[00:00] Disclaimer. The content presented in

[00:02] this show is intended for entertainment

[00:03] purposes only. All opinions expressed

[00:05] are those of the hosts and do not

[00:07] necessarily reflect the views or

[00:08] opinions of any individuals or

[00:10] organizations mentioned. Statements made

[00:12] about public figures or entities are

[00:14] based on publicly available information

[00:16] and are not intended to harm or defame

[00:18] any person or business. This show relies

[00:21] on fair use of social media posts which

[00:23] are presented in good faith for the

[00:24] purpose of commentary and criticism.

[00:26] Viewers and listeners are advised to

[00:28] form their own opinions.

[00:37] It's circle back here on the circles of

[00:39] channel. It's part of the hammer bed

[00:40] network and presented by Kshi. This is

[00:42] the show where we cover the latest and

[00:44] greatest news that comes from gambling

[00:46] Twitter. And featuring for today, we're

[00:48] going to discuss things like how to not

[00:50] educate your children about sports

[00:52] betting, a potential new approach to

[00:54] poker in 2026, and potentially how to

[00:57] actually identify problem gaming when

[01:00] you see it, and maybe some examples when

[01:01] it's not actually problem gaming. We're

[01:04] doing it with your Friday crew. I am

[01:05] your host here on Circleback. My name is

[01:07] Jacob Gmen. I'm a creator and producer

[01:09] here at the Hammer Betting Network. In

[01:11] the bottom left, we have, as usual, pro

[01:13] sports better, Mike aka Mr. Peanut

[01:15] Better on Twitter. In the bottom right

[01:17] corner, we have the co-host of the Hit

[01:19] the Books channel, which is the Hammers

[01:21] NCAA football content division. It is

[01:23] Joey Kesh. And in the top right, we have

[01:25] writer, sports better, and responsible

[01:28] gaming advocate, Isaac at Roundrobin42.

[01:30] Isaac Roseberman. Isaac, how you doing?

[01:32] How's it feel to be back here on Circle

[01:34] Back?

[01:34] >> Always, always a pleasure. No, no other

[01:36] place I'd rather spend my Thursday

[01:38] evening.

[01:38] >> And no other place I'd rather start for

[01:41] today's show than this one. and some are

[01:43] calling it the return of the king. One

[01:46] of the greatest to ever do it, is back

[01:48] with another banger on Twitter. We have

[01:51] Darren Rall, notorious in the gambling

[01:54] Twitter space, and he talked about

[01:58] educating your children on sports

[02:00] betting. So, I'll read off the tweet

[02:01] here. It says, "11-year-old son wants to

[02:03] bet. So, instead of saying no, which is

[02:06] not the answer, I set him up with a

[02:08] free-to-play app. I've been monitoring

[02:10] his quote unquote bets and talking to

[02:13] him about his quote unquote losses.

[02:15] Looked on the app today to find this.

[02:17] Odds should be at least 20x plus 2,000

[02:20] on that. And it's Giannis and Tenttoko

[02:23] to scratch his nuts in Milwaukee against

[02:25] Atlanta on MLK day. Uh first of all, 20x

[02:30] is plus,900, not plus 2,000. But

[02:32] anyways, that's not the point of the

[02:34] tweet. This was 5x on this market. Uh

[02:37] lots of people did not like this tweet.

[02:38] We have Scoo atmost crucified. It says

[02:41] 11-year-old son wanted to drunk dry. So

[02:43] instead of saying no, which is not the

[02:45] answer. I set him up with a few small

[02:47] beers. Rob Pizzola, CEO of the Hammer,

[02:49] said, "I've searched far and wide for

[02:50] the Monaise of tweets, and I'm pretty

[02:52] sure this is it." Mike, you tweeted

[02:54] this. The former goat of horrific

[02:56] tweets. Every once in a while, you see

[02:58] one that shows he still has it. This is

[03:00] Kobe dropping 60 verse the Jazz. And if

[03:03] if it wasn't bad enough, he he pretty

[03:05] much doubled doubled down on it. Uh

[03:07] there's a text message that says what

[03:09] you betting I I guess it's from his son

[03:12] and he says Indiana 27 Miami 17 then

[03:14] showcases a five pick parlay where he

[03:17] says matched it up to this parlay 500 to

[03:19] net 8,000 will get a little tricky need

[03:22] scoring to be frontloaded slow second

[03:23] half so he has Indiana team total under

[03:26] Miami team total under then total

[03:29] alternate first half over either team to

[03:31] score three times and no Indiana on the

[03:33] spread as well just like a pretty pretty

[03:36] diabolical parlay. on the surface and he

[03:38] posted these screenshots with the

[03:40] caption, "Son, let me tell you how hard

[03:42] it is to hit these parlays everyone

[03:44] talks about. I called that India win by

[03:46] at least six, they won by six. I called

[03:47] that no team would score three straight

[03:49] times. I called Miami score more than 21

[03:51] and a half. Uh wouldn't score more than

[03:53] 21 and a half, etc. I lost because of

[03:55] when they scored the points. That's a

[03:57] hell of a lot better than don't bet."

[03:59] I'm not exactly sure if that's true. Um,

[04:03] it is rather funny that it is on the

[04:06] 4-year anniversary of his other famous

[04:09] MLK Day tweet where he said, uh, he

[04:12] replied to somebody and said, "Calling

[04:13] me a racist is cute. On this day,

[04:15] especially, I have one of the largest

[04:17] Martin Luther King Jr. collections in

[04:19] the world and some of my closest friends

[04:21] are black." In a now deleted tweet, uh,

[04:24] two two comments here. Carter says, "I

[04:26] don't even know what to say. This is up

[04:28] there with the MLK tweet, which is

[04:30] here." Larry says, "The fact that both

[04:32] these happens with MLK Junior Day cannot

[04:34] be coincidence." All right, long-winded

[04:37] intro there, but had to give you the

[04:38] full scoop on everything here. Mike, you

[04:40] you reacted to this in real time, so

[04:42] give us your extensive version of your

[04:44] thoughts here on the show.

[04:45] >> You know, I I'm not old enough that I

[04:48] saw Jordan play during his Bulls day or

[04:50] during his prime. Every once in a while,

[04:52] whenever you try to bring up the LeBron

[04:53] Jordan debate, the people who watch

[04:55] Jordan are like, "Hey, I I don't want to

[04:56] hear it. I've seen the greatest of all

[04:58] time. Jordan was the greatest of all

[05:00] time. That's how I feel when somebody

[05:02] tries to bring up the worst tweeter of

[05:03] all time. Darren Reell, I watched him in

[05:06] his prime. A lot of people forget, you

[05:08] know, it's he's kind of faded into the

[05:09] background. A lot of people forget he

[05:11] was the original cringe content guy.

[05:14] I've never seen somebody do it like him.

[05:16] He does it. Sometimes you think people

[05:18] are doing this like they're trying to

[05:20] get engagement. All of it seems genuine.

[05:22] Just he's a psychopath behavior. It's

[05:25] genuine. It's so weird. it. He really is

[05:29] kind of I mean he's a tier above

[05:31] everybody else in terms of what he

[05:33] offers the space. I really wish he would

[05:35] start tweeting more. Seeing one like

[05:37] this makes me uh you know wish him back

[05:39] on the timeline. I

[05:41] >> I want to go to Kenish next cuz I'm not

[05:43] as versed and and I don't know Darren

[05:46] Rall. I wasn't there for his prime. I

[05:48] I'm here for like the latter stages. So

[05:50] I want to go to Kenish. Do you have

[05:51] maybe some more information on your

[05:53] experiences with Darren Rell in the

[05:55] past? Yeah, I mean PB nails it like when

[05:57] there even before he got to action. I

[06:00] think it got that was probably his uh

[06:02] you know his LeBron you know 03 where

[06:05] when he was actually at action beginning

[06:08] and he had no idea how sports betting

[06:11] worked. Um and he was just firing them

[06:13] off. He had the Northwestern future too

[06:16] that he was down all year where he did

[06:18] something with points bet. Um, so yeah,

[06:20] Rell, I mean, he he's a class. I will

[06:23] say, as PB alluded to, he's kind of I

[06:26] don't exactly know what he does now.

[06:28] He's he founded some media company. I

[06:30] think he's like a venture capitalist in

[06:32] some businesses or something like that.

[06:34] So, this was an old like he's got a rear

[06:38] back and throw the fast ball that has

[06:40] still got it. So, I agree with you. Um

[06:43] but yeah, peak peak Twitter Rell would

[06:46] just um we I I think we've actually gone

[06:49] at it a few times. He had me blocked for

[06:51] a little bit then unblocked me. Uh which

[06:53] which is the sign of you're you're way

[06:54] too chronically online when you're when

[06:56] you're worried about you know people

[06:57] like that. So

[06:59] >> um yeah, just one of the ultimate like

[07:02] how did this 1.8 8 million followers.

[07:06] It I remember like looking at his

[07:09] account one of the first times and the

[07:10] that being the most mystifying like how

[07:13] did this guy get this many followers?

[07:16] It's like impossible. He needs to like

[07:17] write a book for like I he was like the

[07:20] rage baiting before rage baiting was a

[07:22] thing. Um was Darren Revel.

[07:25] >> We talked about in gambling how it pays

[07:27] to be early sometimes. Darren Revel is

[07:29] the number one example of that. The fact

[07:31] that people followed him on Twitter is

[07:33] because he was there early on and like

[07:35] before people really knew what was going

[07:36] on, so they just happened to follow him.

[07:38] He had the worst content. He's always

[07:40] had the cringiest content. Going back to

[07:42] remember he's like, "Oh, Nike stock fell

[07:44] because Zion shoe like broke out." It's

[07:46] like this is a multi-billion dollar

[07:48] company. He's never had good content,

[07:50] but he used to be like he used to be on

[07:52] ESPN and was somewhat respectable. Like

[07:55] they brought him in for business

[07:57] situations. kind of reminds me of Jason

[07:59] Whitlock where it's like this guy used

[08:00] to be a journalist. There was something

[08:02] there at one point in time and now we've

[08:04] just fallen so far from grace. It's like

[08:07] it's really insane to see.

[08:09] >> So, we talked a lot about Rell. How

[08:11] about like the tweet in particular,

[08:13] Isaac? Uh, as our responsible gaming

[08:15] advocate on staff here today, uh, would

[08:17] you recommend setting your your child up

[08:19] on a fake betting app like this?

