00:00 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Here's what's coming up on today's episode of Circle Back.
00:03 - Joey Knish (Host)
But I think there's probably some big edges, either right now or upcoming, in terms of prediction market correlation with SGPs. That it wouldn't be the time where I'd be like nope, sgp, it's over, you can't do anything. Completely shy away from it.
00:19 - Mike (Host)
Does he know how a deli works? They don't make sandwiches at a deli. They slice the meat and give it back to you. What the fuck?
00:24 - Flup (Host)
That's how a deli works. They don't make sandwiches at a deli. No, no Delis give you sliced meat.
00:28 - Mike (Host)
They don't make the sandwich.
00:30 - Joey Knish (Host)
What kind of boondock Columbus Ohio deli are you going to?
00:33 - Flup (Host)
Kanish I mean come on.
00:45 - Joey Knish (Host)
At a certain point it's like can you not say anything publicly? That could be even more dramatic. Oh wait, now I'm getting a bunch of women. Now I look beautiful in the women, like I saved your life. The male loneliness epidemic is over.
00:51 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Disclaimer. The content presented in this show is intended for entertainment purposes only. All opinions expressed are those of the host and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of any individuals or organizations mentioned. Statements made about public figures or entities are based on publicly available information and are not intended to harm or defame any person or business. This show relies on fair use of social media posts, which are presented in good faith for the purpose of commentary and criticism. Viewers and listeners are advised to form their own opinions.
01:40
Good morning everyone. 8 am Eastern time. It means it's time for Circle Back here on the Circles Off channel. It's part of the Hammer Betting Network and presented by Calchi. This is the show where we cover the latest and greatest stories from gambling Twitter, and usually, like I said, latest and greatest stories, but sometimes the greatest tweets that we get from gambling Twitter are some actually the worst tweets we get from gambling Twitter. The worse it is, oftentimes the better it is, and we talk about it in these shows monday and friday with the friday crew.
02:11
For today I am your host here on circle back. My name is jacob germania. I am a host, creator and producer here at the hammerbag network, in the bottom corner of the screen, we have the predictive market bull, the one-time contest winner, chris deer. Kiss at Lied. In the bottom right corner of the screen, we have Joey Stash rocking a new look today. Host on the Hit the Books YouTube channel, joey Knish, and then the fourth for today. He's been here a few times now, always a popular person to have as our fourth. It is Mike, aka MrPeanutBetter on Twitter Guy, who has been absolutely bashing it With the calci markets. We saw you up on one of the leaderboards there. You were telling us a little bit about it, but you said you ran hot. How are you doing that?
02:54 - Mike (Host)
You know it's just the revenge of the Taylor Swift markets. I first bet against love when I bet on her to not get engaged. Now we got no marriage, so this time I'm hoping, you know, nothing happens during the Chiefs bye week.
03:10 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
It could bankrupt me, all right. Well, we will closely monitor how that does continue for you. But we're going to jump into our first topic today. Like I said, sometimes the worst tweets give us some of the best content that we can go through, and that is definitely. We definitely have an example of that to get things started for the show today. An example of that to get things started for the show today, we have one from J-Far2Nice who we have had on the show previously, and it says quick talk about SGPs.
03:30
The first pick I took two plus 350 props from two different games. I get plus 1925, which I'm supposed to get 100 wins, 1,925. But as we can see from the second picture we have, we have two home runs from the same game One from Blue Jays player Addison Barger, one from New York Yankees player Trent Grisham, both plus 350, which gives a payout of plus 1620. So he says you get punished so heavily on the odds for SGPs now and there are almost no ways left to get an edge on them. Most people are better off just not playing them. If you see someone posting a bunch of SGPs all the time, 99 times out of 100, they're just not going to win long-term. That sounds like somebody else that I know, but let's give it to our guest first of all. I know Flup really wants to dive in on this, but let's give it to our guest first. Do you see some issues with the logic we have here from Jafar?
04:26 - Mike (Host)
I do think that he it's like a decent highlight of clearly players on different teams the correlation is not going to be that great that you're getting such a worse payout in that situation. So I do think it kind of highlights the extra vig that they're adding on there. So that part actually to me isn't that bad. But the fact that he then, you know, combines that into there's no edges to be left to be found here is just, you know, you had one good end that was pretty decent, and then you just take it to an extreme response. That is not at all correct. If they're pricing that correlation incorrectly, there's other ways you can attack the correlation. So, you know, I actually think that it's a decent illustration of how SGPs can add extra juice to it.
05:01 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
But just because one you know know specific bet is not great doesn't mean that all of them are and I forgot to highlight this reply from uh at stakes, underscore real jona, who said probably one of the lowest iq tweets I've seen in a minute flip uh, are you more on the side of mikey? Are you more on the side of jona with this one?
05:20 - Flup (Host)
uh, probably a little bit more on the side of jona, because I thought what's just so funny is he's been posting like SGPs a lot. I don't understand, is he self-owning? I just remember, like over a year ago, talking to him, I was like I think you had an edge at one point. You don't have an edge anymore. And then, like a year later, he's like finally realizing oh wait, I don't have an edge anymore in these SGPs.
05:47
And I think the thing is like, while Mike's trying to be like a nice guy and like be friendly to everyone, like at a certain point it's just like, if you miss the fact that there's some correlation here and you don't mention how much correlation and why, like just saying they should be 19-25 is ridiculous. Obviously they can't be 19-25 because it's correlated. One player hits a home run, even a player on a different team, because park conditions, weather, et cetera, et cetera. Even the fact that like, since there's one being scored, your pitcher has to like that will play into factor two. So just like to just ignore all that and say like, oh, he's just a nice guy. Like he doesn't mean it. His general point is good. It's kind of ludicrous. I don't know what Mike is doing here.
06:29
On top of that, the length of game could be extra innings.
06:32 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Teams could play the game differently. If the Jays are up 12-0, they put out pitchers they wouldn't be putting out if it was 3-0. So there's a lot of reason for correlation in these markets. Kanish, why don't you give your thoughts?
06:45 - Joey Knish (Host)
As Fluff said, in the lead-in back in the Spaces days when J-Far was kind of around I hadn't really kept up with what he's been doing lately, but I saw this tweet and I was like, wasn't this whole guy schtick SGPs Like? Wasn't that the whole like? And now it's gone, completely gone. I agree there's probably a layer here in between of like. Yes, he's highlighting something, as PB said, that I think for your, your casual or rec could be like huh, you know what. There could be some interesting data points there. But it's kind of one of those conversations in terms of like, why, the why digging into it that you can't really highlight in just like one tweet or one simple like. Hey, this is kind of like I don't know.
