00:00 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
This is what's coming up on today's episode of Circle Back.
00:03 - Flup (Host)
Yeah, the.
00:04 - Mike (Host)
TLDR is not looking too hot. Don't go into the NFL and come up with just the most basic handicapping I've ever heard in my goddamn life.
00:10 - Flup (Host)
You know because 1.26 times 1,000 is 1,260. That's how you know.
00:17 - Joey Knish (Host)
No, you are wrong, my friend, you are wrong.
00:20 - Mike (Host)
I'm used to using one way and I'm going to stick with it.
00:25 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
But if you're gonna complain about it, baby, I think this would be better, but I don't want to fucking learn how to do it. 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.
01:20
Circle back here on the Circles Off channel. It's part of the Hammered Betting Network and presented by Cal Street. This is the show where we cover the latest and greatest news from gambling Twitter. We're doing so today with me, your host on Circle Back, jacob Germania, back with the Thursday crew. It is our normal Thursday crew of Flop no Lied Chris Dierkis in the bottom left corner, joey Knish, host on Hit the Books, in the bottom right corner and also in the top right corner. Our fourth for today is Mike. Mr Peanut Better and Mike, you looking forward to dunking on Fluff a little bit more today.
01:53 - Mike (Host)
Yeah, that's the plan Whenever I come on here. That's what I try to make sure I do each time, and that's the goal each and every time.
02:00 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I feel like he makes it really easy for you. Every time you come on you got something to dunk on and I feel like he makes it really easy for you Every time you come on you got something to dunk on and perhaps one of them will be the first topic that we have today. In all seriousness, this is a serious topic for maybe you guys south of the border, but we had Dina Titus, representative in Las Vegas, who said that unfortunately, the Fair Bet Act was not accepted as an amendment to the NDAA accepted as an amendment to the NDAA. We had a comment here from Boost World at Promos 319, who said this is extremely disappointed.
02:31
By capping deductions at 90%, you're pushing professional bettors, the ones who are paying taxes, either offshore books or out of the industry completely. So just to sum up what the Fair Bet Act is trying to do it's trying to take away the law that will be in place in 2026 that will cap gambling loss deductions at 90, making it very, very difficult even for the best and most profitable sports bettors to actually turn a profit, which will have a significant impact on the industry flood. You have been our resident expert on this discussion here. Can you comment on where things are right now and where things are looking going into 2026.
03:11 - Flup (Host)
Yeah, the TLDR is not looking too hot, unfortunately, like the crux of the matter is, republicans don't want to admit they made a mistake here. They're not going to let some random Democrat take credit for this and call it a fact that they made mistakes. Credit for this and call it a fact that they made mistakes. And because they got graded at $1.1 billion in revenue regardless if that's true or not, which it's not true they can't get that fixed easily, because now any Republican or any person that disagrees with it or wants something to push their own motive can just say why are you taking away tax revenue from the US government? Why are you helping these greedy gamblers that are abusing this unfair tax system? That's what would be said. So passing it on from DNF through the defense budget was just a very big long shot. It was likely never going to work.
04:00
The most likely case that it gets passed through legislation is the reconciliation bill, which isn't even a guarantee to happen, and it can only happen post-September 30th. I don't believe Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, wants it to go forth and he calls the shots. Unfortunately, so it probably won't happen, but it may. It's a possibility. It's a possibility and if it does go, if it does happen, the regulation does happen then it's another long shot for Dina to even get that put onto there, or some other congressman other than Dina Titus to get it put on there. In my opinion, the most realistic option is that Treasury makes a rule that and defines what a session, which I think would make a lot of sense as, like one quarter, as you know, businesses pay quarterly taxesage people enough to commit blatant tax fraud and just ignore this rule altogether, which is, I think, what's going to happen for a lot of pros is they're just going to just take the chances with an audit. Unfortunately, if this does happen, does not get resolved by the end of 2025 and rolls into 2026.
05:21 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
We did cover on this show a a Cal she market about this, especially when this bill was first passed and it was right around 50%. It got all the way up to the mid sixties percent chance on the gambling loss reduction repealed this year it's now all the way down at 23%. There's $588,000 of liquidity in this market. So up at the time, unfortunately, I have to say, you were really beating the drum for this to get repealed and thought it was a good position for it to get repealed. Let's go to Mr Peanutbutter. Mike, here Were you one of the people that tailed Flop on that opinion at the time?
05:55 - Mike (Host)
Oh yep. Unfortunately and you should have heard him in private chats he was even more adamant. He was saying this is a lock of the century five stars lock it in whale play of the year, play of the century. You know it was, I got to say, not my most disappointing, cousy loss of the year, but it was very disappointing nonetheless to have someone I trusted, who I thought was a friend, kind of stab me in the back with this kind of misinformation.
06:17 - Flup (Host)
I just want to point out I have a very large position on this and I did believe what I said at the time. I'm going to lose probably six figures on this, on top of potentially getting my job taken away from me.
06:29 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Hey, someone has to fill that liquidity flop. That's what it's all about.
06:33 - Flup (Host)
Yes, you know some, some person smarter than me Got it. I stand by my what I said in the beginning, but new information has come in and I've been updated with what I know now, so I don't think I've misled anyone. And, as usual, mike is lying and spreading fake news with fake information. There's no five star whale play lockout century, complete lies. I'd love to see him post the proof of that, which he can't because he's a certified liar.
07:02 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Well, he's a true friend. He doesn't want to out the DMs like that.
07:04 - Flup (Host)
Oh yeah, true friend.
07:07 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Kanish. This is a serious topic. How is this going to affect you? Do you have any sort of plans in place for what you're going to do if this does come into place? What are your thoughts on this?
07:18 - Joey Knish (Host)
Well, thankfully, I'm the only one of us that's kept a reasonable employment here at this panel. I would say it seems like and Flupkin and Pierczek on this that again, with Dina Titus leading this, it's never going to get through. There needs to be some Republican that maybe a lobbying group can grease the palms, grease the palms of to get this, to get someone that's driving it or, you know, co-sponsor with her.
07:51 - Flup (Host)
It really like, as you said Kanish, that's there already, is Republican co-sponsors and there's already, like I think, there is a Republican on board with this.
08:03
But I mean somebody that's really, like Ted Cruz, has tried to have the full House Act in the Senate as well. But the problem is, this is all for show. It's all for show. The Republican leaders that actually matter. They're not going to admit that their own party made a mistake like this. That's just not how politics work. You always blame the other side. The other side is always wrong. You're always right. You don't take responsibility. That's how it works, unfortunately. So that's why it's just not going to happen. This Republican sponsor thing is just not going to, or they'll let someone kill it in some other way or make some BS about it. So they might have a Republican pretend to sponsor something, pretend to make their own bill, but it's not going to work, unfortunately.
08:49 - Mike (Host)
Flop. If Mike Johnson was not Speaker of the House, would that have any impact?
08:57 - Flup (Host)
It would have impact, but the odds that Mike Johnson gets replaced by someone that also has the same attitude is just extremely high. It's not like 100 percent. So I guess it would impact. There's some probability that it wouldn't. But the reason it wouldn't impact is I think Mike Johnson doesn't want the reconciliation bill and the reconciliation bill is maybe I misspoke on it. It's a long shot but it's more. That's probably the most likely route if it doesn't get resolved through the Treasury ruling defining on one session. That's the most likely route. And he, mike Johnson, seems very unopposed sorry, very opposed to having a reconciliation post-September 30th. So a different Speaker of the House might be more open to that.
