instead, but the story that goes on here right now is that there's a legal stakeout brewing in Illinois and the target is Stakeus. A brand new class action is accusing the crypto-friendly casino brand of dressing up real money gambling as harmless sweepstakes fun. The lawsuit claims that players were misled by flashy influencers and a model that bundles nearly useless gold coins with valuable stake cash which can be wagered and cashed out at a fixed dollar value Sounds like a pretty mean workaround, and the plaintiff's lawyers seem to agree with this one. So we'll talk about the company, sweepstake operators in general and for users who may not really know what's going on with these websites I mean Stake this isn't kind of the first time they've been in a little bit of hot water. But we'll start with you, flo. What's your thoughts on this one? 

25:37 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
So, look, the whole sweepstake model is a little tough because you're finding the line between not having to go through the gaming commission and also facing yourself with these kind of problems. So it's a really difficult act to manage and juggle here. I think Stake I've seen some of their influencers and whatnot they do go over the top, but I also think this lawsuit is frivolous. I mean it's gambling, do go over the top, but I also think this, this lawsuit, is frivolous. I mean it's gambling. We know what was what this was. We know that you can lose. When you sign up, you should be aware of the risks. I don't think you should be able to to sue the company if you lose and you're upset. But I also understand that like they don't have to abide by the gaming commission, so that's a little scummy in that regard too. So it's it's very difficult to get this exactly right. 

26:26 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
I mean it's weird. So I just don't really grasp how any of these sweepstakes companies can really operate anywhere. So I mean, do I think that this whole lawsuit of, like they want the money back on losses, is that a bit ridiculous? Yes, it's a bit ridiculous. It feels like though the sweepstakes model was, is going to become under some legal fire here, not only like this might be the first one, but this seems to be going to be a trend where, if I, if Nishipbh wanted to, you know exist as a sweepstakes what? 

27:09
And I don't want to have to deal with the gaming license and I don't want to have to have a gambling operator and I don't have to deal with age restrictions. It just seems kind of ripe, and I know it's. There's a number of companies out there that are doing this right now, and as a guy who wants more out, it's like, do I have a personal problem with it? No, I like outs, I like go get it, I like it to be a number of places. I just don't understand how it's operating in the same jurisdictions, as a lot of sports book who have deal with game condition have put up a lot of, you know, have to deal with the age restriction. So this seems like a tip of the iceberg scenario for the sweepstakes books. 

27:47 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
I'm not going to say too much about this. You guys are smarter than me on the topic. That's it. I'll go back to the adage that I added before. When you're messing around with these sorts of things, you have to understand that you're entering certain gray areas where, if certain things happen, what can you do? And I'll go back to what I pointed out an episode or two ago. When you are selling cocaine and you get robbed, you gotta understand you can't go to the cops. Just is what it is. You got to do what you got to do. You got to figure it out. Um, I'm not selling, we're saying we're selling cocaine here. 

28:15 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
But you know, when you're not dealing with certain regulated industries, uh, this could happen I think the bigger problem is actually it is so hard and expensive to obtain a gaming license across one state, let alone across the entire United States, that they have to go Like if you're a small up-and-coming book, you have to go to this route. And then it opens up these problems. And isn't America about competition? Why are we making it so hard to obtain a gaming license? You've got to lower the barrier of entry so we can have more competition. It's better for everyone and they might actually make more money in tax dollars that way, because it would probably squash illegal activity and betting offshores if there was more operators able to compete. 

29:04 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
I'm 100 with you in that aspect of there has to be a way to get into the industry without having to go through, you know, 45 different state legislatures here to get a license there to set up operations there. Um, that I agree. There you like the whole start. 

29:24 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
You can't you basically can't be a startup sports book in this country legalized sports book unless you, unless you can raise like hundreds of millions of dollars, and it's like that's a big ask. It's like I think about like the smaller sweepstakes, uh exchanges, you know, to give a little shout out to like profit and and novig. How are they going to compete with fanDuel and DraftKings if they didn't do the sweepstakes model? It was impossible. So now they have to take this risk and it's really unfortunate. And Stake is a similar example. I don't know if Stake had hundreds of millions of dollars to go through these licenses. I don't think they did. So they got to go through this way and now they got to fight the lawsuit this way. 

30:06 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
Yeah, I'll be company man here and say on the Circles Off channel recently there was an interview with Mark Hill which goes over a lot of the discussion surrounding regulation and regulation from state to state, how much that differs. So for more information on this topic, that was a fantastic interview you should check out. I'll put the link to that episode as well in the description of this one that you're currently listening to. Before we go to the rest of this episode, let's just take a second to talk about Edgeboost. Ever had your deposit blocked by a bank right before a big bet? Ever need to cash at 2 am for another shot at the tables but hit your ATM limit? Speaking from personal experience, maybe there's an account that you just haven't used in a while. You need to fill it to hit a big bet right before a game begins and all of a sudden you have to wait for your transaction to process. Edgeboost has your back. 

30:47
Edgeboost is the first ever bank account built for bettors. Edgeboost gives you fast, reliable access to your funds, making it easier to move money when and where you need it, without the delays that can come with traditional banks. For you high rollers, you can move up to $250,000 a day on your Edge Boost Visa debit card with unlimited withdrawals. This works 24-7 for instant deposits. Never wait for a wire to clear again. It gets better. Every time you deposit into a qualified gambling account, you can earn cash back up to 0.5%. All this for no usage fees and no minimum balance. 

31:20
Edge Boost is a debit account that makes it easy to get started, with no credit checks, no minimum balance and no usage fees. Simply verify your identity and you're ready to go. Finally, Edgeboost has a suite of responsible gambling tools to help you manage your bankroll and make informed decisions. What are you waiting for? Go to wwwedgeboostcom that's wwwedgeboostcom or go to the link in the description Sign up for Edgeboost today. Next, we're going to go to your comments from the previous episode with the Friday crew, as always. Be sure to leave a comment down below. Some of the best, some of the worst could be featured on the episode next week for this cast here to react to, and we'll get things started and let us know which crew you prefer. 

32:02 - Rob Pizzola (Announcement)
The. 

32:02 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
Friday crew being the preferred crew, not that pretentious jerk. You know Kirk over on the other show and you know the over on the other show and you know the loudmouth Pete's in Feinberg over there. So yeah, let us know in the comments which crew you're going to bat for. 

