00:00 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Coming up today on the highly anticipated episode of Circle Back. 

00:03 - Flup (Host)
Kelly and Biggs are saying this doesn't affect anyone. Completely not true. This affects nearly everyone in gambling and it should be universally agreed upon. This is bad. 

00:12 - Joey Knish (Host)
You know this narrative of like well, we're going right back to the PPH world, it's like that, to me, is just the ultimate, like copium that's never coming back. 

00:20 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Do you think I do this? 

00:28 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
Hang on, do you think I work with you for free? If you are going to cheat, whether it's, you know I'm some kind of gambling prop, taxes, whatever, make sure to do it smartly so you don't get caught. That's what everybody should gather from the whole point of the show Disclaimer. 

00:38 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
The content presented in this show is intended for entertainment purposes only. All opinions expressed are those of the host and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of any individuals or organizations mentioned. Statements made about public figures or entities are based on publicly available information and are not intended to harm or defame any person or business. This show relies on fair use of social media posts, which are presented in good faith for the purpose of commentary and criticism. Viewers and listeners are advised to form their own opinions. 

01:27
It's that time. It's Circle Back here on the Circles Off channel. It's part of the Hammer Betting Network and presented by Calchi. This is the show where we uncover the latest and greatest stories from gambling Twitter. This is the one that you have been waiting for, but we have to pause a little bit before because it's july 4th. Happy independence day to all of our american listeners. I am joined today by two americans who are future canadians. We have joey condition. The bottom right corner. We have fluff, who's already at the airport, ready to make the move to the north side of the border you didn't even want to celebrate the 4th of July and the top right corner our fourth for today is Mike Mr Peanut Better. He is allegedly Canadian. Can you confirm or deny these allegations, Mike? 

02:16 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
I'm not Canadian. It's a hurtful rumor put out by Chris. You know he's a coastal elite. He considers anything that's not New York City or one of the West Coast to not be really part of America. He considers it all Canada. So you know it's no. It's no surprise that he's looking down on good old Midwest values. 

02:33 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
You're all celebrating Independence Day today, as many of the viewers are, but next year you'll be celebrating Canada Day a few days before, especially if not necessarily, not. 

02:45
Necessarily especially if this bill is in place. We will see, but this is, of course, the lead-off topic for today. It is by far the biggest story going on in the gambling space right now and there is absolutely a threat to sports betting as we know it. We'll start off the conversation with this tweet from Captain Jack Andrews, part of Unabated sharp better at CapJack2000, who said the hits just keep on coming. The big beautiful bill proposes that gambling losses be capped at 90% of winnings, even for professionals. If you file the way the IRS intends, you declare gross winnings and deduct losses. This means even losing gamblers would owe money on their gambling. He followed this one up by saying Dark day in New Jersey and the future of sports betting. 

03:28
Consumers were hit with a triple whammy of bad legislative moves. Number one gross gaming revenue taxes were raised to 19.75% for operators. As we've seen, this flows through the consumer with the poor pricing and higher margins. Number two sweepstakes betting was declared illegal in the state. The New Jersey bettor will now have far fewer trusted places to make a bet. Number three, and perhaps the most egregious betting partnerships were criminalized in the state. Fortunately, the language softened a bit from what was originally posted. However, you make a bet for someone else, you are committing. You are now committing a crime equal to using loaded dice on craps, marking cards in blackjack or rigging a slot machine. There was a big post here from Matt Glantz who kind of outlined the bill, but let's give it to the cast here. Let's go to you, flip. You seem to have quite a big understanding of what's going on here. Why don't you take us and the viewers through all the information you have on the bill and how it's going to be harmful to not just pro bettors, but it's going to be harmful? 

04:23 - Flup (Host)
to not just pro bettors but casual bettors. So at this point the bill has passed and I first want to explain what the bill is sorry, what the gambling portion of the bill is and why it's problematic. As Captain Jack outlined, a cap scaling loss is at 90%. So a common example for a recreational bettor would be say you gamble $100,000 in all your winning sessions and you're profitable, and all your losing sessions. You gamble $100,000 in all your winning sessions and you're profitable, and all your losing sessions. You lose $100,000. You have zero for the year but you would owe taxes on $10,000. So to many people, even Rex, this would be a huge tax bill on money they might not even potentially have. If you increase the volume, say a million, you don't tax us on 100,000 of games. At any reasonable tax bracket that would be upwards of $30,000 to $50,000 on a year where you broke. Even so, imagine if you're recreational or better, at the end of the year you get a bill that says, hey, you owe the government $40,000. That would be very problematic and for a professional for my line of work I'm a high-volume, low ROI guy I did the numbers based on last year I would not be able to operate, I would owe more in taxes than I profited last year. And this is not just a bill against pro gamblers. This is a bill against any kind of gambler, with the exception of the master losers or the extremely high ROI guys for pro gamblers. So anyone saying like I saw we'll get to it later but Kelly and Beggs are saying this doesn't affect anyone Completely not true. This affects nearly everyone in gambling and it should be universally agreed upon. This is is bad. 

06:05
Now let's talk about why this bill got added into place. There's two major theories. One which is by far the most likely and probably happened, which is michael crapo and joe uh thune, who are republican senators, were trying to boost revenue for this bill and they thought this could be a good idea to generate revenue. They think, oh, if you reduce the losses by 10% 90% max, running off losses that'll boost revenue by potentially up to 10%. Then they were able to forecast out 10 years and it showed 1.1 billion in potential gains up until 2035 or 2036. So they're like okay, so this will boost the bill and it'll help get the bill across the board. 

06:50
No one on their staff or team understood what the ramifications are to pro-gamma. This is not a 10% increase in tax on pro-gamma. This is in some cases for example, in my case, this would be a nearly 250% increase on my tax bill. Now, I might be one of the most extreme versions, considering how high volume I do and how low ROI I have, but for others it could be even worse or upwards, of 50% to 100% tax increase, making it impossible to continue gambling as a professional, making it impossible to continue gambling as a professional and as a recreational. They might, you know, at the end of the year and have negative bank balance, even if they lost in a specific year. So I don't think anyone fully understood. Hey, this is what happened. 

07:36
And now that the bill has been passed, the next steps are like oh, we need to have someone sponsor a bill for either a technical correction or a provision to this bill, or Crapo and Thune themselves need to come out and publicly state hey, we need to intend, we meant to intend this. And what I think they meant to intend was that losses are only capped at 90% against business expenses. Losses are only capped at 90% against business expenses. So an example of this would be say, I spent $50,000 this past year researching with, say, subscriptions, like an unabated subscription, would be a great example or anything of that nature. And I lost $50,000 last year gambling. I would be able to write off $50,000 against a business expense. Well, in this new bill, I'd only be able to write off $45,000. So it would be a tax increase for me, but minor in the grand scheme of things. That's what I think they intended to have and if they could clarify that, this whole thing would be gone and be fixed. 

08:41
So, as Mike says, a big super fan Dina Titus is or Titus, I don't know how to pronounce her last name she is a Nevada congressperson, senator, and she is trying to introduce legislation into this, say, to clarify this bill. Another solution potentially is also to get clear definitions of what a session is. A session has always been defined as, or always stopped to be defined as, maybe like one poker cash game session, one tournament for poker or for sports betting, one bet. If it's one bet, it is not possible. If they define a session as one month, three months or the full year, for example, this bill is fine. So if we can get clear definitions on that or we get clarification from CREPO or a new bill amending that specific legislation, it'll all be okay and I think it's actually a strong likelihood, considering this bill helps no one and will reduce revenue. It was just a big misunderstanding of how revenue was generated. That's my general opinion on this. Sorry for the long spiel, but that should cover everything. 

