[00:00] I tell you what, I just at this point amlogging in and if the login works and Ican trade on it, then I use it. If itdoesn't, uh, the day that comes that itdoesn't, I will, you know, give it upthen.

[00:10] >> He was like trying to to get attention,I suppose, and think got dunked on by alot of people.>> I think this is setting a dangerousprecedent for the future of predictionmarkets.

[00:22] >> Disclaimer, the content presented inthis show is intended for entertainmentpurposes only. All opinions expressedare those of the hosts and do notnecessarily reflect the views oropinions of any individuals ororganizations mentioned. Statements made

[00:34] about public figures or entities arebased on publicly available informationand are not intended to harm or defameany person or business. This show relieson fair use of social media posts whichare presented in good faith for the

[00:46] purpose of commentary and criticism.Viewers and listeners are advised toform their own opinions.Remember

[00:59] us? The Circleback Friday crew is backfor another episode here today. We'retalking about quite a few things,including whether pitcher verse battermatchups actually matter when you're

[01:10] betting, if predatory cash outs are anactual problem in the industry. Andwe're going to lead off with the NFLsending a warning message essentially tovarious prediction markets. All that andmore on this edition of Circle Back here

[01:22] on the circles off channel which is partof the Hammer Betting Network. I'm yourhost here on Circleback. My name isJacob Gmena. I'm a creator and producerhere at the Hammer Betting Network. Inthe bottom left corner, we have Mike Pro

[01:33] Sports Better Peanut better on Twitter.At the bottom right, we have Joey Kesh,host on our Hit the Books channel, ourcollege football content division hereat the Hammer. And in the top right

[01:43] corner, we have Storm at Storm Pig onTwitter. Storm, thank you for joining usas the fourth today. We appreciate it.We're going to jump into the topicstoday. Starting off with the NFL sending

[01:55] a message to prediction markets. So, welook at this tweet here from David PaynePurton who said, "The NFL sent lettersto prediction market operators on Sundayasking them to refrain from offering

[02:06] trades on events that can be easilymanipulated or determined in advance,including what announcers say duringbroadcast, which celebrities attendgames, and upcoming draft." We had Domer

[02:17] at DOMA with four H's say this is areasonable request from the NFL and he'sglad that they are being proactive aboutit because essentially so much money isat stake here. These markets can be

[02:29] easily manipulated. So let's turn itover to the panel to discuss this one.We'll start off with our fourth todaywhich is Storm.>> Can the NFL police this? Like how do youthink prediction markets are going to

[02:40] react to a message like this? I don'tthink anybody can please it, but I thinkit's pretty common sense to say that ifyou offer a market where there's noincentive against somebody determining

[02:52] an outcome, what's the point of offeringthat? It's one side's always going towin. One side's going to scoop up allthe money. It's basically the most toxicflow you can imagine for theseexchanges. And that's that's their

[03:06] favorite thing. They love to talk abouttoxic flow. You hear people talk aboutcourtsiding. is infinitely worse becauseyou know courts siting you can stilllose in something like this where it's

[03:16] an information market and again somesome there's no incentive for somebodylike an athlete right your incentiveagainst rigging a game is you're goingto lose your job in these mention

[03:28] markets or you know somebody to show upat a game there's no incentive againstpeople sharing what their plans are forthis so absolutely needs to be banned I

[03:39] just don't know if you know the NFLleaning on the CFTC I guess well it'sthe operators I guess not the CFTC Idon't I don't really know how that works

[03:52] like is it better to go to the CFTC oris it better to go to the operators andsay hey don't offer this and then you'rekind of counting on all of them to cometogether and be like hey we're not goingto do this where if one person's like

[04:05] screw it we're going to be the one thatoffers mentions and nobody else doesthey're going to scoop up the liquidityin the customers. So, I I would thinkthe CFTC is probably a better route thanthe the operators, but who knows?

[04:17] >> Yeah, you do bring up a good point therewhere it's like if if one of themcomplies, then the others will just takethat liquidity instead and probably doso happily. So, it's kind of all areoffering it or all are not offering it.Let's go over to Mike. What's your

[04:30] thoughts on this topic?>> Talking about the NFL a few years agoand comments have quite frankly agedhorribly. Mark Cuban said, you know, uh,pigs get fed, hogs get slaughtered. Ifyou're these prediction markets, that's

[04:42] kind of the attitude I would have goingin, uh, when the NFL is asking me tostop doing something. You can make yourmoney on the money line, you can makemoney on futures, you can make money onall these things, whatever small dollaramount you're getting in these

[04:54] manipulated markets that can lookterrible to people who think it'sinsider trading or can look in uh, youknow, really just don't like it. I thinkthat it's just not worth the risk. If

[05:04] you're someone who sees a mentionsmarket get manipulated, we know thatthat's wildly different than a gamebeing manipulated. But if you're just aconsumer, you know, seeing it like

[05:16] casually, you're going to think, okay,well, if they're manipulating this, whatelse can't they manipulate? It just, youknow, it provides a league uh an area oflike distrust that you don't want todeal with. So, I understand the NFL islike, hey, let's just get the small

[05:29] stuff out of there. That's smallpotatoes. Don't worry about it anyways.Uh what Storm mentioned with thecollective active problem or collectiveagent problem is really the issue is ifyou're couchy, yeah, sure, we won'toffer it. If you're polymarket even,

[05:41] yeah, we won't offer it. But if you'rethe fourth or fifth dog, I would say,you know, come make me take it off. If Iwere one of them, that would be what Iwould be trying to do to get people ontomy site. So that's where you kind of run

[05:53] into the problem. But for the NFL sake,I think it's totally reasonable to tryto weed this out and just nip what's,you know, just small potatoes anyways inthe bud.And from from an NFL perspective,because of the way these can be

[06:05] manipulated, it's just it's just bad PRfor the NFL to have any affiliation,even if it is indirect affiliation, theydon't really have any say in, they justdon't want to be involved in some ofthat. So So I completely understand from

[06:17] the NFL's perspective that they'rewanting to go after this. I I just Ijust don't really knowwhat they can do about it. Uh Kenesh,let's get your perspective on things.>> Yeah, you know what? Just interested in

[06:30] hearing these guys talk. This is verysimilar to like the the casinos on thestrip. You not you can't be the firstone that bans smoking or you can't bethe one that stops offering free drinks

[06:41] to slot players. It's like either all ofus have to do it or we come to someagreement or nothing because if I'm at,you know, Caesars and MGM over there,stop serving drink, what am I going to

[06:53] do? I'm gonna and you you've seen iteven on some of these small markets whenone of them you know one of them ifKelchi has something or Py has somethingthat the other one doesn't it not even

[07:04] being tweeted from like their accountper se but people pick up on it likesomeone like you know one of the youknow I mean you've got you know 800people out there with badges for theseplaces one of them will then grab it

[07:16] post it and it'll get traction thatXbook has it x prediction mark has itand the other one doesn't So this is avery I I get as you're saying I don't

[07:27] know how enforcable it is. I agree thatit's bad for the the optics of theleagues when especially when the wholeyou know it's rigged # it'srigged crowdhas never been louder than you know inany time in history. I'm just not