07:30
And also I mean, I mean this isn't really on topic, but I think in the era of that we're getting to now, of with like prediction markets, like show sponsor calci, getting into the sgp realm, it's just how can I say, say this it's a great time to be looking for SGPs that might have positive correlation, that might be mispriced, that might be. You know, it's like you know, if you're waiting to attack different markets, yes, in some of the rec space, maybe not, but I think there's probably some big edges, either either right now or upcoming, in terms of like prediction market correlation with sgps. That it wouldn't be the time where I'd be like nope, sgp, it's over, you can't do anything, completely shy away from it, um, so I maybe that's good broad advice for your standard rec know-nothing better If you're looking to attack and make real money and look edges, I strongly would disagree with that.
08:32 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Yeah, and just like the account health part of it as well, where typically SGPs are associated with recreational betters. So if you can successfully bet SGPs, it looks better for your account sometimes if you're just playing straight plays, for an example. So a few things to consider from that one, but, yeah, especially from who it came from, as you guys mentioned not the highest IQ tweet that we have ever seen. We're going to move on to our next topic in just a second. Before we do reminder, we could really use your help with a YouTube algorithm and wherever you're listening slash watching make sure you do hit that like button. If you're enjoying, if you're in podcast form, rate and review five stars. If you're watching on YouTube, please subscribe to the channel. Help keep driving us upwards.
09:12
We want to hit 30,000 subs and even go further one day, so you can help us get there and find more viewers for the channel, of course, but the next one comes from Ryan Butler at Butler Bets, and this is a quote from DraftKings CEO, jason Robbins. He says I don't see it, or I say I don't see prediction markets taking meaningful share from regulated sports, but he said this in a G2E conference, so I wanted to go to you Flop, first of all because you are very vocal about prediction markets and their status in the market. Because you are very vocal about prediction markets and their status in the market, do you think that Jason Robbins is correct here, or is he not seeing the broader scope of things?
09:51 - Flup (Host)
Well, it's just funny, whoever you talk to, if you talk to like the CEO of CalSheet, it's like they're going to take all the market share. They're going to take the DraftKings, so they're going to take all the market share. Polymarket's going to take all the market share. Nobody's going to take all. Everyone's going to take all this market share. I don't know who's right in this case, and the truth of the matter is they're probably all wrong here. Jason Robbins is definitely wrong. Of course he, as a DraftKings holder and CEO, doesn't think that they're going to take any meaningful share, but he's just dead wrong. How could they not take meaningful share? Meaningful share If word gets out that you can get better prices and better odds on CalSheet and these kind of platforms, it will trickle down even as small percentage from some recreationals Even recreationals that only don't really care about getting plus CV bets, don't care about any of that stuff.
10:42
If they hear from their friends hey, hey, I got a better odds here, they'll go to couch, they'll go to uh, calci and then plus. Another thing to also think about is how many times does like a new better on, like a fandle or draft kings hit a big moonshot sgp and then just get limited because they get incorrectly classified. There's probably a small subset of people that are like that. That would have lost it all back, that the books incorrectly status them, those will go to CalSheet, those will go to prediction markets, even at the very basic. And then, if you think about the broader sense, if this becomes a new cultural phenomenon, then maybe people will be like oh wait, I don't have to be seen as a generate anymore.
11:30 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I can be predicting on prediction markets and that'll also yeah, when I when I see tweets like this, uh it makes me think of like market myopia examples. And then one of that did come up in the in the replies to this what's from a poly, a part, somebody with a poly market badge, and it was just a, a photo of the blockbuster logo, and obviously Blockbuster thought they had commanded the market and then Netflix comes in with a similar but different product and completely kind of phased them out. Now I don't see that exactly happening in this scenario here. But, mike, can you add on to anything Flop said or what do you think about it?
12:01 - Mike (Host)
Yeah, I asked my dog just recently if getting in the trash is a big deal and he said I don't see it personally. So you know his incentives are so misaligned here for him to tell the truth. Obviously he's going to downplay whatever kind of impact that the market has. His comp is tied to the salary of DraftKings, if not directly, I'm assuming directly, but if not directly then indirectly. Clearly he's going to downplay it. You know he could be right.
12:26
It could be a situation where hey, draftkings offers a better product to Rex. This is stopping guys who are sharp from trying to beard in. And you know, maybe this is a small blip in the thing, but it doesn't matter what he actually thinks. He's going to say that it has basically no impact. So he's going to be playing the cheerleader, which he kind of has to do, and I don't even blame him for doing. But obviously he's not going to be like. You know, I think it's going to take away a lot of our market share. I'm very worried about layoffs that we might have to do here and basically I would really sell the stock if I was anyone. Obviously he's not going to come out and any truth to it. It's pretty fair.
13:05 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
And we'll finish with you Kanish.
13:07 - Joey Knish (Host)
Yeah, I mean, I think one Kalshi themselves has a lot of foothold when you're talking about, like the regulatory environment, donald Trump Jr strategic advisor. They've played this pretty well in terms of not only getting the regulatory approval they needed to get everywhere, but who's investing in it, who's backing, and they have, as you said, just strategic advantages of right now People going into states like Texas, california, going into places that regulated books have been trying to get into for years and years and years and haven't been able to make it happen. And then boom, cal Shehi, in a pretty short time period you know, like, if you look at like what the volume was from last year at this point to this year, has been able to not only scale that up and get, get a regulatory foothold, but then you start getting so much liquidity when you can have these mass, mass liquidity pools where you can really ask to Fluff's point, pump the VIG down so low where, even if you can get the message out, even your like blanket rec square is like wait, it's minus 102 on Sunday. On Sunday, when you kind of want to open up your book like every rec does and I can go bad at minus 102 instead of minus 110. Rec does and I can go bet at minus 102 instead of minus 110 if that messaging can get enough foothold out there. I mean it can make a c-chain.
14:31
Now, is it gonna make? Is it gonna take your guy that wants to just go and you know, log into a great app and you know, place a two dollar sgp. Is that guy coming over? Probably not, but anybody that even has the slightest amount, I mean fine bird. They always call Feinberg on the other sophisticated square. Anybody that has the slightest amount, I mean Feinberg. They always call Feinberg on the other sophisticated square. Anybody that has the slightest amount of price sensitivity, I think is a flip candidate, as you'd call it.