[08:22] >> Yeah, I mean, the tweet is is pretty

[08:24] insane. You know, there are a lot of

[08:26] debates about when you should bring your

[08:28] kids into gambling. I think everybody

[08:30] would agree that uh 11 years old is too

[08:33] young. I remember seeing the tweet and

[08:36] being like, "Oh, you know, what are the

[08:37] odds so bad? Is it like Giannis to score

[08:40] 50?" And it's like Giannis to scratch

[08:42] his nuts. I mean, what app is he like

[08:45] setting his son up with? And then he

[08:47] doubles down by explaining this

[08:50] absolutely diabolical parlay. I mean

[08:52] like he's got like six legs

[08:54] anti-correlated. I mean someone smarter

[08:57] than me can do the math on this. Like

[08:59] surely this is like minus30 or 40% EV. I

[09:02] mean it's diabolical.

[09:04] I we need to not worry about the math

[09:07] that's included in the parlay. I want to

[09:08] know the math that he's so certain on

[09:10] the Jiannis scratches nuts price. Like

[09:12] that fact that he's like oh my god this

[09:15] kid this line should be plus 2,000 or

[09:18] 20,000. Like what is he doing? He needs

[09:20] to learn. Does Darren Rall have a

[09:22] database going back tracking these sorts

[09:24] of things? I want to know how he's so

[09:26] confident that his son doesn't have a

[09:27] plus EV bet here.

[09:29] >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh I I don't I I like like

[09:33] everyone said, this is one of the best

[09:35] uh you know, maybe Isaac, like what what

[09:38] would you say is the best way to like if

[09:40] your kid who's 11 asked about getting

[09:43] involved in sports betting, what do you

[09:44] say to them?

[09:46] I mean, I think it's like the same thing

[09:48] for alcohol or drugs where you're like,

[09:50] you know, this is something that that

[09:52] can be fun, but it can be dangerous. You

[09:54] should probably start later on. You

[09:56] should closely monitor it. Maybe you set

[09:58] an age. You're like, you know, the legal

[10:00] drinking age is 21, 18 for you

[10:03] Canadians. So, you say, you know, at 16,

[10:05] you can have a beer in the house,

[10:06] whatever. Like I get trying to ease your

[10:09] way into it as opposed to just saying

[10:11] this is not the way to do it, but to

[10:13] just like basically give your

[10:15] 11-year-old son the login to to like

[10:17] some unregulated gambling site which is

[10:20] giving these like ridiculous bets. I

[10:22] mean surely not like is it real money?

[10:26] Like is this his son? Like what's

[10:28] happening here? And then like once again

[10:29] he explains his bets to his son like

[10:32] Darren Rall's son. Like that he doesn't

[10:34] even stand a chance, right? like he

[10:36] there's no way this guy's ever going to

[10:37] be a good better.

[10:38] >> Yeah.

[10:39] >> His explanation always it seems makes it

[10:42] even weirder. It's like a weird premise

[10:44] and then somebody follows up with him

[10:46] calls him out for it and he follows up

[10:48] with actually it's so much weirder than

[10:50] you thought the first time whether it's

[10:52] you know his MLK memorabilia or whatever

[10:55] else is going on. Darren really like

[10:57] behind the curtain it just gets even

[10:59] stranger.

[11:00] >> Yeah. Really really brutal look there.

[11:02] Uh maybe you give us your thoughts and

[11:03] opinions in the comments down below on

[11:05] maybe how you would get your children

[11:07] involved in in sports betting. Maybe if

[11:09] you disagree and you think this is the

[11:10] right way to go about it. While you're

[11:12] down in the comments section, take a

[11:13] second, hit that like button. Make sure

[11:15] you're subscribed to the channel. We got

[11:16] a lot of great things on the way on the

[11:19] show today. Second thing up on the show,

[11:21] we've talked about this a lot over the

[11:23] history of Circle Back. We've been

[11:25] following this market on Koshi. Will the

[11:27] cap on gambling loss reduction be

[11:30] repealed? So the change has been

[11:33] implemented for 2026. Uh you're taxed on

[11:36] 90% of losses rather than uh rather than

[11:40] 100%.

[11:42] So even like the most profitable sports

[11:44] betterers are going to be finding it

[11:45] difficult and finding having to find

[11:47] different ways to maneuver to still be

[11:48] profitable in 2026. But there's been

[11:51] work to try and repeal this as we see

[11:53] here. And there was some really large

[11:55] movement as Captain Jack Andrews on

[11:57] Twitter showcased a real veteran of the

[12:00] sports betting space does great work

[12:01] with unabated and showcased that when he

[12:05] put the screenshot up that before April

[12:08] 2026 had a 30% chance of being repealed

[12:11] and before 2027 had a 40% chance of

[12:13] being repealed. Since then there's been

[12:15] less of that sort of steam on April

[12:18] 2026. That's down to 9%, but we are up

[12:21] to 43% for before 2027. So perhaps this

[12:25] year we're trending in the right

[12:27] direction for things to change. Um

[12:29] Isaac, what do you think on this? If

[12:32] anything, do you are you happy, excited

[12:36] about this steam that you're seeing?

[12:38] >> Yeah, I mean I'm optimistic that it gets

[12:40] overturned, right? I think it's bad

[12:42] policy. Uh, bad for gamblers, bad for

[12:44] the gambling industry, bad for the IRS,

[12:47] bad for everybody. Uh, there was some

[12:50] crazy stuff happening where like the

[12:52] co-sponsor of the bill walked out of the

[12:54] event and yeah, I mean I I I do a lot of

[12:57] political stuff. This isn't exactly my

[12:59] forte, so I'm not an expert, but but

[13:01] definitely hopeful at the steam. You

[13:02] know, uh, prediction markets can be a

[13:05] source of truth, and if there if it's if

[13:08] it's steaming upward, that probably

[13:10] means it has a much better chance of

[13:11] passing. Mike, you're as it says in your

[13:14] headline here that you're a Koshi

[13:16] donator. Have you donated into this

[13:18] market as of yet?

[13:19] >> Uh, no. I got burned on the last one. I

[13:21] had, let's say, a former panelist on the

[13:24] show tell me, "Oh, it sense a lot.

[13:26] They're going to figure it out by 2026."

[13:29] So,

[13:29] >> so,

[13:30] >> uh, I I think I have it in my notes what

[13:33] price he took it at. Uh, uh, no, I don't

[13:38] have Okay, sorry. I don't have that in

[13:39] my notes, but he was like he was quite

[13:41] confident. He was he was willing to risk

[13:43] like a like into a pretty heavy juiced

[13:46] market that it would be repealed by the

[13:48] end of 2026. That did not materialize,

[13:50] but maybe stepping in the right

[13:52] direction here for 2027 as Isaac

[13:53] mentioned. Kesh, any thoughts from you?

[13:56] >> Um, just that I I thought nine months

[14:00] ago Flopup told us that this was a lock

[14:02] and it would have been would have been

[14:03] done and it was the easiest thing ever.

[14:05] Um, so and and we're still every time I

[14:09] see something on this, people's hopes

[14:12] get up and then they get the rug pulled.

[14:15] So, at this point, I'm in the like let

[14:18] me know when it's actually repealed

[14:20] phase

[14:21] >> because I get like this is like the live

[14:24] like guy's going to score a touchdown. I

[14:26] get punched out right before the goal

[14:27] line like four times. So, right,

[14:29] >> I I've I've had enough of the optimistic

[14:31] updates. It does seem like gamblers for

[14:34] all this like oh we look at things like

[14:36] cold-hearted probabilistically. It does

[14:38] seem in this market it's more prone to

[14:40] people being like we're doomed it's

[14:41] over. We'll never get it done and then

[14:43] like it surges all of a sudden. It does

[14:45] seem like

[14:46] >> we're so back it's so over.

[14:47] >> Yeah.

[14:48] >> Yeah. It's it's all like hard-coded

[14:50] analysis until it's your job and then

[14:52] all of a sudden you're back into the

[14:53] swings of it like any other person.

[14:55] >> Yep. Absolutely. But if you do want to

[14:56] get involved with this market or any

[14:58] other market available on Kow, you can

[14:59] do so with a link in the description at

[15:01] any point that you're listening or

[15:02] watching. Or you can scan the QR code on

[15:04] screen right now. Cow is a presenting

[15:06] sponsor on circles up. We think it's a

[15:07] great product you should get involved

[15:08] with by signing up with our affiliate

[15:11] code here or link. You can support the

[15:13] show at the exact same time. But we'll

[15:15] get into the next topic on the show

[15:17] here. Talk about maybe a change of

[15:18] approach to poker in 2026. We have Bla1

[15:22] Bourgeoa. Hope I said that correctly.

[15:24] says, "I strongly believe the best way

[15:26] to grow the new generation of poker is

[15:28] to introduce poker as an

[15:29] academic/mathbased

[15:31] game rather than an extension of

[15:33] gambling. What hasn't worked is

[15:36] celebrity/creator games, hyper

[15:38] tournament formats, and the other ways

[15:39] that increase luck factors." Couple

[15:42] replies here. First of all, from Nick

[15:43] Howard saying that that the poker as

[15:46] academic/math frame equals suicide.

[15:49] Literally, poker isn't a math hobby.

[15:51] It's a high variance money game that

[15:53] psychologically destroys anyone who

[15:55] can't deal with the variance. If we want

[15:58] poker to grow, education probably comes

[16:01] later. First, target people who can

[16:03] survive various. Basically, that's two

[16:05] groups. One, people rich enough that the

[16:08] swings don't matter, and two, people

[16:09] with legit high-risisk tolerance, and

[16:11] most of those people don't care about

[16:13] the mass. Andreas F, I don't even want

[16:16] to try and pronounce that last name,

[16:18] unfortunately. says, "Poker as a hybrid

[16:19] of decision/RNG will work the best once

[16:22] it's appealing to both gamblers and

[16:24] people who want to give an interesting

[16:26] game their best. The latter is often not

[16:28] reached because of bad image that needs

[16:30] polishing. So, I'm not well-versed in

[16:32] poker. Uh, as far as I know, Isaac, you

[16:35] dabble at the very least. So, maybe you

[16:38] can lead us off here and give your

[16:39] thoughts."

[16:40] >> Yeah, I mean, I I like the idea. I think

[16:43] poker can be a very instructive and

[16:46] educational game. I think the problem is

[16:49] that, you know, it's it's a lot of fun

[16:51] and when you make something all math,

[16:53] it's not that fun. And so, like, a lot

[16:55] of people complain that poker has become

[16:57] too mathy. Like, you'll go to a casino

[16:59] and hear people talking about game

[17:01] theory optimal as opposed to kind of

[17:03] just degening. Um, yeah, I don't know,

[17:06] right? Like I think poker is more fun

[17:08] when there's less math involved, but

[17:10] also the math can be fun. Uh, yeah. I

[17:13] don't I don't know. I'm not not totally

[17:14] sure.