[07:40] totally sure when there's a competitiveadvantage to offering it what really canbe done. Um, and it's probably one ofthose things, especially when the, youknow, the inner circle of, you know,

[07:50] Wahberg or like if you know, if I'm uh,you know, if Joey Kay is going to be atthe Super Bowl and I see it up on PolyMarket, [ __ ] yeah. I'm going to, yeah,I'm going to call up, you know, my you

[08:02] know, my sister, my best friend, mycousins and be like, "Hey, guess who'sgoing to be at the Super Bowl? Just loadup." So, if the market's going to bethere, these are like the most rife forinsider trading ever. And I I I just

[08:15] again it's one of those like I'm notsure what the I'd love to come on hereand have like the solution. I don'treally know what can be done to stopthis.>> Yeah. And and think we're kind of allcoming to like similar conclusions. It'sjust not much that can there's not much

[08:29] that can really be done in thissituation. So I wonder how predictionmarkets are going to react. Do you guysexpect any of these prediction marketsto remove these markets or do you thinkit'll just stay as is?>> No shot.>> I don't think so.>> You don't think so? I I think that

[08:42] Kelsey is going to remove it. I wouldguess that's I mean maybe not all ofthem but I think that they will workwith the NFL to try to I mean they'retrying to already like with all the adsbeing like hey we're the regulated onewe're the one that plays by the rules we

[08:54] do all the things rightly I would guessthat they take it off and it's kind oflike a prisoner's dilemma situationwhere if everybody took it off it wouldprobably be fine like these are yeah>> these just don't matter that much except

[09:06] for a customer acquisition tool>> but the problem is is you know if you'refourth in line if you're fifth in linewhy do you you're not going to worryabout if it's in Kawi's best interest totake it off the board. So, I would guessthat Koshi, maybe not. Pi's kind of, you

[09:18] know, more of a go by anything, maybethey'll have it in their internationalonly or whatever. Um, but yeah, I thinkthat Koshi, I would guess tries to playball. Do you disagree,>> Storm? Yeah, I I would say I don't know,

[09:31] maybe it's just my algorithm, but themajority of the K stuff that pops up onmy timeline is mentions traders. Like,look at my profit. that I made this muchon this event. I I see more of those

[09:43] tweets about prediction markets thansports for sure. So that that obviouslyseems at least to me like some sort ofcoordinated effort. Um last week Koshidid their meetup thing here in New York

[09:55] and like that a bunch of their officialbadged accounts were promoting like ameetup and I think like four of the fivemakers were like um mentions market guys

[10:04] that they were advertising. So I itwould be surprising to see them justcompletely nix it after kind of making apush in that direction.>> To your point too, it's kind of it goes

[10:16] against the you know ethos of predictionmarkets are you can bet on or you cantrade on anything. It's like anything'sfair game except for these markets thatactually the NFL doesn't want. It kindof goes against their ethos. So maybe

[10:28] they want it. Um, I just think that theNFL is a pretty powerful dog and if Iwas trying to I would do whatever, youknow, I would bow down to them in almostevery instance if I was anotherorganization.

[10:40] >> Even like future opportunities to workwith the NFL like, you know, maybe keepthat in mind as well. This is comp. I Iactually just I I I I can't reallyformulate an opinion. I don't know whatthey're going to do. I see I see pros to

[10:52] both sides of keeping it up and and not.So, we'll just to follow and see whathappens. more on prediction markets inthe similar in a similar topic here

[11:01] because this happened yesterday morning.Uh actually the US is suing Illinois tostop its regulation of predictionmarkets. Alonso Strafen said that the

[11:13] lawsuit, this is a quote, the lawsuit isthe first by the CFTC to block stategaming regulators from policingoperators of prediction markets. Check

[11:23] your bingo cards uh because strange onehere. So Illinois was moving to banprediction markets but essentially theTrump administration decided that thisuh is a matter at the federal level and

[11:35] that Illinois cannot take these actions.It is it is it is the uh the nationwidegovernment that needs to do it and theydon't have any issues with predictionmarkets. So seems like a decently large

[11:47] topic here because it's it's setting a apretty significant precedent thatinstate they can't do anything aboutprediction markets right now. Let'sstart with you Storm. are reallyinterested in this topic. How do you

[11:58] feel about this news that's come out?>> I think it's pretty consistent with umwhat happened either last week or twoweeks ago where the CFTC chair came out

[12:08] and directly spoke against um whoever itwas in Nevada that basically um sent thecease and desist to Cali and I believethat they're technically not supposed to

[12:21] be operating there due to an injunctionor something similar right now. So, itit's been pretty apparent that this iswas how it was going to play out with

[12:31] Trump Jr. being on the board of both orboard or investor evolve, whatever youwant to call it, with both CouchI andPoly Market. Um, what's interesting to

[12:42] me is what direction does this head inin two years if the other party takesoffice and you there's a new CFDC chair

[12:52] or you know some there's some sort ofpolitical shift where it seems likeright now you know this is prettyaligned with incentives for people

[13:05] involved that are in charge right now.If that changes in the future, where dothings go?All right, let's go to Mike. What's yourtake on this?>> Every time I feel like I have some kindof understanding of the legal framework

[13:17] that each side is trying to make andmake an argument, something comes out,there's a new circuit, there's a newjudge, there's a new court, I I tell youwhat, I just at this point am logging inand if the login works and I can trade

[13:29] on it, then I use it. If it doesn't, uhthe day that comes that it doesn't, Iwill, you know, give it up then. Butright now, I just feel like the day byday of this is like a, you know, it'slike a patient's heart monitor going upand down and up and down and the

[13:42] likelihood of a success, but at the endof the day, it like ends up on a randomwalk where it's, you know, nothing haschanged. So, I could be totally wronghere, look like a complete idiot in thefuture, but it just feels like whateverhappens in one court, it gets, you know,

[13:54] put into a different court and thenthere's a different legal avenue and itjust doesn't seem like this thing isanywhere near ending. Uh, so you knowI'm smarter than men than me will betrying to figure this out.

[14:06] >> Uh, and Kenishh your thoughts.>> Trigger warning about to go full JoeyLib. So if if that's if that's going tooffend you, you skip forward about 90seconds. So I mean I think this is

[14:17] setting a dangerous precedent for thefuture of prediction markets because thecurrent administration has a verysignificant financial incentive on

[14:27] prediction markets doing well. It's oneof the few things economically that'sactually booming in the in the current,you know, American economy right now isthese prediction markets. And they've

[14:38] got an internal stake in it. And they'veinstal installed a CFTC chair that'sbasically a yes man that's going to dowhatever they can to promote and getlegalized, you know, prediction markets

[14:48] everywhere. However, if you fast forward2 years and the administration flips to

[14:56] a different party that I think is likelygoing to run on some form of platformaroundregulating betting in general as kind of

[15:08] a danger to society. When you've now setthe precedent that the at the federallevel, we determine it all, you're going

[15:16] to be in a world of hurt come 2028 orlater, if it flips and that said partywants to then come down regulated. And

[15:26] and unlike where you know, you've hadstates choosing their own regulationsfor domestic sports books, whether itbe, you know, FanDuel, DraftKings,doesn't you know, Matt, where it'sbasically been up to the state. Now,

[15:38] when you take it to this like thefederal power lever, all it takes is anew party and a new CFTC chair that isquote anti-prediction market

[15:49] and things change in a hurry, like in abig hurry in terms of what's offered,what's legal, what's allowed. So, rightnow, I think it's kind of the heyday andeveryone's trying to boost these up andthen maybe, I don't know, maybe it gets

[16:01] too big to fail at some point. But whenyou make it a solely federal decision onthis going forward, it you get people inthere that all of a sudden are not, you

[16:12] know, not as bullish on predictionmarkets as they are currently and thingscould flip in a hurry. So I think thissets a dangerous precedent for thefuture going forward.