32:19 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
I'll tell you what he really is. You hit it on the nose there. He is one pretentious motherfucker. I'll tell you what. 

32:29 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
I don't know who he is, but I mean he called me a mark the other day which I heard that he's saying. He's saying I'll set you up. We'll get into that as a coming up here. 

32:36 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
I was going to do it in this section. Let's just. Let's just go to that comment here, so I'll, I'll, okay, I'll pull up the comment here. Uh, nadeau, this is a discount from at 17, cali 32. They say Nadeau is right. This group is more popular on the internet, but I think Pozzola would pull more views than any of them, so it balances out. So I was going to get your thoughts on that, but I was also going to mention from that crew. So from last week's episode you talked about Nadeau, the elf spaces, where he's going to have an alleged Sean Perry SA victim on the show, and you advised him not to do that. Kirk made a statement saying that, questioning if you were a mark and it is, if you are trying to drum up the controversy around that and that episode was never going to happen and you were just trying to make it seem like it happened you said by that. 

33:22 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
But but again, no one even knew up until right now that I told elf that I didn't go out and say it on the show. I didn't make it a big deal, I did it strictly for I didn't want to see elf get taken under. And if you go back to listen to the mickey mace interview he did months ago, mickey mace foreshadowed of this as well. So again were they all in cahoots this whole time. Kirk evans, until you know the fucking story, shut the hell up, all right, because you sit there. You sit there with your pretentious attitude and you think you're smarter than everybody else. 

33:53 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
Amen. 

33:54 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
Look, at the end of the day, I'm not involved with some of these cahooty type things they're doing. I left this show for a while because I didn't agree with it. I still don't agree with some of it. I think it's goofy, but do you think I'm in on something? I did it strictly because I don't want to see Alphacut take it to the cleaners because Sean Perry would. 

34:12 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
It was a. We don't have to totally rehash that, but regardless of whether it was a, we'll call it a staged interview or not or what it was going to be just a horror. It was like. That to me was like one of the worst ideas in terms of like things that we're actually going to do for the storyline here. Like one of the worst ideas in terms of like things that we're actually going to do for the storyline here. So, and yeah, I don't, I don't think they do got got played or anything at all. I just I think it was one of those things that probably got thrown out there as Elf was kind of searching for anything to do content and thankfully got avoided. 

34:49 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
Yeah, I think if, like Nadu was, oh, the Perry fight is so exciting, I can't wait to see it. All right, that's a fair criticism. This is obviously staged. You don't need to do that. But I agree with him. I actually reached out to Elf 2 to warn him that he shouldn't do it, until I realized Nadeau had already set him up with a lawyer. So if you're going to call him a mark, you're going to call me a mark as well. Maybe we are both marks. You come for Nadeau, you come for all of us. 

35:18 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
Yeah, exactly. Also, just to go off of what you're saying, we have to go back to this original Perry Mazzy fight. I was one of the only people that did not watch it and did not support it. Yeah, I think the worst character on this show by far is sean perry, and I want nothing to do with his behavior. So like, look, if it were fake and and that never happened, then yeah, that would be an insane storyline to create yeah. 

35:42 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
so the whole point argument that kirk is trying to make is that, like elf was never going to bring her on, posted this purely to strip controversy and then pull the plug at the last minute. Why did he take the call with Nadeau's lawyer? Is he really just pulling Nadeau Like what does Nadeau? And then to your point, nadeau, you never mentioned it, so Elf would have pulled you along to not get any content out of it. Isn't that proof that? 

36:08 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
And then deleted it anyway. Yeah, exactly, isn't that proof that? And then deleted it anyway. 

36:10 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
Yeah exactly, isn't it proof that? 

36:11 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
it didn't actually do it yeah on the on this comment here, uh, so, so we're trying to brew up this rivalry here. Listen, this show. We want to take over the, the channel here. We we want to be the top dog here, so we need your support on this episode. Make sure you hit the like button, make sure you're subscribed to the channel, but support this content, share it. Share it with some people, but this is what I dislike here. So they're trying to play down the rivalry because it's already the well-established show on this channel. 

36:38 - Rob Pizzola (Announcement)
They don't want the smoke. 

36:41 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
They don't want the smoke. And they're telling me here, like well, jacob, you're drumming up all this shit, but you're part of both shows. Well, I'll tell you. You, on the most recent episode, on tuesday, rob had a thumbnail made for that episode and didn't even bother to include me at all. So they're talking about me being involved here. Listen, I'm writing the thick of things on this show. So this, this is the real circle back 18. This is where I'm at. This is the crew that I got a ride with you, jacob. 

37:07 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
We appreciate you that's what I. 

37:09 - Rob Pizzola (Announcement)
Yeah, Rob's too busy asking Jason to do spots. 

37:12 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
You know wondering why, you know if Jason and his stupid mullet can come on and do you know a few minutes on the segment. 

37:20 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
You need to do Whoops. Go back to that comment for a second. I love Pozzola, but are we being serious that he would pull more views than me on like certain things? Are we being serious that he would pull more views than me on certain things? I mean no offense, but, rob, when you fight at pay-per-view and get 70,000 views, bize, let me know. 

37:40 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
I don't agree with that. The problem is the dude. I think Pazula might have a heart attack before he even stepped into the ring, so that's not really possible. 

37:48 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
Well, he can't see me. We hashed this out in the circle off. He can't see. We asked us out in the circle off that, but he can't see. So he's never fighting anybody apparently. 

37:54 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
Yeah, all right, let's go back to the other comments that we had here at. Mvito-xx3ey says what has this industry come to? Honestly, this comment had me in the first half. What has this industry come to my lord? It all seems so fake no one dare to police it. I wish grooving was still around to see this. This foursome is great, awesome content. Please keep killing it. So I started reading it like, oh, they're talking yeah, I thought so too good they like. 

38:20 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
They like the show here, but yeah, as you were talking about and to do earlier, everything around the content these days just seems so fake you, can't you can't believe anything you know like even those videos were like you think people are like good because they're like they're showing people, like they're they're finding the child predators and they're like, uh, outing them right which is. 