[17:15] >> Okay. I think you could say interesting

[17:16] you bring that up like people don't like

[17:18] stuff becoming like poker becoming more

[17:20] math-based. I feel like a lot of things

[17:23] over the last few years have become a

[17:25] lot more math-based and a lot more play

[17:27] to the most optimal way possible. Focus

[17:29] less on the vibes aspect of it. Um how

[17:32] about to you Kenish on this one? Do you

[17:34] agree with like an academic math-based

[17:36] approach to poker being a way to help

[17:38] promote the game?

[17:40] >> No, not at all. Like no just just like

[17:43] 0%. No. Speaking of math, this is 0%

[17:46] help. This is like why the low vig like

[17:50] model if this was if everyone was that

[17:53] price sensitive, you would have like oh

[17:55] like your low vigs would be the kind

[17:57] this in America where price sensitivity.

[17:59] No, the poker boom was totally started

[18:03] by like big personalities, big pots,

[18:07] people thinking they're going to get

[18:08] rich playing poker and now it's gone to

[18:11] like the silver new era and stuff. the

[18:14] fact that like

[18:16] I that might be one of the most

[18:18] ridiculous idea of like how we're gonna

[18:20] get the second poker boom is promoted as

[18:22] like a mass thing. No, not in this

[18:24] country, my friend. Uh I could not

[18:27] disagree more with that.

[18:28] >> All right, Mike, I saw you nodding along

[18:30] there. You agree?

[18:31] >> 10,000%. Isaac, that's a very good

[18:34] question. No, it's not. When has it ever

[18:36] the answer to get things more popular

[18:38] been like we need to introduce more map?

[18:40] what people really love about I think I

[18:43] think I think it's like you you

[18:44] introduce it as a way to like expand the

[18:47] game and like you get it into schools

[18:49] for example right and then like whether

[18:50] people stick with the mathbased approach

[18:53] I kind of think about it like the most

[18:54] similar example to me is like Fortnite

[18:57] almost like I remember when people were

[18:58] first playing Fortnite they had lots of

[19:00] fun and then like pretty quickly you had

[19:03] people like for people who don't know in

[19:04] Fortnite you can like shoot and you can

[19:06] like build and you would have people who

[19:08] would just get really good at building

[19:09] and you would like try shoot someone and

[19:11] then they would like build all of this

[19:12] stuff and then you're like, well crap,

[19:14] this kind of ruined the game. I just

[19:15] want to shoot people and it's like sort

[19:17] of the same for poker. Like you

[19:18] introduce all the math but you do just

[19:20] want the you you want the den, but like

[19:23] maybe you need the combo of them, but uh

[19:26] yeah, I don't know. Yeah, maybe if we

[19:28] can indoctrinate the kids, says the

[19:30] gambling adv advocate. That's how we get

[19:32] the game popular. Nobody, they don't

[19:34] want to focus on the math. Think about

[19:35] all the like exciting moments of poker.

[19:38] Oh, I spotted his tell. I was watching

[19:40] this. He had the stones to call a bluff.

[19:42] Nobody's like, "Oh, you know, I looked

[19:44] at the GTO solver and saw that it was a

[19:46] 73% chance and knew I had him right

[19:48] there." Like, think about every poker

[19:50] movie you've ever watched. This to me

[19:53] like goes away from what people find

[19:55] interesting about the sport or the game

[19:57] so much. It's the same for these sports

[20:00] that have been optimized, like uh you

[20:01] said, they've all been optimized towards

[20:04] the best strategy. But the best strategy

[20:05] doesn't mean it's what people are most

[20:07] interested in. So while we can say it's

[20:10] more optimal to play that way, it

[20:12] doesn't mean that that's what draws

[20:13] people to the sport or draws people to

[20:15] the game. So I don't think that, you

[20:17] know, the one thing that uh poker has

[20:19] been missing is people having a better

[20:21] understanding of probabilities.

[20:22] >> Well, so I want to compare this to like

[20:25] the football conversations of the modern

[20:27] era because a lot of more teams are

[20:29] playing more optimally on two-point

[20:32] conversions and fourth down. There's a

[20:35] lot more math involved in the game right

[20:36] now and that is making some people

[20:39] really really upset. People like you

[20:41] know Luke Wilson on on Twitter who is uh

[20:44] on the TSN broadcast team here in

[20:46] Canada. Anyways, former NFL player as

[20:48] well that the way you're kind of

[20:49] describing how you don't like math being

[20:52] involved in poker is the way people say

[20:55] they don't like math being involved in

[20:57] football, but you I would assume you're

[20:59] a proponent of using analytical data to

[21:01] make optimal decisions on the football

[21:03] field. Yeah. So, the difference is I'm

[21:05] not saying that people shouldn't use it

[21:07] in poker to the best to make them

[21:09] themselves better at the game. What I'm

[21:11] saying is that it doesn't make the game

[21:12] necessarily more exciting to know the

[21:14] background of it. It's not the reason,

[21:16] you know, in football that it's better

[21:18] to do these things is because it's

[21:19] mathematically superior. It' be like if

[21:22] actually analytics said that you should

[21:24] run the ball three times and punt, that

[21:26] would make people like the game more

[21:27] because it's optimal decision. I think

[21:29] we're confusing optimal decision-m with

[21:32] what's actually exciting about the game.

[21:34] And what's actually exciting about poker

[21:35] is a more human elements of it.

[21:38] >> Okay. Interesting.

[21:39] >> Said by a guy who doesn't play a lot of

[21:40] >> I mean I'm I'm not I'm not dis I'm not

[21:42] disagreeing with you. I mean I'm not

[21:44] someone who's a fan of poker. I'm not

[21:46] dis going to disagree with you, but at a

[21:49] at a certain point like when there's

[21:52] especially money involved in these

[21:53] sports, playing optimally is is the best

[21:55] that like you have to just learn to play

[21:57] optimally and you can't just really go

[21:59] off vibes anymore.

[22:00] >> Yeah. Yeah. I think that everybody

[22:02] playing should learn the math and

[22:03] probability and statistics behind it. I

[22:05] just don't think that this is going to

[22:06] lead to a boom in popularity and like

[22:09] we've seen uh like in baseball they had

[22:11] to get rid of the shift and all these

[22:12] things because playing optimal and

[22:14] playing the most exciting game aren't

[22:15] necessarily the same thing.

[22:17] >> Okay. Interesting. I I think that's a

[22:18] good comparison there to the way MLB has

[22:20] reshaped things. So maybe good if you

[22:22] are already involved in poker, but this

[22:25] is not going to, as Mike alludes to,

[22:27] bring in new people to the game who

[22:29] think, "Oo, a math game. Now I'm going

[22:30] to start playing poker." I guess I guess

[22:32] that does make sense. Before we get into

[22:34] our next topic on the show today, I want

[22:36] to tell you a little bit more about some

[22:37] of the content we have in the Hammer

[22:39] Betting Network. This this this episode

[22:41] of Circle Back comes out Friday at 8:00

[22:43] a.m. Eastern time. Later on today,

[22:46] Friday 12:00 p.m. Eastern time, we have

[22:48] the Hammer Daily Prop Show live with

[22:51] Jason Cooper as your host. We know how

[22:53] much you love firing off on NFL Player

[22:55] Props. That's why we've turned the

[22:57] Friday show of this into a full props

[22:59] breakdown. Every segment we'll be

[23:01] breaking down matchups within the

[23:03] matchup that you will not want to miss.

[23:05] We'll have Jack Miller and Hitman on

[23:06] giving out some player props and

[23:08] answering your questions along the way.

[23:10] The link is in the description to find

[23:12] the Hammer Daily YouTube channel. Get

[23:14] subscribed for daily shows, but

[23:15] especially for that Friday props show

[23:18] special. Next, we go to this one here

[23:21] from Dan Bernstein, who has this Wall

[23:24] Street Journal write up on SIG group's

[23:27] work with prediction markets. So

[23:29] essentially the article describes a job

[23:31] within prediction markets where they'll

[23:33] pay you $80 to $90,000 a year to trade

[23:37] on SIG and the reply here from DOR at

[23:40] DOMA with four H's says one problem with

[23:43] this model if it's worth SIG paying you

[23:46] 90K plus benefits I am sure you can make

[23:49] a lot more than that just trading on

[23:51] your own not exactly super capital

[23:54] intensive I imagine their best traders

[23:56] will simply get good and leave So

[23:58] interesting debate there. Feel like it

[24:00] kind of makes sense. How do you feel

[24:01] about it, Mike?

[24:03] >> This is similar to what sports books

[24:05] have faced for a long time where the

[24:07] best talent is going to leave out your

[24:08] door because the path to, you know,

[24:11] starting your own business or becoming,

[24:13] if you're any good at it, the start of

[24:14] becoming your own boss is so appealing

[24:16] and so easy. The uh barrier to entry is

[24:19] so much lower than a lot of industries

[24:21] that you're just kind of getting this

[24:22] brain drain from your uh trading team

[24:25] basically at all times. It's almost like

[24:27] the opposite of a Peter principle where

[24:29] you have these people who are getting as

[24:31] soon as they get good they're able to

[24:33] leave and to keep them you have to pay

[24:35] them a salary that's honestly going to

[24:37] be so insane it's going to be hard to

[24:39] justify it to different people. So, it's

[24:41] really kind of a paradox and maybe it's

[24:43] one of the reasons that you can think

[24:46] that it will be hard to scale this at a

[24:49] monster level is the guys who are

[24:51] actually working the models and the

[24:52] trading team themselves is always going

[24:54] to be underpaid essentially or you're

[24:56] not going to be able to get the best

[24:57] talent unless you give them an ownership

[24:59] percentage. So, it's kind of this weird

[25:01] paradox where the best companies or the

[25:04] largest companies are almost kind of

[25:06] inherently going to have the worst

[25:08] traders.

[25:09] >> Okay, interesting there. I I know

[25:11] somebody who just in got got involved

[25:12] with trading, so maybe there's a sign.

[25:15] Uh Kesh, how about you? It kind of makes

[25:17] sense to me uh what Mike's saying, but

[25:19] what do you think?

[25:20] >> Yeah, I mean this I feel like every

[25:22] decent sports book trader ever has tried

[25:24] this at some point uh whether you know

[25:26] successfully or unsuccessfully and

[25:28] probably the same thing happens. I

[25:29] really it's going to be kind of probably

[25:31] a a churn and burn where you get some

[25:34] smart kids right out of school. you can

[25:36] put Sig on a resume, you offer him that.