09:48 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Should give listeners a good idea of what's going on here. But let's go to you, mike. Mr Peanutbutter, what's your take on this one, like when it came out? You've been pretty active on Twitter about it. Give us your thoughts here. 

10:02 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
Yeah, funny enough, after I quit my job, one of the texts I sent to a former coworker was along the lines of thank God, I'll never have to read another IRS regulation ever again in my life, and then spent most of yesterday reading different regulations and different parts of the tax code so Fluff. First. I want to ask you so you said that it will have to be done with an amendment to the bill, so like the IRS can put down these different revenue rulings and things like that, do you think that there's any chance it gets cleaned up in that? You know, it's probably a pretty loose definition of like a ruling or a guidance, considering they've already kind of talked about this some, but like I think that one of those is possible. The problem is to me that probably wouldn't go into effect until like into 2026. So basically you'd have to be hoping for it. 

10:50 - Flup (Host)
No, no, no. So if I misspoke, it doesn't always only have to be fixed by an amendment or a type of correction. It can be fixed by IRS clarifying this and they can easily clarify this before 2026, because this is such a damning problem. I mean if anyone could clearly understand why this is so problematic and why this will cause massive negative revenue losses, like if this law with no fixes changes, I just won't gamble 2026. There goes all my tax revenue dollars. I'm assuming many other pro gamblers like myself, potentially even a majority of recreational gamblers, wouldn't gamble anymore. So it's pretty easy for the IRS to see that's a problem for this and just issue a statement saying like, hey, this is how we're going to handle that situation and that could happen before 2026. I would say the odds that this gets fixed are well over 90 percent by the end of 2026 and I'm not trying to be like the world is ending kind of here, but it just. 

11:53 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
It needs to be understood that if this doesn't get fixed, the world does end for perpetual gambling and the gambling industry as a whole right, I, I in a lot of cases what they the way that these things kind of get like ruled out by the IRS is like it's called a private letter ruling, which essentially is someone writing and saying hey, you know, IRS, what do you think of this Like definition, like this is what I plan on using. 

12:16
They'll send it out and make it public and be like this is what we're using as a definition of a session or something like that would be an area where you could get a private letter ruled of a session or something like that would be an area where you could get a private letter ruled. You know, when I worked in Texas in the past, our kind of policy was don't ask and then you can't be told that you're wrong. So maybe I would guess that most pro gamblers are probably going to try to go along that route, which is unfortunate for everybody else trying to get the wording of their ruling. But yeah, it just seems like you know, the IRS would have to take pretty strong liberties if it's not actually written into the bill itself or amended by a congressman. You know, that seems like it should be more something that's passed by legislation than an IRS ruling. 

12:58 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
There was a lot of people who are outspoken about this and the bill. People were trying to get more exposure to what was going on here, because a lot of people recognize very quickly that this does pose a lot of threat to sports betting as we know it. Other people have said that perhaps just go back to offshores and PPHs. That's the best way to combat this. Kanish, you were pretty outspoken on Twitter that that is not the case. Why don't you elaborate on that for us? 

13:23 - Joey Knish (Host)
Well, first off, as it stands, it feels good to be the only member of this panel to earn an honest living at 2026 going forward. 

13:29 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
So, yeah, you know, do this, Hang on. Do you think I work with you for free? Well, I mean it doesn't really like. 

13:36 - Joey Knish (Host)
You know, the other two guys gamble and you're kind of, you know, doing a content thing, so I don't think that counts. I'm actually contributing to, you know, society in a realm, um, but no, I've seen this, this. You know this narrative of like, well, we're going right back to the pph world. It's like I mean that that that to me, is just the ultimate, like copium, that that's never coming back. Um, I also thought it was interesting how this wasn't strongly opposed, or at least publicly opposed, by any of the legal sports books, and so I don't think you have that avenue to get it back. 

14:11
I agree with Fluff, I think there'll probably be some at least moderation or edit that to come in at once. The full ramifications are understood by people that can actually do something about it. But this to me, is not like this ultimate. Well, we're gonna go offshore. You, you've already seen what's happening to sweepstakes books in some states, um, and I just don't think it leads to this ultimate revival, uh, to to get away or get back from, you know, legal gambling. That I think, as fluff said it, it just kind of kills the, the pro gambling career. If you're going to, if this is going to stick a hundred percent. And the other aspect is I just don't think people are going to really follow it In most cases. I mean, I think you have a bunch of people that would continue and just it's going to hurt tax revenue because people aren't going to file what they're actually making. 

15:07 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
Yeah, I mean, if this is a case, why not reduce losses that you can claim to 20% and then you'll get 80% more income by the like? This kind of logic that you're just. I mean, why not just have it be negative 500% and you'll get a? Actually you'll be reducing the deficit to zero, like I this kind of math that if you just reduce 10%, that's how it impacts it. It's just crazy static math. It doesn't take into effect second order effects at all. It's absurd. 

15:31 - Flup (Host)
Another thing I want to add offshore and PPH. It's not like you don't have to pay taxes. It's just easier to fudge the numbers and lie about it. So like this, this, like oh, just go to offshore. If I earn money in America from offshore PPH, I owe taxes on that. Like, what are we talking about? I'm a US citizen. And another thing I want to point out to you, joey, is I tweeted about this earlier today. I'm not sure like the DraftKings, the FanDuel, the MGMs of the world are actually in support of this by not saying anything. 

16:06
This bill was always going to pass, whether you like it or not, I don't care what your politics are. Republicans had a super majority. They controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency. It was always going to go through. There might have been some negotiations, there might have been a chance that got sent back in slight amendments in the House, but the giant bill was going to go in and, frankly, no one cared enough about about the gamblers, because that wasn't the real uh meat of the bill. So now that the bill is passed, now the real battle starts and now we'll see if truly these books are silent or not. I I suspect they'll come out in support privately or encourage other adoptions or interpretations of the law that make it possible for people to actually bet. 

16:56 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
And if not, we march on the Capitol Flop. 

17:00 - Flup (Host)
This would be. The game was January 6th, not November 6th. 

17:03 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
How about July 6th Halfway through the year instead? That's good. We get to have it once every half year. 

17:09 - Joey Knish (Host)
Yeah, flop's actually flying to Crapo's office in Idaho right now, that's not true. 

17:19 - Flup (Host)
I'm up against a locker there in the room. I haven't played the main events for poker in my life. I decided well, since I won Circus Survivor, I'm more likely to win the main events for poker in my life. I decided well, since I won Circus Survivor, I'm more likely to win the main event now because I'm good at picking contests. So I figure I'll win that and retire. I won't need to deal with this old gambling nonsense. 

17:33 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
I had to sneak in our resident one-time contest winner I mentioned. A lot of people were opposed to the bill. Somebody who didn't really care about the bill that Philip alluded to earlier was Kelly in Vegas. Really care about the bill that flip alluded to earlier was kelly in vegas. Uh, does a lot of work with. Uh, with wager talk. Uh, pick seller says why is gambling twitter freaking out? Only one percent of sports gamblers are profitable. Does everyone on here think they are part of the chosen few? Uh, because you introduced it earlier, I'm sure you have plenty of thoughts. Why don't you start off on this as well? 

