00:00 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Here's what's coming up on today's episode of Circle Back.
00:03 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
I saw every single sharp I knew was on the other side. They pushed the price all the way down to like minus 300. And I was like dude, this guy's hitting the dinger. So I slammed it and unfortunately it was not to be.
00:16 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
If it's some nobody who's betting it or some random person, they get confused by it. I can understand being like a little bit upset by it, but if you're going to claim to be an expert, you have to be able to like, actually look into this, the smallest amount. You never want to be the sports book.
00:30 - Joey Knish (Host)
That stops refunding the injuries first.
00:33 - 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. Happy Friday everybody.
01:04
It's Circle back here on the Circles Off channel. Part of the Hammer Betting Network and presented by Calce, this is the show where we cover the latest and greatest stories that come from gambling Twitter. We bring our comments and we bring all of our thoughts and insight into these conversations. Here we have a brand new cast for you. Today we don't have a normal crew. I don't think anymore. Maybe we will find some normalcy one day, but the most normal thing is that I am your host here on Circleback, as I am for every show. My name is Jacob Germania. I'm the host on this, but I'm also a producer and creator for the Hammer Betting Network.
01:37
Down in the bottom right corner of the screen, which is the Hammers NCAA football content division. Down in the bottom left corner of the screen, you've seen him plenty of times in the show. We have Mike, aka Mr Peanut Better, head trader, pb Living. I see in the headline there. I like it. We'll talk about that in just a second. And in the top right corner of the screen you've seen him here as well plenty of times it is Isaac at RoundRobin42, writer and sports better and our resident responsible gaming advocate. Isaac, how are you doing? Thank you so much for joining us. Great to be back. And yeah, what is going on with that headline? Mr PB Head trader, pb living.
02:22 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
You know, it's just I'm trying to give myself. Everybody has a new fancy title nowadays, so since I work for myself, I've given myself one.
02:29 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Okay, I like it. I like it, you're not. You're not jumping ship here Like some other people that we used to have on this show, going to take on a role with the people that are going right against our sponsors knish got the island swept up.
02:48 - Joey Knish (Host)
The garbage, uh, out of this cast and uh, you know what? I tell you what if I'm looking to play at prediction markets, uh, I'm looking at cal she and uh, where they have no big if you know what I'm saying uh, compared to some other places. So, yeah, excited, uh excited, to have a brand new, brand new panel all right, well.
03:05
Well, I do have to say our first topic does actually— I'm going to need PP to stutter a little bit to make me more feel at home. That's the first topic, so I'm all right.
03:13 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
First topic that we have here actually does come from a person with a Novig badge on Twitter at SammyStone, at SDStone98, showcasing the liquidity that was available for Shohei Otani under 0.5 home runs. I believe this was ahead of Game 4. It says there's $26,000 in open liquidity on Otani for the home runs, minus 240. If he gets intentionally walked every at-bat, someone's walking away with an easy 10K. Remember this was right after Game 3, where the Blue Jays intentionally walked him four times Overall. They walked him five times. Famously did not intentionally walk him in the fifth inning when he hit, or the seventh inning. I think it was for the game-tying home run.
03:55
So a lot of people were discussing these Otani bets and there were so many people seemingly betting on him to hit a home run that maybe people are finding value on the no homerun, especially if he was going to get walked. A lot, which blue Jays manager John Schneider hinted towards, also added on this to the run of tweets saying that yes is plus two, 25 on draft Kings. Good luck finding the no button. You don't need to be sharp to know when you're being played by the house. Prediction markets are the future Now? Funny that we have Isaac here. Are the future Now, funny that we have Isaac here, isaac, you and Kanish.
04:25 - Joey Knish (Host)
I can't imagine somebody actually betting the yes on this. I can't imagine who could be that stupid.
04:37 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
I saw every single sharp I knew was on the other side. They pushed the price all the way down to like minus 300. And I was like dude, this guy's hitting the dinger. So I slammed it and unfortunately it was not to be.
04:46 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Well, a lot of people are also interested in other markets for this one, particularly him, to get walked and get walked plenty. Homerunsimpson I like the name there says we are missing an option here and tagged at BetMGM. It's Otani's first plate appearance and a strikeout double home run in play outs and errors, triple single but no walks, and a lot of people learned about the house rules of sports books when people like Bo knows Bo L Wagner, who sells picks on WAP, and I think we, based on his track record, there is indications that it may not be the winning better that he claims to be. He says intentional walks don't count as a walk. How?
05:27
This was plus 650. And it was a showcase a ticket of. He bet first plate appearance to be or, sorry, he bet on seventh plate appearance in game three to be a walk and he was intensely walked which, according to house rules, voids the bet and many people were caught by that. So before we get into the conversation further down that, let's start with our guest here, Round Robin Isaac. What were your thoughts on the debates here for intentional walks not counting as walks for people who bet it and were looking for the plus 650 payout?
06:03 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Look, I think, off the the bat, it's important to say let's go jays, okay, let's, let's go jays. So, uh, we're jays, we're jays fans in the house. Yeah, it was pretty, there we go. Yeah, I mean it's uh, it's pretty funny, especially when you have people selling picks who don't even care to read the rules. Like I will say, I was placing some of these bets and I was well in the house rules trying to figure out what counted, but there's no way in hell I would sell picks and tell people to bet something without being very clear on them. So, yeah, it's messy, but a once in a lifetime thing that's happening. Like you just never see someone getting auto walked every single time. It was crazy what about you, Mike.
06:53 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
Any thoughts on anything we've talked about here with Otani. Yeah, as someone who did the work by Googling or chat-chating, do walks count towards total basis? I'd like to say that I'm a well-versed expert in this subject. But yeah, I do have to say I think that intentional walks not counting as as a walk does feel like an intentionally confusing role and that that is something that I would disclaim as the book under the market. But if you're going to be proclaim yourself as an expert, if it's some nobody who's betting it or some random person, they get confused by it. That I can understand being like a little bit upset by it. But if you're going to claim to be an expert, you have to be able to like, actually look into this the smallest amount. So, yeah, I think that it's totally unreasonable for him to be an expert. You have to be able to like, actually look into this the smallest amount.
