00:00 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Disclaimer the content presented in this show is intended for entertainment purposes only. All opinions expressed are those of the host and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of any individuals or organizations mentioned. Statements made about public figures or entities are based on publicly available information and are not intended to harm or defame any person or business. This show relies on fair use of social media posts, which are presented in good faith for the purpose of commentary and criticism. Viewers and listeners are advised to form their own opinions. 

00:50
Circle back right here on the circles off channel. It's part of the hammer betting network and presented by underdog. This is the show where we cover the latest and greatest from gambling twitter, and there's going to be no tuesday show as reminder next week. So it's us today and it's us again next week, but maybe in a slightly different capacity, because we do have a special guest, we'll say, joining us here today. I'm your host, jacob. We have Jeff Nadeau in the top right corner. We have Flup Chris Dierkus in the bottom left and replacing Joey Kanish for today's episode Ducking out at this one, we have Jason Cooper. Takes by Jay Jason, you said it yourself. Good replacement for Knish, because he's wrong a lot, and so are you. 

01:32 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
Yeah, exactly. And also emphasis on the word special, special replacement. I'll take that. One last thing, though Joey Knish, missing this for a date. I saw that on Twitter. What are we doing here? Well, I thought he was a company man. 

01:44 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
I guess that's really now yeah, I didn't see that yeah, he tweeted that he's like I wouldn't even do that, yeah, like just schedule it a little bit later, dude, like you could. 

01:52 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
You can go at eight, you don't? 

01:54 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
have to live in like central time zone too I don't, I don't know what he's doing very desperate yeah, maybe after the calves loss. 

02:04 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
Uh, he loss, he needs to go to happy hour. No, I don't even know if he bet on the Cavs, sorry, Well, there was somebody on the Cavs here. 

02:12 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
How did that go for you? 

02:17 - Flup (Co-host)
Not great. Obviously I was pretty wrong about that. I'll accept my L. I did double down. I thought it was a good bet again, but I was proven wrong. Only position left really is just the Thunder. We need the Thunder to win the finals. 

02:33 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Well, they're definitely favorites at this point. They've been favorites for a while now, so we'll see if they can go all the way. But there wasn't just that causing a stir in the NBA this week. We had the NBA draft lottery. The lottery balls determined the top four picks of the NBA draft, the draft order, and the Dallas Mavericks ended up with the first overall pick. The Philadelphia 76 ended up with the third overall pick. So two teams who maybe didn't really need a ton of help, but they got a lot of help and fans are wondering if it is rigged. That was the big conversation of the week. Joey knish who isn't here, but at least we have one of his tweets to have him here in spirit says I'm the last guy on earth for conspiracies or fixed rigged nonsense, but the nba lottery has really had an incredible amount of this sure seems to fit the script moments over the years, this year notwithstanding, we'll give our guest, jason, the first word on this one. How do you feel about the draft lottery? Is rigged, crowd. 

03:34 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
I don't know if I'm I hate saying that sports are rigged or even just alluding to that in general, because, like you have so many crazies who run off, like run off with that kind of statement, but like it really seems like over the past couple years, a lot of coincidences and like maybe the right teams getting the right players has happened in the nba in particular. I also just feel bad with the lottery process in general and these teams, these fan bases, like having to endure like some horrendous seasons, uh, and just not be rewarded with even a top three pick, like Like that's just, that's brutal from a fan perspective. I think it takes a lot out of it. Nba lottery being rigged, I don't know. It's so hard to say. I'm a believer in the frozen envelope, but this past one with the ball shooting out, how can you even like, how could you even rate that? Like, is there a weighted ball? What would be the process of them rigging it? It? It's a good question. 

04:21 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I think it's completely. I think it's borderline impossible to rig. Some people have said what if some? 

04:30
of the ping pong balls are lighter, like it's still even at that point. You're barely increasing percentages because it's just, it's a random order. It just spits out numbers one through 14. And then the certain combination of numbers equates to a team getting whichever pick. In numbers equates to a team getting whichever pick. So I think it's pretty foolproof. 

04:47
The NBA is rigged crowd just completely, utterly infuriates me, especially for something like this, like this is so very obviously not rigged and people are like wow, what a small percentage chance there was for Dallas to get the first pick, san Antonio to get the third pick, philadelphia to get the second pick, san Antonio to get the third pick, philadelphia to get sorry, san Antonio to get the second pick and Philadelphia to get the third pick. What are the chances? Yeah, no matter what the order was going to be, it would have been a microscopic probability. In fact it would have been a fractional probability for the top four to stay exactly the same. 

05:20
Anything about the lottery is unlikely and at the end of the day, it literally is a lottery. It is called a lottery and we know the percentage chance of each individual team getting the first overall pick before the event happens and we know it's an above zero percent chance for every team involved. So things can happen. And as far as, like, a lot of coincidences happen, like as as humans we look for coincidences like they happen, it's just part of the process. But, um, we'll go into a little bit further on how fair the lottery is. But fluff your thoughts on. 

05:54 - Flup (Co-host)
The nba is rigged crowd for something like this yeah, I agree with you completely, jacob, but I don't see how this is rigged. This are you telling me that 29 billionaires were okay, with another billionaire fucking them over? 

06:07 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I mean like they all split the tv revenue right I mean these guys. 

06:13 - Flup (Co-host)
They buy teams for their own ego. You think they're gonna let another, another owner get a much bigger piece of the pie. I mean, getting cooper flag is a massive boost to the franchise value. If I owned a team, I would want that. I wouldn't want it for the ratings to go up. That wouldn't really help me much. I'm not going to let them rig it and obviously if you own an NBA team, you're an extremely powerful and connected individual. I don't see how you're going to let yourself get rigged. I mean people like all these conspiracies that billionaires run the world but for some reasonacies that billionaires run the world but for some reason, 29 billionaires let one other billionaire fuck them. It doesn't make any sense to me also. 

06:50 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
This is a norm with anything that happens. Anytime a big event goes on, there's always a conspiracy, right? That's just the world we live in now. It's conspiracy theory, it's I'm gonna make a video and it's gonna be insane, but it'll get so, and we see it a lot in this genre. So, yeah, I think that's just a norm. You know, remember, when that bridge got knocked down, there were these sooner, soon, as a way that was oh, it's conspiracies. There's actually a guy on Reddit too, that took like a ton of time to do all the different combinations and stuff and he ventured to believe that it wasn't rigged. I also will go with Flop. Whatever he says, he's a smart guy. Flop, aren't you like a rocket scientist or something? 

07:28 - Flup (Co-host)
No, I'm currently unemployed right now. 

07:31 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I'm a pro gambler, Pro. That's a loose term. After the Cavaliers, Exactly a very loose term. 

07:37 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
But seriously, is anything not a conspiracy, like you know? 

07:41 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
it's People like there's people don't have control over the lottery. Of course, like the like a fan does not have control over the lottery and they just, they hate that. They hate that they don't have any control. So they want to give a specific reason why there's no control they is it a comfort thing, like they feel better about themselves knowing like, well, there's nothing anybody could do. Of course, the NBA made Dallas trade Luka Donja to the lakers to boost tv ratings and to compensate for that such a bad trade, to compensate that they rewarded them with the first overall pitch shout out to dallas maverick fans. 

08:17 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
Right because the front office. 

08:20 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
I'm so mad about this, I'm I I agree with you, jacob, like I I know what you're saying, jeff where it's like, yeah, like good for the fans, but like man, the front office made so many. Like just you made a horrible decision, like a horrible process decision, and you somehow get rewarded for that. Like that should be the bigger story of this. Not that the lottery is rigged, it's that this guy, nico harrison, made a terrible decision and somehow the universe came around and reward him for it. Like, come on, man yeah. 

08:45 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
So on that topic here adam shane says I'll keep screaming it the nba needs to get rid of the draft lottery. It's terrible, random, unfair, worst record to get top pick if sixes or mavs. This is before the lottery. If sixes or mavs get the top pick and reward it for stupidity, I'm gonna be sick and living, as were many fans go. Go ahead. 

09:04 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
He's right there. I mean it should be that the worst team gets the selection. 

09:09 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
So the inherent problem is that, like you have, the Utah Jazz, who shamelessly tanked the entire season, decreased the value of the NBA product. How many more teams would have taken such an egregious approach to the season if the lottery was not random and if the prize was somebody like Cooper Flagg? That's the issue. So it's hard to find the balance of fair to bad teams while also not rewarding tanking too much. What do you think, Flo? 

09:35 - Flup (Co-host)
Yeah, I agree completely with you, jacob. So, jeff, I would agree in the NFL and the reason the NFL is typically the number one, the difference between the number one and the reason the NFL is typically the number one, the difference between the number one and number two pick, is not nearly as valuable as the difference in the NBA. I mean, how many generational prospects have come in the NBA? Two years ago with Wemby, I mean, if I knew I had the worst pick and I get rewarded with Wemby, I would unleash just like the most egregious tanking that you've ever seen. I would have cut. Every single player would have be running up Like I'd be getting. You know, the Brett Finesides of the world would be signed on my team and I'd have them running, because I just want to make sure that. 

10:16 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
Would you let me shoot, did you? 

10:18 - Flup (Co-host)
ever see me shoot. 

10:19 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
Absolutely Like I need to make sure. 

10:21 - Flup (Co-host)
Yeah, I need to make sure that I go 0-82. So you can't have that. Whereas, like in NFL, even if we look at like how good these prospects are, like Cam Ward, caleb Williams, trevor Lawrence, these are like good prospects, but there hasn't been a prospect in the NFL that you feel like if you get it they're going to just change your franchise over. I mean, mahomes wasn't a number one pick, et cetera. Many top guys are number one picks but if you look at the nba, almost all the true elites of all time are number one picks. 

10:54 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Much more individual sport the nba one guy can seriously win you a championship, almost like it's not quite that black and white, but one guy can significantly alter your championship probabilities, which in the NFL you can't really say as much. The NBA will probably look at this lottery and think, okay, is what we're doing right? I'm sure there'll be a conversation, but ultimately, like this has decentivized tanking to a degree and the point of tanking for teams who do take that pathway, it just raises your floor for the draft. So the Jazz came last. The lowest they could fall is fifth. That's where they ended up. So the fact that the worst team in the league, they got the fifth pick. Now the problem is, like, again, these teams that actually need help, like the teams like Washington, Charlotte, like the Jazz to a degree, these teams need help but aren't able to get the same level of help. But it's just part of it. You can't have a perfect lottery system. I'm not sure if this is the best version of it, but there's no way for this to be perfect. 