18:03 - Flup (Host)
as I said before, this does not only affect winning gamblers, it affects break even and even, in some cases, losing you. If you gamble a lot, it will affect you. And it's also just hilarious because isn't her whole business model that she sells? So like? I guess she's like yeah, my subs, they don't actually win, I mean, who cares? So all this whole thing is just hilarious in theory. 

18:26 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Uh, not only is kelly a winning better if she's selling picks, all of the people who buy her picks are also winning better. So anybody who follows kelly in vegas and buys her picks is directly affected by the bill. 

18:37 - Flup (Host)
So this is very, a very ignorant comment this just shows complete lack of understanding of how, like basic math and like people, spending works. 

18:47 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
It was pretty sad actually to see yeah, well, when you go from pick selling grifting to political grifting, I think now you've officially made the conversion when you can't criticize a piece of legislation that's gonna supposedly kill your industry and profit. 

18:59 - Joey Knish (Host)
So yeah, I don't, I don't really like. It was like not only you can tweet something wrong and not fully understand, but then it was the double, the triple, the quadruple down in the comments, the eight times of just not wanting to actually understand. Or someone's like hey, here's how it actually works and I'm going to completely ignore that and just, you know, kind of let them down again. 

19:22 - Flup (Host)
So I don't know if we can find this tweet. It wasn't from kelly in vegas, but it was from like uh, todd whittles, I think china maniac had, was like explaining how the spill affects rectifinal gamblers and then todd goes no, that's not how the formula and it says the exact formula that china uses to prove, to prove him wrong, and I was like you disagreed with him. What do we? So? These people? They've already made up their mind. They're not even understanding or reading what's going on. 

19:50 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
It's pretty sad yeah, uh, kelly in vegas gets a lot of shit online so I can see why she can be a bit like combative against people who come at her. But there were a lot of people genuinely in the replies like trying to educate and just it was a complete utter refusal to to concede anything. It's okay to admit you're wrong on the internet sometimes, absolutely. Um, where are we headed with this? Do you think fluff? Um, do you? You said 90 chance that there is something that's changed in here? Uh, how bad of a position or how good of a position are sports bettors in currently as of uh, thursday, july 3rd, at 4 25 pm eastern time time recording most individual bettors can't do anything. 

20:35 - Flup (Host)
I mean this I see, this stuff is all right, your congressman. That's not how politics works. I mean, that's like, yeah, like. So most people have to just wait and see, but I would say they're in a very bad spot, considering literally three weeks ago, before this got out of june 16th. Three weeks ago, we were at zero percent of the industry dying, and now we're at a number greater than that. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know what that true number is, but we're still very likely to be okay. So I wouldn't like doom and gloom, but the key thing is I would still put the like make sure the pressure is on, make sure you're aware. If you can do anything at all, you still have to be aware. 

21:15 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
So that that would be the only thing that I would say, but most people can't, unfortunately well, there's always a threat potentially of you know times not staying as good as they are right now for sports bears. This was brought up by spreadsheet virgin I at I bet pal says in two years, when they're fighting to get eight dollars down on super bowl props, the americans are going to look back at the silver age and wonder why they logged 400 hours in l spaces instead of getting in good while they still could. Now this is a good segue into the second topic, which was brought up by china maniac, who you mentioned Sharp Sports Better, who's been a guest on these Circles Off podcasts as well, says biggest time sucks that hold back gamblers from reaching new heights. Besides drugs and alcohol, video games, watching poker streams, twitter spaces and trying to win and be right on every topic in social media. 

22:03
We call that the Flup Quadfecta in the industry. 

22:07 - Joey Knish (Host)
I think he got that right from Flup's homepage. 

22:13 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Chyna says that he's also guilty of this because he is now addicted to Lego City Undercover on Switch Kanish. Are sports bettors allowed to get themselves involved in hobbies such as this, Like how dedicated do you need to be to the grind? 

22:29 - Joey Knish (Host)
I mean, I actually no joke, I'm not just making this up for the segment when I started doing this seriously, part of it was I quit playing video games, like video games were a part of my life and like took that time out of my life and kind of reallocated it to sports. But and I still don't like I've I've been, you know now I could, I've lost my you know little nephew and Mario party. Now these days I'm totally washed on the gaming scene. But there are what I would call, you know like, maybe ulterior motives and that's things I think a lot of people that go into the spaces might be. You know, in it is a you know a time suck to do that. 

23:06
I do know some of people, maybe some people on the panel here, might have leveraged that time to then get some new you know new partnerships out of it new, new, new, other things, new, you know new partnerships out of it new, new, new, other things. So it's not always like a complete waste of time, time suck that you know. It's like I'm not, I'm not doing it for any reason, and I mean just even if it's a hobby that you enjoy. I don't know, maybe you know peanut butter looks like he likes to. You know, write on whiteboards in the back of paint or something for a living or something you have to kind of get out of your. You can't do this 24-7. You'll end up going crazy, as someone that's been on the verge of going crazy a few times. It is good to have something outside of betting to at least focus your time. I wouldn't recommend any of those things, maybe per se, but I think it's. You can't just do this 24-7, 365. 

23:59 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
How about you, Mike? Anything you do that takes away from your gambling that you need to stop. 

24:06 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
What are your thoughts on this? If the original question is, are bettors allowed to have hobbies? I would have to say, yes, I think that they're allowed to do some things outside of work. But yeah, no, I obviously spent probably not a good amount of time on Twitter. Um, trolling man of Vig was half of my to-do list for a day, uh, when the Thunder were playing in the NBA finals. But, um, I mean, it's just like you could have put that list out for any job and that would have been time sucks that people spend I mean, maybe not the else faces part, or spending time on Twitter probably as much. But everybody's gonna have things that they're doing outside the job. I, you know, obviously some are going to be more productive than others, but if you're spending 24 7 betting, uh, which I probably come pretty close to it different times um, you know, it's probably not good long term as far as burnout and things like that I want to also attack joey quick here. 

24:56 - Flup (Host)
He made some very hurtful insinuations that I wasn't a contributing member of society. Well, I was a hardworking member of society. Some have alluded that I'm a coastal elite. Couldn't be further from the truth. Up until about three months ago did stop playing video games to actually spend the time to do the sports betting thing. So now that I will admit that, now that I've quit the full time job, I have played a little bit of video games the last few months. But you know it's hard to grind like 24-7. You need to have some kind of relaxing and I did hop into these spaces for maybe not only entertainment, some ulterior motives as well. 

25:41 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
All right, let's get to the next topic here. Like I said earlier, it is the 4th of July and of course the 4th of July means we have the Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest and we have the return of the GOAT, joey Chestnut, to this year's competition. No Mickey Mouse belts or trophies being handed out this year. Joey Chestnut is back and he is the favorite According to the Calchi market which we have pulled up here. If you want to sign up to Calchi, please go to the link in the description. Joey Chestnut given a 92% chance at the time, I pulled this right before we started recording at 4 pm eastern time on july 3rd. Uh, patrick bertoletti seven percent. He is last year's champion. He ate 58 hot dogs. Last year, two years ago, when joey chestnut won, he ate 62. So we'll see what sort of battle there is there. Jeffrey esper three percent. Chance number third position here. Uh, word around the the water cooler is that. Joey knish, you enjoy betting on this competition. Is that correct? You know what? 