38:40
I think we can all agree like a good thing. But then you see now like they're like beating them up and like assaulting and it's like no, let's keep it just where we get the police involved or you know whatever, Because again there are certain rules we live by in America that we have to abide by. And then you find out like they're not even real some of them, and it's just all made up. I don't know what you believe. I think the Internet's all fake and I've always said this I hope to God someday that there's nothing really really bad that happens to this country. And like we get notified of something, who would believe it? Would anyone believe it? Like like if they said, hey, there's a warhead on its way to new york city right now and in 12 minutes? Uh, not that you could do anything anyway, but would anyone believe? 

39:25 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
it. There's a movie with that plot. Don't look up. 

39:27 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
It's not a great, it's a movie and it's like okay, but like kanish, when anyone would you believe it? Would you know to believe it? Would you trust it wasn't like you see these accounts nowadays they post stuff. 

39:38 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
They look real, like you don't even know the difference I know I think one of my fans you did uh, like it was probably a year or two ago now of like, uh, where you were criticizing all the conspiracy theory people of like everything's a conspiracy, Everything's a conspiracy. Now, and one of the things that I'll give you know I hate to do it but I give Pizza man some credit was when he was trying to get this network going, the people involved. He was like our main thing is authenticity and that's kind of what like the channel, the network and all that strives for, because everything out there, as you said, is so painfully cringe and fake that it just, I don't know it makes it now where like reality actual reality is, is almost a rarity, and it's people like you know that Gen Z, Jacob and Fluff's generation over here that have Well, I am not Gen Z, I am a millennial. 

40:35 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
Barely I just made the cut. What is the cutoff I've taken? 

40:38 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
the internet to this, you know, content space of where it's almost like anything for you, no matter what we have to do, whatever script we have to follow. 

40:50 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
I saw one of those and I don't want to bring this up, but I do want to bring it up. I saw one of those like on TikTok, you know those things where they have the certain music where it's like, and it's like nostalgic type videos, right yeah, and the girl commented on it and she said you know, it's not that. I'm sad seeing it. It's sad that I'll never get to experience happiness like that again. Right, we're like you. Just the world just seems different and all of it just so fake. Now, everything we do, all the entertainment we consume, you don't know if any of it's actually real, and I think that's the saddest part about it is nothing is legitimate. Nobody believes anything, anything. And that happened if she had, when you were a kid, because it was just a norm. 

41:33 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
You know it's gone well, we don't know what's authentic out there, but you know what's authentic over here everything. We're always legitimate, always authentic on this show, right my hair is real. 

41:47 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
That is a surprise to me that's why you gotta come over to the youtube you to see the hair. 

41:53 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
We'll go to the next comment, last comment that we have here. This is from at Tommy David Verbal. It says, as a rec better it seems like trying to figure out who is a successful pro. Better is like trying to figure out who's a good hitter in MLB without knowing their average, their OPS, their weighted runs created or their weighted on base average or whatever Do. We feel like this is the right way to approach things. 

42:17 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
I think that is. I kind of agree with what he's saying, that it is very difficult to find out what's a good pro sports better. 

42:25 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
People are good at lying, yeah, and I think a point I would make is everyone has a different definition. 

42:33 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
If someone's a pro sports bettor making $100,000 to $200,000 a year, some would say that's incredible. They don't have to have a quote-unquote real job. They're making above median income in America, it's fantastic. Other bettors would say that's terrible, it's not sustainable, it's not good. And then if you make half a million plus, some would say that's not good enough. Some would only say you need to make seven figures plus. So first you need to dial down what's your definition and what is your goal. 

43:06
Some people bet while having a real job, so they might only make in the low five figures. If they're truly winning sports better, I would say they're doing a good job because that's all they can really earn. So first you need to define what, in your opinion, makes a good sports better by how much they earn, and then you can try to figure it out sports better by how much they earn, and then you can try to figure it out, and doing that is. It's very difficult because everyone has a grift. Whether it's they're trying to get accounts, whether they're trying to partner with people, whether they're trying to sell sports picks, everyone has a grift in some sort. 

43:41 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
Yeah, I think you've got people you know. I mean, there's some people out there that I know personally that might have, you know, a couple hundred followers on their account and never really post anything about how much they're betting or what they're betting or any of that. And then you've got people with 100,000 followers that are, just, you know, full on trying to scam people out there with, like the grandiose and you know, the Sean Perry type, that type of verbatim or the I'm selling a dub or I'm putting this on. So I it is. I don't have a great answer of how to discern. 

44:17
I agree with his comment that it can be very difficult, especially if you haven't been in the industry for a while or have a lot of knowledge preset coming into it. But in terms of how to really thoroughly vet that, it's kind of a I don't know. There's no real, you know it's not like there's a you know sports betting one on one to find out who's a real pro better for dummies book out there. So I don't know, it's just, it's, it's kind of a, a knowledge of the streets, as Nudu would say knowledge of the streets, as bahadur would say. 

44:53 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
I think too, and look, I think there's a sheer difference between, obviously, people that make a living doing this, as as professional gamblers, and people like me who just talk about it. I'm just a content creator who gambles, um, that said, I think there is an adage of, for instance, when it comes to making money doing this. I always looked at it like poker where, like doyle brunson and those guys over the years have always been here. Right, they're always there, no matter who wins the world series of poker, you kind of know who who kind of runs the streets, if you will, when it comes to always being there and being being in kind of the tune with everything. But, yeah, that's a good. 

45:25 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
I'm more impressed that you knew all those little um, woba and all that crap you made me think about this with um poker and I would say there's a good analogy in poker and it also holds true in sports betting. You might have. The top online guy is he would actually absolutely crush a lot of the live players. He would dominate someone like a garrettelstein but Garrett Adelstein for those who don't know, that's a well-known poker player who played in Hustle Casino live for a while. He might make millions of dollars live, whereas the online player, who is a quote unquote better player and would beat him in a game, only makes hundreds of thousands of dollars. 

46:10
Who is a better poker player? The person who has the raw talent that's better, or the person that's able to make more money? And the same is true of sports betting. I'm primarily a top-down bettor. I cannot figure out what's a better price and market in a lot of different sports, and lots of other people can price it better, but they might not be able to bet as much as I can because I'm able to get more outs than them. So even though they might be better at modeling and figuring out the true odds, they might earn less in that regard. So who's a better sports bettor in that regard? That's really up for your opinion, how you determine it. 