12:00 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
I think the NBA should maybe just take a look and I can't believe I'm saying this because the nhl does so many things wrong but like, at least the nhl lottery system is not as, uh, detrimental to the top end teams. If you get first, the furthest you can be back is third right. You can only move back three spots and that's the most, whereas I feel like moving back five spots is very punishing, like flub said, in a sport where it's like one player can really dominate and carry things. So I maybe a slight adjustment in that might help out. 

12:26 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Yeah, I'd be okay with that. Somebody also said to me only the bottom six or seven teams could end up with the first pick. That kind of still promotes tanking because you want to finish in that spot. But yeah, maybe less penalty. Anybody can still get the top pick, but less penalty for the worst teams. I think that's a good way to look about it. Anybody that is listening, watching, let us know what you think. If changes should be made to the lottery, let us know as well if you think the lottery is rigged. 

12:55
Jason, I'm not going to let this one go. Earlier you said you believe in the frozen envelope. So I actually watched this footage back yesterday because people were talking about it again. So the frozen envelope theory is from the 1985 NBA draft. I think it's 1985, the Patrick Ewing draft. So the NBA had this very large like three foot diameter hamster ball almost and they threw in a bunch of envelopes large envelopes like maybe 12 by 12 envelopes into this thing and spun it around. And then Stern just reached in, he grabbed the set, he flipped it and then grabbed an envelope and that was a new york knicks envelope which landed the first overall pick and patrick ewing. Watching it back, I don't really see how he could have, how that could have been rigged. Do you actually think that that one was rigged? 

13:41 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
I don't know if it was rigged, but I listen. I'm a big fan of conspiracy theories Not ones that are out there, but that's one that could be believable, right, because the whole point of a conspiracy theory is it's probably not true, but there could be a possibility that it might have happened, and I think we fall into that gap. 

13:56 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
For a lot of people, conspiracy theories are true. That's why they exist. It's not just a fun thing to think about, like people actually believe, like there. I I wonder what the act percentage is. It's got to be above 20 who think that this lottery was rigged for the dallas mavericks, like I don't know if it's just a very loud, very minority group of people, but it really aggravates me. I've thankfully gotten all my anger out on this topic before recording this show today, or else it'd be worse jacob, what do you? 

14:24 - Flup (Co-host)
what do you mean? Like, at least that one's like believable. Every conspiracy theorist believes theirs is believable. So I, I know I think, sorry. 

14:32 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I think what I meant is I could. I could easily like it's conceivable that one of the envelopes was colder than the others and stern, reached in and out of like the three he touched. He was lucky that it was one of those. At least it's conceivable that could have been. There's a shorter pathway to that being rigged than the 2025 lottery, with a ping pong ball machine and so many people watching it happen behind the scenes. There's people that say why not just do it in front of the cameras? That way we know it's not rigged, Because if they do it in front of the cameras and that way we know it's not rigged Because if they did it in front of the cameras, people would still be mad and would still say it's rigged. So I'm just saying the pathway to Ewing's lottery getting rigged and Flag's lottery getting rigged, the Ewing lottery rig is way short of a pathway to get to that destination. That's what I meant. I don't think the NBA is rigged, but you guys let us know Before we move on to our next topic. Aware of representing sponsor Underdog? All right, quick heads up. 

15:31
As round two of the NBA playoffs wraps up, the extender is coming back to Underdog for round three. If you haven't used it yet, here's how it works you start a playoff series by making an entry in game one and you get a boost. Then, if you stick with the same series, for game two the boost gets bigger, Game three bigger again, and if it goes all the way to game seven, that's where you unlock the max boost. So it literally pays you to follow a series from start to finish, and if you're watching every game anyway, there's no better place to do it than on underdog Super easy platform to use, clean interface and just a great product if you like building lineups and sweating out picks across a series. So be ready. When round three tips off, hit the link in the description and sign up with promo code circles to get one thousand dollars in bonus credit as a new customer. Again, that is promo code circles. The extender is back for round three and you are not going to want to miss it. 

16:23
Next topic the NFL schedule has been released and some lines are opening up, so people are getting in some bets early. One of the people getting in an early bet is an old friend of the channel, Simon Hunter, locking in Dallas plus seven against Philadelphia to start the season, saying a get from the books to start the season. Mike Vivian, who has featured many times on this you know I'm going to do your big Mike Viv fan right Says got to lock it. Got to lock this in four months early. But Simon Hunter wasn't the only one who wanted to get some bets in early. We also have GRP wins, who is locking in some not some bets, but showing off of his, his spreads, spreads, what he makes the game every game for week one of the NFL schedule. And something that was noted in the replies here is that GRP, you're selling picks but you're giving out all of your bets for the upcoming week one. 

17:20
GRP said GRP had this to say no, these are not going to be my picks. And somebody said well, if these are your lines and the market is off of these lines, then that is going to be your bet. And GRP said I respect the market, so I will adjust based on what the market says. I'm paraphrasing, but it was something along those lines Flip how do you feel about people getting in super early on NFL sides, maybe totals? How do you feel about that? At this point Was the season four months away. 

17:50 - Flup (Co-host)
You got to get value where you can get it. But I was just checked out, the Cowboys line hasn't moved. So I'm like a little curious. It's like if the bet was truly this good, like I was expected to move. I mean, I can recall last year yes, I recall last year. The year yes, I recall the year prior. In the last two years there's a few games that moved like two points upon release within like the day or two. So I have no problem if you're gonna bet it early, but get something that's actually going to move early if, if I see this in like another month or two and it's still there, like you just locked up your funds for for no reason, like you have to have high confidence to move up. 

18:29 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
And also I mean maybe I'm just making a bad line here, but I made it seven and a half. I would only figure it would go up, not go down. I don't really know why he would take it at seven. Personally, I feel like you'd get a better line waiting. But yeah, I also didn't understand the grp stuff either. I mean, you're, isn't he selling how much you sell them for? 

18:47 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
a hundred a hundred, a pick like that's yeah, I got a. 

18:52 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
I got a feeling that's never gonna actually happen. I got some weird feeling that's never gonna actually happen. 

18:57 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
You don't think people are willing to go to walmart to like send their hundred dollars through walmart for five, five extra bucks to get one pick. You don't think that's going to. That's not a normal way of getting people to buy picks, even if he gets like five people to do it. 

19:08 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
That's 500 bucks he didn't have. Like that's buying a lot of diner food. It's a little bit of effort from him and it's a decent payday for him as well. So I think he should go through with it, cause I think Jeff kind of pointed out on Jeff Feinberg, sorry on on one of the Tuesday shows said it's almost like a charity, it's like all right, well, we enjoy your content, so like we'll throw you some money to, you know, to support you and because we like you type of thing. 

19:38 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
But, but like also in terms of betting early, like the way Simon Hunter's doing it. I mean, they literally haven't even went through otas yet, have they? Like what? What are we doing here, like? 

19:49 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
they're in the middle of rookie camp right now it's so early in the process jeff, that shouldn't, that shouldn't matter. 

19:55 - Flup (Co-host)
Like if, if you think the bet is good, otas can move it. But it can move it in both ways, sure? What I mean is like if I, if I made a bet and I think it's gonna, and I think it's gonna move, and then a player gets injured, like say, uh, prescott gets injured in otas, doesn't matter, this plus seven was potentially a good bet because you have to factor an injury, you can. You can assume there's injury risk on both sides. And additionally, I would also say who's more likely to be suffering from injury risk? And, oh gee, probably the eagles, because eagles have a way better roster, true cowboys. 

20:29 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
So let me ask you do you really actually think that line's going to go down to six and a half? 

20:35 - Flup (Co-host)
I haven't, I haven't looked at it enough. My instinct was was actually I agree with you, I thought it was going to go up. That being said, I have not done a lot of. I've done basically no NFL work, so I don't want to give a public prediction. 

20:47 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
Remember we're dealing with a six-win team against a team that won the Super Bowl. They're at home. I mean, it's just rudimentary, but I would think it would go up. But betting it now seems obtuse to me. 

20:58 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
I agree. And on top of that, these markets are very like illiquid or illiquid, right now, probably pretty soft, and you'd think that, like mr simon hunter, big better over here you think he'd make a big enough bet to maybe potentially move a line. 

21:09 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
That's actually like a pretty good point for like for simon hunter not only to bet it at the numbers he would claim to be betting it at and then to share it, uh, with people like it's got I. I don't know what, I don't even know what site this is, but at least 41 people have acknowledged it, it's a tracking service. I don't know Positively. You're right, though. If Simon Hunter is who he says he is, this would not be seven anymore in a market not taking a lot of liquidity. 

21:41 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
Can you go back to that real quick? 

21:43 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Yeah. 

21:44 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
Notice the little note. Note a gift from the books to start the season. Like is it is it? 

21:50 - Flup (Co-host)
is it really like? 

21:52 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I'm look it, it might move. But uh it, if it was a gift, if that's flub said, it probably would have already moved. And if simon hunter is, he says he is jason, you're right, this would have. 

22:02 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
This would have definitely moved by now uh, anecdotally speaking, I did this two years ago and like, obviously I was a much smaller, better back then, um, but like I had this sitting in my account for what was it? Five months, four months, and it's like every time I saw it I was on tilt because at when the game actually happened, I ended up being able to build my bankroll where I would be betting way more than I would have bet. Like what I, what I bet on this actual amount right now, what are your guys takes on? Like betting, like I guess, opening lines four months out at minus 110? Like, if you really think it's a good number, are you? Are you even like gonna bet it? Like flop it for you? Like you're obviously a big better, if you think it's that good of a number, will you really bet it? Like, are you willing to tie up your bankroll for that long? Or? 