[16:22] >> I I want to push back just on the factthat I don't know if this matters topeople enough that there's going to bethis backlash back from like the otherparty getting it. I don't think thatit's like I know AOC tweeted the one

[16:34] thing about it, but I don't think it'slike a top Democratic issue to be likeor Democrat issue to be like, "Hey, weneed to rein in on prediction markets."Maybe as time goes on it will be, but tome, you know, it's at least gray enough

[16:46] and it's probably a battle that a bunchof people in states uh you know, peoplewho like this are going to want thismore than the people who dislike it.Like that's not going to be the issuethat decides their vote or anything likethat. I would say that everybody thought

[16:59] like, oh, this gambling issue and whenyou like look at the bigger picture,nobody gives a [ __ ] about the gamblingbill. Like, it doesn't matter. I wouldsay that we're probably overflating howmuch prediction markets and stuff likethat have any impact in the race. I

[17:11] don't think that people uh outside ofour bubble care that much. Like I'm notsaying that there's no interest outsideof it, but I just don't think that it'sgoing to be an issue that you know ifyou know Democrat candidate is like if

[17:25] somebody's like, "Hey, we're going tolobby hard against you if you comeagainst this." I don't know if they'regoing to be like, "Hey, you know, I needto make my moral stand here.">> Okay. Uh Storm, anything to add beforewe move on?>> Nope.

[17:36] >> Would love to hear opinions from youwatching and listening. And you have anytake on this discussion? Let us know inthe comment section down below. Whileyou're there, as a reminder, if you'reenjoying the show so far, make sureyou've hit the like button and consider

[17:49] subscribing to the channel. We just hit22,000 subscribers. I want to keeppushing this thing forward. The largerthe channel grows, the more content wecan, the better content we can provideto you more often. But sticking on a

[18:01] little bit with prediction markets forthis next topic here, because the idea,at least according to EBK, is thatyou're supposed to be getting less juice

[18:11] than a sports book. They they write, "Ifyou're on KI/Poly market and thinkyou're betting against each other, howcome they have a house edge greater thana traditional sports book? For example,

[18:23] we have the Texas Rangers at -32. So theOrioles should be plus 132 over tradingamongst each other. No, it's plus 105.

[18:33] Um I actually just going to verify ifthis came out on April 1st just to likemaybe it's a higher chance. It came outMarch 31st. pretty low chance this is a

[18:42] joke but uh let's go to Mike. Can youexplain the flaw in the logic here?I I will give the poster I we have made

[18:52] it so hard to tell what the vig and whatthe juice is in every market now that Idon't blame a common person for likebeing like what's going on here am I atthis market I'm buying and like the fees

[19:05] are this and when I'm selling at adifferent point like you know takerversus maker fees that's not somethingthat comes intuitive to people you seethe price that you're paying and thenactually you think you're getting it at30% but it's actually 32% when you do

[19:17] maker fees but if you actually make amake fee and let someone else take youget 31. I think it's very confusing forthe regular person. And I like if you'regoing to log in and bet and you your

[19:28] plan is, hey, let me just log in, bethere, not worry about like making priceor anything like that, I do think thatpeople are underrating the amount offees that these people are taking. Yes,they're taking the high take fees, butif you're a casual user, that's just

[19:40] what you're going to do.>> All right, and let's ask Storm, give usyour take on this this tweet.I wish that we blocked out the username.

[19:52] I I wish I had actually looked at thisguy's timeline before we added thissegment because this guy is very clearlya scammer. He has Inspect Elementtickets all over his page. He's

[20:04] promoting pics while at the same timetrying to steer people to his PPH bookor offshore book or gambling site orwhatever it is. Um, do not he also has

[20:14] in his bio that he's selling pics. So,it's just one of those run-of-the-milllike rage bait guys that is trying todrive traffic to his page to either getpeople to buy his losing picks or play

[20:26] their own losing picks into, you know,what his sports book. I presume thatit's just like total garbage account.Like the lowest of the low that you seeon Twitter is like what's the logic? Oh,you have a sports book, but you want to

[20:38] give people winning picks to play intoyou at the same time. Makes no sense.This guy is trash. Um, just uh don'tdon't maybe uh if we can edit out hisname in the the post editing. Let's do

[20:50] that.>> Okay, I'll get on that for sure with thepost editing. But uh I don't think we'veI want to acknowledge like before we go

[21:00] to Kesh the the tweet itself. Um, ifyou're betting Texas at minus 132 onPoly Market or Koshi, guess what odds

[21:12] the person who listed the bet isgetting? They are getting the plus 132.There needs to be somebody willing totake the other side in order for you toget this this no vig system that's beingprovided here,

[21:24] >> but they're not getting plus 132.They're getting, you know, two centsdifferent. So like yes>> like I I understand that like yessomebody else is getting and it's notlike the hold>> with the market having someone else like

[21:36] and I'm just when there's taker feesthat are like 2%. I think it's veryconfusing to someone to not be able likebecause it's not priced in when you lookat it like it's not added until later.So, it's very confusing for someone. Iguess he's looking at American odds

[21:48] anyway, so maybe it doesn't matter tohim. But I just I do think that likeit's confusing for people who expect tolog in and see the price and then all ofa sudden there's like more it's like itseems like now people are trying to hide

[22:01] fees in VIG in ways that they didn'tused to before. Uh you see this withlike the number one dumb thing books dodo is when they list your payout is likewith the bet amount. It's like, oh, youjust want it to look larger for the like

[22:13] dumbass customer who's like reading itand they see the payout amount. I thinkthat like it's just it's reallyobuscating people's uh how like theydon't know what the big is on eachmarket now and I think it's really

[22:24] confusing to the casual user.>> Okay, fair fair enough there. However,um still I think a failure to referencethe the the peer-to-peer model here

[22:36] regardless. Uh Joey Kesh, over to youfor to end off this topic. Yeah. Andjust to kind of piggyback on what Paveis saying there is like I I think earlymaybe not everybody but like the whole

[22:47] the the sales pitch on some of theexchange modeling was like oh no likeit's basically going to be like no one'sgoing to have to pay any big. It'sbasically going to be like everybodycrossing with each other. But then it's

[23:00] like well nobody actually makes anymoney in that instance. So you I noticedthe shift at least in like a lot of themarketing is now very much like