14:52 - Mike (Host)
Another person they could flip is someone who comes for one of these weird markets and I don't think they'll ever do huge volume on these. You know well Taylor Swift getting games in hot markets. But if you get somebody who has a feeling about one of these, and he just has a really strong feeling, he comes in, he bets that, he wins that and then boom, he has a couchy balance and he doesn't need to necessarily withdraw, send to DraftKings all the things like that. So some of these more obscure markets that they have, it's not even for the volume of those markets. They might not make a ton on those. To be honest, they might even get beat up by those. But if you can get people to come into that want to bet that, then you get a customer who's already in your pipeline, already has money in there and things like that yeah.
15:32 - Flup (Host)
something else I wanted to point out is like, look at all the like to anyone that listening here, pull up like any parlor you want to bet and look at all the five like five or six regular sports books. You know the mgms, the fandKings of the world. You're going to get vastly different prices between them all because these SGPs, these parlors, are hard to price. So they just ramp up the V to a shit ton and then say, hey, let's just put a ballpark number here and no one's really thought about like how to price these to like an extreme level.
15:59
But with RFQs and Cal Shee and everything like that, there's going to be people that it's like you're not competing, like you don't just get to set the odds yourself. You have to compete against other market makers and sure you're going to still make a generous hold and it's not going to be like pretty, but that's going to force the and it can get to a point where I would not be surprised if in some time it's going to probably a year or two away, where every single parlay is priced better on Cal Sheet or like Polymarket or Novig or Profit, whatever it is, than a regular sports book. And, like Kanisha said if that message gets out anyone, you don't even have to be that price sensitive. It'd just be like if you want to win the most money, go to this place.
16:42 - Mike (Host)
Then guys like J-Far won't have to make tweets that Flopple will embarrass him for.
16:45 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Well, if you want to get ahead of the curve and get involved with CalSheet, you can sign up with a QR code that is on screen right now A fantastic product that we endorse and proud sponsors here on the CirclesChannel. If you don't want to use the QR code right now, you can go to the link in the description. At any time, especially for an audio form, you can't scan the QR code, so go to the link in the description to sign up and cast you today and you can support the show at the exact same time. Now, before we move into the next segment on the show, we want to give a plug to one of the other channels we have in the Hammerbag Network. This is Circles Off, where we do our lifestyle, educational entertainment content, but we also have a channel where we do specifically college football content. There's a show coming up today, friday, at 5 pm Eastern time, as there is every Monday and Friday, with Joey Knish. Knish, tell us a little bit more about Hit the Books, you being one of the co-hosts.
17:33 - Joey Knish (Host)
I mean the best, the hottest, the fastest rising college football show in all the business, with the godfather of CFB himself, Brad Powers, one of the only places now that you can hear BP. Nobody better on the internet. Joey K, there too we're riding a nice wave early in the season and we will hope to see you Monday, Friday or on the live show on Saturday at Hit the Books, the flagship show of the Hammer Betting Network.
18:01 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I don't know. I feel like the Hammer Daily kind of takes that cake right now Do I still see your mustache?
18:08
Still, hey, we'll see the mustache last through the comment section tomorrow and maybe it's gone by 5 pm or gone by 5 pm later today. But if you do want to sign up, I have the QR code on screen in the top left corner for that right now. But, same deal, it's in the link in description at any point throughout the show, whether you're watching or whether you are listening. Now we're going to jump into the next segment, which is brought by Ariel Epstein, who does a lot of this sports betting content and we've talked about it in the past on on this show. A lot of it can be described more as recreational sports betting content. Recreational sports betting content. Specifically, I remember an example from the Super Bowl where she was trying to provide an edge on the coin toss because of the historical imbalances of, I think, tails towards heads. Anyways, she tweeted you know who I hate the quote. Unquote. Get a real job crowd.
18:58
Do you know how much sacrifice and hard work it takes to get to go for your dream job? You people are the most miserable losers on the internet. What's considered a real job? Going to the office at 8 am hating your life. I'm sorry you didn't have the guts to go for it and I dig. I worked really damn hard for this life. I love working in sports. I love my fake job. See you at Yankee Stadium. Tonight. We had a reply from Chad Curtis, who said the issue is along with everyone in your industry is you all parade around and pretend to be professional sports bettors, which is a slap in the face to the ones that are? The reason you have a platform is to shell out meaningful information to losing gamblers.
19:34 - Flup (Host)
Uh knish as a meaningless, not meaningless information, sorry, meaningless, sorry.
19:39 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
The last thing was the reason you have a platform shell meaningless information to losing gamblers. Sorry, sorry, got lost in that one. But the segue to is going to Kanish, because I'd say you are the one out of all of us who has the real job as Joey corporate, so can you speak to what you say here? What do you think?
19:58 - Joey Knish (Host)
I mean I would say that you know what I should be in the comments, like you know, telling, telling the rest of these panelists up here to get a real job. I mean, listen, one, I've got to give it to Chad. That's a pretty good alley-oop there where he puts it through the hoop with the dunk there. So that was a solid I know Pizzola always gives me. There was like a Spaces one time where Ariel was on and he wanted me to like come in and crush her, and spaces one time where Ariel was on and he wanted me to like come in and crush her and I didn't go to. I actually I don't mind her in terms of like, uh, you know a gambling personality.
20:35
I will say the whole listen, if you're chasing your dream and like you're, that's, I'm all fine with that. I I believe you don't have to do the nine to five or any of that stuff. But in this context, where it's not like you started up, like like, if you're, you know you get, you start up like a I don't know like a local deli. People love it. You're giving to the community. You know you're out there, you're making the subs yourself. It's going on. That's the kind of thing where it's like when you chase your dream I think of like, oh, the family shop, Like we got it going. It's going right Selling picks or selling information to rec sports bettors who really probably just think you're hot and want to give you like $10 so they can converse with you in summer. That to me being labeled as, like the new American dream little bit of a tough one for me.
21:27 - Mike (Host)
All right, can we start with one? Does Joey know how an alley-oop works? He's like throw the ball through the hoop, and I think too. Does he know how a deli works? They don't make sandwiches at a deli. They slice the meat and give it back to you.
21:42 - Flup (Host)
That's how a deli they slice the meat and give it back to you. That's how a deli works. They don't make sandwiches at a deli.