07:25 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
So, yeah, I think that it's totally unreasonable for him to be mad, but I could understand why, like a casual better would be confused by that or upset so exactly sorry, before I go to you exactly on this one, here I have a friend who's watching a lot more baseball now that he's ever watched more baseball in the last two weeks he's ever watched in his life because of this blue jays world series run and we both live downtown toronto and him he was confused that walks don't count towards total bases. Now, that's somebody who doesn't watch, doesn't follow baseball and is not a very good better, an incredibly square, recreational better. So I can understand that that is not a, like you said, a self-proclaimed expert that is selling picks. But also what I tell him is that if, if walks counted towards total basis, then the price would not be what you bet it, and in this case, an otani walk obviously would not have been plus 650 because they they were intentionally walking him every at that.
08:18 - Joey Knish (Host)
Um, anyways, knish, you wanted to add something well, yeah, I mean, if you're gonna hire a lawyer, you'd think you'd want the guy that you know digs into the t's and c's a little bit as part of the job. So I mean that's, that's a little bit of a red flag. Um, the other thing is how did mgm great? Anybody? No, did you know? How did they great if, like, because he walked in that first at bat. So how does it great was? Was it voided or was it just?
08:44 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
did you lose? I would assume it's a loss. I would guess it would be. I would assume it's a loss. I guess one-way only market right, so I would guess they would grade it as a loss. That would be what's reasonable to me.
08:55 - Joey Knish (Host)
Yeah, that would be man. I wouldn't want to be a customer service person at MGM that night.
09:02 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
I will also say the odds. Yeah, he walked first at bat, not intentional. The odds were so bad it was like plus 650 for him to hit a home run. When it was like plus 300 or plus 250 for the game, I will say it actually works the other way too. Jacob, you're talking about your friend. I had a friend text me saying under 1.5 walks was a lock because they weren't– the intentional walks didn't count. But then I looked into the rules of the book that he was talking about and they actually did count. Okay, so it works both ways. I'm curious, like do you guys think that you should be allowed to just intentionally walk, because you know you're watching that extra innings game? Everybody wants otani to walk, everybody wants him to, everyone wants to see him hit sorry, and they just keep walking him. I saw people being like after the first intentional walk it should be two bases instead of one. I don't know what do you guys think so.
09:51 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
So this is a conversation brought up by, uh, the tweet I have here, ray wayne randazzo, so I did want to have this conversation as well. I'll let. I'll let everyone else go first before I go. Mike, what do you think?
10:03 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
I the idea. I think that you should get two bases and you couldn't do intentional walks, because it's not clear. You know, they just throw four pitches in the dirt Right. Two walks of any kind.
10:12 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Extra innings against Otani. Otani got five walks in extra innings, four of which were intentional, one of which no pitch was anywhere near the zone.
10:26 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
And it was just a normal walk. So I think, second walk at all, you get to second base. Third walk you get to third. Fourth, you score the run. We want to stop with these three true outcomes. We want to see the ball put in play. We want to see uh, star players bad, I think that we should just go ahead, let the boys hit. I don't want to see any more walks in this game. So I would say overall, as a player, if you draw a second walk, get your ass to second okay, I like how you're specifying it's any walk, because that's not what this is doing.
10:49 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Kanish, what are your thoughts on this conversation?
10:50 - Joey Knish (Host)
no, I like that too, because, as you're saying, like if you, just if you take out the intentional walk, then I'm gonna throw the pitch, you know, three feet outside, and then they're like, oh well, that wasn't intentional.
11:02 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
You know this is a new rule because people literally used to just literally intentionally walk someone by throwing way off the plate.
11:09
The catcher would stand five feet to the right or left and would just catch the pitcher throwing lobs. So in the replies people were like, yeah, you can take away this, but then we have to watch them play catch with the catcher four times. So the guy just takes first base. So this speeds up the game and it's smart. So this is obviously a done conversation. But I like, mike, how you brought up that If you do walk them a second time in a row or a second time for instance, maybe if it is, if we could say in a row, then they are rewarded with two bases and that would make them actually have to throw strikes. I do think that's pretty interesting. I don't think that would come into play, but curious in the comments down below if anyone has thoughts on that, should we find something to take away the intentional walks? But I feel like a lot of baseball purists will just continue to say it's strategy and it's it's good strategy.
11:57 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
It's nearly three games a year.
11:59 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
I think that I should have a really big impact, of course I agree have a really big impact on the state. Of course I agree. I will say I think in game three, otani's solo home run, where they had the manager go out to the mound like prepping on how to pitch to him, and then the guy just threw a fastball down the plate and he smacked it. That was even though, like I'm, I'm on the jays and I was rooting for them.
12:19 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
It was, it was one of the funniest things I've ever seen in sports yeah, serenity jimenez threw like a bullseye just completely directly down the middle first pitch. So, like I mean, you could argue whether or not they should have walked in there with nobody on, but regardless, you don't throw that pitch to anyone, let alone shohei otani. Yes, of course. All right, we'll get into a little bit more in the world series in just a second here before we do reminder. If you're enjoying so far, if you enjoy along the way, smash that like button. Also, make sure you are subscribed to the channel. Keep up to date. Circle Back comes out every Friday 8 am and every Monday 1 pm with bonus videos on the Circles Off channel at 1 pm Eastern on Wednesdays. You comment your thoughts on anything we've talked about, anything we do talk about, particularly if we need to amend the intentional walk rule. But we're going to continue with the World Series here because I wanted to highlight the Cal Sheet market that we have for the World Series.
13:10
Currently. A lot of people that we've seen on the Hammer Daily, our daily show, on the Hammer HQ, our main channel here at the Hammer Bank Network. A lot of people have talked about their Dodgers futures. Now some people have talked about their Blue Jays futures as well. But we're at the point now. Blue Jays tonight have a chance to close out this series in six. They're up 3-2. And Cal Sheet currently gives them a 67% chance to win this series. So, dodgers, still getting a lot of respect, having to win two away games in order to win the World Series. Isaac, we'll start with you. You're at Game 7 of the ALCS. You're now an adopted blue Jays fan. How do you see this series playing out?
13:49 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
I'm hoping for the Jays. I will say shout out to Cal sheet for that market. I actually own some. I own some Jays. I bought it after I think it was game one at a 40, 42 cents. Uh yeah, I'm hoping. I'm hoping the Jays close it out tonight or tomorrow night and if they don't, I'm flying back to Toronto for game seven. So we'll see. But let's go.
14:10 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Jays Mike, you are now an MLB expert. Any thoughts on this market?
14:15 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
I don't have necessarily a thought on whether the Dodgers or Toronto is trying to win. It does feel like not enough people are cheering for Toronto and the fact that the old days, if the Yankees were in a World Series, everyone would be against them. It doesn't feel like these Dodgers are hated enough by the smaller market teams. So I will say like I want the Dodgers to be slightly more hated and to be cheered against. So that's my only thoughts on it.