46:56 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
I think, for instance, with poker, if you're good on the felt in real life, you've made a lot like phil ivy made a ton in on online, made a ton live. I related to anytime we're on this show. I related to the sit down, right when I look at a mob guy, right when I do a show only the transcendent bosses. You know we're taking people out. They're making a ton of money. They were respected by everybody. Not everybody could do that Right. Some were killers, some were like same with this, like if like Flop is a good example of a successful gambler across the board. He is good with, you know, making money. He's good at doing content. He's good at like Kanisha as well as well. You know. 

47:30 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
My advice would just be find people that are good at kind of all of it, not just one of it, maybe I can see the difficulty like on the outside, looking into the industry, like the people who brand themselves as these winners, like who can you trust? Because, like I've seen, you know you look for like all the red flags, with people like you maybe don't have you know like tracking links to their picks or you know sort of verbiage they use, they exude red flags and some of the people I've seen with those red flags, like a lot of them, are losing betters. 

47:58 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
Is longevity enough, though. 

48:00 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
Some of them are winning betters. What do you mean? Longevity? 

48:03 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
Like in terms of Spanky right, he's been around forever, right? 

48:13 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
Does that that a lot of it go into why he's successful in here? It's weird because the counter argument would be like what about you know feds like I? 

48:19
think in, you know in, like the you know the late 90s, early 2000s. You would have said, you know, like I would have gone to bat and said, you know, fez was like absolute and that not saying he's like a total, you know. But I think then he was probably at the top and like the longer he's like a total, you know. But I think then he was probably at the top and like the longer he's been in the game, probably the less edge he's had now. 

48:36 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
So I don't know, it's kind of uh can go both ways and another thing I want to show it, but I'll be a company man too. Another great circles off was with tren hail. 

48:45 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
I can't remember this was the first or the second yourself. 

48:47 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
No, no, no, no, no I I wouldn't toot my horn that bad. He had a great comment there where he said he was the pinnacle trader for those who don't know, and he would sometimes tag players that were only betting $20 a game but were crushing the close because they just really liked modeling but they didn't care about making money. What about that person? Is that person just like a great sports better? I would say yes, they are a great sports better, but they have made no real money. So it's hard to say with certainty that they're truly that good Cause. Maybe if the money got too big they would get nervous and they wouldn't trust their numbers anymore. But I think that was a really interesting point by trenhill is they would move markets, sometimes on a 20 or better. 

49:37 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
They didn't even know that they were moving markets yeah, and there's two really good episodes with him on this channel that I'll link in the description as well. A lot to learn in that one. Um, yeah, I, I think there's just for for somebody to be considered a good sports bettor. It's just such a broad term. There's so many different ways you could be a good bettor. Some of it is top-down betting and just having guys, some of it is being this amazing modeler, but there's just so much that goes into it. 

50:02
Like the person says, it's very difficult to really distinguish who the good bettors are out there. But there are red flags to look for in certain individuals to see, like, if they are winning or losing players. But it's overwhelming at the start. I can completely agree with that. But we'll move on to our next topic here. Of course, we got to get the Elf spaces in at least a little bit. 

50:23
But Elf wasn't making the numbers here because of the spaces. It was because of another show that he was doing. He was teasing this one for a while and eventually jumped on twitter and announced that he had just filmed a podcast with sean kelly and says they're leveling up big w vibes, lots of flame emojis hyping up like it's a milestone moment. But then here comes spinfluencer, who did a lot of good digging on this one, with a full-blown expose claiming elf actually paid 8500 to get on digital social hour and that well, as a joke, said that the money he used was part of the 10. 

50:59
Okay, he from Sean Perry last month. So Sean Perry, well documented gave Elf $10,000 before this, you know, fake beef started that they're going to fight each other and as a joke, spinfentures twisted and said, oh, the $10,000 must have gone towards getting on this podcast. So Elf hyped up this podcast a lot and then it comes out he had to pay $8,500 to get on the podcast. It's, it's pretty, pretty ridiculous. And again, we're talking about what's real here. Go ahead and to do. 

51:28 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
Yeah, so I have a pretty good grasp of this. I've talked to this guy before. 

51:32 - Rob Pizzola (Announcement)
Um, I know him or? 

51:34 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
Sean Kelly yeah, yeah, yeah. Um, you know he invited me to go on his show. He never asked me to pay anything. Um, I think that's mainly for people that maybe aren't known in their particular space and they're just trying to advertise and he's willing to have you on and give you his following. Here's why I wouldn't pay him, and I know a lot about this guy because I've seen videos and I've looked into his following as well. He has nearly 12 million followers on Instagram. But when you're looking at his engagement which I would highly tell anybody that goes on a podcast make sure, going into these engagement sites, these analytic sites, and looking at someone's engagement Someone that has 12 million followers with an engagement rate under one is, it's probably insinuating followers. 

52:16
Limited comments, comments you could tell they're fake and as someone who I've always built my audience on whatever I do, just with posting, I think that's something that goes a long way and like when you go on YouTube and you see a guy with a million subs but each show has like two, three, 4,000 views, it just doesn't make sense. It doesn't work. The numbers don't make any sense. Do I think Elf paid? No, I don't. I think Elf is decently popular in this genre and this guy has pretty much everybody on and you know, maybe he met him through someone random, but do I think people have paid him? Yeah, People that don't have any backing or following, they're willing to pay this guy for an audience like Sean Perry. 

52:58 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
Yeah, this seems, uh, there's a lot of, and you did a nice job there outlining some red flags here. Um, and I think from else perspective, I think he's trying to grow his instagram following a little bit. You know he's gotten some traction on twitter. He doesn't really have the. This guy has 12 million followers I'm using quotations if you're not watching on instagram and, as you say, the also the list of guests if you go through some of the people he's had on um can be a. You know it can be. I want to say it's a bit questionable. Uh, his Twitter profile like it doesn't really even it trends toward like alt right, like personalities that seem to be his, like his wheelhouse for guests he has on here. 

53:44 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
Um, I don't, I hope he's basically a guy and and I I want to make this clear like he essentially just brings on people and talks to them, like I don't think he has any sort of preferential treatment to anyone. I just think he happens to find like the right wing people that will talk to him and he can't find any left wing people that will talk to him. I I think his show is just kind of a really poor man's, like lex friedman or or joe rogan, where he's just trying to find interesting people. Um, I'm sure he pays certain people to come on. I'm sure he gets paid by certain people to come on, because some of his shows have no views. 