21:44 - Mike (Host)
No, no, delis, give you sliced meat.
21:45 - Joey Knish (Host)
They don't make the sandwich. What kind of boondock Columbus, Ohio deli are you going to?
21:48 - Mike (Host)
Three, three. The American dream to you is starting a deli shop. I think that if anything.
21:54 - Joey Knish (Host)
I didn't put the mustache. Do I look like a guy that worked at a deli? We're going to tell him yes, that's what I'm going for. Give me the salami and the gold cuts. I'll make you a nice hoagie there and maybe you can come and get us a telly.
22:09 - Mike (Host)
You know, joey can't relate because he doesn't have the cojones to go out and fight for his dream like us and Ariel did okay. So I think that she's 100% doing God's work, selling picks to people who don't understand what they're buying, and I would say go after it even more.
22:21 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
All right, chris, over to you.
22:24 - Flup (Host)
Honestly, these guys covered it pretty well. I won't add anything else. I enjoyed Kanish, basically butchering everything he said, though that was fun.
22:34 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
You live in like a very deli-centric place, new York City, would you say a deli shop is one that just slices the meats, or is a deli shop one that also makes a sandwich for you?
22:45 - Flup (Host)
I think it's a little bit in between.
22:47 - Joey Knish (Host)
Don't hedge your bet. Who the fuck goes to a deli that doesn't make sandwiches anymore?
22:53 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
If I walked into a deli and they didn't make sandwiches, I'd be a little upset.
22:58 - Mike (Host)
Do you go to Subway or are you like you like? Wow, what a nice deli shop here no, that's a sandwich shop.
23:03 - Flup (Host)
They're different places, no, but like, don't you like at the grocery store, like isn't there, like you like their meats, but that's the deli, like portion, like, is that like not?
23:10 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
they don't make. That's the deli counter me.
23:14 - Mike (Host)
I find that to be different yeah, that's just a counter within the grocery store, the deli within, not a deli.
23:20 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Yeah.
23:21 - Joey Knish (Host)
That's just a counter. That's a deli within the grocery store Wait wait, wait, the deli within the grocery store.
23:27 - Flup (Host)
So it's a deli.
23:34 - Mike (Host)
The deli shop, the specific store that is a deli. They got to have sandwiches. The American dream. Start a deli shop. The American dream On.
23:39 - Joey Knish (Host)
Main Street at Canistra City you got a deli shop with the best sandwiches in town. That's my America.
23:46 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Let us know in the comments section if somebody is going to a deli. Are they going to get a sandwich or are they going just to get the meat? You let us know because we're clearly divided on the panel here today. But we will move on not continue with that anymore. But we will move on, not continue with that anymore.
24:01
We have Zach202 underscore, who posted a screenshot of a Seattle Mariners ticket from game four minus 680. He says never try and be fozen poker kids. And this followed a conversation the day before where he posted a I think it was minus a thousand ticket on the Seattle Mariners. I think it was minus 1,000 ticket on the Seattle Mariners. This time, however, the wager amount $2,500 to win $2,867, did not work out because I believe this was posted when the Mariners were up 3-0 in the third or fourth inning. They end up losing. I think it was 9-3, so he loses this bet. Therefore, it says never try and be Fosen poker kids. Kanish, you're a big fan of the Fosen account. Have you ever counted something like this? Like is Fosen good for the Twitter space? Is it bad? What are your thoughts overall?
24:49 - Joey Knish (Host)
Nobody loves rooting against Fosen like Joey K, I got to tell you. When I see him post a sticker, I don't have a doubt. I'm at the point now where I'm betting the other side. I'm betting the dog whoever he's against, just so I can enjoy it even more. The rooting interest. I will say and I've mentioned this before on this show I know Fosen, he does all the disclaimers, I know him himself. He's a winning poker player and all that. But I do think and we've had this argument before that the whole shtick ends up where you get some morons like this who end up being like oh yeah, this is the way to bet. You just lay the huge money line, dogs, you can't lose and then your favorites.
25:32 - Flup (Host)
Yeah, I mean, come on, at a certain point it's like can you not say anything publicly, because if people looked at you, they, they grow a stash, and that could be even more dramatic.
25:40 - Joey Knish (Host)
oh wait, not now I'm getting a bunch of women now. Now I look beautiful in the women, like If people looked at you they'd grow a stash. That could be even more dramatic. Oh wait, now I'm getting a bunch of women. Now I look beautiful in the women Like I saved your life. The male loneliness epidemic is over.
25:50 - Flup (Host)
I'm just saying, like he does everything right, he posts all the disclaimers. Yes, some idiot, some moron is going to tell and going to lose. But come on, he can't protect everyone. He also owns it when he loses, except when he like deletes his account.
26:06 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Yeah, he deleted his account.
26:07 - Joey Knish (Host)
That's what he's talking about. He disappeared Last time. He lost.
26:10 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
He deleted his account to be fair.
26:15 - Mike (Host)
As someone who's fallen victim to Fosen's hype. I have, maybe in my history have some Detroit Tigers to win the AL Central. So you know, maybe, maybe I have fallen victim to Fosen and I think that I'm going to start a class action lawsuit where we get rise together Anybody who's tailed Fosen in any of these minus odds if you've ever taken a minus odds bet. We're going to get together a coalition. We're going to try to sue Fosen here for the real American dream and that's to get a payout via lawsuit.
26:43 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
That is the American dream I hear. It's important to note that Zach started the conversation with it. It wasn't directly tailing Fosen, but seemed to have taken inspiration from Fosen. So, fosen, you have some questions to answer for here, obviously, especially according to Kanish, when it comes to these bet slips that you're posting. The next segment we have for you guys today is the comment section from the previous show. If you ever want to have something featured on the show, potentially something for us to discuss, put it in the comment section down below. We check all the comments and we feature them oftentimes on shows just like this. While you're down commenting something, you can also smash that like button and subscribe to the channel.
27:27
As I said earlier, there's a long way to help support the show. First, one comes from at lemonade 4501 and provided a real world scenario where they deposited three thousand dollars into a ontario regulated sports book. So in canada placed their first five bets nfl props at 300 each, 15 minutes before the 1 pm games, intentionally trying to avoid clv, which is typically what sportsbooks look for to limit players. Then, when attempting to make the six bet, they're limited to 40 and by the next morning they're restricted to 163 across the board. Now this comes from the conversation we had last week. We've talked a lot about limiting players, and if it was fair, do we want blanket limits across the board? This is where this conversation comes from. The comment ends by saying how is this fair? Tell me, this is acceptable. I'll take a minimum limit all day long, even if that means some markets disappear. Being cut to pennies after five bets is pathetic behavior. How would you respond to this one Flop? Do you agree or disagree?