[23:13] predictionorientatedall the different markets it's not youdon't see like Kelsey for instance orpoly market really pushing the the no

[23:23] vig or like the less vague limit rightof of like that doesn't seem to be thethe route like most of these places areare making because as PB saying alludingto like once you mix in some of the fees

[23:36] in there and depending if you're takingor making like it might it might notwork out you know to you to be gettinglike this like whereas you know if I'mpaying minus 110 at DraftKings or

[23:47] FanDuel there might be some instanceswhere I'm not getting a better pricewhen in essence like I guess a lot ofthe the when this first was coming outit's like oh you know you'll be able toget and maybe you know close to games at

[24:00] post you'll be able to get you know ascent or two off of the what would bekind of the the no big or the true priceline. But in a lot of instances, you'reYeah, I I I kind of what you're seeing

[24:12] out there is yeah, you're getting prettystandard vig baked in now when you'reincluding the fees.>> Okay. So, more nuanced takes on thistopic that I thought we'd get, but

[24:23] provided some interesting conversationfor sure. Uh, we're going to get intothe next topic in just a moment here,but before we do, something big comingto the Hammer next week that you guysneed to hear about. Everyone knows that

[24:35] when The Hammer puts on an extravaganza,it is a mustwatch. And this year, we'rebringing you a Masters Extravaganzahosted by the one and only JeffFineberg. Join us Tuesday, April 7th at

[24:47] 1 p.m. Eastern time on the Hammer HQYouTube channel for three full hours oflive coverage. We've got back-to- backguests dropping their best bets andanalysis ahead of the biggest tournament

[24:59] of the year. Guests include the likes ofGolden Pants, Rufus Peabody, and manymore. Make sure you turn onnotifications there so you don't missout on a single bet. Once again, that'sthe Masters Extravaganza hosted by Jeff

[25:10] Fineberg. Tuesday, April 7th at 1 p.m.Eastern time on the Hammer HQ YouTubechannel, which is linked in thedescription. We'll see you there. Forthis topic, we're going to be discussingonce again cash outs. And it was a

[25:22] conversation that started by at PotatoCommission on Twitter who said thereshould be a stricter regulatory lawsagainst the predatory practice of cashout offer amounts by retail sports books

[25:33] being well beneath market values. Andthey have an NCAA championship future uhof plus 6,000 on Illinois $2500 to win

[25:42] $152,500.cash out at the time was $21,167.Wagerwire replied and said, "Based on

[25:52] current odds and implied value, we valuethis ticket at 26,522."So, bit of a difference, I'd say, likefrom a cash perspective, like not a big

[26:03] enough difference for me to make a fussabout it on Twitter, but we'll hear whatother people have to say. Rishi Betsresponded and said, "This just in.Sports books don't offer fair value on

[26:15] bets. And as Jeff Benson of Circa notes,the comments here are a wild place. So,it really is a wild place when it comesto cash out discussions. And we'vetalked about it before, but I don'tthink we've ever really discussed it at

[26:27] at to this level where we're sayinglike, is this a problem? Is this apredatory practice that there needs tobe regulations to try and stop? Uh,let's go to Kesh first on this one. Whatdo you think? I mean, even though the

[26:39] guy's, you know, doing a play off of theKesh here, I got to be I I got to comedown on like the I I don't know what youwould actually be trying to regulatehere. It seems kind of ridiculous like

[26:51] like are you saying that sports booksshould have to offer X percentage of acash out bet when like what to me thatdoesn't make any logical sense that we'd

[27:03] be regulating and there's so manydifferent applications of it to me we'vesaid it on this show and since probablysince this channel started that the cash

[27:14] out is usually a bad idea. There'sthere's certain instances over thecourse of history where it can beutilized, but I'd say in upwards of 90plus 95 98 99% of instances, the cash

[27:26] out is never going to be the the plusEV, the route to take. Even just generalhedging itself will likely give you abetter expected value than hitting the

[27:36] cash out button. So, there's a reasonwhy sports books offer this offer thecash out button here. It's becauseusually, you know, someone might getimpulsive or someone might want themoney at that point or someone might

[27:48] just not understand the EV logic. So, Idon't thinkthere's a real like case for aregulatory framework around this. Itjust seems very like standard of of

[28:00] course they're not going to give youfair value on your bet. Why? Otherwise,they wouldn't want you to [ __ ] cashit out. So, I I don't know. This doesn'tseem like anywhere near egregious enough

[28:10] for me to even like make an issue of ifit was I don't know if this if the cashout value was like 600 bucks. You knowwhat I'm saying? It was going to belike, okay, he takes a loss, then okay,

[28:22] maybe. But I I I don't I just don't seethe the real fury here around this one.>> Yeah. I I I'd like to know what would be

[28:31] a nonpredatory cash out offer. Would itbe the expected value essentially orwould it be something closer to that?And then how is that possibly going to

[28:42] be put into regulation because factorsat play here? Sometimesuh there there's a sports book that'soverexposed on a certain side and hencethey offer more favorable cash outs to

[28:53] one side of a bet than the other. I'vehad a I've had a cash out offer beforethat was plus EV on a long shot futurebecause probably I would assume thesports book is overexposed in that side

[29:04] and wanted to remove a little bit ofthat exposure. Let's get your thoughtsMike on this one. You're kind of noddingalong there. Do you agree with Kenishh?>> Well, what you guys don't see, and I'llteach you this as a professional better

[29:16] is when they offer that cash out to you,you don't have to click yes. youactually can just let the bet settle andthen it will you'll figure out at theend whether it was worth it. I this to

[29:26] me is very similar to the debates whereyou have like when there's a high holdmarket and sometimes yeah a high holdlike if it's gets ridiculous you can belike what's the book doing here? Butwhen they put up high hold markets in

[29:39] very uncertain situations when you'retalking live at the end of a game um youknow very weird markets and stuff likethat people get all mad about theseholds that like I they don't have tooffer anything. The fact that they're

[29:50] offering a high hold market uh andletting people bet is like moreopportunity for you to go. So anytimesomebody offers a cash out that's moresurface area for someone to attack.Could it get to the point like you know

[30:02] with slot machines there is a certainwin percentage that you have to have uhfor someone where like it does getpredatory like you know like Joey saidif it's $600 or if you're like hey maybewe can just have somebody accidentallyclick the cash out button or something.

[30:14] Sure I guess technically you could saythat like there are situations where itcould get predatory. This is all beforewe get into the fact could you imagine aregulator trying to do something withthis? It would be the dumbest thing like

[30:27] there's no way they could handle it. Wecan't get them to do reasonable tax law.We want them to go into a, you know, abets uh betting software and try tovalue cash outs. Like I don't there's noway we should regulate this. If we did

[30:39] regulate it, there would be zero cashouts offered anywhere. We should just behappy we have the extra uh you knowattack area to go at. So no, I don'tthink that uh books should be able to Idon't think that books should be

[30:51] regulated in any way of offering a cashout that is, you know, not clearlyclearly a pal line the opposite way.>> And finally to Storm, are you inagreement with what's been said so far?Are you something else?