26:43 - Joey Knish (Host)
there's. There's an old article about, uh, when you could really get actually the liquidity. This year isn't too bad, I'm not gonna lie about it. So yeah, I got some. You know what, by the time this comes out, I'll just'll just put it out there. I know this isn't a pick show. 

27:00
This year's Bertoletti opener is maybe the worst number in this contest in the last five to ten years. I think it opened at 48.5. The guy did 58 last year. He's already been talking about wanting to go to the 60 club. This year he's got his boy Chestnut back to push him. 

27:20
I think Bertoletti go in 60s. So I know that everybody wants to talk, just not he's do. I think he can really get to the level or give him a go, probably not, but just not being the big story. If you're getting money done, I think the big story is you know, bert, good to any number, baby, anything in the 50s. I think he's getting 60. His number opened 48 and a half. There was 50 out there. Hopefully, if you listen to this at 8 in the morning tomorrow, I think anything mid-50s and up is good. So yeah, this is probably the biggest position I've had in a hot dog contest in a few years. And if you're listening to this at noon tomorrow and he goes for 45, you won't see me on next week's show. I'll be getting a second job instead of you know doing it on this. 

28:06 - Flup (Host)
Can we get us a little hint of liquidity here? How many hot dogs will you win if it goes your way? 

28:11 - Joey Knish (Host)
You know what. So let me, I got to be so. Usually this it's a little. Traditionally it's tougher to get down A certain book which usually doesn't have this stuff on the kiosk. Yesterday might have had the Iberta Letty over under and, you know, I might have stood there for you know a period of time until they told me to leave. So, yeah, I'll let me tell you something. This hits baby July 4th at the condition Also. Also, we won't be eating hot dogs. I'm gonna be giving wagyu out in this kitchen that whoever wants it. So, or or I'm gonna be, you know, flops, gonna have to overnight me some hot dogs from wherever I'm at. 

28:51 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
So how about you uh, mike, you do any dabbling with the hot dog eating contest? 

28:57 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
yeah, going back to joey's point, I was amazed at Koushi's liquidity on the event. I was like looking at it for just to kind of kind of dip my toes in it Wasn't going to bet too serious. And then when I saw the liquidity I decided to actually go in and do some research. I talked to one guy who actually went and weighed the hot dogs that chestnut was using in the netflix competition versus the nathan's hot dogs and saw the difference in densities and was telling me, like the weight of how many hot dogs he ate, what that would equate back to in the nathan's version. So I mean you can get I like. Okay, I'll just say I have a five-figure position in the hot dog competition this year, um, based on both on chestnut number of dogs, aiden and winner. So you can get crazy limits on this. 

29:46
I love to go in and dive into markets that nobody takes seriously. So you know, big liquidity, kind of random information. I've been watching Joey Chestnut interviews. This is my sweet spot of betting. I'll be big time rooting for old Joey Chestnut Also a little bit for Pete. 

30:09 - Flup (Host)
Can we not use the brochette? My brain does not work like that. You can convert the Cal sheet into American odds. I know you're a Canadian and you don't like this. If we have the screenshot next time it can. It can show like. It can show like the plus and minus odds. I I can't deal with these images. 

30:23 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
My brain doesn't work. Next time I got you great all right. 

30:28 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
That's the one thing that you're wrong. I don't understand the hold. That's the part that I'll never understand. Is the hold by? You know, limit orders, that kind of stuff? Um, I'm just a simple better, but I think the percentages is way easier to like intuitively understand well, because it's our guest and he wants the percentages, we'll pull up the hot dog by nathan's contest winner and continue the percentages. 

30:54 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Uh. So the forecast here is 86 chance of 65 or more. The current forecast is 72.2 hot dogs eaten by the Nathan's contest winner Kanish, you said you looked at this, and also Mike, you said you looked at this as well. Any thoughts on this one here? Because, like I said, last year, the winner was 58 Bertoletti. Two years ago it was Joey Chestnut at 62. And the year before that, I believe, it was 63. So we haven't seen 70-plus since Chestnut had 76 in 2021. But are we heading for a big score tomorrow or today? 

31:29 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
for the people who are listening, so the last two years, Joey, one year was rained out, so they were in a massive delay. It delayed it multiple hours, so that's why his hot dog percentage is down. The other one there was a protester ran out onto the thing and put Joey Chestnut in a chokehold and that wasn't the reason. He only, like, fought off the protester and still ate 62. So you know, you really got to dive in deep to see those numbers. 

31:55 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
I thought that was the same year it had happened. 

32:04 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
It was delayed and there was a protest, or am I wrong? 

32:05 - Flup (Host)
no, I, I believe they're separate years or I. Okay some really bad research on a position. Okay, I believe you're talking. You're talking to a man that just spent, you know, the past week researching you're right. 

32:12 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Who am I? Who am? 

32:12 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
I to ask I've been breaking the all 22 film down of these hot dog competitions. Okay so, but yeah they. I think that you know if he has said that like if he doesn't think he has a shot for the record, he gets lazy. So maybe the ends are the way to go, the tails of that distribution, but I think that he's going to go. You know he has a chance for breaking the record this year. 

32:39 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
You just uncovered a big edge. You bet the under on Joey Chestnut and then go attack him while he's on stage. It's like betting on. Will there be a streak or a Super Bowl? Yes, yourself, and then just doing it yourself. You're uncovering a massive edge here. 

32:57 - Flup (Host)
Jacob, I'm just going to say you probably don't want to encourage committing crimes on the podcast. 

33:00 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
I'm not going to say you probably don't want to encourage committing crimes on the podcast. 

33:03 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
I'm not saying do it and wear a T-shirt that says reduce gambling tax as you do it to get attention today. 

33:08 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
You're killing two birds with one stone by doing that. I think that if somebody did that it would be very interesting, though I would not recommend anybody doing it, of course. Let's jump into the comments from the previous week's episode Reminder. You can always leave a comment down below and we'll pick the best maybe sometimes the worst to feature in next week's Friday episode. So comment something down below and, while you're there, make sure you do smash that Like button and consider subscribing to the channel as well for Circleback content hosted by me, jacob Germania. Yes, every Tuesday and Friday here on the Circles Off channel. All right, let's dive into the first comment here. It comes from at two cheese 28. I can only imagine what Uncle K's co-workers think of hearing him scream in a meeting booth for 90 minutes. No way, those things are soundproof. You're at home today, kanish, but are those little bubbles you work in soundproof? 

34:03 - Joey Knish (Host)
No, no, they're definitely not. Thankfully, as you know, working on the bean counter floor, most people are out by the time we're recording this when I'm there. 

34:13 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
And they aren't. They're getting the fuck out of there right after you start. 

34:16 - Joey Knish (Host)
Yeah, the other thing is you know, like you know, if joey in the you're in the corporate world now most of your time. Meetings are rare like actual meetings and perjury. I'm usually talking on team meetings anyway, so somebody walked by. I'm just talking to you know, three idiots on a team's meeting next comment uh, it's coming that fluff a little bit. 