28:25 - Flup (Host)
I disagree. Sports books are not charities. They're not here to just let you kill them for EV. And I would say, look, this is pretty good profiling with a sports book, very well done. You had someone that thought they had a creative way to get around getting profiled and whatnot, but it didn't work out. So I got to give props to this, to the sportsbook, and I think it's pretty reasonable to just like limit someone, even with like no CLV, even with this, because what he's doing is pretty clear pattern behavior of he's trying to hit player props that are good. They probably have some of those profiled. They might even know that those props are off market across the board and they don't move them as bait to limit those, because I've seen some books do that. So this is well done by the sports book and, honestly, this is just a skill issue You've got to figure it out Interesting.
29:23 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
How do you feel about this?
29:24 - Mike (Host)
one, mike, I didn't know I was coming on the Tuesday show here with Kirk Evans just simping for the sports books. Great job, guys.
29:30 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I'm really proud of you Way to protect the P&L here.
29:34 - Mike (Host)
I'm really proud of you guys, your trading team, for kicking a guy off that quick. Listen, I think that there is probably some level of it's still scummy to know that, hey, we offer all these markets Basically, if anyone bets them that isn't just a degenerate gambling addict, we're going to kick them out of our sportsbook. It does feel a little bit dirty. I will say that there is a level of hey, what percentage of these bets are actually not for all customers or more for gambling addicts? But yeah, I mean they're going to go ahead and limit guys.
30:06
I would say if you're getting limited betting NFL props that close to kick with zero CLV, you're either taking off market prices or you've done something else in the past. They're not just going to go ahead and be like this guy bet Patrick Mahomes passing yards under six minutes before a kick. Let me go ahead and kick him out. So I mean these sportsbooks if they didn't know that you were a profitable sports bettor, they wouldn't kick you out, and if they know that you're a profitable sports bettor that quick, you're clearly doing something that triggers a lot of flags.
30:34 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
All right, we didn't really get your thoughts on it last week, so just quickly. What is your opinion on blanket limits across the sportsbook for anyone?
30:43 - Mike (Host)
I would say the one thing that I would stress the most is people act like they're very certain of how it would impact things and I think that I would probably come in with a lot more uncertainty coming in.
30:55
I mean think, if you look back at the betting landscape three years ago, who would ever have predicted all this prediction market stuff that came out? So I would say that, one, it's going to be very uncertain. Two, if they do put in blanket limits, there's going to be a feeding frenzy where all the books, in my opinion, would try to keep their full menu because nobody wants to price all this stuff out and then immediately pull it back on the expectation that they're getting beat. So they probably would be a year or not even that long, probably a couple month frenzy where you would get the full menu with limits, which would be just an absolute gold rush. But then, yeah, it probably would severely limit, uh, some different areas. So I would just say I would be very uncertain with it. But you know there is going to be at least a couple months of where it would be really good to get it in or even worse, like mike.
31:39 - Flup (Host)
It's like what if you're the full limits and and you think you've got a field day on the DraftKings, but then three months in DraftKings has actually spent the last three months pricing it and all those lines that you're using other sharp books, suddenly DraftKings becomes a sharp book and then you get adversely selected and get crushed. How long will that take you to realize that's another scare that I think people haven't really thought of.
32:01 - Mike (Host)
Well, just originate your own number instead of, you know, piggybacking on sharp books and then maybe we'll have you be set yourself there.
32:10 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
You're kind of agreeing with Flipp and what he was saying. Do you want to add anything to this conversation?
32:14 - Joey Knish (Host)
No, just you know what I would say. I think there's probably one a little bit more to the, to the. There'd be some more questions I'd want in terms of this, but also it's one of those things, lemonade, where you think I may think that just by depositing in and doing that, that, as Fluff was saying, I'm trying to look square, but that large of a deposit, that much on just single player props $300 a prop Even though you may be thinking and there could be a little bit more, like does that operator, have you ever had accounts before? So I think it's one of those, even though maybe you're trying to mask the action.
32:55
There's a couple of things there that are quiet tells and some of the books out there not books that are sponsored by this company, but some of the books out there just aren't going to want that kind of action. Like they're just not going to, they're not going to want somebody popping player props for the max that they're going to give them, and so that's that's kind of what you get. So, yeah, I don't love it either, but I don't really know the I get. I don't love it either, but I don't really know the again, I don't think the blanket limits is a great solution for it.
33:24 - Flup (Host)
Another thing is people think, oh, player props, that looks recreational. Well, there's a difference between if I want CD Lamb over receiving yards and then the backup running back on the Saints under rushing yards. Those are both player props but very different types of people are betting those things and the one that's four yards off market versus another one like if it's best in market.
33:47 - Mike (Host)
There's no way, if you go in and you bet six like regular looking props unless you're messing up with some kind of OPSEC thing that they're going to go ahead and kick you out. That's usually stuff like obviously, if they're kicking you out that fast, you're the one who screwed up or you're the one who made it clear that they don't want your action.
34:03 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
All right, Some interesting thoughts there. I do kind of agree with part of the part of the comment, but I also think you're right where. Hopefully this is a learning experience. You know what Like the things to not do potentially next time you have an account such as this. The second comment that we're going to pull up today comes from Kyle Kerms the sauce. The second comment that we're going to pull up today comes from Kyle Kerms the Sauce.
34:21
He says I was listening to that guy, Van Zack, in his spaces and this was about the conversation of touts versus syndicates and the similarities between them. I was listening to Van Zack in spaces, found myself agreeing with mostly everything he said. The negatives to touts are pretty obvious. People claiming their service is a good investment when it isn't. The negatives to the other side aren't talked about as much Top when it isn't.
34:46
The negatives to the other side aren't talked about as much top down betters taking control of people's accounts that don't know how to profit without getting instantly limited. If you tell somebody you can make them money, then cook their account in a week without turning much of a profit, you can make the argument that's equally as predatory. So I thought that kind of worked with the first comment a little bit and, chris, I think you actually replied to this comment and said it was a good point. But I did want to start with Mike first of all on this one, because you talked about people top down betting and versus like making their own numbers just a moment ago. So what do you think about this comment?