[31:03] >> Yeah, I agree with everything here. I Ican't verify. I didn't check at thetime, but I think one of the replies tothe tweet was that based on couchi oddsat the time that that was tweeted, it

[31:14] wasn't even that bad of an offer. Ithink um the wager wire number was alittle higher than couchi. And the funpart about prediction markets now isthis is less of a conversation than it

[31:26] was two years ago. You can go and kindof make it easier for yourself toquote unquote cash out if you want. youknow, you can offer contracts on the no

[31:38] if you have a future now. Um, somethingthat I didn't really see discussed heretoo much. So, I I think this uh

[31:48] backfired on Mr. Fake Kenish a littlebit. I I think this falls into the umticket capper. I want to flex on mytimeline. This is how I did in the last

[32:00] month or look at this awesome ticketthat I had. um you know he he was liketrying to to get attention I suppose and

[32:10] I think got dunked on by a lot of peopleand uh like when when you post like thisit's just like okay show all the otherteams you had futures on you know I'msure that wasn't the only one that you

[32:21] had. Um, so I don't know. I I guessprobably because yesterday was April 1stand it's fresh in my mind that I sawlike a million tweets on my for you pageof pickets like look how I did the last

[32:33] month. I'm just like so over this likepeople flexing on the timeline. Um, andI I will just refer tomy avatar. Just bet. That's it. Justbet. You don't have to tell everybody on

[32:45] Twitter how you're doing.>> All right. it. People really underratethe adverse selection in these cash outsthat like these books, they have tooffer a line for you to take at any timeand you can always not take it and liketake them whenever they make the

[32:58] smallest mistake. So, yeah, they have toadd in big like it's not reasonable tohave a bunch of lines up and not addlike you know prices that you think arevery bad for people to take likeotherwise you'll just get picked off in

[33:08] the instances where you're wrong. Soyeah, I think that this is like, youknow, breaking. A company is offeringless than the value. That's why they'retrying to make money. Like that's howthings work.

[33:18] >> Yeah, absolutely. Uh into the next topichere. This is initially from Sam Mson.If you guys remember Sam Mson, this is aguy who voted Justin Herbert to be NFLMVP in the most recent season. That's

[33:30] how I'll forever remember. Uh he says,"Okay, let's do this." And he puts avideo up, the real story behind thedeath of PFF. And uh apparently PFF is

[33:41] undergoing big layoffs after a reported9 figure sale. So uh let's start withMike on this one. Curious you wereinterested in this topic. Uh anything

[33:52] you want to say here?>> I just for all the flack that PFF gets.I thought that they were a company thatwas trying to do something completelydifferent to people. Offer like a

[34:04] service that really isn't being offeredanywhere else. And you know, I don'tknow how they reach like crazyprofitability with the market or likewith the model that they created, but Ido think that it sucks that like it

[34:16] seems like these companies start offwith a small group of people. They likehave this mission. It's a bunch ofpeople who really love football who likeare trying to build up this company,they get too big and once they get bigenough that the like vultures come in

[34:29] that don't really care about the sport,they immediately flip the sale and thenlike it starts to corrode from theinside. I think we see this in like aton of businesses, but I just think itsucks. I I was I know PFF gets a lot oflike flak from everyone, but in general,

[34:41] I think it was more good than it is bad.Um, they are still doing some stuff. Uh,you know, they have UFFL grades out forthose who care. Uh, so it's basicallyjust me, but I I don't know. It's It's

[34:52] sad to see that they're kind of endingthe media department side of things.>> Yeah, we still like expansion isdifficult. you can kind of overestimatelike how things are going to scale.

[35:03] Maybe that's a certain that's how wekind of this kind of happened with PFFhere. Kenesh, anything from you on thisone?>> Yeah, this feels a little like 538ishwith uh you know with with Nate where

[35:16] you've got like kind of a niche thing.it starts to blow up and then you knoweventually some venture capital someentrepreneur you know some like acronyone of those comes in and buys it andthen it's like oh well we just spent

[35:29] hundred million on this thing now we gotto trim the fat uh and they they likestart immediately slashing and then itlike molds into something that it was

[35:40] like a lesser version of what it wasnever supposed to be and usually then itbecomes kind of defunct like PFF offeredyou know, even if like again as PB issaying sometimes their stuff was it was

[35:52] very subjective player grading, but itgave you it gave you a a quantifiablegrade that that nobody was doing where Imean it was a lot I mean that's a lot oflabor to go through a lot of games a lotof film giving you know individual

[36:04] player grades where they were definitelyrevolutionary when it first started andI know all the teams were then buyingthe data and stuff but probably as

[36:15] the ability for this to become much moreautomated. Um, where likeI I don't know if you have anythingproprietary, right? You just you hadpeople watching games and giving player

[36:26] grades and kind of had some, you know,formatting around that whereI'm not sure the future of PFF now iseven what it looks like. And so now

[36:37] you're going to cut all the people thathelped build it into their brand andwhat you're actually giving teams orpeople are buying for becomes lessproprietary.

[36:47] My guess is you know in five years Idon't even know if PFF exists anymore orwhat it's a it's a shell of you know itsformer self.>> In general these companies it feels likethey build up all this goodwill and then

[36:59] they sell the goodwill as they likestart to implode. So PFF builds up allthis goodwill. Everybody like it andthen it's like turn on the money spot,turn the thing to crap, cut corners,like I don't it's something not to get,you know, too overarching theme wise

[37:12] here, but it's kind of a common themewhere you just build up the goodwill andthen once it's time to monetize, thenyou start cutting corners.>> All right, interesting takes there.Would love to hear your thoughts in thecomments. Also, if you want to get more

[37:24] information out of the Hammer BettingNetwork, you can check out ournewsletter. Here's some more on that.Not sure if you've been living under arock or not, but we have a fantasticnewsletter here at the Hammer. It'sgreat during the football season, buteven though we're in the NFL off

[37:37] seasonason, we are still putting outnewsletters. Alex continues his hockeythoughts on Wednesdays, and Mondays willbe packed with plenty around the worldof the NFL from news to free agent

[37:47] rankings, draft stuff, and much more. Goto the hammer.bet or use the link in thedescription to subscribe today. Now,we're getting into some MLB discussion,some advanced MLB statistics. I think

[37:59] not super advanced, but some MLBstatistics. Derek Cardi, a bettinganalyst who covers the MLB and NFL,says, "All right, kids, buckle up.Here's why BVP, batter pitcher, is

[38:09] completely 100% meaningless. Even youthink a certain batter sees a certainpitcher well, or his swing plane matchesthe pitch plane well, or any otherplausible explanation for it, the fact

[38:20] is we're dealing with the sample sizestoo small, and that's not lip service.If a batter is 5 for 10 against apitcher for a legitimate reason, therewill be 10 others just like him that arefive for 10 by random chance. By trying

[38:32] to be right about the one guy, you windup being wrong about many others. Youwind up being less accurate and lessprofitable if you're trying to use thisfor betting. You simply can't separatethe legitimate guys from the random

[38:44] guys, which makes the entire exercise,yes, meaningless. Mike, you requested tolead off this topic. So you tell me isbatter versus pitcher is that statmeaningless?