09:41 - Joey Knish (Host)
And Flo, let's just say I mean, let's just play it out here If the Treasury ruling doesn't come through, what's the next opportunity? I mean, are you looking at like 2028, anything or like for this to even, or would it just kind of like at that point, lose momentum and just be part of you know?
10:01 - Flup (Host)
law going forward, yeah, so I think what's going to happen, that happen, that's really this. Now this is where I'm speculating here heavily. I I've been talking to people that are really in the know about this stuff. So asking what's going to happen post 2026 is pure speculation and I'm, yeah, very likely to be wrong here.
10:17
But if I had to guess, what would happen is one of two things. One it does have, does have massive impact and, like Nevada, takes a massive hit in terms of, like poker tournaments getting hit, maybe volumes from other things, and this actually impacts revenue a lot and it becomes so notable that it gets quickly resolved somewhere in 2026. And maybe they can retroactively add it in I'm actually not sure the processes of that. The second option is it basically doesn't have a massive impact. It really only impacts sharper customers and those sharper customers might just take the chances with an audit, which I wouldn't recommend, but it is what it is and if it doesn't, then it kind of just gets lost in the sauce and maybe in 202828, under democratic rule, if the democrat does win the presidency, something changes. Or maybe in the midterms of in 2026, if democrats are able to take control of the House and Senate, then maybe something changes there, but that's, if there's no real impact, then I just don't see this getting changed post-2026.
11:28 - Mike (Host)
Am I wrong, or does the bill not sunset after 2028? Isn't it part of the certain tax code that after 2028 it would be eliminated?
11:39 - Flup (Host)
I'm not sure on that, and that's true, and that would be another way for this to, I guess, go away.
11:43 - Mike (Host)
Yeah, I thought I don't. Maybe I'm speaking out of turn. We should probably look this up before I spread misinformation, like Flop did to me, about this bill passing. But I think that the big beautiful bill it's part of a tax cut, part of a provision that sunsets in 2028. But we'll have to look into that, make sure that's right.
12:02 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
All right, we'll see what transpires out of this. We'll have to look into that. Make sure that's right. All right, we'll see what transpires out of this. I mean it does kind of make sense why there'd be a troublesome situation. I mean, I didn't think about it so simply, you need to convince Republicans, be convinced that they were wrong on this one, and neither side would want to admit they're wrong. And you also have to convince them they're wrong in wanting a higher amount of tax revenues. So this thing is going to be difficult to turn around. We will continue to monitor it, and a really great way to monitor it is with this Calci market. Like I said here, 23% Calci are sponsored on the show. As I mentioned earlier.
12:33
We're going to continue to talk about Calci as we move into our second segment here, because I've coined it as in the rundown as someone pulled a flop, because this is exactly the same thing that flop did we talked about on a show a couple of weeks ago, but it was Deep Value Better who posted a supposedly free $65 GG and they traded on Roshan Johnson no as an anytime touchdown score after he was listed as inactive by the Chicago Bears and then, at half the units replied and said the Cal sheet rules on inactors make no sense to me.
13:07
It says it settles at pre game price and then the reply from deep value better was if true, how is cash fee possibly considered? Exchange incentive would be to fill as many of those orders as possible. Then, instead of me exploiting an idiot counterparty who didn't account for RJ being inactive, I'm the idiot who's being exploited by a technicality arbitrage. And it was alerted to us by Ben Carey at Ben underscore, carey underscore, with the hashtag circleback and tagging you directly. Flip, you've had time to think about this one. You've been on this side of things before. Can you explain this situation a little bit more for anybody who's new to this?
13:42 - Flup (Host)
Yeah. So I think the problem here is twofold. One, he tried to angle shoot and got blown up. I think people that angle shoot are just horrible, horrible people. I would never do such a thing like that with him, that I think couch's house rules and player props here are quite bad. And um, um, 80 from from 50 or 50 cent dollars is going to post in an article that I'm helping write on the next couple days where I talk about this, but as a kind of precursor. The problem is, um, it's very ambiguous. What is the official date of withdrawal from a player prop? So a great example of this and I'll shout out, man of the Vague actually posted a great article on this as well is say, hypothetical Broken clock writes twice a day Steal his example, say that Travis Kelsey is questionable and may or may not play.
14:51
Or say, say sorry, say all week he's expected to play, and then at 7 am schaefter tweets out he's questionable. So now the price which had been trading at, say Travis Kelsey is 50 cents to score a touchdown, and now it trades, now that he's questionable, he may be playing injured, so it trades down to 40 cents and then from 7 am to 9 am, that's when it trades down to 40 cents and then he's ruled out. Schefter tweets that he's ruled out at 9 am, but then the official injury report comes out at, say, 10 am. So what happens? From 9 am to 10 am, people might be buying Travis Kelsey not to score a touchdown, drive it down for 40 cents, down to 20 cents, and then the official injury report comes out at 10 am. When did Travis Kelsey get ruled out? Was it when Schefter tweeted an hour ago, or was it when the news came out? Or is it when the game actually starts and he's not playing? I don't know. Does anyone know what the official rule? And you can interpret it in many different ways and you can see if they grade it at last traded. No one really knows what is last traded and it's very hard to interpret. So now these recreational customers and these customers are going to why am I getting back like 20 cents on the dollar when he didn't even play? Or why am I getting back 50 cents on the dollar, et cetera, et cetera. No one knows what the rule is. And then, top of that, cash keeps these markets up for a little too long. So you need to get better at that.
16:26
I think this is a big mistake and it's very confusing. I think the simple solution is either A just void it but, as I talked about, it's very difficult to void on exchanges and they might not even legally be able to and if you can't void it, make everything $0.100 or nothing. That way it's not a bug, it's a feature. So you can basically say, hey, if you want the best odds, so to speak, come to Kalshi, because now you have to price in the fact that if he doesn't play or doesn't start, you get nothing. So then there's no one complaining. It's all very clear. And inside information is still going to be a problem. You would just bet it on main markets anyway. So there's no really, and plus, it's illegal to bet inside our information what do you, what do you think on this one kanish I?
17:16 - Joey Knish (Host)
I mean, for, like I, I did find, uh, what deep value better like in in him. One, the the fact he thought he got one over on there, um, and then two, he's in the comments like doubling down that he got wronged and like, oh yeah, like someone was trying to put an ant, like no, you were just trying to do the same thing. They're like insane, the counterparty's trying to scam. So this will. This is going to be a big as the bigger prediction markets get. This is going to be a big as the bigger prediction markets get. This is maybe the crux area right now, not just because Fluff's on the show, but like where the more rec bettors that get into this.
17:55
And this happens because look at what's happening now, in any type of market like this, people are just leaving orders out there and like orders wide open. For this exact reason for people to come in and think like, oh, here's some free money, I'm gonna pick it up. And then you try and pick up the free money and it's like, oh, it's on fire, it burns your hand. So I'm not. I like fluff's idea there of the hundred or nothing.
18:18
They have to do something about this, though, as this goes along because right now the last traded is too ambiguous and the more people that and now a lot, of, a lot of sharper people, or what I'll call you know more manipulated and again, listen, I mean I'm not taking any shots here like I had, but people are just leaving this up now hoping that people like take the orders and think it's a mistake. So now it's become like you know what, what used to be maybe more of like, instead of people that understand it, now there's actual people preying on this and using what I'll call predatory practices to have people accidentally think that they're getting their money's worth, and that's only going to continue. The farther this goes along, the bigger that it gets.