35:12 - Mike (Host)
Yeah, if you offer somebody a service or a product or you tell them, hey, I can get the most out of your account and you don't do it. Of course there can be predatory things. If I go to the store and somebody sells me a bad product and that is predatory and I didn't get my money out of the product, sure you can say that is, but that doesn't mean the entire structure of buying things is broken. I think that the difference with touts and partnerships is partnerships, your incentives are aligned, touts they aren't. Are there going to be predatory people in every single business? Sure, but I, the structure itself is not predatory, which is what people are complaining about. Just because there's bad actors in it Doesn't mean that necessarily creates a bad process.
35:54 - Flup (Host)
Mike, I got to disagree with you slightly here, because, say, for example, you have an account and you don't want to bet yourself and you're shopping it around for people. One person might say I can get the most out of your account, and they're actually not incentivized to. They might have a churn and burn kind of business, where they get your account, make a few thousand off of it, give you your little bit and burn it and move on, whereas someone else might take the next few months to maximize it, et cetera, et cetera, and that would get you more value. So now, the difference here, though, is, of course, it's like you're winning, you're making money. In both scenarios it's just like one is like you're making a lot more versus the other, whereas it touts. You're basically just paying to lose money. So that's obviously much worse. But I do agree and it's not talked about a lot that some people that are takeover over account, some people that do partnerships, aren't maximizing and aren't being honest with their people. They, they're just burning these accounts, and they, they aren't actually there.
36:54 - Mike (Host)
I would. Generally. You're right there, I. That's probably something you know. It's similar to if you give out a line to a mover and they say it's going to be quiet, and then they hit it across the board and it's like oh, actually they moved. There's always going to be situations where it leaks out and where things aren't perfectly aligned. People are always going to oversell themselves. One of my favorite it was just a throwaway line by Kirk. He's like I've never met a mover who can't get down quiet. I've never met an originator who doesn't hold 5%.
37:19 - Flup (Host)
Everybody flashes up.
37:20 - Mike (Host)
Like every single person kind of you'll see you run into or I shouldn't say everyone a lot of people overhype what they can bring. I think that there's a difference between hey, you know, I didn't quite get what I was expecting, this person oversold it a little bit versus an actual losing operation.
37:36 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Interesting Kanish. From your experiences in moving, can you add anything to what he was saying there?
37:52 - Joey Knish (Host)
I just you know what I don't like the comparison of and maybe again this is a biased take here, but you know what the early Monday show talked about a little bit the whole like the tout to betting partnership or move or any of that comparison. It just, I don't know, it feels wrong to me. I think they laid out on Pizza man I thought did a pretty good job of kind of articulating the differences and I think it's a little bit of a cope for people in the industry that can now, whether you're selling picks or doing any of that, in the industry that can now, either whether you're selling picks or doing any of that, it's a comparison that they want to prophesy, to then be like, well, it's all lumped in is one thing. It helps more justify because you can tell it come, the voice of it usually comes from certain parties. Um, that helps justify that.
38:35
Now, again, if you're working with somebody that I don't know you gave their account, they blew it up or they're slow paying, that's much different. But the majority of people that I've worked with that I know some other people I've worked with that have done the betting partnership thing. You see a for the most part, a positive outcome or a risk-free outcome If you're buying picks or working with a tout. In the majority of cases it's a negative outcome, and I think that's pretty much as simple as it gets.
39:03 - Mike (Host)
I think a comp would be. You know, payday loans are inherently pretty predatory. I think everybody would agree Mortgage loans are not predatory. Now, in 2008, were there are people that were getting doing predatory loans and things like that. Of course there were there's bad actors. But does that mean a mortgage loan is the same as a payday loan? No, I wouldn't say so.
39:22 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
All right, I think pretty solid comparison there. Last comment comes from bucket lift, who said good show, thank you. I really like how you guys don't always dunk on rec bettors. In the past, winning players generally looked down on rec players. I'm glad that attitude has eroded. I never liked that. So I read this and actually was surprised that this was a sentiment that somebody came away from watching the show with, to be honest, because I feel like at times we can go maybe slightly overboard. Do you guys agree?
39:50 - Flup (Host)
with me there. There's a very big difference, though. I think we dunk on like touts, like yeah, they're wrecks, but like they're like scummy wrecks, like there's like the average joe, that's like wants to go and like bet 20 bucks and like sweat a game and doesn't care about like plus ev bets. How could I dunk on that person? He's doing everything right, he's being betting responsible. He doesn't care. Why should he care? He should have a good time.
40:12 - Mike (Host)
One of the few shows with rec representation, with Joey here too.
40:15 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
So I think that really we're doing all we can to support them.
40:21 - Joey Knish (Host)
Yeah, I mean, I listen, I, if you're a rec better for a long period of my life. I know people like Joey corporate in the office talks to rec betters all day long Like and that's it's people like flip, saying that they just want to throw 5, 10, 20 bucks on an sgp or on a game to make you care about more, to have some interest in it. So that's like the I don't know the the good thing of of like the industry, um, and just I don't know making people care more about things that you normally you wouldn't have some interest. So, yeah, I, I just think I agree, like why would I'm not going to dunk on a wreck. Better for for doing whatever they want. It's usually as Flop saying either somebody who's selling garbage to people as like a fantasy or just like you know shady behavior in general, that that will come in.
41:10 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
All right. Well, if you want to get involved with the conversation again, you can comment something down below. But we can take it even further because we're bringing back q a episodes here on these circles off channel. There's some of the more popular episodes that we have ever done on this channel. If you want to submit a question, there is a couple of ways, a few ways you can do so. You can do it in the comment section down below. You can email us at circles off, at the hammer dot bet circles off the hammer dot bet post in our circles off q a channel, in the discord as well. The link to sign up to our discord is in the description below. Again, three ways to get yourself involved. For future. Q and a episodes can be gambling related, can be anything related. We think it's going to be something for great conversation. We're going to put it on the show.
41:50
Second, last full-scale topic that we have on the show today comes from Big Poppy Seed. At Big Poppy Seed, one who says haven't seen much chatter read Novig 3% fee on non crypto deposits. Not going to kill them on it. Get that bread, however, by having a crypto on ramp but no off ramp, because you can't withdraw via crypto. The incentive structure is such that users are essentially siphoning off their crypto to envy Mike. What did you think about this when you read this? Do you agree? Disagree?