[38:55] >> No. People are so uncurious nowadays.They want the analytics to give them ananswer rather than provide aninteresting question. This reminds me ofdo you remember in baseball everybody

[39:06] thought uh you know badip was completelyluck. There's no skill whatsoever. Youcan't make the ball go anywhere. Then wefigured out you know there's line drivesthat you can hit. There's differentways. There's different things. This is

[39:17] like one of those you have solved likeyes he's correct that the sample is toosmall for you to draw large conclusionsfrom one sample size but if the sample'stoo small that just means that means

[39:30] that there is some information therewe're just not able to extract it andkind of separate it out from the noise.So to me to be you know to just throwall the stats away and to not think how

[39:41] can I use this better? How can I find away to incorporate it uh you know how toaccount for the small sample size? Arethere subsets I can look at? I thinkthat this is like one of the my biggestgripes with analytics now is instead of

[39:54] asking more interesting questions, wejust want to find a way that we can comeup with the answer and not have to thinkabout it ever again.>> Okay, let's go to Storm on this one.What's your take?

[40:06] >> I feel like this is probably a responseto some of the umnonsense that you see every day aboutthese home run slips on Twitter when a

[40:18] lot of these people are just, you know,firing it in there and using a quick BBPas like the reason why they're makingtheir play. So I I in that sense if it

[40:30] is a direct response to to that sort ofnonsense I couldkind of get behind it even if the logicisn't 100% sound in the case of like hey

[40:42] maybe it would have been better off tosay hey you know using BVP isn't goingto win you money betting sports it's avery small piece of the puzzle as Mikesaid that would be a little better of a

[40:53] message than just trying to make a giantblanket statement here but I mean, Cardihas been like super annoying since hefirst bursts onto the scene, and he'slike kind of a grandstander, so that the

[41:05] tone of the tweet isn't that surprising.>> Uh, Kenishh, your thoughts, and thenI've got something to add here as well.I got nothing much on this other thanpiggybacking on Storm that I pretty sure

[41:15] this was the guy that like when therewas some games in Mexico and the totalscame out and they were way too low andlike people were going to try and smashhim like and then he was like ah the tothese totals like here's the humidity

[41:28] and why these totals should be up andlike ruined I remember having a couplepeople in my DMs like wanting this guyuh dead over that. So that's all I got.I I I just when I read something like

[41:39] this, I I I just wonder does does hetruly believe what he's saying or is itjust like you have to have this biglarge statement off the top to to get

[41:49] engagement on social media? Like it's100% meaningless. Like can you actuallybe uh a a betting analyst who isaccredited and and does like TV hits?

[42:02] Can you actually be a betting analystand think this? I I I try to believe notyou you can't like you can't trulybelieve it is completely meaningless butlike Storm said there's a lot morenuance to it. You could say like it's

[42:14] not it's not going to help you win butit's a you know it's a small piece. Youneed other things to win. You can't justlike blindly use this. But>> again I mean who knows with social mediawhere it where it's currently at.

[42:26] transitioning now into a conversationaround Bet Online. And I I kind of wantto see more things like this maybe propup in the industry because Stevie Bports

[42:36] Picks, a pick seller, who has a Twitteraccount, Stevie Bick, says, "Took sixfigure profits from Betonline. DaveMason of Betonline and they stoppedtaking my MLB action over the years."

[42:48] We'll be bringing back the the two gamewhatever parlays. Anyways, promotingsome stuff here. So Dave Mason of BetOnline, a very wellrespected sportsbook, says, "Please DM me your account

[42:58] number. Would love to check if we stoptaking your bets." Uh, Don at DonGambino TV says, "Because he is full of[ __ ] You know it. Since when does BetOnline refuse people's action?" That's

[43:10] typically what we expect. They do not.And Stevie says, "Been locked in my outof my account for 4 years." Cool. Justfound your account via your email. Youdefinitely aren't cut off here as you

[43:20] are down lifetime. I will send an emailto see what the issue is. And the onlyreason this was made public and hepublicly roasted him is that he tried totake the matter to the DMs as you dowhen you're representing a brand. He

[43:33] says, "Please DM me your account number.Would love to check me. Stop taking yourbets." And the reply from Stevie was hisemail, which he put out just to everyoneon Twitter. Um it says, "Been locked outof my account for four years. The code

[43:45] never reaches my valid email address."So after going through everything, DaveMason confirmed the real story. Theplayer had 11 accounts worn numeroustimes to stop multi-accounting. 10

[43:57] closed due to multi-accounting, notbecause of an alleged six figure scorelike he claims. One account is stillopen. He can still DM me like Ioriginally requested in order to keep

[44:08] this private. Kesh, we'll start with youon this. I personally like, you know,calling people out like this um whenthey they could have brought it to theDMs but didn't. But what what do youwhat do you think?

[44:20] >> I love Dave. Uh I'm going to take somecredit cuz this was kind of gettingburied a little bit and then I saw itand gave it uh some love and then I Isaw you know when I was checking the,

[44:30] you know, the the mentions there thatlike it finally got the attention itdeserved cuz it was a little bit buriedin the comments. But this is a properburial and you don't see it very often

[44:41] cuz a lot of books don't want to uh>> you know people are a little bit shyabout doing with stuff to players orplay stuff but this guy I mean and you

[44:51] look at it he was 100% then just bonusbagging right where like he's creating abunch of new accounts to try and getdeposit bond new bonus that um over andover and over again. So to see someone

[45:03] because most books won't do this to seesomeone finally called to the mat um andreally put down and then he kind of hegot under Dave's you don't see Dave gettriggered too often but like he wasgoing in this this like carried into the

[45:16] next day where he was still like quotetreating him and trying that Stevie wastrying to you know kind of like oh playnice and Dave was still burying him. umwould love more of these samples of um

[45:27] people who are you know obviously takingeither [ __ ] like this or doctorredscreenshots and the book actually comingand just you know hammering them down.>> Yeah, agreed there. Storm, over to you.

[45:38] Do you like this move by Bet Online?>> Yeah, need more of this. Won't get it,but definitely need more of it.>> Umthis guy's another one. This guy's atower. like you the first thing you see

[45:50] when you look at his page is stuff aboutselling picks and>> it's like you couldn't have even gonethrough the effort of making itbelievable to say like hey bet onlineisn't letting me bet as much as I want

[46:02] >> which you know maybe there's aconversation there they want sharpaction um you know they're they're amarket leading book they may not alwayslet you bet as much as you want butthey're never going to tell you that you

[46:14] can't bet>> unless you're scamming in some sort ofsense whether it's withyou know, yeah, bonus scamming, um, passposting,

[46:25] just whatever would be considered toxic.But the guy, like, this is what I loveabout these touts. Like, you can't evendo a modicum of research to make yourlies believable, right? Like, you put

[46:38] yourself in the situation where you'regoing to get publicly dunked on and thenyou deserve it at that point. Like ifyou can't even come up with like abetter scheme to try to make yourself

[46:48] look sharp, then then you just fullydeserve getting dunked on by Dave. And Iwish we saw more of this, but like yousaid, he he was very respectful andtried to resolve it privately and the

[46:59] guy just kept pushing it.>> Yeah. Mike, your thoughts?Whenever you see some, not whenever,most of the time when you see somebodyget super mad at a sports book and like

[47:11] talk about how, oh, what they're doingto me is so unfair, it almost alwaysthere's a deeper story and they're onlytelling you part of the story and whyactually the book was kind of right inmost instances. When it's some, you

[47:23] know, Bet Rivers or, you know, somesports book that's kicking people out,everybody's happy to be like, whatever,that sports book sucks. Who cares? Butwhen it's a sports book that peopleactually like, one that treats peoplewell, we're going to come back and or

[47:35] people are going to come back and dunkall over you. So yeah, I mean, good onDave. Bet Online's awesome. So all forit.>> All right. Nothing else for me to addthere, which brings us to return fire.