19:03 - Mike (Host)
I would have to say that her Flops example whensey got ruled out has to go back to the off season when he wasn't putting the necessary work, focusing on the wrong things for this season. But yeah, deep value better. Getting mad about this is kind of like uh, you know, trying to set up a hit and getting murdered and complaining about that, you got a shot at like I. I don't understand. You're trying to get somebody over as a market maker and then you end up getting screwed Like. This is exactly what you are trying to do. Yeah, for Koushi. I don't.
19:31 - Flup (Host)
Yeah, people that do that and tweet it publicly.
19:33 - Mike (Host)
It's just so stupid. For Koushi, why can't they split markets into two categories that they where they have, hey, these are voidable categories where we do void. And then because I understand that they don't want to have people trading futures and stuff like that but for props, why can't you just say, hey, this is a you know voidable of you know market or whatever these can be voided, rather than, uh, you know all of them what? Why does everybody have to go under the same kind of category? If you're couchy?
20:02 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
it's because, as as the price fluctuates, they wouldn't be able to avoid everybody at the same amount that they placed a bet at. That's where the complication lies.
20:12 - Flup (Host)
No, no, no. So that's not the reason. What Mike is saying is like when I said a couple episodes ago, the reason they can't void is, of course, is the arm trading. If I buy something for 40 cents from Mike and I sell that $0.40 for $0.50 to Kanish, I prop a $0.10 and I withdraw the $0.10 and if they void, Kalshi has to pay me the $0.10 and Mike and Joey get their same money back. That's why they can't void. But what Mike is suggesting is why don't they make a voidable category and they hold my $0.10 and say like an escrow, that would be the best solution, because now they can just avoid that and I don't know, that might not even be legal Right and that's the biggest question and that's what makes it very difficult and I empathize for Cal Sheet Like it's a very tough situation, but I still think they're handling it, this player prop situation, poorly.
21:01
If we go back to my tennis situation, I still think they handled it well. I thought the rules were fair. I took a shot and, as Mike's example, I think it was a fair one. I got burned in the process and I deserved to lose. But in this situation, the player prop situation is much different and I think they're handling it very poorly.
21:23 - Joey Knish (Host)
I'll say like so it happens on a player prop, it happens on a random tennis match. When this happens, when there's a game canceled or void or moved or something where every other book on earth is just going to void and get your money back, and it's a massive. Let's call it an nfl game, a thursday night game that has a storm or something. That's when this is going to be like right now yeah right right now, it's only in this, you know, our niche.
21:50
Once it gets out to like a mainstream by where there's millions traded on it and you're looking at people taking a loss whenever, that's when I think, then it kind of like boils over. I'll so say so. I'm hoping they kind of come to a solution that's a little bit more, I don't know, user-friendly. I'll call it before that, Because once that type of scenario and it will happen at some point then I think you know that kind of negative press like really picks up to the more mainstream outlets.
22:22 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Seems like they're going to take this into consideration. They're going to adapt and hopefully we'll see some improvement on that in the future, but for now, as a reminder, kalshi is our sponsor on the show. If you do want to sign up to Kalshi, go to the link in the description at any time, throughout the audio or throughout the video. Get signed up today. I mean, we saw with the cap on gambling loss repealed this year. A market like that, having almost $600,000 of liquidity so much liquidity on a lot of these markets even some of these unique markets as well is a fantastic place to bet. It's a fantastic part of the betting ecosystem. You can sign up to CalSheet as well with the QR code that I am putting on screen now as well. Get involved with our sponsors. You can support the show and you can do yourself a favor in the process. Now we'll keep it moving into our next topic in just a second here, but first we're going to talk about what's coming later today at the Hammer Betting Network.
23:12
Here on Circle Back, we like to discuss a variety of things, including the happenings in the gambling space. You start your mornings off with us at 8 am Eastern time, but then at lunch, we have the perfect recommendation. We've created a new show called the Hammer Daily, hosted by Jason Cooper. It's on the Hammer HQ YouTube channel and basically it's Jason with various guests talking about the news and games of the day, plus actionable bets. That's the Hammer Daily, monday to Friday at noon Eastern time on the Hammer HQ YouTube channel. You can check it out with the link in the description.
23:42
Next topic's on the conversation of officiating in sports and the technology that is assisting that officiating. Has that technology gone too far? Jay croucher at croucher jd, very well respected in the sports betting space, says think sports broadly has completely over indexed on technical correctives, over drama and entertainment. Get rid of var, which is the video assistant referee in soccer. Bring back challenges in. I would want to see players melting when they get a challenge wrong. We'll start with you on this one, kanish. How do you feel about the state of sports and the officiating? Do you miss the entertainment that came with missed calls and bad calls? Do you like where we're at now? Give us your thoughts.
24:21 - Joey Knish (Host)
It's. You know, I wish it was black and white in some instances, especially as, like a soccer guy, there's like that, that euphoria you used to have, but now you have that, you know, maybe 20 percent of like wait, is that offside? Is this going to get VAR? Are they going to check it? At the same time, I think that, like, the tennis system is fucking, like, what they've done in tennis is not that I'm a tennis guy, but I'll give them this what they've done with, you know, the spot track is like absolutely phenomenal no-transcript. So there's an element of, I think, the drama aspect has it's some piece of it that's had to kind of wind back that you have that extra like, you know, kind of same thing as like is there going to be a flag on this play? But I just think there were so many instances of miserable calls that they had to get rid of the one.
25:27
The one I will say, and I'll be interested to see if PB thinks this is a as a as a basketball guy, like the NBA and like who it went off of, or like the NBA last minute challenge process is so bad. To me that's the only one that crosses the line into absurdity, where I'm like just throw it out and like I don't care. I don't care if it went off somebody's fingernail at like you know, if I'm dissecting what it is after eight angles, that one's so awful. I think it's really hurt the impact of the game and the NBA. The other ones I'm OK with.
26:04 - Mike (Host)
It's really to me about how much it impacts the flow of your sport. So in tennis they're able to look up, get it decided in a few seconds, get back to playing. It doesn't have much of an impact. In football you're used to breaks where the guys are doing different things. There's timeouts all the time. Obviously there's time between plays. In basketball it's so constant back and forth and when you go from that to all of a sudden let's break this play down for 45 minutes where we go over did this touch this guy so they can get the ball back before there's two seconds on the shot clock and have to turn it over anyways.
26:36
It really just kind of disrupts the flow of the game and I think at times it has consequences where we're reviewing things that are very obvious and it kind of has an impact on the game itself. I think back when Bray Allen hits that three versus San Antonio, he's clearly behind the line. San Antonio is grabbing the ball, trying to get it out fast in order to get the last couple seconds off. They stop, review the clock. They effectively have a dead ball where the team can get their defense set up. So that's also having an impact, so to say like oh, we just want to get it right.
27:07
You're many times you're impacting the games in different ways. I understand there is a need to get it right. I don't have a problem for real critical things getting reviewed, but at some point it is an entertainment product and at some point this kind of disruptive of the flow kind of just ruins what you're watching. And NBA is the worst example of it. I think that you know football has kind of towed the line. Before when they were doing the pass interference thing, they tried that out. That went horrible. But it's really just kind of what you're used to watching as a fan and how it disrupts your flow or doesn't.
27:41 - Flup (Host)
Mike, I want to ask you so, with that real answer, what is your suggestion there? So like, since they ruled it, a three, it's always a three there, let him go with the flow. Or is your suggestion that, like, when he takes it out, then they review it later if it's a three and get it right?