42:25 - Mike (Host)
The company takes no fees on their thing. They have no vague. They're putting out one cent lines a lot of times. I think they're doing pretty much everything the right way and they take a 3% deposit or they take a 3% fee on certain types of transactions. I think at this point like we're getting it. Don't get me wrong. I like to complain as much as the next guy, but he says he's not going to kill him, but in a way he kind of is. I don't know. I just feel like this is really really particular about OK, they're getting 3% fees on certain types of deposits. I think you can still use the old deposit way and you have zero fees, which is regular cash as well. So, unless I'm wrong here, this just feels like like come on, what are we complaining about?
42:59 - Flup (Host)
To be clear, like the fees are just on, like when you deposit with certain methods, like, I think, like a debit card or something like that. Like they, that debit card company charges Novig that 3% fee. So instead of Novig has just eaten it before. Honestly, the problem with running such a competitive pricing structure is you don't earn a lot. In some cases they're losing a lot of money on these deposits. It actually makes sense, even if they lose the customer, they actually might gain money because that customer would have been negative for them, because they have to deposit so much and they're not earning much off that. So that's, I think, why they're doing it. To criticize them for that is a little crazy.
43:40 - Joey Knish (Host)
Why do you think you can deposit via crypto but not withdraw?
43:43 - Mike (Host)
That's a good question I would guess regulatory, I would guess for almost like for one of those things. Also, I believe they didn't have any of these options before, so all they did was add options that you can pay if you want to. So before they had very limited options as far as getting deposit. I know because it was a real issue for me to deposit in there other than crypto. So now they're adding options, they're asking hey, if you want to use this new method, you have to pay the fee, so we don't have to. Yeah, I think that it's like a situation where they probably can't pay out crypto due to regulatory things. That's also why you got to make 500, $1,000 deposits instead of just making the like the normal way you would deposit to a sportsbook.
44:24 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
All right, that brings us to our final full scale topic for the show today. Every once in a while, one of our panelists requests a return fire segment, and we have the request today from Chris Dierkes. What was your issue with the Monday live show that we did?
44:39 - Flup (Host)
Well, I'm tuning on, you know, listening to one of my favorite shows on Monday, and then I hear Rob, you know, touting on his Blue Jays, which they won. They beat the Yankees. Good for you, guys. You finally got one, are you?
44:50 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
a.
44:50 - Flup (Host)
Yankees fan? No, um, you finally got one. Are you a yankees fan? No, not really. I'm actually an orioles fan. My dad works for the orioles, so, okay, I'm an orioles fan. Um, but I hear him saying when they're up to oh, historically they've won 90. You're a fucking pro. Better, why would you use historical odds when you can just either use your originated fair or use the market fare? Why would that be your go-to thing? If you've taken the time to look up historical odds, why have you not taken the time to look up what the market odds are? As a pro bettor, I don't know why you're doing it. And I know he said, oh, the Yankees are a little bit better than most, so it's a different thing, but why did you even use it then, if it's different?
45:37 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
What are we doing here? I think in the end he did mention that the odds were at 82% or 83%, if I remember correctly, in the show.
45:40 - Flup (Host)
Okay, I might have missed that part, and if it didn't, I?
45:45 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
You just heard the 90%. You got so heated you turned off your favorite show. You ripped your Rob Pizzola poster off the wall Exactly. It's time to hang out when back up. Uh, anybody else something to add before we move on?
45:58 - Mike (Host)
is flip the big poppy seed of this segment, like give the guy a break. He just says off the cuff. He's like why aren't you using the exact market odds at all times of making sure? How dare you cite another number that isn't the most time efficient market hypothesis you know? Come on on chill out.
46:15 - Flup (Host)
It just bothered me. Any pro better. I think should just be like if you don't know the answer, just use the market, like. Don't use historical odds.
46:23 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Well, you know he was talking, he didn't want to like interrupt and say before I continue, let me just look up the current odds.
46:34 - Flup (Host)
But how did he know?
46:34 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
historically it was 90, he must have looked it up.
46:37
Maybe, maybe, I don't know, maybe that's what I understand I knew you were upset because you commented it in the chat right away on on the live show. We do on mondays, by the way, 1 pm eastern time. If you want to check that one out, uh. But uh, interesting, return fire. We'll see how rob responds if he does want to respond to that one. But that does bring us to the final segment on the show, which is a chopping block Stuff that we really wanted to feature on the show but we didn't think required full segments on it.
47:00
And the first one comes from Metcalfberg at Pickensburg. He says wait, I just found an idea Put $500 on Ravens at minus 105 to win the AFC North and $500 on the Steelers to win the AFC North at plus 130. You instantly come out with $500 profit. Wow, I'm doing this now. Yeah, this was confusing to me in a lot of ways, of course. But, kanish, do you see? First of all, we all see the problem, but like, how could you even come to this conclusion from looking at these numbers? That's what I don't understand.
47:40 - Joey Knish (Host)
Well, if I'm with the Kelsey group, I'd probably revoke this guy's badge number one because, I don't know how he got to 500.
47:52
I don't know, with minus 105 and plus 130. Like, even if you're putting 500 on both, or 525 and 500, how he's getting to that. But also, and then, like I always look to see, like is somebody doing rage bait? But no, he was in the comments, like oh, I screwed this up, Like my bad, so I guess at least he owned it. So, like my, my bad, so I guess at least he owned it. But um, uh, a tough one here. Uh, for, uh, for a feather. Fellow Midwest brother.
48:22 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
So, so obviously, um the with this market, the Bengals and Browns could win the division still, and therefore you lose. I don't know if I'd go that far Could happen. Uh, you're right though, uh, but also, but also, even if you did try to play, you just played both of these at $500 each. I think it's like you'd win $150 on the Steelers if they were to win, so you'd have $650. And then on the Ravens it would be. I think it's $473. So I don't even understand where the $500 profit even comes from. Flop. Do you see the pathway to this thought?
48:58 - Flup (Host)
I have really no idea. This is like I don't even know what he was thinking to get to that number. I can't really roast the guy too bad because he owned it and he's clearly not a better. He's just an excited Steelers fan that just is like wow're actually have a good shot to win the. You know the division for once in our life, so I don't know what am I supposed to say, or not? Once in a once in our life.
49:22 - Mike (Host)
They're like the most dominant franchise of the past. However many years. Finally the steelers catch a break and are able to win the afg mark.
49:29 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Fluff says fine, fine, fine. It hasn't had a losing record in like decades. Maybe this was our year.