54:18 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
Some have a lot of views why did you decline to do to show? Was it timing a show or you didn't think it was a good, good look, no I. 

54:25 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
I had every intention of wanting to speak to him. I actually contacted him because I had heard about his platform. He had had some people on that that I knew personally. But then it got to the point where I had to fly out to vegas like on my own dime and like and look, I'm not doing that. Like I would do that, like if joe rogan called me and said hey, come to austin, I want to interview you. Like there's certain places I'm going up to hoboken to do a show on on tuesday, so like I'm willing to travel for certain shows. This one I did some due diligence. I didn't feel, like you know it was it was worthy of doing that for, so I declined that that's kind of what I was expecting and that's kind of what I feel about Elf. 

55:04 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
This is a low-quality podcast that is associated with way too many grifters, so it's just not a good look. If this was a more credible podcast, it would look a lot better for Elf. Even if Elf had to pay, I agree with you, new. I don't think he paid for this. I think SB Influencer is grasping at straws here. He paid for this. I think sb influencer is grasping at straws here, but it's still not to be associated with. Like, uh, steve stevens, mozzie, mickey mace to have all those oh, I'm sorry, I don't know if mozzie was on the show. I know mickey mace was to have all those grifters on the podcast and then be associated when you're supposed to be, like the neutral party. Not the best look. 

55:44 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
There are certain levels of when you have a show, for instance, like I have, like I'm willing to speak to certain people in that wavelength that are bigger than me, that are going to grow up. That's what normal people do. I generally don't have to pay for that and most people don't. Would I pay to go on a certain show? Absolutely. If Joe Rogan called me and said pay me five thousand, you can come on? I would absolutely come on because I want to be known as you know a certain type of guy, but at the end of the day, um, this is not a show worthy of paying for. Um, I don't believe elf did. Now I'll also say this if I went out to vegas for some reason, right, I was out there for a couple of days and this guy was like hey, come on over. You know I'd love to speak to you, yeah, but, but one thing also and I'll end it with this because I don't want to keep drawing in this on one thing that people forget about when you go on a show that's not yours, they control. 

56:31
The key to YouTube is the title and the thumbnail. That's it. Nothing else matters. If you have a good thumbnail and title, you can get people to watch your content, and I learned that. It's taken me time to realize that just because you go on this show, it doesn't mean it's going to get a lot of views. The guy needs a title at the right way for you to get the views. So I always want to work with people that I personally know where I can maybe say to them hey, use this title, we could talk about this, so we get a bunch of views and it helps us both. Um, I didn't feel like this guy was probably willing to do that, so and there's certain podcasts. 

57:01 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
You can go on. You mentioned a couple, but there's plenty out there, almost kind of like legitimize you as a content creator. And I don't like that. To me, it isn't the type of podcast'm thinking of in particular, that they've had to remove because you didn't want to give that person the legitimacy after he got into some uh, we'll call them financial issues. 

57:35 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
Um so, I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. 

57:38 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
Yeah, I don't either just say uh, you might be a wisconsin badger fanger fan if that rings a bell. So listen, I don't think the strategy of going on a pod to get yourself out there is a bad idea. 

57:53 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
It just seems like this one probably wasn't the way, I think the one thing that I've noticed about what he's doing and I respect this I think he's willing to take chances. Some will work, some won't. Right, and in terms of going on this show, was it a net positive for him? I don't think it would be. I don't think it really aligns with this space. Anyway. Now, if Steve Stevens called him and said, hey, come on my show, I could see where that might align. I don't know if it would make him look good, but it would. It would definitely fit more with, with, with the genre. I'd watch it. I think a lot of people would. I don't think you're gonna watch this, right, and I think I'll just he's done and he's. He is quick to know. Like, if something doesn't work, I'm not gonna do it again, right? So like I think if this doesn't work, he'll say okay, I learn, I'm not going to go on any show that will have me. I need to be a little bit more selective with who I'm going on with. 

58:48 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
Well, kanish, you talked about some podcasts legitimizing you. Well, sometimes you can be on a podcast and still make a bit of an ass of yourself, and that's a great segue into this one here on the. 

58:59 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
Ross Tucker podcast. 

59:05 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
Fezzik, leading into the Masters on the podcast, said he gave away a great betting strategy. He said find a golfer you like, find a golfer you don't like and have them matched up. And it said advice for betting golf in general and the Masters in particular. So great response here from VanZak at Covers. Vanzak, who has also had we've had some tweets of his featured on this show as well Said find a insert any sport team you like. Find a insert any sport you don't like in a matchup. Don't worry about price. Why would that matter? We pick winners, not price Fezzik off the charts. Dopey, as usual. I had to get Fezzik in on this one flip. You were animated when I was reading that quote uh, is this a viable strategy to win? 

59:50 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
uh, betting golf, uh well, if you factor in price, then maybe. But this is just so funny to me because I'll I'll hop on some spaces and joke about similar things like this. Like I'll say you know, in two nfl teams, why don't they just score more points than the other team? Like that's like a way to win. Or like if I'm betting, I just pick winners. And I'll joke about that because I'm being sarcastic. 

01:00:15
Well, that's what makes you a contest winner flop exactly yeah yeah you pick the team that didn't lose every week for survivors easy game most people realize that I'm being sarcastic, but some are like wow, great strategy. And I think this is what Fez just did. It's just like how does he not realize? This is just completely idiotic. It devalues and makes him look even worse, as if it could even get worse. I don't even know how you could argue that this is a like. 

01:00:45 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
He's a winning better if you're going to be saying stuff like this I mean, I don't have the full context of this, but was this just like? Uh, like, if you're a fan and you want something to bet here, like just take the golf, you're like like, the only way that this would make any sense which I don't want to give feds the benefit of the doubt here is like if I needed some rooting interest and it's like, oh, I like, uh, I like justin thomas and you know I don't like patrick reed because he cheats I'm gonna bet this matchup thomas over, and then have something to root for. If this is like trying to be a winning betting strategy, then then no, it's uh, that's, that's why I kind of want to relate this to what we just talked about. 

01:01:24 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
When you have a podcast to the level of the Ross Tucker podcast, which is a pretty popular football podcast, I would imagine, I think you have a diligence of making sure you're bringing on people and maybe not just continuing to bring on people because you've had them over the years and they were hot. This guy has proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Multiple times he has said dumb thing after dumb thing and maybe it's time to maybe update your guest a little bit, ross um, because I think it kind of devalues his show a little bit, like I don't want to listen to that show because if he'll bring him on, maybe it's time to get a new guest well, a very infamous ross tucker podcast episode which was covered extensively I know which one you're talking about. 