27:59 - Mike (Host)
Because I think those are very two different things. Yeah, I think if the referee doesn't legitimately know and maybe he didn't for the the round, but if you look he's watching the thing If he doesn't know, then let's go ahead and review it. Like I think that they should have their discretion to blow the whistle. They're all these leads Now. They're so afraid of giving the ref any discretion that you have them having to make these objective calls where everything is the rule of whether it does or not. Let them go ahead and be a or be subjective in a couple of areas. I understand why they want to get rid of it. They don't want to have views of favoritism or whatever, but I think a lot of times doing everything just to the letter of the law, so perfectly kind of strips, common sense solutions out of a lot of sports.
28:39 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
As far as my opinion on this, especially as a big soccer fan as well. I really like VAR in principle because I think technology as a whole for referees in sports I would just. I just absolutely do not want a significant sporting event to be marred and decided by a call being wrong. Like I would absolutely hate for a massive soccer game to be ruined by a red card that shouldn't have been a red card. But I think the also what Kanisha's saying how long some of this stuff takes is just ridiculous. Like I watched Manchester United versus Burnley two weeks ago and there was a potential penalty for United, like in the first 20 minutes of the game and it took them more than five minutes to decide whether or not it was a penalty. There needs to be some sort of cap.
29:20
I don't want to like put like a shot clock on referees to make a decision, but there just needs to be a bit more of a of a hurry process and look, if the ref can't come up with a decision in the first minute, they just go with the call in the field. I'm comfortable with that. The ref made the discretion on the field, so you go with that. On the topic of discretion. It's a bit tricky because you, if you give the ref discretion, they might be more favorite to stick with their own call to make themselves look better because this is the call I made so I believe was the right call. So he takes from that away Cause you don't want that to happen. I again want calls to be right because I just don't want that game seven to be affected so heavily by a mistaken call. But again, I think there should be discretion in the way of how long it takes for these things to get resolved.
30:07 - Mike (Host)
Yeah, to your point. I think the it also is like if you can't tell within the first minute of the replay then you're getting away from basically every kind of egregious mistake. Every mistake that you think of is like oh, this is the worst call ever. You watch it and you thought how could they miss that? So if you can't do that within a minute, then the call is clearly at least close enough that we can't be 1,000% sure, no matter what, I agree with that completely.
30:32 - Flup (Host)
I don't understand the hate for the tennis thing, even as a tennis hater understands it. It's pretty good here. It's so black and white. In those situations we need to get decisions wrong, just Just so, like tennis players can tilt, they already tilt enough, as is. I don't, I don't understand. Yeah.
30:52 - Mike (Host)
Right, right idea, wrong example, I think for the sport like if I was doing it.
30:56
I would say you know the million NBA games I watch where they take. The most exciting part of basketball should be the last few minutes, if you ever watch a FIBA game. There's no timeout. The ball is going crazy. Instead we have this thing where it's either a foul or a 45-minute review and we get just possession. Wait two minutes, another possession, wait two minutes, and it's like it's opposite of how basketball is played. The rest of the game. I'm not an Elam ending guy, but I get why they kind of have that stance when it's like this isn't the sport that has been played so far right, completely makes sense.
31:27 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Uh, I would love to hear your thoughts and opinions and comments down below. Do you think technology has gone too far? Some people just genuinely enjoy the drama it provides. They enjoy a bad call because it leads to great talking points for the next day. I think rob bazula see you, the hammer has brought that up on this show before, but any thoughts you have watching or listening, give us in the comments down below.
31:45
But now we're going to move into our next topic here, but have another controversial one, and it's the controversial figure once again in Steve Fezzik, who is on the Ross Tucker podcast and said if you start the NFL year, oh and one, and you're playing a team that's fat and happy one, and oh you did. If you did nothing but bet the 0-1 team, going back 20 years, you are 54-40 against the spread. So this is the zigzag method I suppose that people have been using for a while. It's just the idea that there is and honestly, fezzik didn't actually say this, honestly, I didn't watch the full episode, maybe did mention this but there is often an overcorrection on the losing team and an overcorrection on the winning team. Therefore, you can find some value on the 0-1 team against the 1-0 team.
32:36
As for the current day, there were some people who had a little bit of pushback. Plus, ev Analytics said I had mixed feelings on this type of analysis. 20 years is way too far to go back. So does this information really hold up in today's market? We had Thon Misser who said if you're flipping a coin, this would happen 9% of the time. I'm assuming the cutoff was put in place for a reason the 20 years so in essence, this is pretty meaningless. Let's start with you on this one, mr Peanutbutter. What part of the spectrum are we on? Is this very valuable information? Is this completely useless information? Are we somewhere in the middle where there is some value to it, if you understand it correctly?
33:14 - Mike (Host)
So I'm someone who bets a lot of angles where I think this particular situation might not be priced the same as others, kind of historically in different games. Whenever you're trying to check a theory that you have on why this angle might be mispriced or might be priced differently, the number one thing you have to be is honest with yourself. So you have to say this is what I'm testing and come up with what you're going to test beforehand and you can't change the guidelines after, because otherwise it's too easy to data snoop and pick you know arbitrary endpoints, like uh thon mentions there, or to pick out something that you know to change the data in some way to validate your opinion or the thought that you had before that. So for a situation like this, you it's really are.
33:59
We got to ask yourself did fez go back and say, hey, I have this theory that teams that start 1-0 get too happy and they will perform better against the spread because of this expectation that's built into the market, and then he went back and tested it? Or did he pick up, look at the data post-hash and just come up with this theory afterwards, because otherwise you can find a million angles, a million different things that happen. It's kind of like astrology for sports betting, so we have to kind of decide beforehand what the value was. And for this situation, when you're picking an arbitrary endpoint like that, that makes me think that it's more likely that he saw the data and then came up with a theory. Okay, wait.
34:40 - Flup (Host)
So, mike, I want to clarify something. So let's say I have a theory that teams that cover the spread on week one are less likely to cover the spread on week two. That's my theory. How many years back would you go? How would you verify that theory if I was asking you?
34:58 - Mike (Host)
I think that you would put in essentially, I would try to look at it. I would say, let's look at it at 10 years, 5 years, 20. I mean you would want to go ahead and I would say, let's look at it at 10 years, five years, 20. I mean you would want to go ahead and do like a more advanced analysis later, but just like your basic testing is, you would say let's look at it at five years, 10 years, 20 years, check all the different points and if it's beating against all those, then you can be like, okay, there's probably some validity to the theory that people are over-adjusting.
35:28
Then I would try to look at something kind of more technical where you're like okay, is there a situation where the movements of X like you would then come up with the next thing like oh, movements whenever a team you know estimated rating is higher by X amount, that's an overreaction.
35:41
So you should find thing areas where it's more prominent than others, instead of just looking at one and I'll look at teams that had a large margin, something like that you should be able to find other factors because they're not going to be pricing. Your underlying theory is going to be priced differently, kind of according to different factors. So like, if you have one theory, it doesn't affect every team the same, so you can test it in multiple ways. You know, coming up out to the spot it kind of hard, but the first one I would do is I would check several you know points and see how often you know if the last five years has it happened? How? About five to ten, like something like that where you're testing multiple different end points instead of just picking one at random okay.