[25:38] And until they kind of figure out that,

[25:40] uh, well, I could probably make it more

[25:42] if I'm doing this on myself or, you

[25:45] know, the guy working at uh, if I'm

[25:48] doing this, you know, at I'm working at

[25:50] Kelshi, I got, you know, four screens up

[25:52] where I'm doing the same bets at, you

[25:54] know, the Aldo, the Poly Mark, all that

[25:56] stuff where I'm not only trading for

[25:59] Sig, but I'm trading for myself, you

[26:01] know, at the same time. Um, then maybe

[26:04] you get something worked out there. But

[26:06] yeah, I mean this is just kind of the

[26:09] obviously you're never going to have the

[26:11] tier one of all tier one people working

[26:13] this because you can just do it on your

[26:15] own. Especially, you know, I I think

[26:17] it's you just got to target young people

[26:18] that don't have the capital to really do

[26:20] it right yet. And then just figure that

[26:22] as soon as they do, they'll probably be

[26:24] out the door. It's not like a a career

[26:26] position. It's one of those that you're

[26:27] probably going to be circling in and out

[26:28] a lot of people over the course of, you

[26:30] know, how long you're doing this. So

[26:31] Isaac, I'll let you answer, but I also

[26:33] want to ask. I mean, it seems like SIG

[26:36] would be aware of this problem. I I

[26:39] would think they'd be aware of the

[26:40] potential large amount of turnaround on

[26:42] this job. They'll need to keep on

[26:44] filling these positions, but do you

[26:46] think it's kind of worth it for them to

[26:47] kind of go this this strategy? Cuz if

[26:49] they're going to find like an optimal

[26:51] trader to be on staff for years at a

[26:53] time, they're probably have to pay a lot

[26:54] more than the salary that they're

[26:56] offering here. Well, so I think Joey hit

[26:59] everything, you know, nail on nail on

[27:00] the head. Um, but one thing to keep in

[27:03] mind is that a lot of these firms, SIG

[27:05] included, have, you know, deals in place

[27:08] so that you can't just quit and start

[27:10] trading, right? I forget, it's not a

[27:12] vesting cliff, that's for equity. But

[27:14] like a lot of these trading companies,

[27:16] you know, you call it going on gardening

[27:18] leave when if you work at a trading firm

[27:20] or a hedge fund and then you fire you

[27:22] get fired or you quit, you're not

[27:24] allowed to work anywhere else or even

[27:25] trade those markets for like a year,

[27:27] sometimes two years. I don't exactly

[27:29] know how it works with prediction

[27:31] markets because you know the the rules

[27:33] are not totally solidified there. Um,

[27:35] but it's not just like someone can at

[27:37] least in traditional things just like go

[27:39] start doing it at SIG, learn some stuff

[27:41] and immediately quit. And there is like

[27:44] a sliding scale where you know they

[27:45] start at 90K. The article says they can

[27:47] go up to like 300 350K. There's you know

[27:50] it's good to have on your resume. Some

[27:52] people like the 9 to5. But yeah I mean I

[27:54] think it's just a a necessary problem

[27:56] with any trading job at a prediction

[27:58] market or sports book.

[28:00] >> I think one difference is like that

[28:02] works in you know I'm just a blue collar

[28:04] guy. I'm not into the fancy finance

[28:06] world like you Isaac. But uh I think the

[28:09] difference is

[28:09] >> you are literally wearing a blue shirt

[28:11] and I'm wearing a white collar. So I

[28:12] guess

[28:14] >> uh so I think that one of the

[28:16] differences is like in financial trading

[28:18] a lot of times there's licensing or

[28:20] capital requirements or all these

[28:22] different like things that you have to

[28:23] almost work under someone in order to

[28:25] trade in certain you know different

[28:27] pools in prediction markets or sports

[28:29] betting or things like that the uh

[28:31] barrier to entry is so much lower that

[28:33] it kind of creates an easier path to do

[28:35] it. So, I think for uh you know, in this

[28:38] situation, a lot of the guys are going

[28:40] to leave and like Joey said, your best

[28:42] route is almost to kind of I think at

[28:45] least I you know, what do I know? But I

[28:47] would get a couple guys that I trust

[28:48] that I'm paying pretty handsomely and

[28:50] then just rotate young guys in and out

[28:52] and have them, you know, learn their way

[28:53] and then get them out. But then you just

[28:55] have to have a couple people who have

[28:57] stayed. I wonder Isaac, how much do you

[28:59] think, say you get, you know, one of the

[29:02] better gamblers, you know, like a very

[29:04] high earnner makes, let's say, a decent

[29:08] chunk of change as a pro gambler. If you

[29:10] put him as head of DraftKings trading

[29:13] team and he was able to kind of manage

[29:15] their, you know, trading deck, how much

[29:18] do you think it could save them? I I had

[29:21] this conversation with someone recently,

[29:23] a friend of the podcast who I who I

[29:25] won't name, and he loves to inflate

[29:27] stuff, and he was like, "Oh, if I did

[29:29] that for DraftKings, I could save them

[29:31] tens of millions of dollars a year." I

[29:33] don't know if that's true. And I think

[29:35] there's a lot of stuff where like you

[29:37] see it as a better and it actually like

[29:39] maybe the trading team already knows or

[29:42] like there are actually reasons why

[29:44] things are skewed in certain ways. So,

[29:45] it's very hard, but I would have to

[29:47] imagine that like a a really good

[29:50] better, especially someone with like

[29:52] expertise on a specific sports book,

[29:54] could patch all sorts of leaks and do

[29:57] all sorts of things that would certainly

[29:59] bring in, you know, millions and

[30:01] millions of dollars a year. I mean, I

[30:03] think like when when you think about,

[30:05] you know, big bettors, right? And like

[30:07] if you're if you're able to do something

[30:09] that that snips sharp bettors early in

[30:11] the bud, like like you can just really

[30:14] really do well. I mean, I'm thinking of

[30:16] of places like Fanatics, for example,

[30:19] or, you know, Points Bet with our friend

[30:21] Friends of the Pod, Shipper, and Spratz

[30:24] where like, you know, for all all the

[30:26] things you can say about them, like

[30:27] they're incredibly aggressive about

[30:29] limiting sharp bets. And maybe that does

[30:31] some harm, but think about all of the

[30:33] money that FanDuel or some other company

[30:35] or is losing to sharp bettors and and

[30:37] that's just not happening at Fanatics

[30:39] really. And I think for somebody who

[30:41] doesn't see the ins and outs of it, it

[30:43] would be really hard to justify, hey,

[30:44] I'm paying this guy, you know, a million

[30:46] dollars to this random person who all

[30:49] he's doing is analyzing bets and seeing

[30:50] what's coming in. But I think for some

[30:52] of these companies, the scale is so

[30:54] large that it actually would be pretty,

[30:56] you know, smart financially for them to

[30:58] have people on their trading team that

[30:59] they pay or even overpay in order to

[31:02] kind of catch these things and, you

[31:03] know, be one step ahead of the game.

[31:05] >> Yeah. you know, I like being on this

[31:07] side of the counter, but um if there are

[31:09] any operators listening who want to pay

[31:11] me, you know, we'll call it we'll go

[31:13] cheap, maybe six or seven million a

[31:14] year. I'll I'll come on and I'll fix

[31:16] your trading operations for you.

[31:18] >> We said good though. So like

[31:21] find somebody who's more qualified

[31:23] >> like like yourself, Mike Cal donator.

[31:26] >> Oh yeah, exactly.

[31:27] >> Yeah, Cory. Uh we're going to get into

[31:28] the comments from the previous week's

[31:30] show now. Uh, if you have anything you

[31:32] have thoughts on, you want to share your

[31:34] take on, something you agree with,

[31:36] disagree with, or just a question for

[31:37] any of us here, put it in the comment

[31:39] section down below on YouTube. We love

[31:41] to check the comments every single week.

[31:43] We look through all the comments. If you

[31:44] hate us, make sure you don't use any

[31:46] foul language that YouTube will

[31:47] automatically flag or else we won't see

[31:49] it. People keep forgetting this. There's

[31:50] always these flagged comments that

[31:52] automatically get hidden by YouTube. But

[31:54] while you're down there, hit the like

[31:55] button. Also, make sure you are

[31:56] subscribed to our channel. Let's have a

[31:59] very good 2026 here on circles off. But

[32:01] first comment comes from Bretsky 911.

[32:04] Says, "I agree with Alan Boston that

[32:05] it's fake news. This is in regards to

[32:07] the college basketball and Chinese

[32:09] basketball association betting scandal

[32:11] that we discussed last week with fixed

[32:13] gains, point shaving, and there was

[32:15] hundreds of thousands of dollars placed

[32:17] on these supposedly allegedly fixed

[32:20] games." And Alan Boston says basically

[32:22] that that wouldn't have happened. No

[32:24] chance you can get that much down on

[32:26] these bets. Now that we've had a little

[32:28] bit more time for this to simmer, cuz

[32:30] that news was was fresh off the grill

[32:32] when we did our recording last week.

[32:34] Mike, do you think it would have been

[32:36] possible for groups to get this level of

[32:38] money down on these events?

[32:40] >> No. No. No. Commenter, there's no chance

[32:42] you could get that much down on these

[32:44] events. If you are betting into a market

[32:46] and not price sensitive at all, which if

[32:48] you know the score of the game, you're

[32:50] not going to be that price sensitive. I

[32:52] think that you can get this much down. I

[32:54] don't bet college basketball. I

[32:55] understand like harder. I think that

[32:58] there's groups out there that can get

[32:59] this much down. Um I'm not saying that

[33:01] like your average person can do it. I'm

[33:02] not even saying your proto I don't think

[33:04] I could do it. I'm saying that there are

[33:07] people that could get that much down. Uh

[33:08] I'm very confident.

[33:09] >> Uh Kenesh, a lot of what you've done in

[33:11] this space is dedicated to finding ways

[33:14] to get money down. So maybe you can

[33:18] attest to the creative routes that could

[33:20] have been explored. Would were they able

[33:22] to get this money down, do you think?

[33:23] Yeah, I mean especially if you know when

[33:26] you're talking Chinese basketball if you

[33:27] have you know overseas Asian market

[33:31] access then yeah I'd say absolutely that

[33:34] that to me seems even easier than the

[33:36] you know the extras which again not that

[33:39] I'm um how can I phrase this politically

[33:42] not that I'm totally entrusting and in

[33:46] love with the the United States

[33:47] government at the moment. However, I

[33:50] don't think they would put false numbers

[33:53] in an official indictment cuz you would

[33:56] have the data to actually be able to

[33:59] back that up and along with the rece.

[34:01] So, I'm also never put me on the same

[34:05] side as Alen Boston as anything. So, if

[34:07] he's on the side, it's fake, then I'm

[34:09] I'm 100% that nope, I believe it.

[34:11] >> And Isaac, anything to add?

[34:13] >> Yeah, I just think like yeah, people

[34:15] don't realize the extent of the outs.

[34:18] Um, you know, obviously Joey mentioned,

[34:19] right, if you're talking about Chinese

[34:20] basketball, if you can bet in China, you

[34:22] can get a lot more down, but a lot of

[34:24] people will be like, "Oh, you know, how

[34:26] could you bet that?" Like, I know what

[34:28] I'm doing and I'm limited to like $13.