34:37 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
This is from your NFL top 10 coaches list, which we talked about last week. This is from Jeff O'Reilly, 9751. It says McDonald over Sirianni is insane. Nick has been to the playoffs for three years, two Super Bowls. I don't care how good the roster is, there is the base level of competence. That is there. He's now on the third offensive and defensive coordinators. Meanwhile, mcdonald has been a coach for one year and missed the playoffs. Good job, flup. Maybe someone who lost six figures on Cuomo isn't the sharpest guy to rank NFL coaches. How do you respond? 

35:12 - Flup (Host)
Honestly, great, great comment. I mean that was a great dig, these kind of digs. I appreciate it's well thought out and honestly that was a great dig, these kind of digs. I appreciate it's well thought out and honestly I think he's kind of right. I probably was reaching a bit for McDonald here, but I will stand firm that I think Nick Sirianni is overrated and is probably just an average coach that's babysitting an elite roster. But all valid criticism. I mean I probably shouldn't be commenting that I'm going to punt six figures on Cuomo. 

35:40 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
And to our guest who likes to dive into markets that people don't usually look at how about this hypothetical market from at Circleback Commenter T-Bone versus Pozzola line is minus 110, minus 110, tail the tape, pozzola, legally blind, and we'll see exactly zero T-Bone legally hammered. And we'll see exactly zero T-Bone legally hammered and we'll see exactly three blurry Pizzolas. Even fight three rounds, zero punches landed. Any early insight on that one? 

36:07 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
on the opener, mike, on where you might land on that betting market hypothetically, you know, seeing T-Bone throw a bunch of punches in the ring might already knock him out. So I think that, like, like, if they're both missing contact, I have to take Rob as far as just being able to withstand standing up and getting a boxing workout in. So I think you know, the old boss man Rob, has a chance in that one, as long as T-Bone is legally hammered, as the guy puts it, which I think. 

36:36 - Joey Knish (Host)
No, no, give me the liquidity on Kalshi. Give me T-Bone for the max, whatever I can get I think old T-Bone's taking Rob to the blender there, assuming I'm getting T-Bone. You know, between drink zero and 13, I'm okay, I still feel good about it If it's 3, am you know? 

36:57 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
I don't agree to those terms zero and 13. I think we have to be 13 plus we have to go at medium drink level. 

37:02 - Joey Knish (Host)
If we're gonna do this if we're on, you know uh, number 14, then then maybe it's a problem does the rolex come off for the boxing match, or do you think? 

37:12 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
he keeps it on how do you think his odds change, whether or not it's on? I think his odds actually like. I think he's a better chance of winning with it on. He just got the confidence with it on Of course, it's almost like a weapon. 

37:23 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
It's a swagger thing too. 

37:25 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, look good, feel good, play good. Following up the comments, we have a tweet here from John Lerner who says hey, espnbet, can you be a bit more specific on the issue? And here is the espn bet email. I suppose that he received it. Says hey, jonathan g, we want players to have fun and enjoy espn bet and hollywood casino. That's why we're committed to a policy of responsible gaming. 

37:49
There are certain behaviors that can potentially put you at higher risk of developing a gambling problem. One increasing bet size and frequency to spending more time on our platform. Number three chasing losses. You're currently exhibiting one of the above behaviors. Therefore, we want to give you some tips on how to stay safe and keep gambling fun. Best ways to ensure you gamble responsibly to you get responsibly to set limits and stick to them. A bunch of other stuff about responsible gaming. We hope you'll take some of our suggestions into consideration. John Lerner said in the original post last seven days four wagers $121 risk. Last 30 days 10 wagers about $300 risk. What triggered the email? Anybody provide potentially some insight into what was going on here? Have you ever had anything where ESPN Bet or anywhere is sending you an email such as this? 

38:36 - Flup (Host)
Yeah, this is very disgusting behavior from the sports book. This is almost always the case that they're using responsible gambling as a tool to attack sharp and winning bettors, which is just gross behavior. It's very likely that he got CLV or the bets were sharper and they just want to use this to kind of get information and try to basically tell them to fuck off from the sportsbook and maybe lock up his money away. I've seen this happen before where I've had multiple different RG cases for myself and they've been handled differently based on the fact that I'm up or down in the sportsbook. This kind of behavior is pure scum in the sportsbook. I'm no Kirk Evans sportsbook. This kind of behavior is pure scum in sportsbook. I'm no Kirk Evans. I know Kirk Evans tries to spend sportsbooks at every second, but this is just disgusting behavior. 

39:30 - Joey Knish (Host)
You know what, like I've gotten those alerts when you're betting on, like you know, you've wagered you know $23,000 in the last 45 minutes or something, probably when you're on one of the, like one of our other sponsors' websites. But yeah, this is I don't know maybe I'm not being as nihilistic with this as Fluff, as almost. I don't know if it's a sharp thing, as just kind of like a canned email that they sent when it may be like a slight uptick in wagering activity. So, um, I'm gonna go a little lighter on that could it be something? 

40:03 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
you know, call me the sportsbook simp here. Could it just be an automatic? Um, like you, he maybe he spent more time on the app and it has, like certain triggers that they have put in place. Um, you know, I'm not really sure. I'm in vegas so I have a lot of my are not the softer legal books. So I haven't dealt with this problem really, except for a few times when I've driven over to Arizona and placed large volume very quick. So it made sense. But is it a chance? It's just like an automatic trigger based on time spent on the app. 

40:33 - Joey Knish (Host)
I think that could be it. Again, you're no Kirk Evans. I mean, we can sometimes on this show be a little fair to Spurts, but no one lathers up sportsbooks like Kirk, so it's all right. 

40:46 - Flup (Host)
I mean maybe it's a possibility. I just, based on my experience, I'm going to be biased here and say it's likely not that, and if it is, that it's kind of idiotic. I mean this is clearly not problem gambling behavior. What are we doing here? 

41:00 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
I was going to ask would showing signs of being a problem gamer decrease your chances of getting limited, would you say, if you're showing signs such as this, like chasing losses like you can find a plus-division to chase a loss would that decrease your chances of getting profiled? 

41:22 - Flup (Host)
absolutely in my, in my experience. Yes, uh, I actually will. I talked about some episodes I crime accounts trying to get profiled as a property gambler. That's, I think, very optimal and and that's why this really disgusts me. 

41:40 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
I think that the line between you know, d-gen huge whale and problem gambler is pretty thin right. So if you have different departments looking at it, maybe the problem gaming will say that this is the problem, but the trading team will say you know, this guy's a whale. So I think that you're probably trying to look as much like a whale as you can, which is actually pretty similar to problem gaming. 

42:02 - Flup (Host)
Okay, I just want to point out it also makes sense. You know Mike was a previous sports book employee, so of course he's going to be the same for the sports books here. 

42:10 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
Yeah Well, we did a lot of offshore stuff and I there wasn't a ton of problem gaming reports personally. 

42:18 - Joey Knish (Host)
And even with that, he's no Kirk, so don't worry about it. 

42:23 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
We'll get back to the show in just a moment here. What's up everybody? Jacob, here You've got friends who bet. We all do Some sharp, some, let's just say, entertaining. Either way, send them our content, whether it's Circle Back Forward Progress or one of our deep dive interviews. We're building content for people who actually care about betting. So help us spread the word. Share the video tag a friend, send it to the group chat and hey, it's the 4th of July. You're probably seeing a lot of friends and family today. Maybe somebody there has an interest in sports betting and wants to know about the biggest topic with the big, beautiful bill. Now is the perfect time to give others the opportunity to check out our content and they can see what they think. Maybe they'll enjoy and get involved just like you. 