22:42 - Flup (Co-host)
like it depends how good the bet is and how liquid I am. If I can get it on like a on a credit side or something like that, absolutely have no issue with that because I'm not tying my capital up. But if, if I have to bet it on like a book that I need to type capital, I gotta do the calculation. Am I gonna use a capital later? I might. And if I'm using the capital later, uh, and probably not, unless the bet is like tremendously high ROI, which an NFL spread is not going to be that high, even four months out. I mean maybe 15% ROI if you're lucky. Agreed. 

23:18 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
We'll move on to our next topic here. It comes from at pirate EV, claiming that pinnacle is not sharp. I don't know who needs to hear this, but pinnacle is not sharp. That is what they said. First of all, I would love to see well, if anybody doesn't know pinnacle, very widely recognized sharp sports book maybe not in every single market, but very widely recognized as a very sharp sports book. I would love to see Pirate EV giving out pinnacle plays and showing profitability over a long sample size, because many have tried, some have succeeded, but some have also failed. Flop as a better yourself. How do you feel about this criticism? Maybe not criticism, but this conversation around Pinnacle? 

24:07 - Flup (Co-host)
Well, it's pretty clear what's going on here. He's de-vigging to Pinnacle and is upset that he's on a bit of a downswing and he's just raging on Twitter by tweeting. That's clearly what's going on here. Now, so many things he could be doing wrong here. One, not understanding basic variance. Two, de-vigging the pinnacle on a line that they're actually not sharp at, as in a liquid market. 

24:28
If he's devigging to, say, player props or some like random, like esport event that they have like 200 limits on, yes, they're probably actually not sharp, but you actually could beat them. It wouldn't be that hard to beat them actually. So to say that as a blanket statement is kind of ridiculous. When they offer five-cent lines on NFL, nba, mlb, nhl and have huge limits, I mean you can get to win $100K a click on NFL and they are profitable as a company. That's an insanely sharp sportsbook overall. So they're clearly not sharp overall. So he's doing something wrong. I don't know if he's calculating the variance wrong or devigging in a stupid way, but he's doing one of those two things and he looks like an idiot tweeting this out. 

25:18 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
So this was brought up by Jeff Benson of Circa and one of the things that Pirate EV said, because just Benson respects Pinnacle, respects him as a sharp sports book. So Pirate EV questioned could I then devig against Pinnacle with Circa odds and therefore become a winning better by doing that? How do you feel about that statement? Flip Again. 

25:44 - Flup (Co-host)
Lee's top down. This pains me because I'm a top down better myself. You got to have understanding of the market. I forget the exact spanky quote, but it was something along the lines of like a bet, bet without a limit is not a home, or something along those lines. He'll probably know it if he hears this. But the point is you need to understand how liquid the market is, at which point you're betting it. 

26:07
When Pinnacles opens, say NBA, they're probably not that sharp. When they're an hour before tip, they're insanely sharp when they have player props or regular things. They're not that sharp if they have the low limit. Circa is going to operate in the same way. Circa takes the biggest limits of the NFL and in my opinion they're probably the sharpest book on NFL and college football. But do I think Circa's WNBA is that sharp? No, I don't, and I think lots of people could beat Circa. And so using the source of truth that they have as a blanket statement for one book is almost always a mistake. You need to use a market approach. You need to factor in how liquid the market is and at what point, because you can't just say, oh, this market is always good to devig to because at certain times it might not be good. 

26:58 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Jason, you beating pinnacle this season. What do you think? 

27:01 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
Honestly, like I'm not, I'm not gonna answer that question, but uh, yeah, like I think I think you kind of hit the nail on the head there, chris, with just talking about the timing matters, right, because, like, if you're trying to like de-vig, a player prop, that they only take 200 on the limits, like 200 bucks, like obviously, yeah, that line's not going to be sharp, like you can find other. If you're looking for a source of truth, you can look somewhere else to find that. Um, but I, I guess I have a question for, like the american folks here, like, do you, can you guys see the limits on pinnacle? Because I know you have to be logged in to see the limits. Like, are you guys able to see that? I mean, I'm in canada so I can, like I can bet there, but uh, I don't know, I don't know if you guys can't. Like, is that a thing or uh, I think spanky's site, spank on, shows it. 

27:40 - Flup (Co-host)
So there's ways, there's ways to do it there's ways around it. 

27:42 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
Yeah, okay, I thought so. I thought so, yeah, no, because I thought maybe this guy just had no idea how to see the limits on it and he's, he's just wrong. But I I am looking through his this, this thread, and he said that, uh, he said something that's very interesting because he said, if you're using pinnacle as your source of truth to try and beat fan duel, I don't think there's much room for long-term winning there, and I guess, again, it depends on what you're betting on, but I mean player props versus like side. 

28:05 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
So it completely changes the conversation when you bring in fan duel exactly it's. 

28:09 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
Uh, it's an interesting take for him. He's obviously he's an odds jam guy just going through his twitter. So I don't know, I feel like I hadn't I hadn't considered. 

28:17 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
But flip, flip is probably right. He's probably devigging against pinnacle and just hit a big downswing and now he's mad. That probably is it. 

28:25 - Flup (Co-host)
Look, I can speak to personal experience. A lot of my success has been because of Pinnacle. I've de-vigged to them many times, many bets, and I've gone on big downswings, like 20, 30-unit downswings, where I've lost lots of money, but guess what it worked out in the end. So it's tough to know if it's just variance of your process, but that's something you have to evaluate on your own. 

28:48 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Let's move to the other end of the sportsbook spectrum. We had the sharp side for Pinnacle and we have a more recreational book now in BetMGM. We have a better here. Mike Eisenberg, the Eisen Tower 30 V2 is the handle on Twitter saying Donna Mitchell scored 40 plus points twice and BetMGM settled my futures bet as a loss. Considering I'm the nice version of a customer getting screwed, I'd hate to see the quote-unquote Cameron meet a real gambler. Try teaching some professionalism at BetMGMCare. It's a ticket that says lost on. 

29:22
Donovan Mitchell scored 40 plus points in any game of the series, the Cavaliers Pages series. Obviously you should be credited as a winner. Bet $7.50 at plus 210 odds here and got in live chat with a support staff and got a little bit rude, opened up with Cameron, who I bet I was referencing from the tweet, said a wager was incorrectly marked as a loss and then said I understand you would like a resolution to this as soon as possible, but I must ask for patience as I escalate this matter to the relevant team. They'll review the situation and reach a resolution soon After they have concluded the review. You'll receive a follow up via email from us within 24 to 72 hours. 

30:04
We greatly appreciate your understanding and we have Mike here very upset with this response. This is ridiculous. It is very clearly, obviously an error. Donovan Mitchell scored 40-plus points twice in all caps. How is this a 24 to 72-hour correction? And then Cameron said I understand this, but I cannot just change it to a win. I don't have that power, but go off. I already escalated it to the team. That will fix it, but continue to be rude, please. All right, we'll start with you, nadeau, how do you feel about the customer service here? Do you support the attitude being shown here or do you the customer service here? Do you support the attitude being shown here or do you think customer service has to always keep it professional? 

30:49 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
uh, no, I'm actually quite happy to see this. I I always thought it was just these generic responses and they were like robots. I didn't know there were actually people doing this. Uh, I love cameron. Shout out to cameron for that. I love that. Uh, telling this fucking seven dollar and fifty cent better to kick rocks, yeah it's. 

31:06 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
It's like 21 dollars. They went back and that's a unit. Shame, but it's not like you can go 24 to 72 hours without that 21. 

31:15 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
That's what I'm I mean. Again, I don't understand by. It's not like that kid has anything to do with it. All he could do is upload it to somebody else and and and they'll try to reaffirm it. I don't, I don't understand why it would be rude to him. Again, I don't know their policy. I'm gonna guess that's against their customer service policy, but I think it's very funny. I, I didn't see this until you know we we recorded. But yeah, cameron, we got to get him on this show, does? 

31:40 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
anyone know who he is that's made their name. 

31:43 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
may not even be Cameron, but in a world where and I'll just be honest a lot of the time when you call a company, it's super hard to get to a person I don't know. 

31:56 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I kind of respect it. I've had, from my experience with BetMGM support. I've had a wager incorrectly graded and it was fixed relatively quickly. But that was also the Super Bowl, so they were probably much more alert at that time. But yeah, for something like this, if you're going to be rude, what else do you want the customer service representative to do? Do you actually think a customer service rep can change a bet grade from a loss to a win Real quick? Do you think they'd have that power? 

32:23 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
The butt go off was great. That's fucking hilarious. 

32:28 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
We should start to normalize, like, if you're going to actually give that sort of attitude because, like I worked in I will call it customer service. I worked at a retail store, I worked at an Adidas store and we had rude customers all the time. I guess, once I got comfortable with my position there, it's like there's a couple of tricks you could do. Number one like if somebody says something blatantly rude to you, good good thing to do is ask them to repeat it because, like, this is more verbal, because then they have to think about it. And then do they, they think, do they really want to actually say that again? But eventually you just get to a point where it's just like we'll be fine without you being here, we'll be fine without you paying for something here, we'll be fine. So I'd like to normalize this a little bit more. Mike came on way too strong and he should be the one who looks like the asshole in this situation. What do you think, philip? 

33:19 - Flup (Co-host)
Yeah, I actually disagree here, because I've had this similar experience with Ben MGM, where they were clearly in the wrong on something I don't want to say the exact incident, but it took like three days and I'm talking to customer support and every time I get the same answer, which is I've elevated this to somewhat higher, and I don't want to hear that Like I want the fucking resolution. What? 

33:41 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
do you want that to do. 

33:42 - Flup (Co-host)
What do you want Cameron to do. Cameron can't handle it to be fair, I will. I see your guys point that they shouldn't. They shouldn't attack cameron, but bed mgm as a company is really shitty for not making their customers who are able to handle this. I mean, how look you guys can make fun of the guy for for the 750 wager, it's a nominal amount of money, but is he right? Absolutely he's right. Should he have this money? 

34:08 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Absolutely. It's not that he's wrong, it's his attitude and going about it. 

34:13 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
Wait, I'm sorry, I got to cut all you guys off. What did he say that was so bad? He said how, like it's a very clear and obvious error, donovan Mitchell scored 40-plus points twice. How is this a 24 to 72? 

34:22 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
hour. I'm saying this is ridiculous. 