14:40 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
People will would rather cheer for the, the corporate monopoly conglomerates, than cheer for canadians. I think is what I learned based on the this rendition the mlb playoffs, just in general.
14:50 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
It doesn't feel like they've been hated enough throughout this run. Like they, they're buying every player. It feels like now we like teams when they buy players. We used to hate it. I want to get.
14:58 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
We should, we should I actually have a question I have a question I have a question for joey and mike, the sharper guys here. I was looking at the odds and pretty big divergence on the rec books versus the exchanges on the series prices and I was talking to some people who said it was basically because, even though the Dodgers are fan favorites in California, no legal sports betting in California. No legal sports betting in California. So the odds are a little bit different there because all the rec books are actually taking more blue Jays action than all the offshore books, which is where all of the the Dodgers fans are betting. What do you guys think about that? I don't know if you've seen that.
15:35 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
So it's like some reverse line movement there on there. I'm not sure I mean theoretically. That makes sense to me. I don't think that they're probably going to get as much rec action throughout the rest of America on the Dodgers, but I don't know.
15:50 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
So yeah. So just on the prices, we have minus 203 essentially for the Blue Jays. We'll say plus 203 for the Dodgers. In that case, we haven't done this in a while. Let's actually make a bet on this. Let's pick a side here and we'll track it towards calci tracking that we have for the circle back. So we haven't done this since the jimmy kimmel cancellation bet, which flop is almost certainly going to lose that bet, uh, compared to the rest of us. But let's pick a side. Isaac, are you going to continue to ride with the jays?
16:21 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
yeah, I can't. I can't take a stale price, right, I can't take my 42 cents on the Jays. Uh, no, I'll ride. I'll ride Jays at a 67 cents. What about you? Yeah?
16:32 - Joey Knish (Host)
Give me a yeah. We don't like the big market Dodgers, so we'll take that team only. That's only fifth in total payroll in the entire MLB market uh small market Toronto Blue Jays.
16:45 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Yeah, and how about you, mike?
16:48 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
You know what? Forget it. I'm going with the bad. I'm going with the big market, giant market, huge payroll. Give me the Dodgers. I don't want to see Canada bring home a title. I'm sick of it. It's like that hockey, whatever league, nhl as some call it. I don't want them to bring one home. So I'm going to say I'll stick with the Dodgers.
17:06 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Haven't the Canadians not won a Stanley Cup in like 100 years or something?
17:11 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
No Canadian team has won since 1992. Ridiculous.
17:14 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Although I will say I cannot wait for the scenes if Toronto wins Do they go to the White House if they win the World Series.
17:24 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I would lean towards no.
17:25 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
I wouldn't think so, baseball though maybe.
17:28 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Do they go to Parliament Hill in Ottawa? I have no idea.
17:31 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Can you imagine the scenes with Trump? Oh my God.
17:35 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I need to double check right now. Did they visit? Did the 1993 Blue Jays visit the White House?
17:42 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
I mean you're going to have Trump throwing more tariffs on them If they don't, if imagine the guy doesn't shake his hand or something he's like 50% more tariffs on Canada.
17:51 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
So the Blue Jays in the 90s. They went back to back in 92 and 93. They did visit the White House, interestingly, but I do imagine they'll also visit the equivalent in Canada. My pick for this. I am extraordinarily superstitious when it comes to playoffs, almost to like a sickening degree. I cannot possibly take the Blue Jays for this. I have to take the Dodgers. I obviously do not want that outcome to be true, but I cannot go on record taking the Blue Jays to win this series, so I have to go with the Dodgers.
18:19
If you guys want to get involved with this market, you can head over to Cal Street with the link in the description and you can support the show at the exact same time. Or you can support by going to the QR code that's on screen if you're watching, but you go to the link in the description at any time. Support Cal State, support these prediction markets. They're only getting bigger and bigger. You can get in probably still while it's relatively early and again find some great prices, and Kanish has hyped them up already on this show, and for good reason. We'll move into our next topic. We have a supposed betting expert. We'll let maybe some of our panelists and you, the viewer, be the judge here. This is from Wake Up Barstool and it is a little segment from the show, a look into Stuart Feiner's gambling philosophy. I don't really know a lot about Stuart Feiner. Can anyone give a synopsis to myself or anybody else who's a little bit in the dark here?
19:10 - Joey Knish (Host)
Who wants to go. I'd say he's kind of like an old-school mixed with the WWE promo guy, so a lot of yelling If you were looking for like 90s sports picks. He's been around for a while and then got hooked up with Barstool, so I think he's actually done some collabs with Ric Flair.
19:31 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Okay, If you've ever seen the movie Two for the Money with Al Pacino. He's the inspiration behind that guy. Okay, the guy who sells picks.
19:39 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Interesting, so I'm actually going to play the video for us and for the viewers. Let's listen in to his gambling philosophy here. Help me out here how do you?
19:47 - Host (Host)
because you've been doing this for 40 years at this point, maybe more. How do you stay on top of every single sport? Like, how do you have plays? Are these systems? Are they sources? Like, how do you stay on top of knowing so much? I mean, we're in the sports equinox Stu. Every single sport in the world is going on right now. What is your?
20:09 - Stu Feiner (Host)
system. My forte is not knowing X's and O's, matter of fact. I stay away from it. I don't focus on the great players on each team. I don't focus on the schemes. It means absolutely nothing to me. I focus strictly on the line how the odds maker made the line. Is the odds maker telling you the winner just looking at the line? Is it an overlay or an underlay? Meaning is it such a big favorite you're like too many points, or is it such a small underdog you're like, wow, something stinks here. And I look where the sharp money is bet. So those are my only indicators. So everything else is noise. Everything else is bet. So those are my only indicators. So everything else is noise. Everything else is noise. Injuries noise means absolutely nothing. The odds make us already have buffered that line to make it perfect. So that's what I do, against the grain, against the public, normally picking underdogs, but also looking where the sharp money is.
21:02 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
So, based off of this, mike, do you feel like this is a profitable betting strategy?
21:09 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
This sounds a lot like Flop's top-down strategy, so I'm surprised he's not on here to defend it, but obviously this is insane to say, oh, they've already shapened the lines and know what the lines should be, but yet he's able to beat the line. That doesn't make any sense. There's a million things. I think that this is so bad that it's almost, if you fall for this, it's on you. That's another one where it's like how could anyone listening to this think this makes sense? But yeah, I think there's probably a million things you could find wrong with this statement.