36:21 - Flup (Host)
So what I still don't understand, though, is you seem to be okay if I come up with a theory first and then test it. But what if I just come up with like 20 different theories and like, eventually I'm going to just get one right by pure luck? Like, first I test that, okay, that doesn't work. Then I say, what about East Coast teams traveling to West Coast teams? What does that do there? That doesn't work. Oh, then what about road teams covering? Or what about unders? What about overs? Et cetera, et cetera. I can just go on and on and on. Eventually get one right. Am I not just being like an idiot and just getting blind lucky as well? Like how do we protect against that I don't get? How? Like saying that I'm going to test this theory and then this theory works out is better than just like blindly a monkey throwing angles out there.
37:09 - Mike (Host)
Well, first of all, that happens all the time. I've had several where I've thought, ok, this is something, and it ended up not being anything. You just have to have some kind of confidence that it's not priced into the market and can't test a million things. But yeah, I understand, you're right that theoretically, if I just came up with all these and came up, eventually, at some point you can pick out ones that are going to win. If you test 200 of these theories, you know you're going to get a positive result on 20 of them. That's why I mean you have to be confident that it's something that's not priced in the market. And basically there's some levels like you don't have a certainty that you're right. Right, there's there's certainly a chance that I'm just wrong.
37:48
In this situation, like, for example, if you were looking, I mean first of all, you shouldn't really do it against the spread, you should do it as an adjustment to some kind of ratings that you have rather than whatever. But I mean even like, when you're doing some kind of model input, you're looking, you're creating a theory of the case and then testing it after some kind of model input. You're looking, you're creating a theory of the case and then testing it after. You can never be sure that whatever model input that you're adding in isn't going to give you some kind of false results like that too. So I mean I don't really look as much against the spread and kind of attack that way.
38:16
I more look at this is what my baseline rating would be. How has it affected my rating? But I do think like if you are doing against the spread, it's something where you really have to make sure that, like I mean an NFL Sunday spread, there's probably nothing that I can think of offhand that's not going to be taken into account like that. So that's one example I just. But in general, if you're looking at how to adjust inputs of your model, you do have to come up with a hypothesis test it then back to see should I even adjust this team based on certain factors?
38:48 - Flup (Host)
Is it also fair to say that, like I don't know about you, but I kind of feel like it's like if you said something to me like I think this works in college football, or Kanisha said I think this works in college football, two guys that actually quote, unquote no ball. Or my brother who doesn't bet said I think this had this theory and it ball. Or my brother who doesn't bet said I think this had this theory and it was the same theory, I would tell my brother he's an idiot and I would say that you guys are probably right because it's kind of like I trust you that you're like smart, even if it's both theories are seemingly crazy and idiotic. Is that? Is that not kind of true as well? Like it's like, if you have the respect that I'm just going to believe that you're right yeah, yeah, 100.
39:22 - Mike (Host)
I don't even think that's nonsensical because there is some kind of you know Bayes prior. If you want to think of, the person giving you the information is smart. So the probability that what they're telling you is smart is higher than if someone that isn't thinking about it is telling you. I think that for these situations one, that's why I don't love testing against the spread and two, you really, if you are going to do against the spread for these kind of angles, you have to be picking stuff that, like, can't be realistically priced in. If someone told you, hey, I have a theory that, uh, you know, the baseball wind density is impacting totals and that this is undervalued, a while back you would be like, oh, that actually makes sense. That would be very hard to price in.
40:03
If you're saying that, oh, I think that road dogs are underpriced, obviously that's something that's nonsensical. So, like for these against the spread ones, you really have to be confident that it's not getting priced in. And then, first you have to think is it priced in at all? And then you have to think does it matter? Almost whether it's priced in matters more than whether how much impact it has.
40:26 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Anything from you, Knish, before we move on to the comments.
40:28 - Joey Knish (Host)
No, I mean just this is classic. Like 1990s, fez, like this might have worked when you know he won his first you know super contest in 1897 or whatever it was, with you know the three people that worked there. But this is stuff that, like you know, I remember when I was first like young and growing up you would see in that and before you didn't know anything, you might be like, oh man, there might be some to that. But as Fluff and PB kind of broke down here that in the vast, vast majority of those instances it's just a, it's just a nothing burger.
41:07 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
So just my two cents on it. It's just, 20 years is a long time. Has the market adjusted to this theory over time? If it worked, then 20 years, nfl sides and totals, probably, uh, I would say so. Uh, and also you like, like you guys were mentioning, is it priced into this specific game that we're talking about now or any specific game that you could factor into this? That's what you would have it was good.
41:28 - Joey Knish (Host)
To somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about, like it's just a nice clip to be like, if you know, for like a someone who doesn't really like a wreck, that's like oh man, there might, and they, you know somebody might use that. That's why he still does this stuff yeah, I.
41:40 - Mike (Host)
I just want to be clear when I'm talking about looking back and testing things. One, first of all, the best way to always do it is test against your baseline ratings, create some kind of value for the team and then see does this improve a team or does it increase the total? Does it do something like that rather than looking against the spread? Against the spread is just a cheap way of you didn't come up with the number yourself, so you don't know how to come up with it. Two, if you are going to use against the spread, don't pick the goddamn NFL, the most efficient market in the world.
42:07
You're not going to think of something. They are taking into account whether a team is 1-0 and 0-1. Like that is not the area you've got to look for Now. If you want to look for in East Peruvian soccer, there's teams that go up 2-0 and they are undervalued. You might be right, but don't go into the NFL and come up with just the most basic handicapping I've ever heard in my goddamn life and try to beat it in that way. So I want to be clear when I was talking about that stuff earlier, about you know, going back, being precise, about a data point. Don't do it, for you know major markets and stuff that's obviously going to be priced in.
42:45 - Flup (Host)
Well, you know, we hear stuff like that, how the NFL is so efficient. But did you know that, like some respected Vegas bookmakers think like Jared Goff is not an improvement over Hendon? I'm just saying, like you know, these are the kind of guys that make NFL spreads.
42:58 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
All right, we'll move it to the comments from the previous iteration of the Circleback Friday show here, starting off with something in reaction to the Kawhi Leonard stuff that's been going on recently, where he was getting paid for a no-show job by a company called Aspiration. We have a comment here from Arthur Fonzarelli 9828, who essentially says that Tom Brady had similar deals that were going on with the New England Patriots involving an exercise company or whatever it was in their facilities to pay an extra salary on top of the contract with the Patriots. Now we'll talk about this a little bit more in a sec. I do want to remind you on the Kawhi Leonard situation. Kawhi Leonard specifically requested that the endorsement deal would be to do nothing. It was just to get paid. So it's a little bit different than actually an endorsement deal, which does exist.
43:46
Endorsement deals and sponsorships make up oftentimes more money than a player actually makes playing the sport. But do you think that that? I don't really know how to frame this, but like what were the stances on Kawhi Leonard? Was it wrong? Like what should the NBA do about this? Is there anything you want to bring up, philip?
44:09 - Flup (Host)
In these kind of spots I typically like to blame the ownership rather than the player. Here, if I'm the player, I'm trying to get as much money as possible. Don't hate the player, hate the game. So in this situation I put all the onus on Ballmer here. So I would be like if Brady did this, good for Brady, like that would be my attitude, and screw Kraft for doing that stuff. And the Kawhi? I'm not going to blame Kawhi in this situation, I'm going to blame the Clippers. The Clippers shouldn't be doing that if that's what they did.