[34:30] And it's like, yeah, dude, because we're

[34:31] not betting on your or they're not

[34:33] betting on your, you know, limited

[34:35] DraftKings account, right? Like, if you

[34:36] open up any of the apps that show you a

[34:39] baseline limit, you know, a a good VIP

[34:42] account will off the bat with one click

[34:44] get you 10x that, right? So any of these

[34:47] college basketball games, you know, you

[34:48] can normally on a fresh account, let's

[34:50] say bet a thousand, like on any VIP

[34:53] account with one click, you can get

[34:54] maybe 10,000, 15,000. So it's just not

[34:57] that hard. And yet people don't realize

[34:59] the degree to which, as Mike said, if

[35:02] you're not price sensitive and and you

[35:03] know you're going to win, like you're

[35:05] going to do everything in you everything

[35:07] in your power to get as many bets in as

[35:09] possible.

[35:10] >> I know we've mentioned him a few times

[35:11] this show, but Flip would probably call

[35:13] this one a skill issue. uh and say you

[35:17] can get it down. It's just about finding

[35:18] the way to do it. Uh second comment

[35:21] comes from Jason Everly 6488 says,

[35:24] "Books that have a monopoly in in a

[35:26] state such as Hard Rock in Florida

[35:28] should not be allowed to limit anyone in

[35:30] the state. It should be a part of the

[35:31] cost of having the monopoly."

[35:34] Interesting take there. In reality,

[35:35] Isaac, do you think this is something

[35:37] that could be implemented?

[35:40] >> I think probably not. Although I I do

[35:42] think it's like particularly messed up

[35:44] if you're like a monopoly operator in a

[35:46] state and then you do messed up things.

[35:49] Um yeah, probably probably not going to

[35:51] happen. I can't imagine regulators are

[35:53] going to treat it any differently, but

[35:54] you know, maybe prediction markets enter

[35:56] the space and uh things things change a

[35:58] bit.

[35:59] >> Uh Kesh, what do you think? Do you think

[36:01] this is something that could happen?

[36:03] I mean, I I don't even from day one, I

[36:06] have no idea how the tribes in Florida

[36:09] were able to or pull this off with like

[36:12] a monopoly for one book that

[36:16] especially in today's like political

[36:19] climate where I I I have no clue how

[36:22] this is still standing in Florida where

[36:24] you've got like one drive with one book

[36:26] with a full monopoly. I tend to agree

[36:28] with them, but there's no that's like a

[36:31] customer point of view thing that would

[36:34] never ever have the people that are

[36:35] actually in power would never like

[36:37] there's no state

[36:40] government or legislator down there.

[36:42] Like they're all in it together and

[36:44] you're not in that box, right? Like

[36:46] you're on the outside looking in trying

[36:48] to actually beat it. And I know some

[36:49] people that have actually, you know,

[36:50] like gone in person to the Hard Rock

[36:53] there and they're like they're not

[36:56] having it with in terms of like in

[36:57] person or any of that. So, um,

[37:00] >> yours yours truly yours truly might be

[37:02] uh banned from certain certain locations

[37:04] in the state of Florida.

[37:06] >> I'm I'm not a I don't know. I would be

[37:10] quite upset if I was uh a Florida

[37:12] resident with with the current state of

[37:14] affairs.

[37:16] >> How about you, Mike? Yeah, I think I

[37:18] think one wait one one other thing I

[37:19] thought was very interesting on this is

[37:21] a couple weeks ago for the Paul Joshua

[37:24] fight. I was looking at the screen Hard

[37:26] Rock was way off. So everybody had it at

[37:29] like you know plus a,000 minus500 and

[37:32] Hard Rock had it at plus 500 I think at

[37:35] close for Paul and minus 750 for Joshua

[37:40] which like I get it they were like

[37:42] shading the entire line. The fight was

[37:43] in Florida, I believe. So, like they're

[37:45] getting all this Paul action, but it was

[37:47] just a massive ARB to the market. And I

[37:50] remember being like, wait, like surely

[37:52] there's you could just get infinite down

[37:54] on this. And people were like unclear

[37:57] about whether it was a combination of

[37:59] everybody with a pulse had been banned

[38:01] even from betting the minus 750 or they

[38:04] were just taking so much Paul action.

[38:05] But it was it was actually tilting. I I

[38:08] normally don't have Hard Rock on my

[38:09] screen because you can't bet anything

[38:11] there, but I like had to fully remove it

[38:13] for that fight because it just kept

[38:15] popping up as like this is so off

[38:17] market, but no one can just bet it.

[38:18] >> It It was taunting you the entire time.

[38:20] >> It was haunting. I was like, do I have

[38:21] to go to Florida to go bet this minus

[38:23] 750?

[38:24] >> Right.

[38:25] >> Uh go ahead, Mike. So, I think that

[38:28] normally I'm, you know, I don't think

[38:29] that they should be in the business of

[38:31] making sure books give people decent

[38:33] limits, but if you're going to have a

[38:34] monopoly and ban other kind of

[38:35] competitors, this is the one situation

[38:37] where I do think it's totally [ __ ]

[38:39] that they're able to kind of do this. I

[38:41] think that the answer to me is to make

[38:43] it so that it's not a monopoly. That's

[38:45] seems to be, you know, the actual fair

[38:47] answer rather than the uh, you know, see

[38:49] what they do as far as limiting. But

[38:52] another thing is uh with that Joshua uh

[38:54] Paul fight, I think that asymmetrical

[38:56] limits have made it so books can shade

[38:59] in ways where it's totally not

[39:01] representing the probability that they

[39:02] actually believe the event is going to

[39:04] be. I know uh last year when it was the

[39:07] Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson uh MVP, it was

[39:10] after the voting was done and I checked

[39:12] on this offshore book and the amount

[39:14] that you could bet on uh Lamar to win

[39:17] MVP was 10x what you could bet on Josh

[39:20] Allen to win MVP. And I thought, ah,

[39:23] that's kind of weird. I don't really

[39:24] know what's going on, so I'm just going

[39:25] to stay out of there. Sure enough, the

[39:26] one that you could bet 10x on lost. So

[39:29] when you have these asymmetrical limits,

[39:31] you're able to kind of skew the game in

[39:35] a way that's, you know, also not fair.

[39:37] >> Yeah. Just I follow up on Mike. Yeah. I

[39:40] I kind of come around actually. I think

[39:41] like one of the main reasons for

[39:43] legalized sports betting was that you

[39:45] wanted to get people off the black

[39:47] market and away from like PPHs and and

[39:50] crypto sites or whatever. And if you're

[39:52] gonna have one operator, especially one

[39:54] that really aggressively limits, like

[39:56] you're just where are those people

[39:58] supposed to go, right? Like they're just

[39:59] going to go right back there. So it just

[40:01] doesn't make any sense. So yeah, I'm I'm

[40:02] I'm on board where this is like way

[40:05] worse just because if that's the

[40:06] argument for legalization, then what the

[40:08] hell are we doing here?

[40:09] >> Yeah. You just you really don't have

[40:10] legalization in a way. You could say

[40:12] that you have, you know, partial

[40:13] legalization for some residents.

[40:15] >> Yeah. Like if you have 20 books, even if

[40:17] they're all limiting, like you have a

[40:19] shelf life at all those different books.

[40:20] like some of them are going to be less

[40:22] bad, whatever. But yeah, it's messed up

[40:23] if you just have one.

[40:25] >> All right, great comment there from

[40:26] Jason to get that conversation going.

[40:28] Final comment is from Ricky Pucks. Uh,

[40:30] how dare you make negative insinuations

[40:33] on the Philly Godfather? I'll have you

[40:35] know I very generously got a free month

[40:37] out of the members of his crew which

[40:39] turned into nine month because he must

[40:41] have forgot or something. I tracked

[40:43] every single play out of those releases

[40:45] and added them to a spreadsheet and he

[40:46] finished down over minus 180 units.

[40:49] Thank you very much. Uh, never mind.

[40:52] Continue with your insinuations.

[40:54] Kadenish, you are you are the most uh

[40:57] anti- Philly Godfather on the last show.

[41:00] Um, anything to add?

[41:02] >> Yeah, Joey Puck's cousin, Ricky Pucks,

[41:04] chiming in there, so a little bit

[41:05] biased. Uh, you know, where cousin Ricky

[41:08] had to, you know, on him, but yeah, I

[41:10] mean there's there's a couple of like

[41:13] trackers, especially some people have

[41:15] done this over the years and it's all

[41:17] it's always the same, right? Like you

[41:19] might have, you know, you got 30 guys

[41:22] that work for the Philly Godfather crew,

[41:24] 27 of them lose,

[41:27] 23, you know, like maybe a couple of

[41:29] come break even, then you lose with

[41:31] fees, and maybe like one guy has a good

[41:33] year or something. So, uh, not

[41:35] surprising, but appreciate you doing the

[41:38] work, Ricky. Um, and seeing that

[41:41] nothing's changed over in that

[41:42] operation.

[41:43] >> Yeah, absolutely. Uh, we'll get into our

[41:45] next full topic on the show, which comes

[41:47] from Jasper Kraven, who says, "Am I

[41:50] addicted to sports gambling? Are you? I

[41:53] spent a crazy week in Sin City testing

[41:55] my luck and investigating the shoddy

[41:57] state of gambling treatment in America."

[41:59] Um, and posted the article that he wrote

[42:01] about his time in Vegas. So to kind of

[42:04] summarize here, got involved with sports

[42:06] betting, not not really that it claimed

[42:09] that he wasn't really that interested in

[42:10] sports betting, but it was more so just

[42:12] the bombardment of advertising kind of

[42:14] got him into it. He felt like he got a

[42:16] little bit hooked off it and then went

[42:18] to kind of test his feelings towards

[42:20] gambling by going to Vegas for a week.

[42:23] And Isaac, you particularly highlighted

[42:25] this section of the article where he

[42:27] wrote, "Four years later, I have wagered

[42:29] more than $18,000 on FanDuel. The story

[42:32] of my spending and burgeoning football

[42:34] fandom is freakishly conventional.

[42:36] Really, it was FanDuel that gave me a

[42:37] reason to watch football. Here was a

[42:39] means to instantly and seemlessly

[42:41] experience risk, feed my ego, and even

[42:43] find something like occasional

[42:45] redemption. Sometimes I lose more than

[42:46] $100. I place a bigger bet to make up

[42:48] for it. This phenomenon is called quote

[42:51] chasing your losses." end quote. And in

[42:54] large doses, I'm told it can signal a

[42:56] problem. Isaac, you were not very

[42:58] receptive to receptive to this portion.