21:36 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Kanish. What did you? What was your reaction?
21:38 - Joey Knish (Host)
So, there's a little cherry as a maybe I'll be the stew defender here to play devil's advocate. There's hints of truth in what he's saying. It's just in practice, like yes, yeah, like maybe the injuries are already baked in and I'm gonna follow the sharp money, but then, like the line that you would then be giving out to people on a pix show would then no longer be like plus ev and you'd want to bet. So I guess from a standpoint of the way he's picking it apart, has some truth, but the way it's being applied or then told to the masses doesn't really make a lot of sense. It's or is overly simplified in a way like that.
22:19 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
So you go ahead, isaac. What are your thoughts?
22:22 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
yeah, I agree with kanish. I think it's funny because sometimes you hear people talk and it's like they have no idea, like there are bits that are good. So, for example, he starts out by being like I only care about the line right and like it's sort of true right you don't want to think about you're gonna win, you want to think about the price. But then he's like I'm looking for the price and to see whether or not the bookmaker is telling me who's gonna win. It just makes. It makes no sense at all it's pretty hilarious.
22:46 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Yeah, the sports book doesn't know who's gonna win ahead of time. That's. That's not at all how it works, kind of had me in the first little snippet, like you said, where he's not paying attention to like the x's and o's if you're a top down, better I could see the appeal of not wanting to add your own personal biases to your top down strategy. It sometimes works a little bit better when you're not thinking about that. So that kind of made sense initially. But then, like you said, in the application of it where he's betting. So it's like okay, yes, you don't pay attention to it and yes, sometimes you do look at the line. But also when the line is already in place and he's acknowledging that's already in place from sharp bettors, now it's where it should be and there is no longer an edge to be found.
23:25
That is the complete flaw with the logic here. But the people on this show were just absolutely eating up this betting strategy Like, oh, my goodness, you can beat books like this. I would seriously doubt anybody could win betting like this. And he actually went on to say 30 minutes before post is when he does his betting. That is the best time to do the betting, mike, do you think 30 minutes before is the optimal betting point?
23:53 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
I would try to bet slightly earlier than that, especially when 45 minutes yeah, I think 45 to 50 minutes.
24:00
Now you want to bet as soon as you can, at all points. If there's uncertainty in the market market, you usually want to bet into that uncertainty. You want to try to create your own probability with it. So the people who wait until 30 minutes before whatever, so they get all the information. Everybody else gets all the information too. So yeah, that's of course. You know that's probably one of the more ridiculous parts of a ridiculous statement yeah, people were not happy in the replies.
24:23 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
One person at fake underscore sharp, said uh, translation, I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. Sorry, what the fuck I'm doing. Anyways, a lot of replies were saying that, so I would maybe look out for anything else that is brought up by Stu Feiner, but that's just our opinion. You let us know what you think. You think he's winning better. Before we go to our next topic, let's hear more about our NCAA football college football content division here at the Hammer Betting Network, and we have the co-host on that channel, joey Kness.
24:54 - Joey Knish (Host)
Tell us about the show, joey the best college football show out there in the world going today and it's coming to you live at 5 pm this afternoon. Me and the godfather of CFB, the man that started it all in college football content, Brad Powers Best show there is. We got best bets, we got picks for you. The year is going quite well. Don't miss it Live at 5. We look to see you there. Hit the books, baby. The best college football show for the money.
25:27 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
In another life you are a promoter somewhere because you don't have a script. Like I told you right before the show I'm going to throw to you and you come up with promo like that. I think it's very impressive.
25:36 - Joey Knish (Host)
I never read. Even if you gave me a script, I wouldn't read it.
25:38 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
That's true. I think we know that, which is why we don't provide you those scripts ahead of time. Let's get into our next topic, which is on Terry Rozier once again and the gambling scandal that is taking place with him. He has been placed on leave by the NBA and initially he was supposed to still receive his full $26 million salary that he was probably also not even good enough to really receive in the first place, but it is what it is. But he was still going to receive his full $26 million salary while on leave from the NBA. After being arrested on federal gambling charges, sophie Cunningham of the WNBA said no way, please tell me, this is fake. And this actually got changed. He is now no longer supposed to be getting paid that $26 million, but the NBA PA is challenging the NBA suspension without pay for him. So kind of wanted to get your thoughts on all this. Maybe we can go to our responsible gaming advocate, isaac. How should this be handled? What should we do here?
26:35 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
I think it's. I mean, I think it's a bad look for the Players Association, right when they're obviously defending this guy, the Players Association. What do you mean, joey? Do we still?
26:45 - Joey Knish (Host)
live in America. Is there anything before guilty here? Has he been convicted of anything? Has he been actually convicted of anything? No, and so what app? Why should he be docked to pay until the the charges are confirmed, or all of that?
27:01 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
well then, why has he been placed on leave? Then? Shouldn't he still be allowed to play if nothing's been proved there's?
27:05 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
an investigation I think we could. There should be something where maybe while a player is in investigation, they put the money away in escrow or something I think that's what's happening.
27:16 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
I'm pretty sure that's what's happening. Or he's not getting paid.
27:18 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
Oh, if they're putting away in escrow, I think they're doing everything right. What are we supposed to do? He hasn't been. He hasn't been convicted of anything. He, I does it seem like he is guilty. Yeah, I would say. It seems like, if not of the actual crime, it seemed, he seems like there is at least some behavior that would he's guilty of being an idiot, that's for sure.
27:36 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
The money, by the way, is uh would be held in escrow.
27:39 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
That's correct yeah, so I I think that that's exactly. Uh. It makes sense for the nba uh players association. They don't want to set a precedent of you not being convicted of anything and we get to take away your pay for that. So they're going to fight for their member, which they should do. Until he gets convicted of anything, they should try to stick to the thing that he should be paid as normal. So I think that until something comes out, this is exactly how it should be handled, and the Players Association doesn't want to set this precedent, because what if it starts becoming? We don't pay you for a lot of things that you do? So I think that you know, anytime there's a pending legal situation, you should be probably paid until the time comes where that you know gets taken away.
28:20 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
I will say I agreed on the Monday show, rob.