34:24 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
Yeah, that is ridiculous. They marked a wager incorrectly. You should mark it correctly. It's literally. 

34:29 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
It's a how do you have a system like that? He doesn't have the. He can't do that For sure. What is a customer? 

34:34 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
service representative. They're literally following protocol here. 

34:38 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
They said they're going to escalate this it takes 24 to 72 hours. He's allowed to be frustrated with how poor the MGM process is. 

34:44 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
You're allowed to be frustrated, but you don't take that out on the person who is actively trying to help you. 

34:52 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
I don't think saying this is ridiculous is taking it out on the person Because, honestly, I've used that a ton in the support game. Because, frankly, it is ridiculous. There's a certain company, I'm not going to mention them. It is ridiculous. There's a certain company, I'm not going to mention them, but if you're not active on responding within two minutes, they'll automatically cancel the chat. But the problem is that they tell you to wait, wait, wait a couple more minutes, wait a couple more minutes. So if I put my phone down, I'm not sitting beside it every two minutes saying I'm still here, I'm still here. 

35:17 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
That's ridiculous. That's different, because the customer service representative has the power to either stay on the call with you or leave the. Or sorry, stay on the chat or leave the chat that is something under control. 

35:29 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
This is not, though and remember he made it very clear. I've already elevated it to the team that's going to do this and fix it. There's nothing more I can do for you. It's not my policy. Do you really think, cameron, if he couldn't, and he had the policy to change the $7 fifty cent wager, he wouldn't do it? So he doesn't have to hear this rumor. You know, offer this boomer to take the seven dollars and fifty cents and put it on some five team parlor. 

35:54 - Flup (Co-host)
You know it's like enough yeah, yeah, I think go ahead I hear you guys points or like he shouldn't be rude to this customer support, but it's just frustrating dealing with them and you want to. You want to get your rage out on someone and unfortunately, cameron is right there and he represents the people you're so mad at, you want to get it out, but you got to learn not to like that. 

36:15 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
That that's go ahead yeah, to be fair, that's like kind of part of their job. If we're being like, listen, I don't think he went like like I'm not saying an asshole to these people, but I think saying that this is ridiculous. I think that's a fine thing to say. I don't think he went overboard. I think the bigger problem here is how poorly the support system is with all these companies, because they have no incentive to make it better. And I actually was happy seeing this on the sheet before coming in, because usually I'm with the other crew and Kirk and Rob. They and Kirk and Rob, they're like they're the biggest defenders of sportsbooks here. I was expecting you guys to come on and rip into them and now we got more of you defenders. I'm shocked. 

36:50 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I'm not defending the sportsbook. I'm defending the individual who's getting paid minimum wage to eat shit from customers all day, every day. I'm not defending BetMGM here 24 to 30 yards is a lot, but the customer service can't do anything about it. 

37:05 - Flup (Co-host)
Well, I believe 24-7 is a lot, but the customer service can't do anything about it. Well, I believe Rob did work for a sportsbook, or I might have heard that once, I don't know. He may have mentioned it and that's why he's so soft on them, I think. 

37:15 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
Also as someone who has detailed their run-ins with DoorDash drivers and Grubhub drivers. Those are the customer service that I'm more inclined to have issues with because they directly are responsible for the order. Okay, cameron, at MGM he just logs in with his headset on and, uh, takes calls or takes, you know, internet queries which he has no power to. Maybe give them a little bit more power, could we do that? Maybe up to like a hundred dollars exactly, exactly like that's what I understand. 

37:46 - Flup (Co-host)
I'd want to have like a little, like up to a hundred dollars you can refund, like you know or maybe give out like a 30 profit boost for, like your, our displeasure, something along those lines yes, if they, if ben and jim allowed that and it was like and they said you can give an X number a day and it's a reasonable request, then this wouldn't be too big an issue, because I think most bettors that are betting $20 are the ones that have the most problems and they would be easily bought for a few dollars, to not complain so much. 

38:20 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
I'm going to go out on a limb here, though, and say that a lot of the people who are in the support are probably not small bettors. I think the majority of them are larger bettors is my guess. 

38:28 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Oh, I would guess the opposite. 

38:30 - Flup (Co-host)
Yeah. 

38:32 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I don't know. Yeah, anyways, let us know in the comments if you think if you're on the side of Cameron or if you're on the side of Mike, the better in this situation. We'd love to hear the responses there. Next topic here we have an article that was shared by Frank Luntz on Twitter. It was in regards to online sports betting and the title is Online Sports Betting is Draining Household Savings, and Frank says US households spend an average of $1,100 a year on sports betting. For every dollar spent on bets, americans put $2 fewer into investment accounts. States that legalized online sports betting saw a 28% increase in bankruptcy filings within four years. 

39:11
But Frank got community noted, I will add. It says the study does not say that households spend an average of $1,100 in sports betting. It says 8% of households spend money on sports betting and those households average $1,100. That means the average household spent $88 on sports betting. So good community note, but still kind of brings up some fair points about if sports betting legalization has helped or hindered things. What do you think? What's your perspective on that, flubb? Because clearly you're a better who's making a lot of money, but in order to make that money, you need people who are losing money. So how do you feel about this? 

39:54 - Flup (Co-host)
Yeah, this is just the unfortunate reality of gambling that it's a zero-sum or negative-sum game and others have to lose for those profitable to win. I can speak from experience playing poker. It was a little bit more depressing because a lot of times I would be taking people's welfare checks and it's a little depressing when you see it right in front of you. So another reason I like sports is I don't have to think about it this much. This makes me very sad. I wish people would have more responsible gambling. I've had family members lives ruined over irresponsible gambling, so I wish this didn't happen. But I know the industry I'm in and I know it's got to happen for me to to earn. So it is what it is. 

40:40 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
Were you guys shocked with this number being like 1100? Like eight percent of households are averaging 1100. Do you think that's like too high or too low? I felt like, because I'm just thinking about like the people on the high end of the spectrum are obviously like elevating it up a lot, but it feels like not that much, but like just considering how bad my friends are betting and how much they bet, also in canadian dollars dollars, though, so maybe slightly different. Were you guys like shocked at all by, like the amount? 

41:01 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I wasn't shocked, but it's not like, like it's not saying, it's nothing, but it's not a ridiculous amount of money either. 

41:07 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
Yeah. 

41:08 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Yeah. 

41:10 - Flup (Co-host)
This is quite a lot in my opinion. I was actually. I think $1,100 is a lot because we have to. I don't know what the median household income is in Canada, but in the US it's only like $55,000, $60,000. After taxes and expenses, $1,100 doesn't represent that much disposable income. That could be in a lot of people's instances like 20% plus of their disposable yearly income. So that's quite a bit of money in my opinion, plus of their disposable yearly income. So that's quite a bit of money in my opinion. 

41:45
And also, like you said to your point, it's probably getting weighted down by a lot of the smaller bettors and weighted in. A lot of the bigger bettors are weighting it up, but those are the bigger bettors are the ones that's causing a problem. So if it was like $400, I wouldn't be that bad in my opinion, because that means probably not a lot of people are getting too badly hurt, but so many small bettors weigh this down. That means probably the true average of non-people that are betting like $25 parlay once a month. It might be in the thousands. 

42:13 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
Yeah, I wonder if it's like an inverse bell curve that makes sense of like the distribution on people. Yeah, I'd like to see more like the curve that makes sense of like the distribution on people. 

42:19 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Yeah, I'd like to see more like the median for this instead of like the average Cause I don't know which. I would think it's also going to wait, wait up by pulled up by the whales who are betting, like or not the whale, but the people are betting way too much. But what are your thoughts on this? 

42:44 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
And to do? What do you? What do you think of the legalization of sports? But do you think it's been a hindrance to to the average person? Well, of course, I mean I I don't know how you can't think it hasn't been. 

42:47
I mean, I also and I've talked to about, like, some of the things that they have done that I think are good like, obviously, when you legalize something, there's a regulatory body that oversees that it's done effectively. But there are certain segments of this community as well that have not been policed whatsoever. In terms of the tout market, which we've talked about, if you're a plumber, you need a license to be a plumber. If you're a you know whatever trade, you need a license, and in this world, you don't need one. If you go and sell marijuana legally, you need a license to do that. I just don't get in terms of that. 

43:16
But I will also say and this is just the truth about frank lunch frank lunch is a political show, so I mean he he's going to say things that benefit his side. Um, we also have to remember, like, what does sports betting do in terms of revenue for a state? Right, where does that money go? That does benefit people too, which we have to remember. But flop, I thought made a good point about, like poker, I never really thought about it in that analogy. I remember when I first started playing poker, I was playing two, four, six limit, which is like one of the the most geriatric based games. You have people that are 90 years old sitting they can barely see, and you're thinking like, wow, these are people spending their, their social security checks, uh, on this and you know it is kind of depressing in a way. But yeah, there's definitely things that need to be fixed. 

44:03 - Flup (Co-host)
You do. I'm curious Do you think the legalization of sports betting helped or hurt or had no impact on the mob? Because I'm curious on the mob on that side. 

44:15 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
Well, I don't know. I mean I think it definitely hurt the mob and organized crime for sure. But I mean, if you go to certain segments of where the mob's very big whether it's north jersey, philadelphia, new york city most customers still want to bet on credit and there's still a lot of indictments coming out where you're seeing very large amounts of action being taken. Still, people still love the fact that they don't have to go to a sports book and drop $500 cash right. They just can go to that credit book. 

44:43
And you have credit books where it's not just weekly I have a credit book there are credit books that I've dealt with that it's every month or two. You can settle up and they're giving you more credit lines. And remember too, nowadays this is the thing that they don't tell you about the mob Now people can run bills up. What's the mob going to do? They're not going to come beat you up anymore. It doesn't work like that anymore. The mob hasn't had that fear factor. So I think people are definitely more interested in dealing with a credit book because there are so many throwing the fact of the tax stuff you don't have to deal with it hurt for sure. I would say maybe 20%, but I don't think it'll ever go away. 

45:24 - Flup (Co-host)
So that's the reason I asked. That is because I would imagine the customers that want to use credit are the ones that shouldn't be gambling the most, because those are probably the most degenerate. So if it doesn't have, it didn't sound like it sounds like they didn't have that much of an impact. So if that's the case, maybe sports betting isn't that bad and people are going to lose their money anyway and also, too, there are safeguards with legalized gambling. 