43:08
We let off the previous show on the tuesday show with the malik beasley gambling scandal. Well, that gambling scandal that we saw in the nba is now kind of hitting the MLB. We have Jeff Besson here saying breaking Cleveland guardians. Right-hander Luis Ortiz is being investigated for two individual pitches, one June 15th, another June 27th, that received action flagged by a betting integrity firm. Sources tell me, and at David Purdom, details for ESPN. Here is a post from John boy media, who grabbed videos of both of the pitches by Luis Ortiz. 

43:44
The first individual pitch was a little bit down and away on a curveball and then the second one was very down and away into the dirt. So if he was trying to make sure, he really made sure with the second one here, these sorts of markets being offered here let's start with you, mike, on this one. This is a market that very easily could be manipulated by a pitcher without really receiving too much attention. It's similar to I've seen in soccer Will there be a throw in the first minute of the game and will can just punt it out in the first 30 seconds or so? Uh, do you think, if things that you do trend this direction, that we'll see less markets being offered like this? 

44:26 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
yeah, play, you know, play carnival games and you get carnival prizes. It's the farther that you make this from the actual event that's being played on the field, these profits, the more that you run into a risk of these things happening. Um, when it's the game that needs to be thrown, not many people are going to do that. When it's a rebound that they don't have to grab, tons of people are going to do that. So if you can get major money on some of these props that have nothing to do with winning or losing, you're just going to open yourself up to that. You know there's a lot of people are talking about the regulation has helped catch these things. I think that might be true. But also, if we don't have these random profits like this, I don't think that the you know guys are necessarily throwing games or throwing these weird props, which is all a result of us creating props that basically have nothing to do with the outcome of the winner loser. 

45:16 - Joey Knish (Host)
Yeah, and I think in an instant, it's like nobody these days can just keep their fucking mouth shut and get a bet down, whether it's beasley, whether it's anybody like louisa. Like you tell a few people, like family members or something like, hey, I'm gonna do, and it spreads all over the place. Uh, you know, if anybody could just do good business and and actually get a bet down, and just you know, keep it on the low, you know you wouldn't have this happen. But uh, it's like no, you know, louise tells his brother, who tells his cousin, who tells the cashier at the local store who talks to, you know, fluff's cousin, and then you know they're so, uh, yeah, it's just, it's hard, uh hard to keep this under wraps nowadays. 

45:59 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
People want the clout and they are a lot cooler. If you're sharing something like this, it would seem. What's your thoughts on this one Flob? 

46:08 - Flup (Host)
Honestly, Mike, I could do them pretty perfectly. That carnival games example was spot on, I think Very well said. 

46:16 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
I just want to say that the theme of this show is if you are going to cheat whether it's, you know, I'm some kind of gambling, prop, taxes, whatever make sure to do it smartly so you don't get caught. That's what I think that everybody should gather from the whole point of this show great lesson to have from here, yeah, from us here at circle back. 

46:35 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
That deserves definitely a subscription. Uh, get us up to 20K. Let's go to our next topic. Here we have a dub club pig seller called Basketball Goddess. Now, this one I came across last night and had to add it into the show. So this dub club pig seller, basketball Goddess, and this was showcased by DK double underscore DFS she posted a two leg parlay. It was James wood to record a hip and the Detroit tires all total runs over nine and a half. Um, james would just, funny enough, was the, the lead off topic of the last week show where we talked about the, the home run parlay bet, which James would had the final home run for. So funny, the little connection there. But the Troy tigers had 10 runs and it was the top of the fifth. James would still had not recorded a hit. 

47:28
And basketball goddess said we can't, I can't risk it, your girl cashed out and, as we can see from the photo here, her $5,000 parlay wager on minus 105 odds. She cashed out for $4,765, which, if you know how this works, is less than the $5,000 she wagered. So she cashed out for a loss. Then the bet ended up winning. She says congrats to everyone who didn't cash out for a loss. Then the bet ended up winning. She says congrats to everyone who didn't cash out, you won. I'm not tripping that, he got the hit. I can use that almost 5K on something else. 

48:02
Ian McMillan at Ian McBets, who does work with Sports Illustrated and sometimes features on our Ford Progress channel for NFL content, says placed a 5K bet on a two-leg parlay. Cashed out for a loss after the first leg hits. Parlay ends up winning. Sells plays on Dub Club. This is it. We've reached peak gambling Twitter. I wouldn't say we reached the peak because it got a little bit better. She said still glad I didn't risk it. After getting a lot of hate, I tried to hedge and put him for a single but it locked on me and, like many others, was confused like by this because the bet was it for a hit, so hedging would not be to bet on a single. This was noticed by b dunk. 975 says how do you sell picks? Not understand what a hedge is? Uh, at johnny phantom underscore says she needed a hit and then said she tried to head with him getting a single. Is anybody able to decipher what she was looking to accomplish by betting a single as the head. What was the theory there? Any ideas, philip, I saw you, facepalm. 

49:07 - Flup (Host)
I just think this is someone who doesn't understand what they're doing. They have no edge. Clearly they don't understand anything about gambling and they're just like oh edge. Clearly they don't understand anything about gambling. They're just like a single is different than a hit. That must be a hedge, because it can't be the same thing. Let me bet that. There we go. They didn't realize they were doubling down. 

49:27 - Joey Knish (Host)
This girl has 123,000 followers. It's probably making legitimate money on Dub Club. 

49:37 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Probably more than you and me in our corporate shop. 

49:42 - Joey Knish (Host)
Like I can't. I didn't even know. She also has locked her account, as I see, right now, I did notice that as well. Just wait for it to die down here. Also, the basketball goddess is, and if you know anything about limits, she got 5K on. This had to be a live right Because it was over 9.5 runs, yeah, I assume. So, like she's betting a team total and a hit at minus 105 live, then cashing it, I mean, I tell you why. 

50:18 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Why even bet it if you don't want to risk it? Hang on a second. 

50:22 - Flup (Host)
There is a bright side here. She did lose the money to one of our sponsors. In some way she is paying Jacob's salary, so we appreciate her good work there. 

50:35 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
I would say that we have to give her a break here. Her name clearly says basketball goddess, not baseball goddess. 

50:40 - Joey Knish (Host)
So I don't know what people were expecting. How could she be expected to know the rules? 

50:46 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Listen for anybody's documented record. It's all about your specialty. All this extra stuff is just the bonus. It's all about the main, which is the basketball. You're right, so I wouldn't subscribe to her. Mlb plays, in my personal opinion, but the basketball. I can't say for sure whether or not I would feel like that is a good investment to take. 

51:06 - Joey Knish (Host)
There is an army of people that sell on Dub Club. That is in a world that I know we're chronically online and gambling Twitter. There's Dub Club Twitter, where these people have massive followings. I don't even know how it exists. It all happened and I wasn't privy to it, and now we're making $10K a month that don't even know the rules of betting selling it. Hey, they're making, you know, like 10K a month. I don't even know the rules of betting selling it, so, yeah, hey, they're the smart people. 

51:39 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Your guys are going to start getting taxed. I know You're right, it's over. They're fine over there, pick selling. 

51:46 - Joey Knish (Host)
They're going to be living the dream still. 