28:22
It was either Rob or Kirk who were like, like you know, I think one of the responses to this is to really crack down hard on players who do this, like via contract mechanisms right like you. There's sort of stipulations in the contracts where, if you engage in any sort of behavior like this, they're just gonna, if not, take all of your money, take a lot of it, and I think that makes a lot of sense and I don't know exactly how that plays in here with sort of the past contract and they're revising it. But I think going forward, you know, in terms of de-incentivizing this type of behavior, that's right on and it's probably something the players association is not going to be a fan of. But but yeah, it's. It's crucial for game integrity for people to know that you can't just get a slap on the wrist, and it's true not only for players doing this stuff, but also for coaches surrounding injury reports, all all these things. There's got to be bigger fines. So it actually hurts when they, when they do this kind of stuff.
29:09 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Yeah, but it's just a complicated while he hasn't been convicted of anything like the precedent is your ban for life from the NBA of your affiliate with gambling Like Dante Porter. Is the precedent there, Although he was specifically there has to be targeting unders on him and leaving games early, which I guess is what Terry Rozier did as well. Unders on him and leaving games early, which I guess is what Terry Rozier did as well. So if he is found guilty on this, then he he's out of the NBA and I guess he won't see any of the pay from this.
29:32 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Can we get a line on Terry Rozier over under 0.5 NBA games in the future? What do you guys think it is? Oh, it's a good minus.
29:41 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
It doesn't matter if he was proven completely innocent in court. They'll never sign him again. There's no. The cost benefit of it is basically zero. I mean, I don't think that he's a good enough player that yeah, if we're talking. If yannis got convicted or got investigated for whatever reason, somebody would figure it out. Terry rogier was good enough to make an nba team, but not that good enough like I don't think you're booking.
30:02 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
You're booking like minus 5 000 on him never to play in the NBA again.
30:06 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
I would book a, I wouldn't put the line up. I would basically I don't think there's any chance that he plays.
30:12 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Oh, I'm taking, I disagree. I think I would. I mean I love you know, I love dogs. I would say like 10 to 1 or more sounds like a good price to me.
30:22 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
Oh, I'll put any price. What do you want to? We'll figure that out at another time. I don't want to put a you know potential legal investigation into this pod.
30:30 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
We need Cal Street to put up a market for this market and Mike and I will go head to head. What would you make the price? Do you think he's ever coming back?
30:39 - Joey Knish (Host)
I'm going to this is this is a. I'd honestly put it somewhere probably in between where Isaac had and where Mike is at. I would lean a much heavier favorite than 10 to 1, no, but I can't. There's definitely a chance. I do think if he was exonerated in full there would be a chance. It kind of like the Malik Beasley situation, where if I can get Terry Rozier on a vet minimum, I'm probably in. Like if I can get Malik Beasley on a vet minimum, if he's out, I think I'm in.
31:13 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Terry Rozier kind of sucks, though. Like Malik Beasley's coming off of a really good year, terry Rozier is like was getting close to unplayable for the heat already.
31:21 - Joey Knish (Host)
No, that's, but if I'm getting him for like 500,000.
31:26 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Okay, what about? What about Chauncey Billups, whether or not he coaches again? Oh, close to zero again.
31:32 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
Yeah, I think it's more likely.
31:34 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Rozier plays in the NBA again. That is where Chauncey Billups ever coached the NBA again.
31:38 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
I agree Because like if you're playing in these games. It already shows a lack of you know character, already shows a lack of you know character of some of these poker games, from what I understand, if they knew what was going on. Again, if they knew what was going on we unlike Isaac, you know, we believe in due process here, me and Joey so if they knew what was going on, that already shows a lack of character that you want around your team to coach your team.
31:59 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
So yeah, and it's a shame because he is looking like a really good coach and it took a long, long time for him to get his opportunity as a head coach. So, and it's an ascending team, yeah, but he put himself in that situation, kind of thinking about it now as much as I don't think Terry was used that good. If a team if he's like bought out, for example, and a team is has point guard injury or something, and they bring him in on a 10 day contract, that would be something that makes it a bit more likely. If he just comes into the league like that, because guys like Isaiah Thomas get 10-day contracts every year, guys like Alfred Payton get 10-day contracts. Terry Ruggier is probably good enough for that.
32:35 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
But part of the reason those guys get contracts is because they're good end-of-the-bench guys who you know aren't going to mess up your situation. So once you get to that level, your personality becomes a larger percentage of the pie than when you're being relied upon consistently.
32:49 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
This is like the case for Thanasis actually being a good team ad right, like he's great for morale, look. All I'm saying is, if Terry Rozier comes back at all, I will be slamming his overs.
33:03 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
There's just any price, any price.
33:04 - Stu Feiner (Host)
Terry Rozier over points good to any number.
33:08 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
All the alts challenge. Yeah, that that sounds like maybe a good idea. He's got. He's got. Nobody signed beasley correct.
33:14 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
Beasley's still out there, I mean, and he's a actual good player. So yeah, malik beasley isn't getting signed. I don't think that they're going to sign. You know, 31 from three, terry rogier that's true, we'll see how it goes.
33:25 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
But hey, kalshi, please get a market up for us on this one here and our panelists can go head to head. We're going to get into comments from the previous not previous weeks two weeks ago, because we didn't have a show last week but we're going to get to comments from the previous show. As always, if you want something potentially featured on the show, you're down there. Make sure you have liked the stream or liked the video, excuse me, and please make sure you subscribe to Circles Off. Keep us driving up in the YouTube algorithm.
33:53
First comment here comes from Llama Supreme, and a lot of the conversation that we had two weeks ago was about getting refunds when a player gets injured in a game. On a player prop, the comment says I'm a rec better and agree. We don't have to dunk on people that complain about injury refunds 24-7. I think, mike, that was your point that you made on the show, but some really have to learn that books just aren't your friend. I don't think it's good that too many will enter gambling. Think you deserve your money back if your bet loses. Isaac, we didn't get your take on this, but why don't we Take a moment to get it from you here.
34:24 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Yeah, I mean, I think I remember when I was not a winning better and I saw voids and I was like, wow, that's sweet, like everybody wants a void on their bet. But I think you've got to learn the lesson early that the house, the house, is not your friend, and I think it's a healthy one. It'll make you a better, better.
34:43 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
It'll probably save you from some responsible gambling pitfalls, but uh, yeah, good lesson to learn early for sure and the next comment comes from db cooper 927 says I'm surprised the books haven't offered injury insurance, charging a small fee for tds and over props where they refund the bet if it is a single or void the parlay leg. Imagine two rec bettors going at it when they when they each have the same lotto ticket over player prop parlay leg. Imagine two rec bettors going at it when they each have the same lotto ticket over player prop parlay but one bought injury insurance and the other one didn't. We didn't really get into this a ton in the last show. Mike, do you think that injury insurance would be a good thing for sportsbooks to offer An opportunity to increase the VIG on a bet? But you have the insurance on it.