01:02:02
He's another one, the. 

01:02:03 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
Simon Hunter episode, which Rob and Johnny reacted to, and that was the most popular episode on this channel. 

01:02:10
You would think after that he would have maybe learned and said, hey, maybe I should look a little bit deeper into the guests I'm bringing on here and go from there there's still such a wide amount of people who very much respect Simon Hunter and very much respect Steve Fezzik Now maybe not on our side of the industry and our side of the content, but people will still watch and you know what? There's people who still really respect Fezzik as a better and would respect this opinion. 

01:02:37 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
I don't want to give Fezzik the benefit of the doubt here, but if you use the strategy to find bets, it can actually be somewhat worthwhile. Like, if you know that you're above market on one golfer and below market on another golfer, you can look and then if the price is right, then you can bet it. The problem is, fez, cut all of that out. So if you cut all of that out, it kind of defeats the whole purpose of it, sorry. 

01:03:02 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
What he's going to do here is he'll probably make that sort of defeats. The whole purpose of it, sorry, what he's gonna. What he'll do here is he'll probably make that sort of claim. After the fact, though, he'll say of course I'm considering price. Of course it's implied that I would be only considering price in these matchups as well. That's fair, yeah. Well, vezic got in a bit more hot water on gambling Twitter Sometimes. You know, we talked about this on an episode where he had some remarks about underage women, and it was just like you don't have to say anything. Really, you could just let this one pass by. And here's another example, because Steven Nover said or find a golf expert you really like and follow him, slash her. And Fezzik's response to this tweet, in a quote tweet, says him slash her. My pet peeve Don't use female pronouns when discussing something that is 97% male. And what percentage of women suggesting good golf bets are just getting it from some guy, which is, by the way, fezik says this is. 

01:04:05
This is what is the percentage of people suggesting good bets that are just getting it from some guy. Interesting remark for steve fezik to say, based on some history with hitman, uh. But then he starts his caveat nothing wrong with, with nothing wrong at all with that which he probably, right before he had sent, he probably went. You know what? That's my. That may be what people say. I love aggregating info. We know, we know you love aggregating info. By the way, didn't need to let us know there. But yeah, All right, I'm going to. I'm going to start with the do here. 

01:04:41 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
I don't know, I don't know, but I'm going to start with the do here? 

01:04:43 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
I don't know. 

01:04:43 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
I'm a little worried, but I'm going to start with the do here. 

01:04:45
I don't know if he's completely wrong on this. 

01:04:46
I don't think it's one of his worst tweets in the world. I will say I wonder with him and I'm being honest, do you think some of it's just him Like, is he smart enough to realize that, like GRP, for instance, I wonder at some points is on it and realizing like he knows, if he says certain things like he made comments in the net on elf show with amanda vance, like I feel like he said them because he knew people would love them and they'd be funny, like I feel like he's, it's like that guy frank the tank at barstow, like I do think he is in on it. Realize at this point, the more pissed off he gets, the funnier it is and I think the I have to wonder physic I don't know if this is the right way to come up with that no, but some of these people they get drunk with realizing anytime they tweet something and they start tweeting crazy shit. I wonder if he's in on it a little bit with some of this stuff at this point. 

01:05:35 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
No, it's a fascinating, because I think with a guy like GRP, he's not in on it, he's just tweeting. 

01:05:43 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
I don't agree with that I think he is, I wonder as well. Sometimes, okay, alright, sometimes he just pushes the boundaries. 

01:05:55 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
He does the Elf Space where he's pretty grounded, and he says stuff where I have to wonder. I think he's in on some of it, I think he is oblivious at certain points. 

01:06:06 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
Fez is another one where, like yeah, how would it? This is just, I mean, this is like your classic, as you started with jacob, that like yeah, you probably just don't have to tweet it. Like you know what I'm saying, like I don't know, are you really getting, uh, a great point out of yes. In factually, it's like you know, 99 out of 100 batters here are going to be men or giving you yes, but I mean I don't know, is that someone putting he slash him in a response or he slash her in a response, triggering you that much to your pet peeve, to get you off the wheelhouse here? I don't know. 

01:06:41 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
Assuming he's not doing this for just content or just reaction. This is ridiculous. It's also extremely hypocritical. Jacob, you touched on it. Fez is getting plays from Hitman. We've discussed this on a previous podcast before. Also, 97% plus touts are losers and you shouldn't buy picks, but he always defends them because he is one. Should we attack him now? It's like I would also argue that 97 percent of 50 year old plus bettors are also losing. Should we? Should we not take anything he says seriously, then? So it's super hypocritical and also the simple matter is is at least one woman good at betting golf? I would say almost without a doubt yes, right, and because that is the case, you have to use him her. 

01:07:36 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
So it's really not that like I mean you don't have to. Yeah, like if you're sure. If you just said him, I think it would be sure I'm never saying him her, I'm just gonna it'd be fine. 

01:07:45 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
I I think it'd be. 

01:07:46 - Rob Pizzola (Announcement)
I think you just or find a gulf expert if you really like and follow them, just say follow them instead, or like I don't think it's a big deal. 

01:07:53 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
If you don't like, use him I wouldn't go as far as to call it a point of why are we who cares? Yeah, that's like it's fine like 

01:08:04 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
there's no need to say yeah when somebody decides to be respectful and reference uh honestly, male and female if he, if he had just said and follow them, no issue. 

01:08:14 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
If he said and follow him, also, probably no issue, because so many people would just realize that he, he referred to anyone, but since it's mostly men, it's it-. 

01:08:24 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
Yeah, it's still, like you know, slightly disrespectful, but who would really care? 

01:08:27 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
Right, right, and if you said him, her also no issue. So to find an issue with this is just insane. 

01:08:34 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
Oh, Nadeau hopped out, didn't like that one. 

01:08:37 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, that was it. He said you know what Fluff Fuck you that, what Fuck you, that was it. He said you got to use him. He's done with the show. 

01:08:49 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
I was excited to see how Nadu would react to this one, because it could have gone in many different directions. This is underwhelming. I would say I was hoping for a little bit more. 