[43:00] You said you've lost about $1,000 in

[43:02] four years and needed someone to explain

[43:05] what chasing losses is. You're not a

[43:08] gambling addict. Uh Rob Pizzola, CEO of

[43:10] the Hammer, had a bit of a long thread,

[43:12] but the first tweet here says, "I read

[43:14] the piece on Tilt, which is Jasper

[43:16] Kravit's piece, uh on America's new

[43:19] gambling epidemic that Isaac referenced

[43:21] below. There's some very real stuff in

[43:23] it. There's also a big framing problem

[43:26] with all of it in my opinion. So, uh,

[43:29] let's go to you, Isaac. You're the

[43:31] responsible gaming advocate here. And

[43:35] this is somebody who maybe felt like he

[43:37] was experiencing signs of problem

[43:39] gaming, but I I I would say in your

[43:41] experiences, you you would say that is

[43:42] not the case.

[43:44] >> Yeah. I mean, I I had a lot of issues

[43:46] with this piece. Um, I think it's

[43:48] actually funny if you read like the

[43:50] intro, like the first paragraph of this

[43:53] piece, which I didn't include, is him

[43:55] talking about how he got a hot tip on a

[43:58] football game, which got him into

[43:59] betting, and it was a comment that he

[44:01] heard from Ben Rothllessberger in a

[44:03] press conference. And so, off the bat, I

[44:05] was I was not having it with this

[44:06] article.

[44:07] >> Ben said something like, "They don't he

[44:08] doesn't think they're going to win the

[44:09] game."

[44:10] >> Yeah. And he was like, "I knew that was

[44:11] a lock, so I had to bet it." And I was

[44:13] like, "What are we doing here?" And then

[44:14] he got into the I've bet $18,000. You

[44:17] know, the classic like kind of a scary

[44:20] number like $18,000 is a lot of money,

[44:22] but that's how much you've bet, not how

[44:24] much you've lost. And yeah, I mean, I

[44:26] had I had two main problems with this

[44:28] piece, which, you know, addresses a lot

[44:30] of very important topics that obviously

[44:33] I and a lot of other people care about.

[44:35] The first one was like his initial

[44:36] framing of like, am I a gambling addict?

[44:38] Like I'm not really a fan of of joking

[44:41] about that topic that much um about

[44:43] addiction in general. It's it's very

[44:45] serious. Like I know people who have

[44:46] suffered gambling addiction, other

[44:48] addictions. And like very obviously this

[44:50] guy doesn't have a gambling problem,

[44:52] right? Like he's lost about $1,000 in

[44:54] four years. He didn't even know what

[44:56] chasing losses was. So like clearly this

[44:58] person is not a gambling addict, right?

[45:00] And so to kind of elude that he and and

[45:03] theoretically like everybody who places

[45:05] bets on sports is probably a gambling

[45:07] addict is very bad. And the other thing

[45:09] is that he just like he doesn't know

[45:10] ball like he doesn't gamble, right? Like

[45:12] clearly there are lots of things where

[45:15] you know I'm vegetarian, right? And I

[45:17] don't I don't go to steak houses and

[45:19] write reviews, right? So I think it's a

[45:21] bit frustrating sometimes when you have

[45:22] people writing about gambling, writing

[45:24] about the industry who just haven't

[45:26] spent much time in there, you know, not

[45:28] not a big part of it, but he also his

[45:30] time, a lot of it was spent at Circa and

[45:32] you know, [ __ ] on a stadium swim and

[45:35] uh you know, I've had some I've had some

[45:36] fun times there. I'm a big fan of what

[45:38] they do at Circa. So yeah, all around uh

[45:40] you know, there's some important pieces

[45:42] of the story, but uh yeah, I'm not a fan

[45:45] of people who who aren't experts going

[45:47] in and and telling everybody else what

[45:48] we should do about something.

[45:50] >> Okay. Uh Kenish, I saw you nodding

[45:52] along. Do you have anything to add on to

[45:53] that? Yeah, this just seems like he not

[45:56] I obviously didn't make up a story, but

[45:59] kind of made up a plot to fit the

[46:02] current public persona around what's

[46:05] happening with gambling and like, hey,

[46:07] I'm going to do this. when I I feel like

[46:10] if you would have done some

[46:12] investigative reporting instead and you

[46:15] could there there's plenty of stories

[46:17] out there that you could have found and

[46:19] done some like I'm going to write it

[46:21] about this person which would have been

[46:24] much more impactful than almost trying

[46:26] to make up uh I I mean maybe the guy

[46:30] just didn't know but this almost you

[46:33] know kind of reads like a a gambling but

[46:37] what a romantic see like a gambling

[46:39] gambling ante like it's like you're just

[46:42] kind of in Yeah, I see. I don't know if

[46:45] I hit that but

[46:47] >> yeah. Yeah, it's very cliche I think is

[46:50] the is the point that Joey's trying to

[46:51] make. Like it touches on all these nodes

[46:53] like, oh, early on he meets like the

[46:56] wise casino worker and then he meets

[46:58] like the former addict at a football

[47:00] game who tells him how now he can love

[47:02] the sport without gambling. And then

[47:04] right at the end of the piece, he talks

[47:06] about as he was cashing out the chips

[47:08] from his $ five bet, he saw like a

[47:10] problem gambling pamphlet. And then he

[47:12] ends up talking about like the

[47:14] technological problems and how we're all

[47:16] going to be gambling. And it's like it

[47:18] just feels it's it's very contrived.

[47:20] It's very cliche as Joey said like there

[47:24] are a lot of great stories to be told.

[47:26] Um there are some great journalists who

[47:28] do awesome work on this. I'll give a

[47:29] shout out to to David Hill you know and

[47:32] I think what what you know if if you

[47:34] read pieces by people who gamble and as

[47:36] someone who writes I try to have this

[47:38] come through is like you know whether or

[47:40] you don't have to be a professional

[47:41] gambler. You don't have to be a winning

[47:42] gambler but you have to have like

[47:44] gambled and kind of get it. Um, and I

[47:47] think this guy just just doesn't and he

[47:49] like as Joey said, like I don't think he

[47:50] made up the piece, but he just sort of

[47:53] wrote this to to fit the public

[47:55] narrative and it Yeah, I didn't think it

[47:57] was that good.

[47:58] >> Mike, anything from you to add?

[48:00] >> I'm going to write a piece that, you

[48:01] know, maybe I'm a drinking maybe I have

[48:03] alcoholism because I've had 12 beers in

[48:05] the past month or that I've been really

[48:07] drunk, you know, four times in the past

[48:09] six months. Like what? This is a perfect

[48:11] example of somebody like Joey said, he's

[48:13] romanticizing this in his head. This is

[48:15] the kind of guy who like says one

[48:17] off-topic things like, "Oh my god, I

[48:19] have ADHD so bad." It's like I I don't

[48:22] know. He definitely clearly wanted to

[48:23] write this piece and he thought the best

[48:25] angle for this piece was, "Oh, maybe I

[48:27] show signs of gambling when it's not

[48:29] really an issue." I I don't know. I

[48:30] think that it's break of all sorts of

[48:33] like main character syndrome where he

[48:35] wants himself to have this issue so he

[48:37] can write about it. I don't think that

[48:38] it serves as any real purpose of someone

[48:41] with gambling addiction.

[48:42] >> Yeah. I hate to give I hate to give

[48:43] Shipper two shout outs in one episode,

[48:45] but I like Shipper's reply, which was uh

[48:48] bloke probably claims to have OCD

[48:50] because he makes his bed every morning,

[48:52] you know? Like I think that's that's

[48:53] what we're getting at here. It's like

[48:54] yeah, like you know, gambling can be

[48:57] dangerous, right? And obviously a lot of

[48:59] people have problems, but you know,

[49:00] don't don't like joke about addiction

[49:02] and conflate that with really just

[49:04] pretty standard recreational use.

[49:07] >> Pretty good way to get a trip to Las

[49:08] Vegas completely written off. Just write

[49:10] an article about it. So, not not bad on

[49:14] that front. Next one, we go to the Welsh

[49:17] at is it the Welsh who says, "This seems

[49:20] problematic." And it is an ad from uh

[49:23] Finle where you can buy shares in

[49:28] supporting a prospect in sport. It it

[49:31] says, "Support a rising prospect, get

[49:33] paid a piece of his MLB earnings." This

[49:35] is Arun Escobar, the number four

[49:37] prospect for the Philadelphia Phillies.

[49:40] has played in the miners showcasing his

[49:42] age, his level, his stats and

[49:44] everything. You can buy shares into

[49:47] these players and as they sign they sign

[49:50] these future earnings contracts

[49:52] contracts with Finley and they receive

[49:54] the upfront funding to support their

[49:56] careers and then Finley will then share

[49:59] offer the shares tied to a percentage of

[50:01] the athlete future on field earnings

[50:04] like salary and league pay uh league

[50:07] performance bonuses to the investors.

[50:09] you can buy those shares through a

[50:11] platform and it's just a really

[50:14] interesting way to gamble on a player.

[50:17] Um, you know, in the past I have kind of

[50:21] thought about like I I wish you could

[50:23] there was like a stock market on

[50:24] players. I could invest in a player cuz

[50:27] I believe his stock his his quote

[50:29] unquote stock metaphorically will go up.

[50:32] And now you can kind of do it. But I

[50:35] also do see some problems with this. Uh

[50:39] Kenesh, let's start with you. Do you

[50:41] like this? Do you not like this? Cuz I

[50:43] don't really know how to feel. This is

[50:45] like peak like if you're making a you

[50:47] know a latestage capitalism argument

[50:50] here. Uh I I just went on and like I I

[50:54] don't know. Part of me wants to like buy

[50:56] up all the Ronald Realdo Yin stock and

[50:59] just like own if he ever makes it like I

[51:02] you know I I own his entire like uh

[51:05] investment. I

[51:07] it seems a bit uh

[51:11] exploitive. I'll I'll put it at that. Um

[51:14] I know there was some there there was

[51:16] basically uh who was it? uh maybe I

[51:21] forget which maybe Manny Machado or one

[51:23] of those that was suing an agency that

[51:28] basically did this that gave him money

[51:31] when he was like a you know really young

[51:34] for a percentage of his then he signed

[51:36] his you know massive contract and then

[51:37] they're claiming they owe you know like

[51:39] whatever 30 20% 30% of his earnings. Um

[51:44] this seems to be the same thing. Um, I

[51:48] guess if you're, you know, if you're a

[51:50] lower

[51:52] level like Dominican player or something

[51:54] and you want to just, you know, have

[51:56] some, you know, like 20,000, 50,000 is

[51:59] like, you know, a lot of money you could

[52:00] send back to your family and that I I

[52:02] can kind of see why you would this would

[52:04] interest you. Um, at the same time, I

[52:07] would be

[52:09] I'd be a little worried as an investor

[52:12] that like I would get get the if Ronaldo

[52:17] ends up getting a $100 million contract.