35:25 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
Yeah, absolutely. I've always thought that this would be a great opportunity for somebody to come in and it would be kind of tough to price at first and, you know, maybe there's some exploits in that. So that kind of got me excited for it. But I think that you know, the more casual, better is going to buy it, just because they think, well, you know it saves me in those situations it doesn't cost that much. So I think, yeah, if you were able to sell that to people. I also think having insurance for undersigned games where it goes to overtime, would be another one where they could kind of clean up on those. Anything where you can trick the customer into buying insurance for their bet is probably going to be a high big situation that they make out on.
35:59 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Yeah, this was a topic on Circleback like a couple months ago and I thought like I had never considered it. I think it's a genius idea. It's such a good idea.
36:06 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
It's almost like a too good of idea, Like why? Why doesn't this exist already? Like what is stopping it? Is it pricing it Cause? Like what? What do you offer for injury insurance? Does Mikhail Bridges, who never misses a game, get the same injury insurance, big as Kawhi Leonard or Anthony Davis, for example? Does that factor in to it? Does it just overcomplicate things? It just feels like too good of an idea not to run.
36:33 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
So maybe like and your SGPs, think about your SGPs how do you price that? How do you price it when you have a 500 to 1 bet versus a minus 50% bet? It probably is very difficult to price, but once a book does it, I agree I think it would be very popular. Just knowing the people that more casually bet, I think that they would be like, well, it only costs, because it wouldn't be very much, would be the thing that you could get people on it. Very rarely does happen, so I think that it would. I agree with you, jacob, why it doesn't exist.
37:02 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I think there probably has to be a reason that I can't think of. They could price this like buying points, like it just be such such a bad decision to to do it, and people would absolutely still still make these wagers. So, um, I would love any insight from anyone with any idea why maybe this doesn't exist. Kanish any? Any thoughts before we move to the next one?
37:21 - Joey Knish (Host)
I don't have anything other than just yeah, yeah, it's. I don't know what I would call this like, other than like an annoyance. I mean the whole like the rec books aren't your friend. It's one of those that the can of worms got opened up and now you can never put the toothpaste back in the tube and this is just going to be what it's like going forward until because you're like I'll compare it to you never want to be the book in Vegas that stops giving the free alcohol first, right, you never want to be the sports book that stops refunding the injuries first. So now everybody's doing it, people complain about it, and so it's like it's one of those things that here to stay until somebody takes either they all going to take the line or they're not, and other books like you see fanatics and stuff trying to, you know, which is a kind of a clown book trying, you know, sauce it up and give you additional. So I think it's just one of those things that's unfortunately, uh, infected the industry and won't go away anytime soon.
38:25 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
All right. And last comment comes from N boss 78 says need China on to discuss bad beats? Because, whatever our, I think our last topic talked about a bad beat on a supposed bad beat. I'll call it. On a kickoff play that was lateral back into the end zone for a, a touchdown which costs somebody, it costs a lot of people to spread. It swung the. It swung the bet on the spread in a different direction. I called it not a bad beat and much to the disagreement from everyone who was on the show and from evidently everyone in the comments. But I highlight this comment because China comes up in our next full topic, which started with this Seabless post.
39:03
At Seabless Bets, who sells picks? He says I have Wizards plus 160 for three thousand dollars to win 4 800. They are up by 20 midway through the third. The algorithm spit out the right side. That's all I care about. We are supposed to win this bet. Well, they lost uh in overtime to the 76ers.
39:20
Weston at Guy in Cornfield says rule number one sports betting don't count your eggs before they hatch. Rule number two don't tweet it, tweet the slip in the third quarter. This started quite a debate. Uh, david quo replied why not. It's a good bet, albeit not a winning one. So weston says why is it a good bet? Because his make-believe algorithm spit it out. And david talks about how he was able to price it where it showcases some ev. And showcases some ev for Charlotte Moneyline.
39:48
Jimmy at the Greek says Was Charlotte Moneyline plus 192 still a good bet, albeit not a winning one? That's when China got tagged in here, because David replied predicting winners, you make money finding undervalued lines and get in before it becomes expensive. Some people's definition of a good bet is a winning bet. My definition is good clv losing bet is not a bad bet. That's when china comes in and he says uh, we had philly last night for heaps. All that matters is the final box score. So I wanted to ask the question I'll start with condition this one what actually makes a good bet in your opinion?
40:30 - Joey Knish (Host)
this is. You know what? This is kind of a I. I hate to go with the uh, you know the initial like the, the. If I'm getting clv on a play where I write, you know it's like it, check the box right. If you're getting, like, some market movement on that, and that, to me, is always going to be the number one indicator. If you want to go to like does the bet win? Does it just like, simply like, oh, does a bet win and it's a good bet or a bad bet, it's one of those. There's so many layers to it. I would just for me, and I think for most people, the most simplistic, like tried and true way that we hammer home on this channel over and over again is if you're getting the closing line value and I don't know With China, he's gone so off the reservation with the bad beat shit that I can't, I don't want to hear it anymore. I don't. I know he's. It's a great shtick that he was using that some people, but it's played out.
41:26 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
I'm over it uh, mike, you want to add something there I I think that china has gotten a little bit of taste of fame with this bad beat thing and now he's really diving into it. I think it had me, it had you know bits of truth. In the beginning. I think he really believes it, but now he's really playing to. The crowd likes to hear him come back at him. He likes the heel turn.
41:46
Good bet. You know, I we can almost define good bets in multiple ways. Was it good at the time you made it? Was it good at close? What if a bet? What if there's an injury after you make a bet and it doesn't close? Good, is that good then? You know, I think there's different ways. We probably should define a good bet in multiple ways rather than just. You know, I mean, I think that there are different ways to define a good bet. I should say you know, whether this guy's algorithm spit something out is obviously ridiculous. The second guy behind him who has an app and he says he claims that's real because of the shortening odds, using fancy words to say he got CLV, I mean, I don't know. I think that I mostly I'm with Joey. I think I'm done with the whole. There are no bad beats. There are bad beats. China needs to deal with it.
42:31 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Isaac go ahead. I agree with everything they said. As someone who tilts when he gets a bad beat, I hate the idea that there's no such thing as a bad beat.