45:44 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
That are. They're not with credit books, right? I've? I knew many people 20 years ago, way before sports betting was legal, that lost their house through credit books. I mean, they're way more predatory than than any, you know, you know legal sports, at least you have to have the money. They make it a little harder, right? Um, they're. It's wild west with with a credit book, as we know I. 

46:06 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I think, like you brought, like I think people are gonna bet anyways, and you mentioned the welfare checks. I guess it's a bit different for poker because you, like you, have to be present to win that off of the person, whereas whereas sports betting, that person's going to lose that money whether or not you're involved. You may as well profit off it. But, like I said, for sports betting I opened up If you're winning, it's somebody else that's losing essentially. But I feel like a lot of things in life are that way. If I'm going for the same job as somebody else, I get it and they don't, I'm taking that away from them in a way. 

46:42
I get the issues that come with gambling. But it does help with funding towards the states, as Nadu mentioned, where I think that was a big proponent in legalizing sports gambling, because how much extra money that can be put into the state. It's just the unfortunate reality of it that some people don't know how to control themselves and some people just are losing bettors and do nothing about it. But it really like it isn't. It isn't that hard to be a winning better. Also, it's not like it's this impossible task to become a winning better. It might be more difficult to find the tools to do that, but it isn't rocket science. 

47:24 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
And it's also not rocket science to be a responsible better. Yeah, that too. If you don't have the money, you shouldn't be betting, right? I mean, it's real simple and that's why, to me, again, there's also a thought in my head where, like when I see, like on TikTok or something, these OSGA people that are like pushing that we need to ban sports betting or whatever the group is I shouldn't say a group that I don't know Is that the OSGA, the one that they do? Like the awareness and all this stuff? Again, like we're dealing with grown men and women that can make decisions based on their own, you know, ability. So I yeah, it's just like I don't do heroin because I don't want to deal with the result, right, If, if someone's unhealthy but refuse to go to the gym like, should we? 

48:11 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
should we try to help them? Exactly? Yeah, you can go and do it, but you don't. 

48:16 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
And again too, like sports, do give a lot of responsible gaming and there are a lot of safeguards in place to if you have problems, they'll even help you. They make it clear every time they have an ad read If you need help. 1-800-gambler If you need to go to REIT. 

48:32 - Flup (Co-host)
If you don't want to talk about this, we don't have to. But when you were considerably heavier, yeah, were people. Were people bullying you for that, and did that have an effect and make you want to lose it more, or did that just make you more angry and depressed in that regard? 

48:48 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
I'm curious, like the best thing about the best thing about weight loss is the way I feel compared to the way I did before, in terms of just my overall arrogance, right, I, I, I, I'm much more inclined that, yeah, those those things got to me for sure and I I'll say they didn't bother me. But yeah, I get called fat fuck a lot less now, you know, and yeah, that was part of it, because I am in the media world where people see me that you know I'm on a camera. Yeah, absolutely, you definitely want to shut people up and it's a mountain to climb, but it's also to shut people up and kind of throw in their face now, because anytime you say something about my weight, I just say, well, yeah, but I used to look like this. 

49:30 - Flup (Co-host)
so yeah, the reason I asked is like I don't know if, like speaking negatively towards people with clear problem gambling or saying like you're an idiot for doing this, is it actually having the opposite effect that we're hoping well, there are certain, well, there are certain people in this space that we've all talked to that have, you know, probably a perceivable, you know, problem. 

49:51 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
Um, I think and I've realized this with just talking to people that have been addicted to things, you can tell them till they're blue in the face, they have an issue, um, until they look in the mirror. When I looked in the mirror and said I have a problem here, I need to do something, and only I can change it, that's when it changes, but only they can ultimately do it. So you can, you can, you can badger them all you want, and those people that we've talked about have been badgered all weekend, but do they do anything? Anything? No, you can try to help them, you can try to talk shit to them. I don't think it really matters. 

50:22 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
All right. Well, before we go any further, next topic, we have a word from one of our sponsors here Edge Boost. Ever had your deposit blocked right before a big bet? Ever needed cash at 2 am for another shot at the tables, but you hit your ATM limit? Listen, I've had experiences like this, so I'm sure you have had them as well. You never know when you're going to get that message about a big edge somewhere. You've got to fill your account quickly before it evaporates and you just can't get that money in there in time. Your bank blocks your deposit. Maybe you get the deposit through, but it takes 30 minutes for that deposit to process and all of a sudden, you can't get down on that huge edge that you wanted. Well, that situation arises no more with Edgeboost. 

51:01
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 come with traditional banks. For you high rollers, you can move up to $250,000 a day on your Edgeboost 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 qualified gambling accounts, you earn cash back rewards up to 0.5% All this for no usage fees and no minimum balance. 

51:33
Edgeboost 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, edge boost is a suite of responsible gambling tools to help you manage your bankroll and make informed decisions. What are you waiting for? Go to wwwedgeboostbet that's wwwedgeboostbet or just go to the link in the description and sign up to Edge Boost today, all of a sudden starting to lose more on sports betting. My take on Jafar is that he cashed some big parlays back in the day, lost his edge and is now living off those results while selling plays with no edge Flup. You were strong on that topic last week. Do you disagree or agree with this comment? He nailed this spot on. 

52:37 - Flup (Co-host)
I have nothing to add. This is almost exactly right. 

52:41 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
And I think you could also take this to another topic we had last week with Jeff Rosa. You know, Jeff Rosa, you know, had a great year, at one point started selling picks and he lived off that reputation and we just seemingly found out that he really didn't know shit or wasn't good at this, and now he's moved on. 

53:01 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
So it was we talked about this on Tuesday as well Somebody who just lost her there or either lost their edge or just experienced good variance to start. And then all of a sudden, yeah the baseball, we type it on to be clear. 

53:12 - Flup (Co-host)
I just want to. I guess I'll defend J for a little bit here, Jafar a little bit here. I think he clearly had an edge a while ago. I don't think he has an edge anymore, but I think he is smart enough that he's much better than most other talents. I think he's still losing overall, which I think I've told Jafar. I said that's my opinion. 

53:34 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
Yeah, and I also think, just to piggyback off, that I also think he's smart enough to potentially find another Edge, or maybe discover something that hasn't been found yet. 

53:41 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
And that's a good point. He's way more adept at probably finding an Edge than Jeff Rosa probably. 

53:46 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
Yes for sure Biggest thing though variance comes for all, Variance will come for all. 

53:52 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Next comment comes from Stroud Boys Says used to be a big fan of Spinfluencer. Spells it wrong, but anyway Spinfluencer. But I think his act is getting old now, jason. What do you think on that? 

54:06 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
I like Spinfluencer, I don't know. I've DM'd him a couple times. He's a nice guy Thought his Circles Off interview was good. I could see how his act is getting old maybe, but maybe you just don't like the act in itself. See how his act is getting old maybe, but like, maybe you just don't like the act in itself. I don't, I don't really. I'm fine with him like neutral on on this take yeah, I think he's. 

54:24 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
I don't think he's any different than a lot of these guys that we talk about on kind of the sphere of like trolling and and the spaces and stuff. I think there are times where they're really funny and doing really well and they got funny takes. Then there are things that are kind of goofy that they do. That I don't really like it's. I think it's all relative. You get highs and lows in this business. You just try to have a little bit more highs than lows. I think spinflint probably went a little far with like some of the amanda vance stuff where he got like you know, but I like him overall. He's always been all right to me yeah, I, I disagree. 

54:56 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I like the account. I think maybe it's lost, like because when it first came out it was very new, so I think that's what brought a lot of puns to it, but I still think spinflint is doing a lot of great content. Uh, the only, maybe the. The one thing I would say against spinflint is that after the account started to really get some legs, it was almost like I don't know like it was this sense of, uh, like I was sense of, like they were obviously right. It wasn't like trying to prove things, it's like almost like I am right type of thing. It's not like asking what do you guys think about this? I, I don't know if I explained that correct it also. 

55:35 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
it also didn't help the fact that he belittled people for not having jobs, then lost his job and you know people are going to come calling. I mean, that's just the truth. 

55:43 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Maybe it's entitlement is what I'm thinking. 

55:45 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
Variance came to him. 

55:46 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Not quite the word but, for lack of a better word, entitlement. But I do like the account. What do you think? Flop? 

55:52 - Flup (Co-host)
Yeah, I like his account overall. I think his only issue is I think his only issue is I think you got it, jacob, there he thinks he's always right in a lot of instances where sometimes, like you can, he attacks these shitty people. But these shitty people are occasionally right and he picks the time where the shitty person is right to attack them and it's hard. It makes him lose credibility. It's like if I have an obvious scumbag doing tons of stupid things, but I pick the one time where they might be in the right not a good look for a spin floater. And he's done that a few times and I've commented on him and that's why I've disagreed with him. 

56:29 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
Content is a volume game, right, so you're going to hit, but you're also going to miss, so part of it. 

56:33 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Next comment comes from CWU913. It says this is in response. Last week, we said it's very important to show slips if you're giving out picks, to prove that you're actually betting the stuff you're giving out. And this user says if a bettor hits 75% against a spread over the last three NFL seasons but doesn't show slips, do you actually care? That's an absurd take. Or you actually care asking that's an absurd take because we care. We think slips are important For this. 

57:07
There's quite a lot of like asterisks that could be associated. Is this person showing an actual documented record that can't be altered, it can't be changed? Are they going through third-party tracking, hitting 65% against the spread? In that instance, do I care? Probably not that much. They're clearly showing signs of being a winner. Also, though, are they betting the amounts that they're saying? That would be something to say, because if this person is just doing top-down betting, well, now that's less impressive, because if you're sharing those picks 65 against spread not everyone's going to be getting those same numbers, but not everybody's going to be hitting at the same rate. So a lot of different variables, but what do you think? Flip? 