51:48 - Flup (Host)
Did you see the other Dove Clover like? Attack her. I love it when you see the Dove Clover attack and say no, you suck, no, you suck. 

51:58 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
That's the best, always the best stuff. All right, more good stuff on the way in the chopping block. This is the stuff that didn't warrant full segments in the show, but we still wanted to discuss a little bit nonetheless. And to start us off, we're bringing in this one here in regards to nfl futures market. We have at d value better. Who said nfl futures markets have not gotten more efficient over the last decade? Misses by two plus wins at 69 percent of misses by two plus wins 69 percent of time. Misses by three plus wins 44 percent of time. Four plus one to 25 percent of times. Projected 50, 54 and a half more wins than mathematically possible over under 162 to 174 bet alts. Kanish, you're roaring to go here, go, go ahead it's no joke. 

52:46 - Joey Knish (Host)
The years ago and I'm it's gonna be a half good story, half no plus ev analytics and whale capper were the like, the originators of finding this edge in the market of like. They did like a whole set. We bet, I bet it for plus ev. I want to say, maybe 40 years ago where you were, we could just bet this is before even the caesars thing. You could bet the alts up and down on so many teams and there were massive, massive edges. The problem being is they fucking did content on it for a full year and told everybody about it and now it's deader than dead. 

53:23
So, yes, there are. You know it is kind of inefficient in terms of like the regular season win totals in the NFL up and down, but the pricing now used used to be like if you get three or four wins away from a team up and down on their win total, let's say it's you know eight and a half, you go to 12 and a half, 13, or you know four or five, you are getting massive prices 50 to one, 75 to one. You know that type of stuff. Now the books have figured that it's like six to one, seven to one, so that you know that incredible ROI edge that there was three, four or five years ago is all toast. So, yes, the guy makes a point. Guess what he's five years too late. 

54:03 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
I find it interesting, so a little behind the scenes, how we pick topics here. We all give a ranking on the topics, potential topics. There's the yes, ok and no, and you would think for Kanisha's passionate rant there, he would have given a resounding yes to this topic, but he gave an okay, so I'm not sure you know what. 

54:20 - Joey Knish (Host)
Here's the issue. I didn't actually click on this tweet to see what it was, so I just default put okay when I was on my phone. So that might have been why I didn't have an actual, and then I never actually read these beforehand. So when I saw it in real time, I was like oh wait, it kind of clicked in my head. 

54:38 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
You know what? I got to the recording at 4 o'clock and you were already waiting here, so you're on time today. So I'm not going to bash you anymore, thank you. 

54:46 - Joey Knish (Host)
Thank you for giving me the credit. 

54:47 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
I fully deserve today. 

54:53 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
Somebody who did say yes to this topic was Mr Peanutbetter. So what did you have for this one? Can you put the tweet back up on the main screen here for us? So he says over under is 162 and 174. 174 divided by 1.1, so 110 odds is 158. So if you blindly bet the under, like he's saying here, you would lose money. Blindly bet, um you know, the under, like he's saying here, you would lose money. 

55:16
So the fact that that these are so inefficient, I like that doesn't make sense to me. Also, he says that it misses by two plus misses by three plus 44 percent of the time. He gives no indication of the pricing here. Um, on how the alts are priced, I don't know if that's right, maybe that they have them as a break even of 25 percent of the time. And as far as the projected fifty four and a half more wins than mathematically possible, that's a mean median problem. It actually makes sense that teams are going to have numbers higher than the total wins, because when you miss a year over under, you're much more likely to miss it by going under by a significant amount of games, I believe. I mean I haven't done the math on it, but you know, just injuries, things like that, it makes sense that you would actually have more wins projected than mathematically possible. They probably are juicing it to the over some, but this doesn't imply any kind of like I that these are terribly off or that you could win betting a certain strategy. 

56:13 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Anything to add from you, Flop. 

56:15 - Flup (Host)
Yeah, I think what's really nice here is having a sim can really help you because you can just see the prices here. And another thing I disagree with a little of what Kanisha said here. It's not all dead Some teams. The variance is not calculated Like. A good example I guess it's pretty obvious to you at this point would be the odds that the Chiefs go under by a significant amount is not the same as a team like the Bears, because all the odds that the Chiefs are bad is basically derived from will Mahomes get a week one or two injury, whereas a team like the Bears they can just fundamentally really bad. They have so many new moving pieces. So I'm not I don't want to comment on how you figure out that variance, but like that is something that you can get a significant edge in if you know how to price them correctly yeah, but you can find an edge in any. 

57:10 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
that's like saying you know money lines and spreads aren't efficient in certain markets. Of course they are, but it doesn't mean that they don't know what they're doing or that they're pricing these remarkably wrong Fair. 

57:21 - Flup (Host)
And I guess to Joey's credit, I have noticed they've improved, because I was betting these three or four years ago myself as well and I did notice they have improved in the last few years. But I do think that there's specific teams that you can target that are not doing it Because they blanket, like most books. To my knowledge, from what I've seen, they value every half win the same, like a 7.5 to 8 move or an 8 to 8.5 move the same. But it changes by team and it changes by schedule, and that's what I think the mistake that they're making right now is. 

57:56 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Our next topic is a little bit of betrayal because, joey Kanish, you had the mega viral tweet with 4.8 million views last week or two weeks ago saying Sophie Cunningham being hot but then also crazy. It always raises scrap, makes her infinitely hotter. We talked about it on one of our previous shows. But she came at your city. Uh, she said, according to yahoo sports. Uh, on the wnba expanding to multiple new cities over the next few years. I don't know how excited people are to be going to detroit or cleveland, our detroit resident. Kanish, how do you feel about the betrayal from your girl. 

58:29 - Joey Knish (Host)
You know women, women are the damn rake in life. I'll tell you that. Yeah, you know what Heartbroken uh doesn't even begin to describe it. Yeah, you know what. This is why, uh, you know male loneliness epidemic uh is is going because of things like this. I tell you what yeah, you put all your eggs in a basket for a girl and she not even. A week later, you know, uh puts the knife right in you. So, yeah, that was a tough one to see. You know, if she comes to Detroit and you know maybe we get a meal or something, then maybe she can win me back. 

59:03 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Well, you're moving to Canada anyways. 

59:07 - Joey Knish (Host)
Maybe she'll like Toronto a little bit more than Detroit. Yeah, maybe she can play for the Toronto expansion team, sophie Cunningham is from Columbia, missouri. 

59:13 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
So I mean, if we're going to be talking bad about Detroit, like you're from Columbia Missouri, she plays for the Indiana Fever. 

59:20 - Joey Knish (Host)
She acts like she's fucking in LA, in Miami. 

59:24 - Flup (Host)
I just want to point out, Mike, was that a Coastal Elite comment? I saw right there. 

59:30 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
No, I'm from an area pretty close to Cleveland, so you know it's good Midwestern values here. I will say Indianapolis is probably remarkably much nicer than those cities. But it also is bold of Sophie to be talking about those cities In an expansion draft. She's not going to be protected. The girl runs out there, does cardio, basically for 14 minutes is Tony Snell of the WNBA. So I would say that you know she might be playing for one of these cities here if she's not careful. 