01:08:57 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
I was a little worried. I was a little worried when I said it, when I threw it to him. Reasonable take. We'll jump into the next topic just a moment. Here Kanisha's dog's barking because Hit the Books is coming back and we're going to hear a little bit about that. 

01:09:13 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
Folks, it's your boy, Joey K, from Hit the Books, the number one college football show in America, in all of North America my man, Brad Powers, riding with the co-host, Joey Kanish. We want to see you this fall back with college football picks, plays. Get on that YouTube channel like subscribe, get the notis up. We will be back this spring, this summer, this fall for all the college football content you can want. Joey K sent you there, baby, and come check us out on Hit the Books. 

01:09:47 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
Let's talk about the heated debate over betting results and timeline for judgment. Recently at Roland27Scotty posted an image from Action Network showing a rough minus 23.56 units in the last month for one of their predictive analysts, nick Griffin, at Rotodoc. So here's kind of the full scoop of the story. Here Nick Griffin was essentially that's Rotodoc was tweeting about deleting Twitter and not enjoying the Twitter experience anymore, and the reply here from FireBondi release Epstein files that's the name of the user probably wouldn't hurt. I'd delete your action app as well. Now, this is part of the overall story here. 

01:10:25
I did look at FireBondi's account a very clear alt-right supporter, trump supporter. That does factor into the story in a second. But um tweeted a photo showcasing one month sample size down in 23.56 units. But the all time record for nick giffen on action network is up 229.42 units. So why would they just solo out one single month of a sample size? And then pretty good response from Nick here, in my opinion, says just pointing out if you are this harshly judging one month of betting returns, which I've been very open about, you should equally harshly judge this month's stock market too, which is obviously a reference to Donald Trump's tariffs and how that has negatively impacted the stock market Flop you've been. I don't mean. I don't want to make this show political. That is not the goal. You've been vocal about the state of the stock market and tariffs, but what are your thoughts on this? 

01:11:25 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
All right, so I'll comment on the tariffs thing. I have been very frustrated about this topic because so many people are just going on their priors. They either don't like Trump or they support Trump, and they make an excuse in either direction, and it's insanely annoying. When the stock market goes up, every single right-wing grifter is posting see, trump is the greatest, he's the GOAT, he figured it all out. The market is finally realizing it. And when it goes down, every single left-wing grafter and person on the left that doesn't like Trump is posting See, the market doesn't like Trump and Trump's policies are idiotic and they're both wrong. It goes up and down for various reasons. I could get into more details if we really wanted to, about why the tariffs are affecting it and what's the long-term policies, but I don't think we want to make the show about it. 

01:12:20 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
So this, ok, like first off, this was an all-time crash out, like I was. So this guy, to give you the back story, this guy bets NASCAR and he had Ryan Blaneyaney to win. Blaney should have won. The race was the best car was leading like with a couple laps left there was a faulty caution. He has a bad pit stop, he loses and goes into full crash out mode. Um, he ends up like take someone called him, I think, like fat, and he ends up taking a few pictures of like himself with his shirt off, like as it was going on, like just like full on, just beautiful internet, crash out and then, you know, gets into like the sample and all that. Here you want to talk, you just flop, you just talk bias. 

01:13:08
I'm biased against this guy because he bets like the pure openers in NASCAR. I move motorsports for a couple guys. So, yeah, to see, I'll be honest with you, me and the guy who I had the originator for NASCAR work with we were living this up in real time. So to see him get crashed out there, I didn't mind it, do I think? Long-term he's probably done fine betting nascar? Uh, sure, but it's one of those. When you have a bet you just, you either own it up or you just let it slide. The more you play into it, then that as soon as you start responding, that's when the crash out comes. Uh, and he, he got caught up into it, um, and obviously then that's the result but not for nothing too. 

01:13:57 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
Uh, as someone who blocks a lot of people, I just, whenever I would see a, a title of a name like this, I'd be like, yeah, I've. I never want to argue with someone with that name like I. I'm just like, where am I ever going to get with them? You know and flump made a great, great point it's always the same and this is why I don't. If you genuinely say to me you like a candidate, I don't want to talk to you because you don't have, it's like when you say you like the LA Angels, you're never going to have any sort of distinct interest or difference in any sort of opinion. Regardless of what. 

01:14:28
We sayabama fans supported brandon miller even though he provided a weapon that resulted in the death of a pregnant woman. There are fans, so they're never going to get away from that. People that root for political candidates are the same way. There's nothing you can say where they will ever say to you you know what? That's a good point. I only want to argue with people that are willing to say okay, I, I want to hear both sides. That's the way you could tell someone's ignorant pretty quickly. 

01:14:56 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
Yeah, I definitely agree with that, but it is interesting to see. So, joey, you actually do think that he might be winning long-term because he's just attacking openers, or you don't want to comment on that? 

01:15:07 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
He's definitely, yeah, he's definitely won long-term. 

01:15:12 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
If that's the case, then I think he does have a very valid point. I was assuming that he was just a typical like grifter that was losing long term and was hiding his record or changing his record in some scummy way, but if that's the case, then I think he's got some good points that like I think he's a good replies here. 

01:15:27 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
He should exactly the full, all-time sample rather than just one month, and then has a really good example of why you shouldn't just only care about one month sample size also related to the person I'm just going to ask. 

01:15:41 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I used action network years ago, but couldn't you like go in after the game results and like input your, your wins? 

01:15:50 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
and stuff. 

01:15:50 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
Yeah they, they had some some interesting software stuff yeah so like when we actually it's not a completely trustworthy software for, which is my point is like, like I don't know nick kiffin, but like couldn't we make the case where maybe this guy is right in terms of, like you know, how do we know that that was his long-term winning record? 

01:16:08 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
you're right, we don't know for sure. Uh, you know, the person going after him in this case doesn't look like the source of truth either. So I don't really know who to trust in this scenario, I suppose. But I am looking at the Twitter account for at Rotodoc and there was a bit of a crash out from this one. 

01:16:29 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
Yeah, that's that. 

01:16:30 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
As much I think is some good comebacks. There was a little bit of a crash out from this one. Yeah, as much as I think it's some good comebacks. There was a little bit of a crash out here, absolutely. Let's move on to our final topic here. You know we talked about calling out losers right there. Well, somebody who loves to call out the losers when they get the opportunity to do so, we're going to. I think we may have to. We'll going to, I think we may have to. We'll see, I guess, if we're going to give Zilbo his flowers for this one here, because Zilbo tends to go at a lot of people. 