57:49 - Flup (Co-host)
yeah, it's slightly there, jacob, because if I had a room with 100 000 cappers and they all were documented, guess what? A couple of them are going to hit 65% over three seasons just because of random variants. And if they're not betting themselves, that means they probably don't have the own personal confidence that they think that they're winning, and it shows me that it's probably more blind luck than it is actual real talent. So the kind of argument is well, people are less risk-averse. This is why I'm not saying you need to bet big money. You don't need to bet thousands, even hundreds of dollars, even $50 a slip, $20 a slip is fine, but it shows that you're willing to lose your own capital on your opinion and it gives you a much bigger amount of credibility as opposed to not betting it skin in the game is so important and also someone's. 

58:46 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
If someone hits 65 percent against the spread over three seasons and was able to consistently hit that like and I didn't see their slips, like they're just an idiot, then like why why are you not betting? Like if you're so good, you should be betting this stuff like that. That would make it like eat me even less likely to wanna if I would ever buy picks. Buy picks from that person or like fault tail that person. I think the whole slip argument is, is is ridiculous because again, at the bottom, at the end of the day you're, you don't believe in yourself enough to risk your own money, but you're willing to risk other people's. That's what it tells me it's a good point. 

59:19 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Uh. Last comment here from matt zilbert underscore super fan says whose mutt is that barking in the background? Very bad dog, need a cat also. This is I. I think zilbert actually tweeted this himself from uh his own twitter account. I don't know if this is just copying that, but maybe this is Matt Zilbert. 

59:38 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
Wait, hold on a second. Is that his like burner? 

59:43 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
And I don't know Zilbert tweeted something very similar, if not the exact same as this. 

59:50 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
I saw that too, so do we. I think we've uncovered that Matt Zilbert has a Zilbert super fan, like burner or something. Maybe I don't disagree it's kanisha's dog. 

01:00:02 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
My dog sometimes makes, uh, some noises as well not not quite as bad as kanish, but there's also. We interrupted earlier on the show because my dog was, uh was whining at me. So, uh, maybe you can go back and spot that, maybe you can time, stamp it and see if you found it. 

01:00:17 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
But when I saw, when I saw zilbert's comment saying whose mud is, I did laugh out loud. I thought that was funny. 

01:00:24 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Calling it a mud was funny. 

01:00:25 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
Yeah, insert clip here of what happened earlier in the episode. 

01:00:28 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Yeah, I'm not. No, you got to find it. You got to go back and find it. We'll see if people find it. That'll be the game there's. There's some tells to be able to find it. 

01:00:37
Uh, let's move to our next topic here. This is a big one. So we as a collective here we don't really want to dive deep into the spaces, but something so good has come up that we got to do it. Because, nadu, you pointed out that jinji bets, this account doesn't exist anymore. Why doesn't it exist anymore? 

01:00:57
Well, this is why, uh, adam sent a dm to elf saying hey, I just booked a bet with gingy. Can you vouch for him? Elf said hard vouch, question mark, what's the bet? And then adam says next to beat celtics, I'm likely donating how much a band? Elf said and I'm reading this exactly oh, yeah, he's good for it, I think. And then, when it was time for gingy bets to pay up, people were criticizing Well, gingy bets who, like we said, deactivated the account. But elf came to his own defense and said a lot of people are saying I owe the NHL better Adam at the NHL, better 10K if the Knicks win. And they're all wrong, by the way, the Knicks have not won the series as of yet. They were up 3-1. It's now 3-2. I wonder if Gingy Betts comes back, if he ends up winning the bet he actually is back. 

01:01:56
He's back. Oh, he is back. Okay, my apologies, but Elle says I've never hard vouched for Gingy. This is a quote-unquote soft vouch. Come on man, based on all the info I had about him up to this point, stuff like this is why I don't trust anyone on this app. All right, flop. I'm sure you've been in similar situations before. Am Flop? I'm sure you've been in similar situations before, am I right? Yes, have you ever vouched for somebody saying they're good for their money, if that person you vouched for stiffed the person you told they were good for it. 

01:02:36
How would you handle that situation? 

01:02:38 - Flup (Co-host)
So I want to say two things. First, I agree with health. He did not hard vouch. I do not think he would have to have paid if jinji did. I'm scared, he said. He said I, yeah, I think that's not a hard about. He met him. This is what a hard. 

01:02:51 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
He met him in person. 

01:02:53 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
They know each other time out the question was asked hard vouch question mark and he responded. He didn't say no, not hard. Vouch hard vouch question mark and he responded. He didn't say no, not hard, vouch Hard vouch. 

01:03:01 - Flup (Co-host)
Question mark no, no, no, that's not what a hard. So this is how I hard vouch and this is how most people have done hard vouches. When I'm, when a partner of mine reaches out to me and says, hey, I'm working with this person, can you hard vouch me this person, can you hard vouch me? I will DM the other person and I say I hard vouch this person for X amount and that X depends on how well I know the person for, and it's been as much as 100,000 and as low as 20 in cases, because typically if it's lower than that, they're not asking for a hard vouch. And if they had scammed I would be on the hook for the $20,000 or $100,000 or whatever I did, and I would expect, if they were shown proof, that I would pay. 

01:03:46
In this instance, the yeah. I think is very indicative that Elf doesn't truly understand what's going on. I don't think Elf understood what a hard vouch truly means or entails, and he's met him in person. But, like nadoo, how many people have you met in person that you wouldn't trust that that much? 

01:04:05 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
but what I'm saying is like, at least he like he is one of the only people on twitter that have actually met jinji. They've been cool, like here's what I'll say. I wasn't. I was on when all this happened on adam and earl's space. Essentially, it's a little bit more than him just deleting his account. 

01:04:21
Right, the Celtics lose, he goes dark. He had never said he was going to take his account down or anything. He just did it, adam. Then we were telling him just text him. You have his number. He texts him. The thing went green like it wasn't being sent and he got blocked on his phone. And then, a few hours later, gingy claims that his phone was just off and he didn't get them. And the next day he came back and admitted that Adam had a reason to be possibly worried about it. But, as you said, jacob, the series isn't over. That said, it did seem a little questionable. He just disappeared. He had mentioned before he'd been a lot on the Celtics who the hell knows? So I don't think, adam, he was in the right here completely. 

01:05:06 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
Jacob, can you bring it up again? Sorry, just because I don't see how this isn't considered a hard vouch. Maybe I don't know what it is, but this is from Elf's perspective, right. He said the word, he said. Adam said can you vouch? Elf responds hard vouch, question mark right, paraphrasing here, and then it gets the oh yeah, he's good for it. I think, like if it's not, he's the one insinuating the hard vouch. He's the one who says the words hard vouch, right, if he doesn't believe it's a hard vouch for himself he should have said no, a hard vouch to it, soft vouch or whatever he was trying to say. 

01:05:47 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Am I wrong in the wrong? I think I think they both made mistakes here. I think first of all, elf should say, should clarify, actually say not hard vouch, because it's it's way too ambiguous here. Also, uh, adam in this instance needs to have in writing from elf hard vouch in order to proceed with this bet. So I think Elf, number one, should say not a hard vouch, but Adam, before proceeding with a bet, should get that confirmation off of somebody vouching for them, because it's left this weird middle situation where I think both of them made a mistake. Personally, I don't feel like Elf owes money for this because I agree he didn't hard vouch, but they both handled this situation very poorly before it began. 

01:06:27 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
Agreed. I'm curious to hear what the comments have to say about this. 

01:06:30 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Yeah, if you have a thought? Do you think Elf owes the money? How would you handle a situation for vouch? 

01:06:45 - Flup (Co-host)
But yeah, I think in writing hard vouch for this much money, because then you can go back. But in that case I do want to add also, that adam himself said he doesn't think elf owes. 

01:06:52 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
So yeah, there you go also. Enough with these. Enough, stop doing these. I mean, how many times have we seen they're questionable? People disappear. Look, if flop does it with his partners, fine, but stop with not. If you don't know somebody, stop dealing with them on a big money level. 

01:07:09 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
That's just my opinion that's good well, flop says, part of the risk it's the risk that betters take. They assume that risk. Yeah, you need to assume that risk. 

01:07:17 - Flup (Co-host)
Yeah, you need to assume that risk with credit books and PPHs that are soft and easy to beat. You've got to, you've got to take chances on that. And dealing with new like when I first find a new partner they're kind of a new person but they sound good. I might not have a hard vouch for them I'm willing to work with them for a small amount and take a small amount of risk and build it up to trust that way. Because guess what? If it works out, I can make lots of money and if it doesn't, I lose a smaller amount of money. And it's just like you said. 

01:07:45 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
It's part of the EV calculation. Pro betting is like dating. Sometimes you just got to get used to getting stiffed boss. 

01:07:53 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Are you used to it at this point, Jason? No comment. Well, Jason may not be an expert with dating, but he is an expert on what's coming up with Forward Progress this month. So let's hear from him quickly. 

01:08:04 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
What's up? Football sickos? It's your guy, jason Cooper, here from Forward Progress, and I've got some news for you. We're not waiting until September. The NFL season starts right now. We're dropping new content every single week on the forward progress YouTube channel all off season long, all the way through opening kickoff. We're talking future bets, deep dives, quarterback rankings, coach power rankings and, oh yeah, we've got some takes that are so hot you might need a cold shower after watching If you want to know who's going to break out, who's going to crash and burn, who's getting way too much hype. We've way too much hype. We've got it all covered for you, and we're breaking down every single division as well nfc, afc, east to west, with real betting insight you won't find anywhere else. If you care about the nfl, if you love future markets or if you just want to have a laugh, make sure you subscribe to the forward progress youtube channel. Forward progress is live all off season long. 

01:08:54 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Let's go next segment, chopping block, the things we wanted to talk about but maybe didn't warrant an entire segment dedicated to it. First up, we have from cross the odds uh, odds jammer. It says at odds jam just handed you gold brackets or parentheses platinum, because platinum's unlocked for every user. Here's why you'll want to use it before it disappears. Watch the vid and it's one of the cringiest videos maybe ever created in the history of the internet, and it's centered around odds jamming, but instead of just odds jamming, pregame odds jam live. Essentially was the story here and at DMS63131. Thank you for the hashtag, circle back, but not thank you, because I had to watch this video to understand it better for this segment uh, fluff, what's your? What were your thoughts on watching this video? 