42:39 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
But for just defining what is a good bet, I have to agree it's like CLV is the biggest indicator. I feel like if I get good clv, I'm with knish, like I feel like I've done my job there. It takes a little bit of the emotion out of losing bets. Um, it's you feel like you've done your job. Is it better when you get good clv and you know if your indicator is like win, lost and you can just take wouldn't in theory, you just take bit like heavy juice, like take like minus 5 000 wagers, you're gonna win a lot more than you lose there. It doesn't necessarily mean it's, it's a good bet. Like you can definitely make a bad bet that wins, you can definitely make a good bet that loses. It's all about the value that you're getting on the price. So I kind of disagreed with with this one as well, before we go.
43:20 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
Oh, go ahead, mike. I just want to say yeah for the clv thing, though. What if you bet uh over on an all-star game and you felt confident in the number it gets good CLV and then they come out and they play terrible? You could say maybe the market was inefficient for that one. Or what if you bet on a team LeBron gets ruled out, somebody else had inside information on it and the line moves against you? Did you make a bad bet there? I think CLV is probably a very good indicator, but I think there are more ways to define a good bet than just not even CLV. Just, I think looking at the different timeframes of when it was good is probably something we can talk about more.
43:55 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Yeah, there's always going to be like exceptions. But I think, like if I had to give a blanket sort of answer what is a good bet, I would say it's a bet that gets like at least like 1.2% CLV, maybe even a little bit higher. I think that's like a good benchmark. But you're right, like if, like it clearly out the gate it looks like you you got it wrong. Then then sure. Like for an all-star game. Or like if you're betting you'll get over points in the all-star game and he comes out and doesn't try or or you bet an under any for some reason, this year he does try.
44:26 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
Let's say say you're joey, you bet on this guy to eat over his hot dog limits. He gets nowhere near it. We're not calling that calci bet. Joey made or, I'm sorry, calci prediction joey made good.
44:35 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I refuse to believe that all right, we'll get into our next topic then. Before we do, let's hear about the newsletter we have at the hammer. Not sure if you guys are aware yet, but we have an incredible three times a week newsletter here at the Hammer. Mondays you get latest injury reports, takeaways from the NFL, early leans and NHL discussion from Alex Moreto. Wednesdays you get the first practice report from every team BetStamp gives out plus CV props and much more. For Fridays we have Kirk's Hammer. He usually writes about things he's observed as a pro, better things in the industry and things that have helped him get better. You can subscribe right now at the hammerbet or by scanning the qr code that's on screen now for the video or by heading to the link in the description at any point to never miss out on a newsletter.
45:18
The final full topic that we have on the show today we're bringing back grp wins, because it was something that caused quite a stir in the last week. The content has kind of slipped off the rails for GRP, but I still do enjoy the coach of the year best that are getting fired out. He said attack, don't be afraid of long shots. Matt LaFleur has plus 6,000 at Circa Caesars and Fangel to be coach of the year. Right now, green Bay has the best record in the NFC and they still play the Bears and Vikings twice in Carolina and the Giants attack ASAP. Tidbits Tennis said Needed discussion on hashtag circle back. Thank you for the hashtag circle back From the lads. Not understanding how this market works is causing you to throw money away. This is now the seventh coach, I believe the seventh coach that GRP has placed. Is it six?
46:07 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
I swear it was six. He says only six.
46:10 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
But I swear this was added after he made that tweet.
46:14 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
We'll have to get research on it.
46:15 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
We'll get Jamie my understanding was he had six a week ago when someone asked him and then this is now the seventh. But anyway, it's a lot Cornering the market, he might say. Just as he says just added on to my LeFleur coach of the year position Great service from Jeff Benson of Calci. After I was limited to 300. He immediately increased it to 500, which I wanted. Benson says thanks for your business, george. Number is still there if you need more.
46:43
I really like the reply there. I really like how Benson has turned on George after whining and dining him at Circa at BetBash, and then George didn't make any Circa survivor entries. But is this throwing money away, Isaac? Do we feel like he has cornered the market on Coach of the Year here?
47:00 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
I'm not a Coach of the Year specialist. I will say it's kind of funny when you place a bet on something like this, where the market sort of generally moves especially if it's in a book with an auto mover and then they don't move. And it's like a very interesting feeling where sometimes I'm like damn, I'm getting screwed and sometimes I just want to shove it in the trader's face. I don't know there's few better feelings than getting one over on a trader, and you know I love Benson, but he's still a traitor, right, he's still the enemy. What do you think, kanish?
47:33 - Joey Knish (Host)
I got to be honest and I might have you cut this out before it goes live. I don't hate this bet and I actually, if I got to be honest, I think Syken is going to win. Obviously the Colts came up, the Pats have an easy schedule. But if I was to bet somebody in the coach of the year market right now at the current prices, I don't hate LeFleur. I hate LeFleur 30-1 because I think the Packers have a real shot at the one seed and kind of run on the table. Do I think that? Like again, don't think he's going to win, but if I'm betting the market right now, it would probably be that LaFleur 60-1.
48:17 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Go ahead, mike, you can add something.
48:19 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
Yeah, I think the idea everybody's kind of clowning him for having six picks of coach of the year. But it's a dynamic market. It moves and the prices change and there are some longer shots. I don't know if that's necessarily, especially where books have different prices. If that necessarily is a problem. I have four teams to win the MAAC, three to win Conference USA. I think when you take these longer shot bets and they change throughout in the way, I would suggest there isn't necessarily a problem with having six coach of the years or a higher number of a longer shot market like this.
48:58 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
You heard it here first GRP sharp better when it comes to NFL coach of the year market, he's got it cornered. He's got it cornered Like he had. What was it comeback player of the year cornered a few years ago and lost every single one. That costs me a lot, quite a bit of money to George you had Baker Mayfield as well. No.
49:18 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
I had Hamlin, but I I also yeah, he had Hamlin and Baker on that one. Um, I only Only took one, but lost probably a decent amount along with George.
49:29 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
All right. Last thing we do on this show is the chopping block. This is stuff that we didn't think required full segments on the show, but we still wanted to talk about nonetheless. And the first thing on the chopping block is questions of if this is good parenting or not. Bill at Fox Sound 6 says a few years ago, watching the races at my parents' house, son wants to bet $10 on a 45-to-1. I book it. He loses, he pays. My mom says You're going to give it back right? Absolutely not. Goldenpants013 said this is a good father right here. This kid won't grow up to become someone who threatens to call the FBI on Fandle because FanDuel didn't refund their $10 after a 22-year-old suffered a life-altering injury. Is this responsible gaming on display, isaac?