[52:20] There would be some concern on my end

[52:21] that I would actually see the pay the

[52:25] money here um over the course of the

[52:27] deal. But I don't know. I gota be honest

[52:30] with you. It seems a little bit um the

[52:33] idea though is interesting.

[52:35] Uh I think was it Fernando Tatise who

[52:37] was suing his agent?

[52:38] >> That's what Yeah, maybe it was Tatis.

[52:40] >> Okay. Um

[52:41] >> for Joey, they're all the same. Yeah.

[52:43] >> Okay. So it is kind of similar. Uh just

[52:46] kind of looking into it a little bit

[52:48] here just on the surface. Um so

[52:51] interesting there. His agency made off

[52:52] pretty good because he was forced to pay

[52:54] 3.7 million in an arbitration case in

[52:56] the end on that. Uh Mike, how do you

[52:57] feel about investing into prospects like

[52:59] this? I'm going to zag. Everybody hates

[53:02] these things and the individuals may

[53:05] like may make it so that I don't want to

[53:07] stick up for it, but the actual idea

[53:09] kind of makes sense. If you're a

[53:11] prospect and you have, you know, a

[53:12] decent chance of becoming $100 million

[53:15] and you want to say, "Hey, you know, I

[53:17] don't need past $100 million. I would

[53:19] much rather have a 100% chance of

[53:22] getting $200,000 to help my family out."

[53:24] It kind of makes sense to me that these

[53:26] things exist. individuals like, you

[53:29] know, me or Joey, like what the hell do

[53:30] we know? The fact that we're investing

[53:32] in it probably doesn't make sense.

[53:33] That's where we go far. But I actually

[53:35] kind of see the point of these

[53:36] companies. The amazing thing about Tatis

[53:39] is is his dad played in the MLB. So, how

[53:42] did he need to have this whole

[53:45] investment thing

[53:47] >> is a whole another question. But,

[53:48] >> and they that I'm just looking they gave

[53:50] him $2 million. This isn't like, you

[53:53] know, a lot of these guys are on here

[53:54] looking for like 50,000$100,000.

[53:56] He got $2 million, then got his

[53:58] contract, and what? Like, oh, now I

[54:00] don't have to pay the money. YOU ALREADY

[54:02] GAVE ME ALREADY GAVE THE GUY $2 million.

[54:04] So, yeah, I seems uh I agree with uh the

[54:07] court system in that instance.

[54:09] >> Isaac, your thoughts?

[54:11] >> Yeah, I mean I it is pretty like fairly

[54:14] standard and other things as well. It's

[54:15] called an income share agreement, an

[54:18] ISA. Like it's common for education.

[54:20] Like if someone you know wants to get a

[54:22] degree that's going to get them a

[54:24] highpaying job but they don't have it

[54:25] like there are companies that do this. I

[54:27] mean I'll just address the elephant in

[54:29] the room which is that you know most of

[54:31] the investors the four of us are are

[54:34] going to be white and then most of the

[54:35] athletes are going to be black. Like it

[54:38] it that's why like this the the the

[54:40] tweet in question like the reason it

[54:42] seems problematic is because you have

[54:44] like a bunch of white people like buying

[54:47] shares in black athletes and like that

[54:50] obviously at least the optics of it are

[54:53] very bad. Like I I agree with Mike. Like

[54:55] in theory I can see where it makes

[54:57] sense. Um it does it does seem pretty

[55:00] weird though. not something I would do,

[55:02] but uh yeah, you know, like it would be

[55:04] very cool to sort of hitch your ride on

[55:08] an early prospect that you were a big

[55:10] fan of or like you know, a player

[55:12] earlier in their career and and it when

[55:13] they become big, you somehow get paid

[55:15] out. But I feel like that's that's kind

[55:16] of what like you know buying rookie

[55:18] cards or whatever the that I do that at

[55:20] all, right? It's kind of the same thing.

[55:22] Truthfully, I I want to go back to I

[55:24] didn't really realize the part that

[55:26] Isaac brought brought up, but in this

[55:28] instance and Isaac, would you say that

[55:30] you're only comfortable buying shares of

[55:32] white athletes because

[55:33] >> 100%. Yeah. And I'm actually I think we

[55:36] need to rephrase this as a way we need

[55:38] to get more white athletes. This is a

[55:40] stance that I will take publicly. That's

[55:42] the that's the real people talk about

[55:44] the quality of the NFL and NBA product.

[55:47] I think it's because there's not enough

[55:48] white people. That's that's that's my

[55:50] take on the record. NBA's been trying

[55:52] lately, but

[55:53] >> but they're all international. Where are

[55:55] homegrown whites? Why can't they ball?

[55:58] >> Cooper flag.

[55:59] >> There we go.

[56:00] >> Yeah. Cooper flag coniple changing

[56:02] changing the landscape of the NBA.

[56:04] >> Homegrren. When's the last time you saw

[56:06] them in tops?

[56:09] I mean, I Yeah. I don't know.

[56:10] >> The top five lately been on a run.

[56:14] >> Uh interesting. Uh this is a real like

[56:18] long-term sweat. Like if it's your team,

[56:20] it's a prospect you really like on your

[56:22] own team,

[56:24] like there are there are people who come

[56:25] from more underprivileged areas who like

[56:28] with the right funding can really

[56:29] accelerate their careers. And I don't

[56:32] know, I I'd have to look like I'd have

[56:35] to look into the company like if there's

[56:36] anything shady involved there. What sort

[56:38] of cut do they take like compared to

[56:41] yours compared to the athletes and all

[56:42] of that. But like at from a pure idea

[56:45] standpoint, I I do like it and would

[56:48] like to investigate a little bit

[56:50] further. It very very interesting

[56:51] concept here. Couple more topics to go

[56:53] on the show today, but just want to let

[56:56] you guys know about some other content

[56:58] we have with the Hammer Betting Network.

[56:59] We have a watchalong coming for some

[57:02] conference championship actions. We know

[57:04] how much you love our NFL watch alongs

[57:05] on the Forward Progress YouTube channel.

[57:08] One last chance to get in on the fun

[57:09] Sunday night for the Rams and Seahawks.

[57:12] GStack George host all of that going

[57:14] down right on the Forward Progress

[57:16] YouTube channel. Link is in the

[57:17] description for that. There'll be

[57:19] special guests. There'll be live bets

[57:20] and a whole lot of fun. You do not want

[57:22] to miss out on that. 50 minutes for the

[57:24] scheduled start time of the game. All

[57:27] right, two more topics to go at Fantasy

[57:30] Foes says, "With PMs, you can basically

[57:32] lock in a 0% hedge for six plus figures.

[57:35] Don't get why more sharp sharp people

[57:37] aren't doing it." It was a quote tweet

[57:39] for this one from Brad Powers, who is

[57:41] Joey Kenisha's co-host on the Hit the

[57:42] Books YouTube channel. He had a very

[57:44] large ticket on Miami, Florida to win

[57:46] the national championship plus 20,000 on

[57:49] a $100 bet going into the national

[57:51] championship game where Miami were uh

[57:54] about seven eight point underdogs in

[57:56] that game. He says, "I know some of

[57:57] y'all got bigger tickets and disc, but

[57:58] are you hedging or letting it ride

[58:01] tonight?" Um we'll go over to you,

[58:02] Kenish. First of all, um I don't know if

[58:05] you know what BP ended up doing with

[58:06] this one. he ended up hedged or ended up

[58:08] just going there. I'm assuming he just

[58:09] let it play out. But how do you feel

[58:11] like do you think more better should

[58:13] take advantage of hedging in

[58:14] circumstances like this?

[58:17] >> I'll be honest with you. So I know BP

[58:18] did a small hedge there. Nothing crazy.

[58:21] Um but just like locked in a little bit.

[58:23] I I don't really get the point like what

[58:29] Fantasy Foes is going after here. Um in

[58:34] terms of like

[58:36] I Ah,

[58:38] I I I don't I guess I don't notice like

[58:41] in terms of like when would you hedge

[58:42] this? What is it like? I I I guess I

[58:44] don't really get I saw this tweet live.

[58:46] I didn't have a great understand like

[58:48] yes, you could like hedge it at a you

[58:51] know book like Kouchy for a little bit

[58:52] less big but I don't under like give me

[58:56] give me somebody else is going to have

[58:57] to.

[58:58] >> Yeah, I I can do it. So it when there is

[59:01] no hold in a market so in these

[59:03] situations like once you get to the

[59:04] title game basically there's no hold.

[59:06] Novig is trading like minus 101 minus

[59:09] 101. So in that situation, whatever side

[59:12] you pick, if the price is, you think,

[59:14] relatively accurate, it's going to be

[59:16] like your expected loss is essentially

[59:18] zero. So you're paying nothing to get

[59:20] out of it. So now before you had to pay

[59:23] the vig again in order to hedge, so it

[59:24] didn't make sense to pay to hedge. Now

[59:27] that there's basically, you know, the

[59:29] the margins have gotten so tight that

[59:30] it's zero hold, you can do it at

[59:33] essentially like theoretically no cost.

[59:36] Gotcha. Uh yeah, I mean

[59:40] I get it at the same time like I I

[59:44] don't know. I'm not like that to me

[59:46] isn't like oh my god like the greatest

[59:48] selling factor in terms of

[59:49] >> is that just like a case of you're not

[59:51] losing any EV by hedging. Is that what's

[59:53] they're kind of saying here?

[59:54] >> Yes. You're not losing any.

[59:56] >> You're not you're not losing any EV. And

[59:58] actually, you know, if you get into the

[60:00] weeds of like expected bankroll growth,

[60:03] right? like let's say you have a bet a a

[60:05] future where it's expected to pay out

[60:07] like double your bankroll or whatever

[60:09] right like you actually don't want to

[60:11] shoulder that risk right so it actually

[60:13] becomes optimal like Kelly and sort of

[60:15] long-term growth to to hedge out of that

[60:17] position and it becomes more attractive

[60:19] to hedge out if you can do it at no

[60:21] vague I think there's a couple things to

[60:23] keep in mind which is one just because

[60:25] people are doing this and they might be

[60:27] winning doesn't mean they're not

[60:28] gamblers right like they still want it

[60:31] and I think that's particularly true for

[60:33] futures. Like I think of times when I've

[60:35] had a big future, right? Maybe you're

[60:37] riding that team or player to the entire

[60:40] like to the to the end of it like to the

[60:43] final or whatever. Like you have so much

[60:45] invested you like want to see it through

[60:47] like you kind of don't want to hedge it

[60:48] out at least fully. Um or maybe you know

[60:52] be if you're if you've ridden with them

[60:54] all along at least earlier on you might

[60:56] not find value in the current market or

[60:58] you still think there's value on them.