44:39 - Joey Knish (Host)
Yeah, I mean there has to be some like edict or league agreement or something to where? And again, I don't know we talked on the last show how enforceable is it really of just if you're going to give someone an endorsement deal that's related to the team, that businesses are related to the team or owned by the owner in some fashion? It should be subject to more I don't know stipulations or more scrutiny um to with that. But yeah, I mean it is a little I don't know. I mean good for the guy for asking for, but, like my, my team, my people are like give me a 30 million dollar endorsement deal to do nothing like I found the owner, and I know it's easy to say from this seat, but I'm like get the fuck out of here.
45:27
Like you know what I'm saying, I know the raptor story leak of what he was asking for for them, which is basically the same thing. Um plus ownership of the maple. Yeah, yeah, plus yeah, oh, yeah, I want like I'm, I'm sorry, I, I don't know I'm, I'm a little bit like it's fucking insane, but I get.
45:44 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Yeah, yeah, know, like people asking for it At the end of the day, the Clippers got Kawhi Leonard. Yeah, they gave it to him and probably will not face any repercussions for it. So if Steve Ballmer could go back, he would probably do it again. Mike, anything from you on this one.
45:59 - Mike (Host)
Yeah, I'm sure Tom Brady did do this. He came from a culture of cheating where he went to school and you know that's no surprise that he would do something beyond to manipulate the salary cap in that way. But if you're going to enforce this, what you would probably have to do is say every player who signs an endorsement deal, for whatever amount, that has to be run through the league and the league has to approve it or look at it in some way. The players union is not going to want to do that. So I mean, maybe they would agree to it if they get enough of a BRI split. But it's a situation where, unless you are reviewing all of them, this is going to probably somebody's going to get overpaid for a thing more than likely. Whether they're going to blatantly, whether they're going above the speed limit or reckless driving, like Kawhi Leonard was. That's what we'll have to see.
46:46 - Flup (Host)
What I don't understand is take LeBron, for example, when he was a free agent. I believe it was reported that the Knicks, in their pitch LeBron, said you could be a billionaire if you come to New York because of the advertising deal. Is that the same thing as this? Because it is true that you could advertise more and they might not directly like give him a deal, but they're heavily hinting at the fact that signing with us is more money, which they're probably not wrong about like. Is that not manipulating the cap in some way? And if if I'm the owner, I'm happy that my players sign with me. If there's any deals that I can help them connect with, I do want to help them out because I want to support my players.
47:25 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I guess it's different when the team owner wires money directly to the company that is paying the athlete. So if any precedent would be set and now this would have to I'd have to think about this a bit more. But I'll say it If there is any sort of affiliation with the ownership group and the company that is endorsing you, that would raise some red flags for me. I get the NBA would review it, but again, I'm not sure that that sets an ugly precedent or not.
47:50 - Flup (Host)
So, like I guess, would your tone of change at all, Jacob, if Kawhi did like one commercial a month or like three commercials for the year, would your have attitude changed at all?
48:03 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
It would change for sure the fact that his representative and uncle, dennis richardson, has been quoted as saying we want to do nothing, uh, when it comes to the endorsements, that obviously that changes it a bit. If he's actually doing something for the endorsements, like the quote is, I I think we don't want to do anything. So that is a pretty bad look for me. But if there is ownership involvement in the company, I think it is a pretty bad look for the nba to allow that to happen. Uh, and you can manipulate the cap and you know nba especially is they're all about trying to promote parity. This is very much removing that level of parity that exists in the league. So I think that would be a big concern, even if he was doing a commercial or you know, I saw like they did. They did do bobbleheads with aspiration logos on for kawaii leonard, if there's maybe something like that. Um, I think when ownership gets involved with that endorsement deal, it is a way to go around the cap.
49:02
There's no rule in place right now. Like I said, said the Clippers got their guy. So what can we really do about it? Like you said, don't hate the player, hate the game. We'll move to the next comment here this comes from attheonlytycrane says I didn't think you could top down salary cap, but today I learned I guess this is a play straight out of Jackie Moon's playbook Great pod, by the way and hey, if the rules aren't in place, like I said, you can just go ahead and take advantage of the rules that are in place. And that's how rules get made. I think in any sport rules exist a lot of the time because somebody tried to take advantage of the rules so they made a rule in place for it, like Will Chamberlain probably. There's probably like 10 NBA rules because of what Will Chamberlain was doing in his era. Last comment we have comes from at Revoluteme says what did Fluff do in the financial industry? A little bit of lore on Fluff. What was your role in the financial industry?
49:55 - Flup (Host)
I feel like I've talked about this several times. I got actually tweeted at like I say it so much, but I don't think I say it that often. I was in the family office. I was a macroeconomic analyst I would rather not say the family office, although you could find it pretty easily just because, like out of respect for the guy who gave me a fantastic opportunity and I really appreciate him. I don't want any negative press to come If people didn't like me, wanted to harass him or in any way, and I was effectively like an apprentice to a rich billionaire and learning under him.
50:29
I was supposed to be a trader there and I was a macro. My official title was macroeconomic analyst, but I would have meetings with him every every now and then and kind of learn his thought process and it really taught me a lot. But what I realized early on was he didn't achieve this level of success by getting lucky. It was through insane work, ethic and dedication and this was the type of person that would die at a trading desk and was never going to give up his role to someone like that. That's kind of what my read was and I didn't put in the full effort that I should have and I kind of thought that I'd had no path to ever taking a role as a trader, for both reasons One, I didn't think he wanted to give it up and two, I didn't want to work the 70, 80 hours that was required. I was only doing like 50 to 55. So I quit to bet sports full time.
51:21 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Makes sense. A little bit of insight into what Fluff did previously. Let's go to our last full scale topic, which comes from at jesse blake, who said decimal odds should be the standard for sports betting in north america. And it's the meme from tangled, where it's the, I guess, the main character with a lot of swords pointing at I'm sure you've seen it before a hot take, and I'm curious in comments do you have any gambling hot takes or thoughts on this one here? Now? Before I started working in sports betting, working for Betstamp, I was a decimal odds user and enjoyer. I've adopted the American odds method for the sake of you know, working with the company and working in this content, but I do also feel like decimal odds make more sense for sports betting. Can anyone get me off of this stance? What is the benefit of using the American odd system of, you know, plus 100, minus five, 50, et cetera? Mike, any thoughts on that one?
52:13 - Mike (Host)
I would say that decimal do make more sense than American. You know, just given like a, logically how you would create it. But if we're going to go that far, why don't we go all the way and actually make it a break even point? Go that far, why don't we go all the way and actually make it a break-even point? That's what is the most logical solution in terms of what actually makes sense. You know, when you're thinking about a problem, do you think about well, this is a 52% chance of happening, like Kaushik is doing, where they're listing the actual probability? Why does it make sense to go to 1.42 instead of, you know, whatever that is equivalent in American options or in American odds? I think that probability is the way that these things most naturally kind of are, and everything created after that is something that was created to represent a probability, because people don't understand probabilities.
52:56 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
You know, I didn't think. I just thought like why they wouldn't want to use percentages, because it it masks the likelihood of something happening or not and you wouldn't want somebody to actually immediately understand the probability associated with it. Is that why decimal odds maybe weren't implemented, do you think?
53:15 - Joey Knish (Host)
No, they weren't implemented because if, without American odds, I'd still be working washing dishes at the Detroit Coney Island, because I wouldn't have been able to know what the fuck I'd maybe even been betting on. I never used decimal odd. This is the only like American system that I'll like really go to bat for. I love American odds, and when something's in decimal odds, it might be I might as well be reading Mandarin.