01:16:57
Regarding documented betting records, which you could say is maybe somewhat ironic, but Matt Zilbert went after Greg Peterson. Matt Zilbert featured in the show many times. Does does a lot of betting content. We've questioned the validity of being a winning better on this show, but Zilbert would say there's documented record of his success but goes after Greg Peterson here. 

01:17:20
The host of the baseball betting show Coast to Coast Hoops Saturday's cash out on VEASAN, as well as a CBB freelance contributor for ESPN, zilbert recently tweeted asking why Greg blocked him after Matt simply questioned Greg's decision to omit the first two days of the season from his public betting records. Greg had posted an article promoting his picks but left out a rough start going four and eight with minus, with about minus five units lost over the first two days of season, but again decided to omit this. So Matt Zilbert calls him out for that and followed that up by calling for more transparency, saying that the full season records should be included in betting articles, especially in 2025. He's even taken to tagging other figures at VEASAN to see what they think about Greg's practices. So yeah, matt Zilbert here, good source of information here. Greg Peterson, bad look I mean always seems like a little bit of a bad look when you're not posting your full record and then when somebody calls you out, you're trying to hide it. 

01:18:24 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
So Greg Peterson has had if you've been around the block for a while and are too chronically online, like I am, he's gotten into a few things where, when an offshore would post college basketball openers, he would then like an hour later post all of his bets and they were basically just the offshore openers that had moved and he was like tracking this record throughout the year as if they were his. 

01:19:00 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
He also and Gish, I know you remember this too On a college basketball Saturday remember there's like 160 games he was literally betting the side in total for every game. Yeah, yeah, and it's like his record at the end of the year was like Betting on locations. 

01:19:14
His record at the end of the year would be like 8,906 and like 8,670. Like it was an insane. And I used to think to myself, like I talked to him before, like I don't believe he's like betting hundreds of dollars in each game, and I thought to myself, what is he betting per game to afford to do this every night? And he was also doing that too. 

01:19:38 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
Yeah, yeah, go ahead, floppy. 

01:19:43 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
I'm not a fan of Greg but honestly, zubel has been rubbing me the wrong way. I was in support of him. 

01:19:50 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
You might get fired by Rob here for saying that. 

01:19:53 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
He has gone too far. 

01:19:55 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
If somebody had fired over that, it would have been me. Believe me. He has gone too far. 

01:20:01 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
Talk about calling the kettle black here. I mean, zilbo doesn't include his units one and he keeps harping on his win-loss record. I wonder why that is. Perhaps because he's playing so much stuff that's minus 130, minus 140, and has an implied probability that's already pretty high it's minus 110-ish. 

01:20:20 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
Minus 110-ish. Yeah, exactly. 

01:20:22 - Chris Dierkes (Co-host)
So it's very hypocritical and annoying. And when he was just doing it casually to the real obvious guys like the Trents of the world, okay, whatever, but it's gone too overboard. He's getting too prominent. It's becoming very annoying. I could hit 75% on my totals this whole year. I would just play all minus 1,000. I would do the alt, lowest and highest and everything, but I wouldn't win units. That's the only thing that matters. So when you post a win-loss record, it implies you're betting minus 110. When you're not betting minus 110 and you're posting a win-loss record, you're being dishonest and disgenuous and you can't say it rounds to it. I just saw like a five-leg parlay that was a a comfortable minus 143. It's like what are we doing here? 

01:21:11 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
yeah, I, I've been. I mean, I, I'm the only one seemingly opposing this guy on on on the tuesday show, so I'm happy to have people on my side on this one, because I keep going back to it. This is rob. This is going to be rob's oppenheimer mode when he sees the people that he's making up, to seeing the people that he's creating, to look back on on what he's done. I I think in this instance Mazda has got good points here. It's just like. It's kind of like the Steve Fezzik school of not understanding themselves. 

01:21:41 - Joey Knish (Co-host)
Did he have a losing weekend overall or not Like, even with the like, because it's making it seems like Greg is making it seem like he had, like what a great starting weekend. It wasn't like in the end. 

01:21:53 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
Greg's shortening the sample size here and he's just taking the frame where he's been really hot and using that to promote himself and not showing full documented record for the season, which I think Zilbert's correct about. But like, let's keep the same energy for your own content, because, because he keeps like he's going to reply to me in this, he's going to tag me and it's someone who and it's someone who, anytime he can, makes it clear to you he's the best baseball handicapper in the world, maybe on, maybe on par with some of the greatest of all time, he might say, and when, when you're betting football generally as like a rule I used to blog when I was at Barstow and it's 110 generally you're betting, but in baseball we know it's 140, 150. 

01:22:40 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
As someone who knows it and he claims he knows it and I like Matt, I have no issue with him. But it's like do you have any self-awareness? Just asking for a bit. And again, I could understand you getting upset about this, but you also do things that are a little bit questionable too with some of your. You know the blogs you're writing and that sort of thing. 

01:22:59 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
Yeah, I'm going to get tagged tomorrow and I'm having my vacation tomorrow because he's going to tag me and I'm going to. I'm not going to see it, it's just going to be great. But yeah, hey, I'm giving you your flowers for this one. But we need to keep the same energy for yourself. 

01:23:16 - Jeff Nadu (Co-host)
Yeah, exactly. You know who I would love to see have a show together, because I think it would be interesting, because they both have the same level of like going at people Omar and Zilbert, they're both very funny and evil. Do you think that would? Yeah, because, like they have, they have this thing of like going at like the same people over and over again and like it's just. I find it funny in a way. 

01:23:42 - Jacob Gramegna (Announcement)
but all right, we're talking about omar. I think that's the cue to wrap up the show. That'll end it from our Circle Back Friday crew. Thank you so much for watching. If you did enjoy, smash that like button. Let's stick it to the B Team that goes live on Tuesdays at 8 am Eastern time. We have two Circle Backs a week. You've got the A Team here, friday 8 am, b Team Tuesday 8 am, as always. Leave a comment Anything you liked from this episode, anything you didn't like, and just get your comments out there. We'll pick the best one to feature on next week's episode. But keep it locked here with the Circles Off channel. We'll see you again soon for another one.