01:09:50 - Flup (Co-host)
here. I mean, I got started in this sports fitting because of all james, so I think they're a good product, or at one point I thought they were a good product. But this, this content creation they have and and how they advertise now, is so unbelievably cringy and that video was so awful. It's just hard to like back them up here like that video was terrible. It made me want to bleach my eyes out. 

01:10:14 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
I mean, you can't make a cringier video I don't know if you guys know what I'm talking about here, but I've been on you, like I've. I've been a consumer of youtube for a very long time. This reminded me of like early 2010s, when everyone was trying to be casey nice stat and I'm like this is the exact vibe that he was going with. I don't think he executed it that well, but I like I got like a like a little nostalgic watching it played out like it's it's. 

01:10:35
It's a really played out thing, but I just got a little nostalgic watching it. Also, second thing does it need to hashtag? Add this, Because this is not a sponsorship, I assume. 

01:10:44 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I don't know. 

01:10:45 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
I mean the amount of Twitter terms of services. 

01:10:47 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
No good, no good. Maybe if you make it known that you're promoting the product, you don't have to mention it, like if it's known. I don't know, but what I want to get out out here. So part of the video basically he was talking about like the lower tier odds jam plans and was saying how, essentially, was saying how bad they were. Like he's kind of shitting on odds jam, saying like, like you can buy this stuff because that the product, that odds jam is selling. But that's terrible in comparison to this. Is he not talking shit about Odds Jam in the process of bigging up this platinum deal? 

01:11:25 - Flup (Co-host)
This is just the classic signs of a pyramid scheme. It's like you get in for a small amount of money but then if you buy more or a better plan, you can make even more money with Odds Jam. The only difference here I don't want to call them a pyramid scheme necessarily is Odd Gym actually does work. You will earn if you use Odd Gym. The difference is they advertise it as it's just this easy you click a few buttons and you make thousands of dollars. No, you have to be doing actually real hard work and it's a big grind and it's really just working another job kind of situation. 

01:12:00 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
And a job that may not last a long time because you'll lose exactly uh. Next one comes from good old matt zilbert says all right out on assignment to begin the weekend. No time for an article. Just have the over under right here gives out a play. Marlins white socks under minus 115, minus 115, uh. Joey j schmidt, 139, says minus 110 ish. As always, fraud. And zilber replies minus 115 is minus 110 ish. You moron, it's a standard over under, not my fault. Each side isn't exactly minus 110 every time. And joey replied minus 115 is minus 110 ish. Hashtag circle back. 

01:12:41 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
So all right, no, dude, you go ahead well, I mean, yeah, in terms of like the 20 or 30 dollars mad zilber bets, it doesn't seem like a whole lot. But I mean, if people like flop, it's a whole lot different. Also, like I like zilbert will say, I thought his not to bring up the spaces, but his space appearance the other night was bizarre. I don't know what that was Mentioning sub-doms, that was very weird. Fruits, a lot of fruits. Yeah. Number two enough with the out on assignment stuff. Dude, you got canned. Like don't just admit it. Like if you get hired back for the 6,000 times somewhere else, so be it, but stop with the out on assignment Flop. What does 115 to 110 mean to you? 

01:13:24 - Flup (Co-host)
Quite literally millions of dollars. If every bet I had was five cents worse, I would have lost millions of dollars last year, and if it was five cents better, I would have made millions of dollars more last year. So it's enormous to say this. 

01:13:39 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
ish is ridiculous so this year, then I would like if, if he's betting sometimes minus 105, sometimes plus 100, sometimes minus 115, sometimes minus 120, sure, like fine man, go ahead and say minus 110 ish. You know what's like a lot easier to just fucking track it at the number you bet it at, so that we don't need to have the ambiguity with this statement. But like anytime I get into like this, like wanting to argue with zilbert here now I just refer back to this tweet from ferris which says anyone arguing with the with his prices is part of a fight they cannot win with. This is a definition of minus one tennis. There is no way to argue logically. And it's a big thread between Zilbert and Ferris. Ferris B underscore 86, sharp, better a part of gambling. Twitter says uh, minus 150 and above is not minus 110 ish. So ferris says do we know the difference in implied probability between minus 110 and minus 149? So zilbert corrects himself sorry men, above my 140. So ferris goes same quest is above, but with minus 110 and minus 139. 

01:14:54
The whole thread is just zilbert dodging the answer. Most bets are minus 110. So gravitate towards being the age old 52.3%. And then Ferris says if you were to bet on an MLB side at minus 110 and people wanted to follow but could only bet at minus 139, would you tell them? It's about the same play. And Zilbert says I've bet zero MLB sides the last several years. Bud completely avoiding the question. And Ferris says and Zillrith says I've bet zero MLB sides the last several years. Bud Completely avoiding the question. And Ferris says, of course, but how about under 8.5 minus 110 versus 8.5 minus 139? And Zillrith says would never take an under 8.5 minus 139. What are you talking about? It's just completely avoiding what is actually being brought up here. 

01:16:01 - Flup (Co-host)
He does that a? 

01:16:01 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
lot, oh yeah, so like trying to use logic to argue with somebody who has never involved logic in any of their thoughts presently is just a complete waste of time. It's like like trying to argue with somebody about the earth being flat. They haven't used logic to come to their conclusion, so what is using logic gonna do when you present it to them? It's like arguing with somebody about the NBA draft lottery being rigged. They haven't used any logic, so why would they all of a sudden start listening to you, you're, you're fighting a battle, you, you? 

01:16:35 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
also, by the way, that Marlins White Sox. It was eight, that was the total in the game uh, oh, the earlier one we showed the one he showed. 

01:16:42 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
Yeah, um, I think it pushed weirdly enough oh well, whatever, um I I just want to jump in here and say there is someone on twitter I don't know how well they're tracking him, but they're tracking his average line on MLB totals. He writes it down as minus 118.82 or minus 119-ish, so that's something that Zilbert is, I mean minus 119-ish, because I've never seen him get like a. 

01:17:10 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I'm sorry If I say I've never seen him get a minus five. What he's going to do, he is going to unpromptly mention me on Twitter. Look at this article, bud, and it'll be A-105 he once took. 

01:17:23 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
He's 90% of sports bettors. If you go to a casino, most of them don't even know what 120 means. They don't even care. They don't look at it Because they're betting 10, 20, 25 dollars. They don't think about it. But again, when you're dealing with flop or a heavier bettor, I'm looking at limit juice as much as possible. He doesn't to say that is insane and then just keep doubling down. 

01:17:45 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
But if you are giving out picks, the onus is on you in that instance. To understand this, you are giving out picks with the idea that people are going to tell you it doesn't matter if you are giving it out for free. That is the inherent problem with all this. Now, obviously, nobody is actually fucking tailing his picks, but the idea is that he's giving out these picks for people to tail. 

01:18:08 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
I do think it's funny not to keep going on him, but Spanky made a comment the other night in that competition that he's had where he has to be above even, I think, above 50%. He threw in a clause that he did something in the thing, so matt can't bet both sides to like stay above, uh, you know, positive. 

01:18:26 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
I thought that was funny because that was something he would do, you know yeah, for sure, and I I will say I got to give credit to zilbert for being able to dodge these questions so well, because I've been trying for a month now to get him to send me a free forward me the email bro give us forward just click the forward. You don't have to do it to me, you can send it to someone else. 

01:18:45 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
Just send someone the email oh, I think you know why he's not forwarding just I know, just pretend good job avoiding. 

01:18:51 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Just pretend he's a. It's a flat earther. Nothing you can say will ever work to convince them of anything else. So there's no fucking point of wasting your time. Just give up. Give up, jason, all right. Next one here In response to Novig's controversy, we'll call it that. 

01:19:09
We covered on Tuesday where they voided essentially an entire slate of MLB games due to an error on their site. They even voided bets that were placed correctly because they had to void the entire slate. Bo L Wagner, who is a very, very large pick seller, who we would widely consider nota winning better and does not sell a pick service that people can win by tailing, and he said I could buy Novig with one month of discord revenue. Just say, just saying, because he was very upset that novig would do this to their customers and replies to his own tweets. Is a novig badge? Is the scarlet letter for someone who can't monetize this space and eats their boogers, which is funny. I don't know what's that logo he has next to his name, by the way, wap, WAP. Is that a pick selling service Of? 

01:20:02 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
course it is. 

01:20:04 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Oh, interesting. He also adds the Novig CEO is a broke Harvard grad who offers accounts low level breadcrumbs for clout. Anyone with high IQ and postgraduate degree warned you, so I need to start on this. So he starts off by saying I could buy novig app with one month of discord revenue, just saying you know what would be very impressive, bo. It would be very impressive as such a esteemed sports better if you could buy novig with your winnings from being a fucking sports. Better you're are professional sports better Apparently. Shouldn't that be your source of revenue, not your discord revenue? How could he leave such a layup like that for people like us in the original tweet? I can't believe the lack of self-awareness. 

01:20:52 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
I hate to tell him, but like a lot of Twitter accounts that are super small, that have a little space, like yeah, they're going to take some money from novig to talk about novik occasionally, like it's just, it's, it's promotion, like they're going to do it and people are going to accept doing it and I look good for them. Like you look at like a space like adam and earl, they're trying to build something. Throw them a couple dollars. Maybe you get a couple of signups from it. Doesn't them anything Like to knock? All the people that do that is lame. You know they're just trying to make a little scratch while having a exactly Having a lot badge next to your name, exactly. 

01:21:26 - Flup (Co-host)
Whoa, now do I'm expecting more hostility? You've got a profit X bag you should agree with and and and. Hate all the Novick guys these are. 

01:21:38 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
Also, I haven't seen Bo in a while. He just popped up out of nowhere. 

01:21:42 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
So this is where I was going to get to. So what was his original beef with this? Because this tweet came out, the I could buy Novig app. Whatever came out five days before the Novig void situation, right. So do we know what started? Why he hated Novig? Because afterwards, two days after of this uh void, he kind of went on a novig tyrant and started hating on them a lot more. So I have can I? 

01:22:07 - Flup (Co-host)
I asked, I asked, I asked henry this because I was confused. I was like why does he hate your company, henry? 

01:22:14 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
ceo of novig no, not CEO. 