[60:59] I've definitely had that happen. Um, but

[61:01] yeah, I mean I think it comes down to

[61:03] like if you have uh, you know, a 100 to

[61:06] one uh 100 to one ticket on a team and

[61:09] you've written them the entire season,

[61:10] like I don't want to hedge out at the

[61:12] end. I want to [ __ ] ride it to the

[61:13] end.

[61:15] >> Okay. I saw this tweet and thought,

[61:16] "Wow, that's a really good idea. More

[61:18] people should do that." I had futures on

[61:20] Miami and still didn't do [ __ ] about,

[61:23] you know, old habits die hard. I think

[61:25] that this sounds good. Really in theory,

[61:27] you could say if you're betting early

[61:29] and you think that your value is getting

[61:31] to CLV, there's no value at post, you

[61:33] should do it even like on every game

[61:36] essentially is what you could say. If

[61:37] there's zero EV loss, but I think that

[61:39] it's more a thing of habits. And I would

[61:41] guess that newer betters, if this still

[61:43] exists, will start to kind of use this

[61:45] more. I will I will say this is

[61:48] definitely, you know, do not recommend,

[61:49] but I'm I'm curious for uh Kenish or

[61:52] Mike. If you've ever gotten to this

[61:54] situation and done the opposite where

[61:57] like let's say you have the future on

[61:59] Miami to win or whatever and it's like

[62:01] big but it's not huge and then you get

[62:04] to a point where you see the price that

[62:06] you like on them again or maybe it's no

[62:08] big you're like I want more of a sweat

[62:10] on this so you throw more. Like I mean I

[62:12] think it's a classic debate of you know

[62:13] you find value on a team, you bet them,

[62:15] they go down a goal, they go down a run,

[62:17] you find value again. Like when do you

[62:19] stop? I think that's like I've done that

[62:21] I think more than hedging out. Um but

[62:23] that's cuz I'm, you know, I fall prey to

[62:25] seeing value when there might not be

[62:27] value.

[62:28] >> That's where your famous 20% rule came

[62:30] in to play.

[62:32] >> There we go. Exactly. Temper.

[62:34] >> Yeah. No, I know what you're talking

[62:35] about. I've had similar with like full

[62:36] games and the first half the team I feel

[62:39] is not getting outplayed, but they are

[62:41] down in the scoreboard essentially of

[62:42] what I think is kind of lucky event.

[62:44] It's like, you know, is this the same

[62:46] bet? Is this a different bet? It's kind

[62:47] of interesting. So, okay. When you say

[62:51] like it doesn't like you still your EV

[62:53] is the same when you're hedging, you're

[62:55] taking a 0% hedge here. If you're

[62:58] betting like a very small sample, then

[63:00] sure, you know, take your opportunity to

[63:02] hedge. If you're consistently betting,

[63:04] you have a ton of volume. If it's not

[63:06] going to change your EV, why bother

[63:09] hedging? Like, in the long run, in

[63:10] theory, wouldn't you just be the same

[63:13] off in the long run with your bet just

[63:15] keeping it as is rather than hedging if

[63:18] you're going to be making enough bets to

[63:20] uh take away the variance at risk of

[63:22] ruining?

[63:23] >> No. Well, because uh even in if you're

[63:26] betting large samples, you'll have

[63:27] streaks where it will start to affect

[63:29] the size of things. So if you have uh

[63:32] you know say a thousand wages and you go

[63:34] down a 20 loss streak it will drop your

[63:36] bankroll significantly. So you know as

[63:39] much as you can smooth it out will

[63:40] actually help the expected grow. I don't

[63:42] that's just theoretically thinking about

[63:44] it. I think that's what

[63:45] >> so you're you're reducing the variance

[63:47] even further by hedging consistently.

[63:49] >> Yeah. You're essentially just smoothing

[63:51] the line so that it goes like this

[63:52] instead of you know

[63:53] >> understood. Okay, that makes sense. Last

[63:55] one on the show comes from Calvin and

[63:57] Hobo who did an interview on this

[63:59] channel a few months back. It's a great

[64:00] interview I recommend checking out.

[64:02] Asked this question says, "If you bet a

[64:04] line at minus 115, there's no news and

[64:07] it goes to plus 100 and stays there for

[64:09] an hour then goes to minus 140 and

[64:11] closes -40, was this good process, still

[64:15] COV, or bad process, bad timing?" And

[64:17] about 80% of plus of the votes that

[64:20] actually had an opinion on this in this

[64:22] poll said that this is good process

[64:24] still CLV Isaac you responded and said

[64:27] depends on market type but bet process

[64:30] probably good. Sure. Reserve judgment

[64:32] until this happens 100 more times and

[64:34] you have a large enough sample to know

[64:36] better though. So why don't you

[64:37] elaborate on this and then we can go to

[64:40] Mike and he can give his take on why he

[64:42] disagrees with you.

[64:43] >> Yeah. So, I think this just like matters

[64:45] a lot. Like this is this is a in a

[64:48] scenario where this is a super liquid

[64:50] large market like a money line or

[64:52] whatever. Um, that's one thing. Whereas,

[64:54] if it's some like silly prop market,

[64:56] that's another. You know, I've I've had

[64:58] markets like I've been I've bet markets

[65:00] before where the price just jumps around

[65:02] for seemingly no reason or, you know,

[65:05] like a hundred or $200 max bet can move

[65:07] the price. And so in that scenario when

[65:10] you like I really trust my own numbers

[65:12] more than the market that's one thing.

[65:14] Whereas if I if I actually trust the

[65:16] market maybe more than myself um then

[65:19] that's another but in general I think

[65:21] you you trust the close. I know some

[65:23] people will maybe trust like 5 10

[65:25] minutes before close more than the

[65:27] actual close. But uh yeah I I can't say

[65:30] I've had like infinite success betting

[65:32] super liquid markets at at close in in

[65:34] my life. So, I don't I don't know, which

[65:36] is why I'm like, you know, I would want

[65:38] to see this happen a bunch of times in

[65:40] any specific market to know how to

[65:41] react.

[65:42] >> Uh, I say Mike disagrees with you

[65:44] because you put that in our notes. So,

[65:46] uh, Mike, go ahead.

[65:48] >> I I think implicit in the question is

[65:49] you have to assume that the CLV matters.

[65:52] He's more asking about, you know, it

[65:54] moving against you at first and then for

[65:56] you later on, you know, is that good

[65:58] process? To me, I that makes me even

[66:00] more confident in the, you know, closing

[66:03] line. It's cuz you're not creating it

[66:04] yourself. If it's moving the other way

[66:06] originally, that means you're not the

[66:08] one causing the line movement. So, if

[66:10] we're going to say the CLV matters, you

[66:11] know, if the market's not efficient at

[66:13] all, then sure, we can say like, okay,

[66:15] then it doesn't matter. But it kind of

[66:17] ruins the whole question. The question

[66:19] is presupposing that the market is

[66:20] efficient enough that the CLB matters. I

[66:23] think he's talking about the timing of

[66:24] it where if you get it at minus 115,

[66:26] technically you should have got it at

[66:28] plus 100. Well, okay. I mean, yeah, if

[66:30] you knew that the market was going to go

[66:31] to plus 100, you would take it then.

[66:33] It's like, you know, the I'll get a

[66:34] better price live. Unless you don't get

[66:36] the better price live. It's one of those

[66:38] situations where of course you could

[66:40] have maybe done it better, but it's

[66:41] still good process to get it in at minus

[66:44] 115 if it's closing minus 144.

[66:46] >> Okay. And Kenishh, anything from you to

[66:48] add? Yeah, I I feel like there's there's

[66:50] so many caveats, right, in this one to

[66:52] where like it can go a number of ways

[66:55] where like market timing I liked Isaac's

[66:58] point there where if it happens, you

[66:59] know, a hundred times, then then you've

[67:01] kind of got like a market timing issue

[67:03] where or like it to be a little bit more

[67:06] savvy of the groups or the people that,

[67:08] you know, uh I'm not going to mention

[67:10] his name one more time uh from the show,

[67:12] but he always says know your

[67:13] counterparty. Um, this is one of those

[67:16] like maybe you didn't totally recognize

[67:18] your counterparty in this or when

[67:20] they're like technically getting in or

[67:23] it could be a one thing. I mean, I agree

[67:24] on a one-off close 25 cents good then

[67:28] I'm okay with it. Um, but if this is

[67:30] happening to you, yeah, on a regular

[67:31] basis, then you've got an entry problem

[67:34] and you're not um, you know, that's more

[67:36] of like a thing you should work out via

[67:38] timing. But I think there's this

[67:39] general, you know, worry that people are

[67:42] like, "Oh, if I I've at times been

[67:44] like,"Oh, if only I can get it at this

[67:46] other book, it's slightly better priced

[67:48] and I like overanalyze about getting the

[67:50] exact optimal." When in reality, if you

[67:52] get minus 115 and closes 145 or

[67:55] whatever, that's a good bet. Like the

[67:57] fact that you didn't get every single

[67:59] scent, obviously you want to get that,

[68:00] but I think too many times people are

[68:02] like, "Oh, if only I would have just

[68:03] waited this, I could have got it at this

[68:05] number or whatever." It's like OB over

[68:07] the long term you want to get the best

[68:08] market price you can but depending on

[68:10] the market that you're in I think just

[68:12] making sure you get it in good is more

[68:14] important than making sure you're

[68:16] getting you know the most optimal.

[68:18] >> Yeah, I think that's that's a really

[68:19] that's a really great point. Like I

[68:21] think one of the things that sort of

[68:23] helped me grow a lot and make a lot more

[68:25] money as a better was not always taking

[68:27] the best price. Like I would look at my

[68:29] screen and you know the best price let's

[68:31] say it would be at Hard Rock, right? And

[68:32] I'd be like, ah, you know, I can't get

[68:34] that minus 120 at Hard Rock. It's minus

[68:37] 130 everywhere else, so I'm not going to

[68:38] bet it even though I make it like minus

[68:41] 150 or never mind. I'm never betting

[68:43] favorites, but you see the you see the

[68:44] point and it's like, yeah, and you'd end

[68:47] up missing out on all these really good

[68:48] spots. So, I think it's a really good

[68:49] point.

[68:50] >> Okay, an interesting conversation to end

[68:52] off the show. If you have an opinion,

[68:54] please leave it in the comment section

[68:55] down below, whether it's on this topic

[68:57] or anything else we discuss throughout

[68:58] the show. Thank you so much for watching

[69:00] this episode of Circle Back. Hit that

[69:02] like button if you did enjoy. Make sure

[69:03] you are subscribed to the channel for

[69:05] more great content like this. Be back on

[69:07] Monday with a live edition of the show,

[69:09] 1 p.m. Eastern time. We hope to see you

[69:11] there.