[47:47] Haven't had a return fire in quite sometime. Typically, one of the panelistshas to request it. that wasn't the caseunless you consider me requesting itbecause I wanted to give you guys thechance to answer uh answer back to

[47:59] something that was said on the Mondayshow. There was a conversation aroundgiftgiving culture that was started byKirk Evans who just basically said likeit's it shouldn't exist. Giftgiving

[48:11] culture is out of control. And Mike, oneof the things you said was uh wellessentially it's sad. Um, this is an actof kindness to show people you care

[48:20] about them. This isn't bad. This isfine. And Kirk Ever replied, I have,let's say, 20 weddings I'm going to beinvited to. Most people give cash. Itturns into essentially a loan system ofgiving cash and getting a return when

[48:32] you get married. If you don't getmarried, you get [ __ ] Mike, I'll letyou go first.Respond to Kirk Evans here, uh, on therecord.>> Yeah. And I heard his, you know,response on Monday, too. Him trying to

[48:45] like back up his statements. classicMott and Bailey approach where he sayssomething super crazy then tries toretreat to oh it's just gotten out ofcontrol like I just don't like the cashgifts. He almost had me in hisexplanation. I was like, you know, we

[48:57] are it's just the meaningless cash gift.I kind of get like, you know, it becomesan obligation. That's not really a giftwhere it's someone that like you want toshow someone you care. And then Robmentioned someone having a kid. And he

[49:08] goes, "Well, I wasn't consulted aboutthe kid. Why should I have to give $10,you know, $100 to somebody who's havinga kid?" Like, just be a human being forGod's sakes. Your friend is creating

[49:19] life in the world. They're coming up.They're going through this major moment.You don't want to give a [ __ ] card tothe guy. What are we doing here? I mean,Kirk just sucking the joy out of any

[49:30] >> Where was he consented on the baby beingborn? He had no involvement in that.>> And you know what? You don't have tolive in society, but we all do. And wecan give a $100, give a card even whenyour friend has a kid just saying

[49:44] congratulations. It's a nice thing todo.>> Well said. Uh Storm of Kadesh, do youguys want to add anything to this one? Ifeel like um in most cases when you seesomeone say something like that, you

[49:55] would think that they're just like 100%rage baiting, but Kirk is like such apsychopath about some things that he was100% serious there.

[50:04] >> Yeah. Uh all I got to say is uh Kirk,there's some people online that say somederogatory things about you, about yourheritage and religious beliefs, and

[50:16] you're just pouring gas on the flameswith a take like this, my friend.My god.>> Well, major let's split the bill energy.Like, you know, like>> I almost brought up you don't want to go

[50:27] out to dinner with Kirk because you knowhe's not paying the bill.Uh on that, let's get off this topic.Let's move into the chopping block.Before we do, uh let's hear about the

[50:39] Discord we have at the Hammer BettyNetwork. If you're not in the Discordyet, you are missing out. We have nearly1,800 members and it is absolutelycooking. It's a great place to chatduring games. Plus, our Hammer creators

[50:51] are giving out banger bets. And you knowwhat? So are our Hammer audience. Joinus at discord.gg/hammeror by visiting the link in thedescription to see what you've beenmissing out on. Final segment on theshow, which is the chopping block. And I

[51:03] got to this is like this is so stupidthis segment, by the way. Like we couldliterally just talk about these topics.Oftent times some of these topics lastlonger than other topics on the showthat aren't in the chopping block. It is

[51:16] supposed to be like, you know, quicklightning round. It never turns intothat. Irrelevant segment in my opinion,but uh Mike, you you fought you foughtso hard for this back. Why?

[51:28] >> Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela, the BostonTea Party, and now the Circle Fridaycrew standing up for the chopping block,the great civil disobedience of history.I just got to say this one's for

[51:39] Zilbert. He's been fighting for this.We, you know, he's not forgotten in ourworld. So, yeah, I'm excited for it tobe back.>> All right. Well, it is back. We've gotthe I think three topics here on the

[51:51] chopping block for today. First of all,Dubbin and Clubbin, Kevin Roth, who is ameteorologist who specializes in this isthese are the words from the bio. The

[52:03] the meteorologist specializes withsports betting, taking the meteorologistdata and using it towards sportsbetting. And now he is involved with thePixelling Service Dub. The MLB weather

[52:15] data edge that Overcast provides is nowavailable on Dub Club subs can sign upto get Overcast content in a push alertformat. So push alerts for weather thatimpacts things like MLB games. And there

[52:27] looks like to be looks to be a modelhere that there's a decreased percentagechance of home runs. There is a decreaschance of runs, an increase in chance ofstrikeouts as a result of the weather.

[52:39] Dub club said the best edge in thebetting world knowing the weather andwelcomes to the team. Uh interesting togo out to to include this but Mike u do

[52:50] you think this pro provides a qualityservice to the customers? I got to sayof all the like tout things you can dosomebody who specifically knows one area

[53:01] very well and is just giving you theinformation on that area is where likeokay paying for this information makessense. Hey, this guy is a weatherexpert. He knows the different fieldsand things like this, things coming in,

[53:13] how it can affect early in the game,later in the game. This actually is aspot where paying for a sub of somebodytelling you how it affects the betsmakes sense. With that said, I thinkit's going to be executed terribly, betotal [ __ ] and they'll probably

[53:25] just end up giving away home runparlays.>> Yeah. Uh, kind of concur there. I'll golast. Let's go to Storm. What do youthink?I can't believe nobody thought about

[53:36] weather impacting betting in baseballgames before.>> This is genius here.>> But he could like if you are truly aweather expert you there are stillweather edges out there that like you

[53:49] could understand the impact better thanthe lay person. Like I do think thatthere is a world where hey you know Iunderstand this small expert this areabetter than other people. I can providevalue by giving you information there.