50:15 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
I'll say this is a call out to a recent Risk Takers podcast with another, isaac, so I'll give that podcast and episode a shout out. I actually do think it's responsible, especially like you can. You can argue about whether they should you know gamble, you should gamble with your kid at all. That's up for debate. But if you do, definitely you know, make them feel the consequences, right, like the worst thing you can do is gamble with them. But if they win you, you pay them out and if you lose you don't take their money right. You got to learn that that you can win and you can lose. So definitely I think I think it's responsible. It's something that I would do when, when I was a young Jewish man and I got bar mitzvahed, I asked my dad for gambling money, he gave it to me, I spun it up and that's where we are today. So I think gambling with your kids, as long as it's done responsibly, is a good thing.
51:05 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Are today those lessons there. What do you think, kanish, on this?
51:10 - Joey Knish (Host)
are today those lessons there. What do you think? Condition on this yeah, I mean, it's better. I didn't have the, uh, listen, I mean, I mean I didn't have the. My dad wasn't a sharp man. I'll say that, uh, I think he, we went. He went a lot of years without uh, without winning a bet, um. But you know what, if you're gonna give, if you're going to give, if you're going to have some advice from the by at least at least getting it in here and, you know, teaching you to take it on the chin props to props to dad.
51:39 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
And Mike, you want to?
51:40 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
add anything? Oh, when I was younger, I, my little brother, made a bet with me and I would just. Every time I would wax him in these bets and make him in all, every single time, my parents would bail him out. You're taking advantage of him. He's six years younger than you, he's a child and I and to this day he's a dog shit better. So I would say good on these parents for sticking to their guns and not letting this kid get away with it.
52:01 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
How old were you? He was? He was like five. You're like 11, I was like in eighth grade.
52:05 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
He's like in third. I was just waxing on these beds.
52:10 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
What happened to the $10 on this bed? Do you think that the father held it? Do you think, like one of the other family members, held it in escrow?
52:17 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
I don't get from his allowance. Maybe it was on credit. That's another problem. Okay, on credit.
52:21 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Maybe that was the right way to go about it. Next topic is from BeatinTheBookiecom, who says my first year out of college I made 30k as an assistant to the president of a big corporation. Today I made 30k in 90 minutes watching european soccer. A lot can change in 16 years. If you're just starting out, just know you can do it too. You'll get there. Just keep going now if I guess if you know a little bit more about who's posting this, you would maybe raise some eyebrows potentially. But is this a reflection of responsible gaming, isaac?
52:54 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
I mean, I think at first I thought this was actually a pro who was being like oh, you know, grind it up. And then I was like, oh, this is just a tout. I mean obviously a lot wrong with this. The first thing that's obvious is he's like oh, I made 30K in 90 minutes. Obviously, that is not like how much he's normally making. Right like this is probably his biggest win of you know all time or whatever.
53:17
Right, if he was making 30k every 90 minutes, he surely would not be selling picks. But yeah, you know, a nice little humble, humble brag on twitter not even not even that humble. But yeah, you know, obviously, know, obviously, if you're, if you're good at gambling and you get better and you win money, your, your stake will go up, the amount that you win and and bet will go up. But yeah, not not a fan of just telling people that you know, all you got to do is keep pushing forward and soon you're going to be winning 30 K every 90 minutes.
53:51 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
What do you guys think, mikeanish? You guys want anything. I. I went for being an actuary, which is, you know, widely considered one of the world's safest uh jobs to going to spending. I remember thinking about it one time. I was like that used to be my job and now I'm getting, uh, you know, 20k in cash to go to the casino to bet on the nba all-star game. So there is some level. Just this is absurd and I it's an absurd business. But yeah, when you go to brag about it on Twitter, unlike me bragging about it on the podcast, it's much different.
54:18 - Joey Knish (Host)
Yeah, this guy has just a history of grandiose statements. That, yeah to me, like did he really be? That yeah to me, like did he really be? He's saying that in more of an essence to gain clients as opposed to somebody who's you know, like who you would verify, who's been through it, who's been winning at sports betting. So that's why I don't mind people you know, like you know, when Fluff would show his big tickets, like you know, he was kind of, you know, putting his nuts on the table there. But I respect because I know Fluff's winning. Better than that, this guy is a salesman that's doing it to try and increase his sales.
54:58 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
You respect those nuts on the table instead.
55:00 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Yeah, Last one comes from Harut at BetLikeHarut. He said you'd only bet on one sport the rest of your life. Which would you choose and why? So we have a good group of people here. Isaac does predominantly tennis, mike does like a lot of unique niche markets, kniss does a little bit of everything. Let's go in order. Mike. You first One sport for the rest of your life. What would you choose and why?
55:24 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
I probably would have to pick NBA, I think, think just because of the volume, I make more doing nba but I enjoy betting on college football more. I think football is the best sport like, just to bet objectively.
55:35 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
But I would probably have to pick nba, I think I have the exact same answer, except nfl instead of college football. Uh, kanish, what's your answer?
55:47 - Joey Knish (Host)
uh, it's got a. It would be college football there. There's really not like. It's one of the only sports that I've turned. As I've gotten older I've turned into like a semi. I used to sweat everything, I used to sweat it all and then I figured I was going to be dead by 40 if I kept doing that. So it's one of the only sports that I'll still allow myself to really enjoy watching and delve into is college football. I've had a lot of stuff for a lot of people and most of it I've barely even checking the scores now All right, I'm old.
56:25 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
Yeah, probably just tennis for me, what I know best, and just uh, which is the worst part to why.
56:33 - Joey Knish (Host)
What a snooze.
56:34 - Mr.PeanutBettor (Host)
I almost although I I will say he's right on this one 100 yeah oh, look oh another serve oh nfl, nfl great thing to bet, and you know there's uh, there's some.
56:46 - Isaac Rose-Berman (Host)
There's something to say for like choosing nfl so that I could go back to enjoying tennis and not having to sweat bets on it.
56:52 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
There you go. Let us know in the comments down below your answer to the question. One sport you can only bet on that sport for the rest of your life. Which would you choose and why? Anything else you have thoughts on or questions about, leave it in the comments section down below. While you're down there, smash that like button. Subscribe to the channel. If you're listening in podcast form, take a second to rate and review five stars. All of this stuff takes you a short amount of time, but it makes a really big difference to the channel. Reminder Circle Back is up every Friday, 8 am Eastern, mondays, 1 pm Eastern time for our live show. We have bonus videos on the Circles Up channel Wednesdays at 1 pm Eastern time as well.