01:22:17 - Flup (Co-host)
Head trader of no Big Sorry, head trader Big Hunter. And he said, I think, because most of the people with the no Big badge will come and attack Bo for being a shitty sports bettor and a losing sports bettor, so he associates no Big with people that hate him, so then he attacks no Big. That is actually a pretty sound logic and is probably what's going on here. 

01:22:40 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
So I have like a tinfoil hat theory because I listen, I saw this you love your conspiracy, you think the NBA draft is here we go, here we go. 

01:22:49
Listen to me. I want the comments to tell me if I'm right or wrong on this. Put it on the tinfoil hat right now. Tinfoil hat right now. So this comes out right. The novig stuff, uh, where they void everything and a certain space was late to the party on getting the guys of novig and the trading team to their space and another competing space ended up getting it and kind of scoop oh, man, what a great thing for jason to cut out excellent maybe a blessing, maybe a blessing in disguise, it was powers that beat. 

01:23:18 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Don't want me to speak about this. No, where do I leave off? 

01:23:23 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
Okay. 

01:23:23 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
I'll pick it up from the beginning. Novig voids these bets. Elf comes in, tries to get Novig onto his show. Adam and Earl scooped him, scooped the Novig guys, got them on their show. And then, all of a sudden, bo Wagner, who we've barely seen on twitter talking about anyone else, starts going off on novik. There's a conspiracy there. No, I'm am I crazy? 

01:23:44 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I don't understand. I'm not connecting the dots right now. 

01:23:48 - Flup (Co-host)
Yeah, I don't either friends with el, I don't know. 

01:23:52 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
So he's saying that elf message, oh oh, I didn't know, elf got along with bow uh I I don't know anything. 

01:24:01 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
Again, just trying to piece the dots could be wrong, maybe maybe it's time to move on, though. 

01:24:06 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Tinfoil hat c blaze says people on the internet like jeff benson use me for engagement. Then claim I'm using them. The social media world is crazy. It's clearly bait. I don't know what you want me to say. It's clearly bait here. What do you think? Flop? 

01:24:23 - Flup (Co-host)
Seabuzz is great for some of these tweets. I thought he was hilarious. I mean, he had another good one that was comment below what engagement bait is that? Just had me rolling. That's great actually. 

01:24:39
Clearly Seabuzz knows what he's doing. I think his dumb guy act or his nice guy act whatever you want to call it on Twitter the innocent guy act on Twitter is all an act. I think he's very smart and knows exactly what he's doing. He knows how to market and he's trying to reach a large audience to sell his picks and shill his picks. I think this is just another scummy-ish tactic from seabless, although it is funny and made me laugh next one comes from bambino underscore bets. 

01:25:06 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
George kent says play of the year, parlay celtic series spread plus two and a half. Cavalier series spread plus three and a half thunder to win the series. Odds in this are still far too low. Thunder must win their series versus Thin and Fatigue Nuggets. That series now at five games. But OKC are in front. The Cavaliers have lost their series. But he says spread numbers here mean Celtics need to just win two games and Cavs only need one. Wouldn't be surprised if they both came back and won outright. Good luck, folks. Please let me know if you're tailing along. So Cavs did get one, celtics did get two and the Thunder up 3-2, as I said, play of the year. What do we think, guys? 

01:25:52 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
I will comment on this account. It's a shame how far this account has fallen in terms of just tweeting quality. I don't know if you guys know this account. They've been around a while. I remember when I was starting to come into the Barstool universe there was kind of a viral situation that happened with this account and it was when it was anonymous and then the guy kind of like disappeared and there was a rumor that he had passed away and supposedly, like a grandkid of his like, took over the account. It just became a shit show that this account has lost considerable, I think, clout in the gambling world. 

01:26:30 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
I mean, like also the fact I had no idea the lore behind it. It's just crazy that he's saying the odds are this is still far too low. I feel like, what odds? Like what are we? 

01:26:39 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
talking about. That was what I was going to bring up next. Odds of this are still far too low. 

01:26:44 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
How low, if I bet this at minus 1,000,. Is this good? 

01:26:50 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Minus 110-ish. Maybe that's the real story here. 

01:26:55 - Flup (Co-host)
This is a pet peeve of mine. You don't like sides, you like prices. If this was plus 500, it might have been an excellent bet, and if it was minus 500, it might have been a terrible bet. But we'll never know, because we don't know what the price was. 

01:27:08 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
The one thing for CERN is, if the Thunders win their series, he will victory lap this. There will be a victory lap on Twitter, of course. There will be a victory lap on Twitter Of course, and we'll be seeing it Absolutely Next up. 

01:27:19 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
We did have a victory lap from a user here called Kelly double underscore picks. Kelly picks 23 wins in a row. Baby and the greatest capper of all time. Goat Emoji am giving out not, I am, am giving out $100 to five people and shows off a bet slip here. Two-leg parlay two players to hit a home run in an MLB on a parlay $100 to win $3,472. The problem is this is not his bet slip, it is Blitzer Sports. Blitzer AI says hey, bro, can I have my ticket back? Thanks, I find it even better that cali picks watermarked the bet slip that was not their own, but I guess with a painting from. 

01:28:07
Yeah, that's funny I guess that's why people watermark their bet slips, because, uh, things like this can happen. What does it do to your credibility to post a fake bet slip like this? I'm like probably nothing right, like nobody will really care will they? 

01:28:25 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
no one's. No one's gonna see this because the people who are buying these picks aren't watching this show. Also, like, what are the chances that kelly picks is just like a the the third, 10th, 20th, 50th iteration of the same dude trying to just grind out these pick accounts, stealing people's bet slips, tweeting it, getting dub club signups. Then he gets banned because he's not a real person and then he just does the same process over and over again in a foreign country. Probably doesn't even bet the stuff. The grammar stuff is crazy. 

01:28:52 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
Yeah, this account is a huge tout, or not huge tout, but all they post is you know, nonsense. 

01:29:01 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
Huh, kelly Picks, the Kelly Picks. 

01:29:03 - Jeff Nadu  (Co-host)
Kelly Picks yeah. 

01:29:04 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I've never heard of them Stealing a ticket, though it's crazy, it's just and then watermarking. 

01:29:08 - Flup (Co-host)
And then getting caught, yeah, and getting caught. 

01:29:11 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Last one from man of the Vig at Vig. Please Shared AbVig. Please shared a video of somebody sharing betting tips. One of the betting tips was arbitrage betting, which he continuously referred to as arbitrage betting throughout the entire video, despite the subtitles spelling it correctly. 

01:29:30
Okay, guys, get this. This is how it works. Let's say, for an NFL game, we've got the Steelers against the Bills, steelers minus seven. What we're going to do, we're going to play them at minus eight and a half instead at plus money. Then, when the Steelers are up by 17 or so, we're going to take the Bills live spread. We're going to play it down a little bit. They're plus 17. At that point we play it down, maybe like plus 14, plus 15 at plus money. Again, we're getting the Steelers plus money and the Bills plus money, no matter what we're going to profit. But if we get it in the middle, that's even better, because the Steelers are going to win at that point, right, and the Bills the Bills cover at that point, right. So we're going to guarantee money at that point Flop. Do you see the flaw in the logic, potentially, of this? 

01:30:22 - Flup (Co-host)
I mean it's hard. This is a pretty foolproof plan. I mean, the one flaw I see is if they continue to just get blown out. I mean, like, let's say, the Super Bowl, when the Eagles stopped the Chiefs. You could have tried it, but the Eagles kept winning. 

01:30:35 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Yeah, but you got plus money on the Eagles ahead of the game and then you get plus money on the Chiefs during the game. 

01:30:43 - Flup (Co-host)
Right, and that's the obvious error and that's what he's missing and that's why it won't work. Because what happens when they don't turn it around? And the odds are baked in to the fact that the odds are that they won't turn it around at a very high clip. So most of the time you're just left holding the bag on one side and if that bet loses, you're screwed and it's likely to lose more than 50%. 

01:31:08 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
If one loses, you're good because they're both plus money. That's what you're forgetting here. You're buying points I'm sorry, you're selling points on both sides to get plus money both sides. That's why it's a winner, because there's no way the Steelers could possibly lose that football game. And you're definitely going to get plus money on both of these sides 100%, like the game is just going to continue in the same fashion the entire time, right? 

01:31:34 - Flup (Co-host)
What I love about this is that he gives a strategy where there's clearly a massive flaw, which is you need a specific thing to happen during the game, which it might not happen. The games are random and they give all these like new ideas, where the perfect scenario always happens. Here's my idea on how to make money just pick all the winners, just continually pick winners and you'll never and you'll never lose. I mean what? 

01:31:55 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
you crack the code. It's ridiculous. Yeah, cause the Steelers if you get them at minus seven. What if they're losing by by seven? What are they losing by seven? Now what do I bet to get my money back on that losing play? Yeah, I. 

01:32:08 - Jason Cooper (Co-host)
I don't know if anyone, if anyone, watched this video. This was like tip number comedy. Watch him like. Give me the guy who doesn't even know how to pronounce the word arbitrage telling me how to arbitrage, which, by the way, wasn't even arbing at all, like he was explaining middling, not arbing, so he doesn't even know what he's talking about. Also, I think the funniest thing here is man of the vague saying that this is his quant. With the stuff that he told me he's been betting, I wouldn't. I actually believe him that this is his quant. 

01:32:37 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Yeah, it's just stupid. I see this for NBA all the time as well, where it's like you bet a team, you bet on it pregame and then it's a game of runs. When one team goes up by a lot, then you just bet the other side, essentially. But there is a scenario where the Steelers just never take the lead in the game and you just lose your bet and you're not going to make up enough money by using this plan and you're also losing a ton of EV by selling points or buying points. So all stupid, but people will definitely fall for it. So hopefully they're watching this and if they are watching this and you're still here, hopefully you did enjoy. Thank you so much, everybody, for tuning in to another Circle Back. 

01:33:23
Friday episode Reminder there is no Tuesday show next week. We are off. It is a holiday in Canada. It's a little bit weird, rob actually giving me and Jason a day off for a Canadian holiday, but we'll take it. We'll take the ones that we can get. So we'll see you here next week for the friday crew. Thanks so much for tuning in. Smash that like button if you enjoyed. Make sure as well you subscribe to the channel, keep up to date with our content and we will see you again next time.