[54:00] Again, they're not like I'm just sayinglike I do think that there is asituation where everybody thinks>> if this guy had anything meaningful,he'd be off dub club in two days and you

[54:12] know Rufus or somebody else would gosnatch him up. It's not uh this dub clubis so toxic.>> I don't necessarily agree there. I Iactually think he could>> I actually think he's going to get he's

[54:24] get a good amount of money from this>> like Yeah, I I agree. It's pro it'spriced in like to some extent, but likesomebody who's actually giving likethere's just a larger path here. I I

[54:35] don't think that this is like a totallyunreasonable path for somebody tospecialize in like this one specificarea and be able to provide you actuallythis isn't quite priced in yet. Therelike you know specifics on it. I do

[54:48] think that like this could make sense ina world.I I see what you're saying, but now likeeveryone has access to this. Likeeveryone who's on this very largepixeling platform has access to this

[55:01] information which renders it whichrenders it useless. Like do you thinkyou know I I I will say when theinformation gets released there probablyis a little bit of market movement. Feel

[55:14] free to disagree with me. That's justlike a a complete guess on my part. ButI don't see this being a tool that'sproviding value to any of the customershere. Uh I think it's a great thing to

[55:24] promote and say is important. But forpretty much more than 99% of the peopleon Dub Club, this is going to be uselesstowards them winning bets. That's kindof where>> Yeah. If you if you don't use itcorrectly, sure. I But like Ballpark Pal

[55:37] is a site and it's like very standard.Just gives you some information likethat. I know when I traded I would usethat site to see the weather impact ofdifferent ways like you know when wind'scoming in from the east how does itaffect one thing versus another homeruns and strikeouts aren't efficient

[55:50] enough that I don't think that likenecessarily once it's released it wouldget moved into an efficient market rightaway maybe eventually but like you havea long kind of path there for marketsthat aren't necessarily traded at thehighest limits

[56:02] >> uh Kenishh we haven't heard from you onthis do you have anything to add>> just so happy the chopping block is backuh I'll keep it briefin the state of the the chopping block.Uh I I can tell by this guy's picture

[56:15] and the fact he started the tweet withdubbing and clubbing. I couldn't standto be in a room with him for more thanlike 15 seconds.>> See, you know, it's a better take.>> This is this is where the problem liesbecause now that that segment lastedlonger than I thought it would and now

[56:28] it's just it that was just literallycould have been its own segment and itwas irrelevant to have prefaced it withthis chopping block thing. Like itdidn't matter. It it could have justbeen its own segment for the show

[56:39] without having some special meaning toit. But anyways, this is uh this iswhere we're at. Uh next on the choppingblock, sticking with baseball, TadpoleSports Betting Pixeller. Sometimes the

[56:51] bookies are telling you who they thinkwill hit a home run, highlighting JockPatterson at plus 330 to have a home runin a game for the Rangers against theOrioles at Goldline Gambler replies,

[57:03] "How so?" And the reply from TadpoleSports Betting. When odds for playergoes from plus 550 range to plus 350range, they letting us know their

[57:14] matchups are good. So guys,I I listen, I'm I'm putting some wordsin in their mouth here, but I think theclaim is if someone goes from plus 550

[57:24] range to plus 350 range, you got to betthe plus 350 because now you know thematchup's good. I also saw a reply sisthat said it's never you're never goingto find a good home run bet that's just

[57:37] listed there. They're they're showingyou these guys. They want you to bet.You got to click that see all button.Those are the guys they don't want youto bet on. So be careful out there. Uh

[57:48] Storm,let's start with you. Uh you you likethis one. What are your thoughts?>> Another redacted tout.

[57:58] Uh, Kenishh, anything from you?>> Just uh just carrying on from the lastone that I'm just so happy the chop andblock is back. So, I'll keep it briefagain. Um, and and just I wouldn't want

[58:11] to be in a room with Tad old sportsbetting either. And Mike, last>> the best part about this is not pickingthe guy with the lowest odds. You pickthe third guy. I don't know why. Thatpart just really like set it over the

[58:22] top to me. Well, it's maybe it's like,you know, at a restaurant, you're neversupposed to buy the second mostexpensive wine because that's the onethat's been marked up the most. Uh, somaybe it's kind of something playing on

[58:33] the mind in the range of that or I don'tknow, maybe Jo was plus 550 and thenhe's now he's down there. I I don'tknow. Come up with all these theories.What what I think happened is plus 550was a good number. People bet it,

[58:44] FanDuel adjusted, and now it's plus 330,which is which is the the the negativeEV price. And why did he just say plus330 in the tweet? He said plus 350 onthe picture shows plus 330. That ball

[58:56] part also confused me.>> It's ballpark. It's it's 350ish.>> 350ish, right?>> Uhlast one. Uh underdog drafts uh at

[59:08] underdogs. I'm sure you know of the ofthe service the the DFS platformunderdog. And they posted some news.We've made the difficult decision toclose our draft business. Draft gameshave been the foundation of Underdog

[59:20] since 2020 and we we're incrediblygrateful to the community that supportedus. Our goal has always been to buildthe best possible experience for ourusers. So, right now we're shifting ourfocus other formats. This was not aneasy decision. Stay tuned for more to

[59:31] come and thank you for those who draftedwith us. April Fools. So, I didn't realI thought we could have discussed likereally shitty April Fool's jokes thatdon't land. Uh but I didn't really feelcompelled to do it. And I think it is

[59:44] really good to talk about it when thisis in the wake of a month earlier layingoff 20% of your work workforce fromfantasy sports to because you'reshifting from fantasy sports to

[59:55] prediction markets. So make a major jobcut and then make a really poorly timedand really bad April Fool's joke. I meanthere just a bad one as well without the

[60:06] context associated with it. Uh I feelpretty strongly about that. Kesh JoeyLib uh cutting the workforce and thenmaking light of it. What do you think?>> I just I don't know if I've emphasized

[60:18] much how happy I am the chopping blockis back. And the only thing I have hereis that it looks like that article onMarch 2nd was written by a guy named BenHorny. Um which is really phenomenal.

[60:33] And>> oh yeah, Jason Jason made fun of thatname.>> Yeah. Well, I mean, I'm down. This iswhat the, you know, good I'm down atJason's level now that uh that that isthere. So, hopefully maybe me and him

[60:44] can chop it up and hammer. Yeah, I Ifeel bad for myself then. Um so, yeah.Uh brutal one from do from the underdog,but as they discussed on the Monday,this was probably some social media

[60:56] intern trying to make uh you know, somecontent that uh that didn't land.>> Yeah. And the tweet's still up for now.Uh I guess we'll stay up. Mike, goahead. Uh, you know, not much to say.Chopping block. Let's keep it short.

[61:11] >> Yeah.>> Yep.>> Fair. Storm, last word today's show.>> I forgot to dunk on Flop today, so I'mjust looking forward to um Novig drafts.Some news. We've made the difficultdecision to fire Flop.

[61:23] >> Yep. Absolutely. All right, that'll wrapup the show today. Thank you so much fortuning in. Comment below any thoughtsyou have on the the episode, anything wetalked about. Comment below. Are you

[61:33] happy or upset that the chopping blockis back? Let's see where public opiniontruly lies. It with Is it with me, thethe tyrant leader of Circle Back, or is

[61:43] it with uh Mike and Kenesh and otherswho are in support? Let us know. Whileyou're down there, drop a like tosupport the show. Subscribe for morecontent like it. We'll be back onMonday. Even though it could have been aholiday, we're still out here. I mean,

[61:57] today was a holiday. We still dropped anepisode. So, maybe we're not as lazy aswe're made out to be. We'll see you onMonday.