01:00:00 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Not if the Toronto Tempo snap her up before the 2026 season and then Kanisha's moving to Toronto for sure. The next one comes from Las Vegas, locally. Who says a blackjack player betting $ 25,000 per hand at Resorts World was refused a comped strawberry banana smoothie because he didn't have a hotel room there? Bean counters, goofy algorithm and incompetent casino executives are destroying Las Vegas. Mike, you said you're in Vegas right now. Have you seen a decline in the Las Vegas scene in the last few years? 

01:00:34 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
So I've only been out here for, you know, just over two years, so I don't know what it was like in the good old days of maybe they were comping everything, but obviously this is just basically a mess up by whoever's running it. I think that at some point this is kind of like you know the scene in the office where he drives into the lake because the GPS told him to. Yeah, you're not supposed to comp the guy a smoothie if he doesn't have a room, but if he's spending $25,000, I don't care what the algorithm says. How about his worker at the casino just having common sense and saying this guy's spending a ton of money, so I'll just go ahead and give him whatever the hell he wants. 

01:01:13 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Kanish you're more experience of the casinos. What are your thoughts? 

01:01:16 - Joey Knish (Host)
no just listen, it is old vegas dead, dead, dead. This is just, yeah, especially new, like some of these new uh resorts, worlds and I forget the name of the other one escape but it's like the new casinos are being run like you know, like a corporate mandate, uh, instead of you know a place where people want to go for like leisure and enjoyment, and yet, like, if the guy's not staying, even if this wasn't the guy, even if you're sitting next to the guy, you're with him and he's playing 25k a hand, the smoothie costs like 75 cents wholesale. So like, just get the guy the fucking smoothie. 

01:01:56 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
Smoothie while playing blackjack is a wild move. I will say that's a weird drink to order. 

01:02:02 - Joey Knish (Host)
Maybe they didn't have it. Like what the fuck? We don't have it, we don't even offer them. 

01:02:06 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
It's not offered on the menu. They're like why don't you order a rummy Coke like a normal guy? 

01:02:10 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
He's betting 25k a hand. Send somebody to the store to buy one. You want to say something Fluff, go ahead. I can't believe this is real. 

01:02:19 - Flup (Host)
Like, how do you deny the guy Like he might be losing like a couple hundred bucks in EV per hand? It's more than he costs like 1% of that. 

01:02:28 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
What are we doing? Yeah, strange one. Next one comes from Mr leaked at mr leaked underscore. So this is a user who either buys plays themselves or has access to plays that are behind a paywall and leaks them onto twitter for people to see. Uh, he says, or they say sorry, that winnable has now threatened me with legal action. It's a shame these companies take time out of their day to threaten people instead of making sure that touts they platform are actual winning bettors. And he posed a screenshot of the screenshot from winnable, a pick selling platform, which says uh, which is a cease and desist demand within 24 hours, you must permanently delete every winnable post from your account and other channels you control. Stop any future uploads or distribution of winnable materials. And this is in response to a CBLES leak on the page. So all ties in nicely there on that one. But how do we feel about accounts like this existing Mike? Because on one hand it's kind of funny, but on the other hand, winnable has a point here to me. 

01:03:27 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
Well, so I mean newsbreakers break things in other industries all the time and essentially what it's ruled is that the other companies can use it as fair use. In those regards, I don't think that anybody's picks would necessarily be anything beyond that. I think that they'd probably have a hard time legally enforcing it. But I do understand from their point of view. If you're going to have this business where you have picks, if somebody's giving them out for free, you can't have it. So I understand them coming back legally at him, but I doubt that they have much of a case is there anything they can do here? 

01:04:01 - Joey Knish (Host)
knish I gotta tell you, as much as I want to comment on the topic, this looks awfully familiar to something that, uh, maybe the company that we work for received not too long ago. I just find it interesting that it was a Seabless thing that got sent to him. So it might be a, could be a group of certain parties out there that are you know, if you put their stuff out, they're going to send you these actual cease and desist. So, but no, I don't have a, I don't know. I like the account because I think it's funny when people are exposing it. But, yeah, very interesting that it was a C-Plus member sending this out. More to come on that, potentially. 

01:04:56 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
What do you think, Flip? Is there any grounds here that Winnable can stand on? Can they get this user to read the post? 

01:05:03 - Flup (Host)
Unlikely, in my opinion. I think that he's good, but I'm not a lawyer, so I don't think mine is. 

01:05:10 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
Like I said, they're within their rights to try and get them to stop, but there's nothing they can really do about it. I guess in the, in the world of fair use, like what could when, what could, uh, mr leaked actually do here, they would have to like basically take the picks and give them out as their own. I think, I mean, there's other people who do that behind a paywall. So I guess if you do it for free, it can't be as bad as doing it like that. Next one, and this is the final one that we have here, we have VanZack App covers. Vanzack says the don't leak your edge. People are akin to don't give up the location of your pet unicorn people. What do you think on this one Flop? 

01:05:52 - Flup (Host)
That was hilarious. Hilarious and so true Because, like Joey was alluded to earlier, if you tell someone something it's going to get around. I mean like, yes, if someone were to tell me an edge that I was rooting for, I wouldn't tell anyone. But every time you add someone that you want to scale, you have that risk and it's going to get out. No edge is ever safe and part of being a gambler is adapting. Should you do it? No, you shouldn't leak your edge, but, come on, it's going to get out and also people find the same edges. 

01:06:27
It's not like I'm the only one that can find one specific SGP edge, so it's going to get out. Whether it's someone leaking it or someone figuring out themselves, it'll get out. And to think that you have like rights forever and can hide it, it's just a lot more ridiculous. 

01:06:43 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
All right, we'll let you go. Fluff's got to catch his flight to new Brunswick to escape the big beautiful bill. We'll finish up with with us three here, up with with us three here, uh, knish. Um, you were mentioning it earlier, but how often has this happened to you, where you lose an ed because it? 

01:06:57 - Joey Knish (Host)
keeps going around like this. Oh yeah, well, it's one of those. The life cycle goes a lot faster nowadays, I will tell you, than it did years ago, because if something gets out there, then it spins and it's crazy. So, yeah, it's frustrating, it's annoying, but it kind of, as fluff said, uh, part part of the business, and the more people that you know join the circle, the faster it goes. 

01:07:19 - Mr Peanut Bettor (Host)
It also depends how long you think you can keep the edge. There's certain things that I won't send out to groups because I think, oh, okay, like this will last for a little bit longer if I don't, but then you can't get down as much on it as far as volume. So a lot of things aren't that complicated. Once you see it come through, any moving group that is not an idiot is going to be like oh, he's clearly doing this angle pretty consistently and you're going to leak it eventually. So yeah, you're going to leak it eventually. You do all you can to prevent it. But if you want to bet it at scale, you're realistically. Unless you've got a great operations at scale, you're realistically. Unless you got a great, you know, operations side, you're probably going to have to send it out and then as soon as you send it out, you're messed with. 

01:07:57 - Jacob Gramegna (Host)
So well, you're going to want to keep your edges to yourself, but you can share the wealth with these circles off channel. Like I said earlier, tell a friend, share the video, share the podcast, send it to the group chat, get the word out about the channel and get the word out about Circle Back. We do shows like this every 8 am Every Tuesday and Friday, excuse me, at 8 am. Drop a like if you did enjoy this one, subscribe for more content, just like it, and we're working very hard behind the scenes at the Hammer to bring you more, better content. We hope to see you soon for the next one.