53:39 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I don't know what the fuck is on the screen it's just you multiply the amount of money you're betting by the odds. It's very simple, jacob. You know what?
53:46 - Joey Knish (Host)
I don't want to do when I'm already going to, is then having to do a math problem in my head of what I'm looking at. No, when I can just see, oh, it's uh plus 126. I know, if I bet a thousand dollars then I get 1260 back. How simple is that. If it's point one, two, three, six, oh, then I'm like you know, know, then I'm typing it in. You know an odds calculator.
54:05 - Flup (Host)
Wait, wait. How do you know? Wait, how do you know that plus 126, you get $1,000, it's basically $1,260?.
54:14 - Joey Knish (Host)
How do you know that? Because of the American odds?
54:17 - Flup (Host)
No, no, no.
54:17 - Mike (Host)
And the American education system no, no, no that gave me those skills.
54:21 - Flup (Host)
No, you know because 1.26 times 1,000 is 1,260. That's how you know. No, you are wrong, my friend.
54:31 - Joey Knish (Host)
You are wrong?
54:32 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
No, no, it's like a little bit of math was done once and then you just memorized it.
54:37 - Flup (Host)
So explain to me how Wait, is it 1.5?
54:42 - Mike (Host)
1.5, isn't? You don't get. You get back $150. Okay, so it includes the bet. Okay, sorry, I don't use those garbage odds systems. Anyways, I worked with the Canadian Moving Group and you had to type in the stupid decimal odds. I agree that they do make more sense, but I'm used to using one way and I'm going to stick with it.
55:03 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
But if you're going to complain about it, baby, I think this would be better, but I don't want to fucking learn how to do it.
55:10 - Mike (Host)
Well, let me tell you the canadian way is to come up with something that's also suboptimal, and then you know, prounce around like you're so much better than everybody, despite also coming up with a nonsensical system you know you're just like us.
55:21 - Joey Knish (Host)
It's way. It's easy to be up there.
55:24 - Mike (Host)
They just outsource your military, then they complain when we don't do things the way they want.
55:29 - Flup (Host)
Like that's not the Canadian way. The Canadian way is to just ignore it and take vacation days anyway. I mean, that's the real.
55:34 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Canadian way. I'm back for good now. By the way, everybody, don't worry, keep these guys. Keep these guys in check. Defend the Canadian name. Jason's too soft to defend against you guys. I would love any other hot takes you may have in the comments. You can present them and hey, that'd be some great comments to feature on next week's show. Maybe you also think decimal odds could be better. I might be biased, but this is, without a doubt, the best college football show around.
56:00
Brad Powers and Joey Kanish every Friday at 5 pm Eastern time on the Hit the Books YouTube channel. Come for Brad's insights and Kanish's off-color remarks. They answer a ton of questions on all the games you're curious about. Plus, best bets will be given out Once again tonight at 5 pm Eastern time on the Hit the Books YouTube channel. Head to the link in the description to make it even easier to go check it out.
56:23
Final segment on the show is the chopping block. This is the stuff that we didn't think met for full-scale segments we still wanted to discuss. Nonetheless. There's a few things on the chopping block for today. First of all, grp Wins posted a photo of his notebook. He said I just hit circa hard First $500 at 41, then $500 at 39-1 on Sean McDermott to win Coach of the Year Buffalo Bills head coach. He says I'm on the positive Evie side of this bet After it moved to 30 to one. Weston at guy in cornfields quoted and said guy loves leaving money on the table. Multiple books offering 50 to one. I even sought at. Uh, I think 55 to one. What's 10 K when you still live at home and use mommy's car in your 60s Flop? You're laughing. What do you think on this one?
57:07 - Flup (Host)
Well, first of all, I love coaches. To keep it simple, I did 1K plus 4,000. You know what would be simpler? The correct number, which is 3950.
57:17 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Right, you could have just said that I didn't read that he bet at 41 and 39 to 1 and then said I simplified by writing it 40 to 1 in this notebook yes, but you could actually just use the.
57:34 - Joey Knish (Host)
I have to, yeah, I mean, hey, kniss doesn't like doing math, grp doesn't like doing math. Come on, I'm coming to the grp defense here. I don't know if those other books I know for sure two of those other books would not have let him get $500 down at that bet. So, weston, I like you, baby, but GRP, he wants a big position, he wants to pay for those. You know, italian takeouts. I think that you know what sometimes, when you want to get real liquid, you got to take a worse price. And I know for a fact that the three-letter book there and, uh, the fanatics would not have given him that type of position. I, I, I want to hope, unless you know, unless george is, uh, you know, lost, uh enough in plo in those places to get it george has already been limited.
58:19 - Mike (Host)
We heard by uh, certain places, uh, because he was too sharp on the draft. So now he knows his award content, which he's already cornered several markets. They are definitely going to kick him out for that. So I've had situations where I've liked a certain side, a certain NBA or NCAA award and I've taken it at Circa to avoid the. You know the different restrictions that come with different books. So I would have to guess here that GRP is doing something very similar where he's feeling out the market and understands that. You know he can get money from those books whenever he wants. He can print there. He needs to get the sharp money in now first. So you know, not all dollars are equal. So I'm good for GRP here. He understands the market. I guess guy in cornfields needs to learn a thing or two from him.
59:07 - Flup (Host)
I will say disagree with the bet. I think McDermott is a horrible coach in it. I hope they free Josh Allen from him soon.
59:14 - Mike (Host)
I would say on today of all days, we can not respect McDermott in these parts.
59:24 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Well watching on Fridayiday anyways. Um, on the topic of grp, I like he'll say it doesn't matter what the number is, he's betting the side. If the side wins, it won't matter what number he got it, because he bets on size, not numbers. That's how the pros do it, baby. All right, speaking of how serious fans operate, potentially how pros may operate, we have Shady Beave, content creator in the space. He says everyone, say it with me, if you bet against your favorite team, you are not a serious fan of that team. Argue with a wall. Well, I'll argue with a monitor. Thank you very much.
01:00:01
The Degenerate at the DGN weekly, another great content creator in the space, uh, respectfully does recreational content. I think he would say himself he does recreational content, but he says this take sucks. Same guy who bet the toxic Minnesota twins into an oblivion. Zero issue with betting on your favorite team, you're familiar, so should have a quote unquote edge. But it's also okay to bet against them in certain spots as well. How do we feel about betting on a betting against, rather, your favorite team? Condition Would you bet against the lions in certain spots?
01:00:35 - Joey Knish (Host)
Yeah, I mean this is like there would be. I'm I'll say, like if the lions are in the super bowl, you know what I'm saying Like am I going to bet against them because I'm seeing a half point of value, then no, no, I'm not going to do that. But like on a week to week basis or something like that. I mean, I know you're a Jays fan, you know billion Jays games a year. It's like, are you not going to bet them if there's some actual value or that? Like to me, you got to be, I can still watch the game, enjoy the game, even if I got to bet against it. But no, this is one that like, come on now, what do you think?
01:01:11 - Flup (Host)
Flip, I agree with the Dijon, to be honest with you, but I will admit there's been.
01:01:18 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
You mean you agree with Biv or no, no, the Dijon, so you can bet against your favorite team.
01:01:24 - Flup (Host)
Yeah, you can bet against your teams. But I will admit there's been a couple times where, when I was betting futures more heavily, like two or three years ago, I did show value on no positions on the Jets and I passed because I didn't want to go the whole year against the Jets.
01:01:39 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Yeah, I guess I didn't think about that. It also depends how much.
01:01:45 - Mike (Host)
You know each like, how much is a loss worth to you and how much value are you showing? If it's, if Ohio State's playing the national title and I show five, I think I could get 5 million of EV I'll bet against them. If I think that I have a small position, you know that like can barely make me anything. It probably isn't worth it. If I'm betting against, you know, if I bet on OU to cover the spread by lose by 28 instead of 35 here, does it really matter? I, it's, obviously. You know it's a Twitter take. That's pretty dumb, so I'm not surprised. There's no nuance in it, but I just depends. It's different for baseball, for football, for the Superbowl than any other thing. So I, I don't know. It's obviously a ridiculous statement, but it's even more ridiculous when you think of all the different sports and how you know meaningless some bets can be.
01:02:31 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
When it comes to like a game-to-game basis, nobody I mean in theory, if you're a fan of that team, nobody should be watching that team more than you. You would know that team better than other sports bettors. Therefore, if you're showing value on the team playing against them, you should probably play that if you're at all serious about betting. So I think, yeah, absolutely you can bet against your team, though certain spots, like you said, a future. Do I really want to root against my team for the entire season? Probably not. So maybe a future is where I would ignore it. But on a game team basis, hell yeah, if I see value on this side, I'm going to be betting against my team. I would stand on that side as well.
01:03:04
Next one comes from Diggs at Diggs. Yet Again, this is our second last feature in the chopping block. Diggs, well-known in the sports betting space, says the state of NFL breaking news reporting in 2025. It is pretty much simultaneous tweets from Ian Rappaport at Rap Sheet and Adam Schefter on Kendrick Bourne signing a one-year deal with the San Francisco 49ers, and it is the exact same language, the exact same wording, down to the letter. Here on this have we hit a pretty bad spot with reporting on sports Because I feel like I mean for bettors it's good Information is still out there, but I do remember the days, especially in soccer, of transfer windows where you waited for the news to report on this stuff. Nowadays we're kind of waiting for the official announcement to come because we have all the information about a player. We know he's going to sign for a team. It's only a matter of time. It used to be kind of a surprise when this came up. How do we feel about the state of reporting, especially in the NFL flip in 2025?
01:04:13 - Flup (Host)
I think this just shows that like they're all connected and they're all like paid in some way, like whether it's through connections or like I'll tweet this positively with a positive spin. That's what it is and that's why, like Sheft and Rapp, I believe, are making, are making like literally millions of dollars in their positions because they they have such a stranglehold on all their connections. So it's unfortunate and that, but it's, it is how it is.
01:04:33 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
It looks like an agent paid for this exact tweet to go out from both of them. I think that's what this kind of proves. Kendrick Bourne's agent.
01:04:40 - Flup (Host)
Like to be clear, like you might not just be like I'm giving you the information, but you've got to do it like this, not like here's 50 bucks to tweet it or whatever.
01:04:49 - Joey Knish (Host)
Yeah, I don't think honestly. I don't think there's financial back and forth. I think it's legitimately that it's like these guys get the majority of their information from agents, and so agents now they realize that they have some leverage and sort of like hey, we'll give you this, but I need you to tag this, this and this to give me more exposure.
01:05:08 - Mike (Host)
How about you, Mike? Yeah, there's been such an emphasis on actually breaking the news and tweeting the news that it kind of leads to where you have to have this pay for play or whatever structure where you are basically tweeting whatever the agent wants. Otherwise, you're just not going to get the news in time and you're not going to break the news. Has it gone too far where maybe networks were kind of overemphasizing actually getting the information instead of breaking it down? Possibly, but there's a lot smarter people than me making those decisions. Yeah, I do like that. The agent, whatever the agent's Twitter name was Agent Big Al. Yeah, so I want to shout out that guy. That's a great, very serious agent name. But in general, yeah, I think that it's kind of where we're at now, where if you want to break news, you have to say what the agent says, and what the agent says is copy and pasted.
01:05:56 - Flup (Host)
I've got to say Mike was hit the nail on the head with the gone too far point because, like, take the NBA draft, I forget it happened in the NFL draft. It the NBA draft? I forget it happened in the NFL draft. It was so tilting to have, like Shams and Woj tweet in the NBA draft like two minutes before it happened. And I'm watching the draft. I want to see what's going on. I know they fixed it, but a couple years ago and I think that happened in the NFL draft too. I want to watch it for fun, not have these stupid reporters ruin it for me.
01:06:21 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
There's only one day a year where I have to turn off. Well, I have woges notifications off now, but sean's notifications now and it's it's the drafts. I generally want to watch the draft unfold in real time. Um, which sounds crazy to some people, but I really do enjoy the draft. Last one that we have in the chopping block today ml football at underscore ml football says the bills fan who was hit by lamar Jackson apologizes with a neck brace on. So this was a new segment it I'm not sure how real it is. I'm 100% sure that this was. I mean, he's wearing a neck brace, guys. He got a little shove from Lamar Jackson after the or during the.
01:07:00
I think it was during the game against the bills like a little shove the neck brace. He didn't even touch his neck. From the video I saw of Lamar Jackson and the way he was acting in this quote-unquote apology was very embellished. But I guess a news reporter picked it up and they ran it on a news channel. I like this. This is funny. What do you guys think?
01:07:22 - Mike (Host)
First of all, has anybody ever put on a neck brace like that and had it be a serious injury? That injury is always some kind of fake that somebody is wearing the giant neck brace.
01:07:32
Second, I can relate to Lamar because when I was in high school I was waiting at a light. The light turned green. I let my foot off the brake and the car creep forward, bumped the other car, no damage done and she pulled off to the side of the road. We had to go and she left on a stretcher because she was claiming medical, trying to get medical insurance. So I have been in a very similar situation. It happened to me when I was in high school. So I got to say I feel for Lamar.
01:08:01
This guy is obviously faking, or allegedly obviously faking, and I hope Lamar Quinn backs and counter sues for defamation. Wait, mike, how did that end up? Did you hope you got? You didn't get screwed, I didn't get in any trouble. It was. It was an insurance play, at least according to the cop that like was talking to me about it afterwards. He was like you know you, if you have an insurance claim on your neck hurting, you have to. If you have a police like report of the crash, then it helps you out. So that was the play. I didn't get in any trouble, like in that regard. But yeah, it was a. It was a wild situation.
01:08:34 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
So final word from you, kanisha. I feel like this is a stunt. You would you would consider pulling?
01:08:39 - Joey Knish (Host)
I loved it. It's a great bit. I loved what the guy was doing. Yeah, I mean, I I'm honestly, I'm mostly upset that I didn't come up with something like that and, uh, you know, blame it on some and, like you know, sue somebody. So great bit. Um and uh, thoughts and prayers with the lady that uh, mike hit 20 years ago well, we talked about the fair bet act.
01:08:59 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
We talked about some different edges you can find in nfl betting. But if there's one thing you leave this show with today, it's that you need to buy a dash cam for your car so you don't end up like Mike. But thank you so much for watching the show today. We appreciate all the support. Comment something down below potentially feature in next week's episode, and because we always check the comments and love the discussion there, drop a like if you enjoyed. Make sure you're subscribed because we have circle back shows live. On Mondays, we have this show, which you're watching right now, fridays at 8 am, and we also have content, midweek interviews, life of a Capper series and so much more you will not want to miss out. We'll see you again next time.