49:37 - Mike (Host)
I think he got tricked by the return where it says you know your total payout and they give you the thousand.
49:42 - Flup (Host)
That's a trickster, I'll be, honest.
49:45 - Mike (Host)
I have had to give that a second look once or twice before.
49:48 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Maybe he thought the return. He saw like $1,150. Then he saw like $973. He thought, wow, like it, no matter what I'm gonna profit. But I don't I mean betting this, betting 500 on on a market like this, without having like that complete understanding, like even like you make that you mess up internally, like to go as far as to post that I I think is is insane hey, I mean some people have bet like hundreds of thousands of dollars, not even understanding the rules of like markets before.
50:15 - Flup (Host)
So that's, that's true.
50:18 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
You know what. It can happen to anybody, so I guess we can't roast him too much. The next one comes from, at slightly plus, cv, who says just hit for 3.2 million. The model strikes again and it is a under 59.5 total. Live betting on the Chiefs and Jags, he bet $3,200. And for anybody who's listening to audio form, it is an extraordinarily poorly edited slip which changes a minus $4,000 to a plus $4,000 and changes the payout to $3.3 million rather than $3,000. Yeah, $ 3,000. Yeah, 3,300. So like a very slight profit on the minus 4,000. But it's obviously, in my opinion, obviously poorly edited. For a joke, however, two people did not catch this. Adrian Badgerowski, who we have featured quite a bit on this show, says hashtag, circle back. We have a new leader in the clubhouse. And nuke the house says I fucking live for this app. I'd pay a 100 dollar per month for it, because nuke the house is a pig selling website. Who did not catch this as well?
51:27 - Flup (Host)
I mean just like no, no, no, no, jacob, no, I'm pretty sure he was referring to Twitter and saying he loves the app of Twitter.
51:36 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
That one now I'm guilty Flew over my head. I don't know, I don't know, Nuke.
51:42 - Mike (Host)
If you look at the comments, there's people genuinely very mad at this Photoshop.
51:46 - Flup (Host)
That's what I'm saying I think I'm pretty sure Adrian, I think, does not realize this is a joke.
51:54 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
I'm pretty sure Nuke understands the joke. Okay, I didn't catch that at first, but I think now that you say it like that, I think you're right. How could anybody think this? It's so poorly edited on purpose. Like the minus 4,000, has it drawn on line to make it a plus sign? The zero at the end is horrifically drawn.
52:12 - Mike (Host)
The extra comma.
52:12 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
They added a comma instead of a decimal to make it a plus sign. The zero at the end is horrifically drawn. The extra comma. They added a comma instead of a decimal to make it seem like three million. And plus like plus 4,000 doesn't turn 3,200 into three million, it's like 120,000.
52:26 - Flup (Host)
Like there's so much that's so obvious about this being a joke and I just can't believe that so many people didn't catch that Anyone that like genuinely was mad and complaining in the comments section just want to change their name to Karen, because you know that person has no fun in their entire life.
52:41 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
That was funny. Last one comes from Adam Schefter and this was about Jonathan Gannon getting fined $100,000 for his sideline altercation with Amari DiMercato. If you're a member from the Monday show or just because you're a football fan, you saw Amari DiMercato drop the ball as he was about to cross the goal line on purpose, started celebrating too early and the classic example of they didn't score the touchdown because they started celebrating too early. Jonathan Gannon, cardinals head coach, was upset about this and punched Amari DiMercato in the chest Kind of forcefully not like crazy, but like kind of forcefully and it sparked a debate of whether he deserved that $100,000 fine. Dez Bryant, former NFL wide receiver, said they don't agree with the Cardinals fining Gannon 100K. Sorry, it was the Cardinals who fined him. I don't know if I said the NFL. The Cardinals fined him the 100K he says I believe it only happened because of the soft-ass world we live in today. If you're an athlete with any kind of integrity and respect for the game, you'll understand that situation. This is football. That play clearly cost them the game. I hope this doesn't cause a weird vibe between Coach Gannon and DiMarcato.
53:44
So we talked about this on the Hammer Daily yesterday show Thursday. I thought that the fine was a little bit overboard. Jason, host of the Hammer Daily, jason Cooper, producer here at the Hammer, said that he deserved the fine and compared to getting punched by CEO of the Hammer, rob Pozzola. And what if Rob were to punch Jason for messing up? We did ask you actually about this on that show, mike. But let's go to Kanish and Flop Kanish. Is the $100,000 fine justified here in your opinion?
54:15 - Joey Knish (Host)
I mean, here come the Joey Lips are going to be out in full force on this one. But in 2025, you can't make this kind of contact with the player. I know there's going to be. You know that somebody's uncle In my day my coach used to chokeslam me and, you know, punch my girlfriend when I made a mistake, for you know, when I didn't pick up a block at left tackle. You can't. You can get in his face. You can scream at him, you can bench him. You can't forcefully strike your own player in this and it was more than you know. It's like if you get him by the shoulder pads and you're yelling in his face or something. It was a legitimate like strike to the player. Can't do that in today's modern age. He deserved the fine and I feel like the NFL PA has to stick up for their player there. All right, philip, do you agree?
55:02 - Flup (Host)
Unfortunately I have to agree with Kanish here. I think the real thing is just the players' association. They cannot. This is equivalent to I think Jason got it spot on. I didn't hear that for the hammer, but I think he's spot on. This is basically workplace assault and you cannot have that and they can just use this to use leverage and get something against the NFL. Mike, do you want to comment here?
55:26 - Mike (Host)
Okay, listen, I'm not saying he should be fined, it's not okay. But to compare this to if Rob punched jason is completely different. Players get in fights all the time. If jason and, you know, jacob were throwing fists in between punches then, like in between shows they would obviously be fired.
55:44
You can't complain. Compare this workplace to another. We have draymond green punched his teammate in the face a co-worker and they traded the teammate because they wanted his attitude out of there. This isn't the same thing as a regular workplace. He should be fine. But to say it's the same as Rob coming and smacking Jason is just ridiculous. It's not the same.
56:03 - Flup (Host)
I love that image, by the way, no, I understand what you're saying, but like it could be treated that way by the Players Association and they're protecting, I think, the NFL. I would not be surprised if the NFL told Arizona you need to find him or we will, because we cannot have this problem out there. And I honestly it's sad because I fucking should have gotten hit. What?
56:25 - Mike (Host)
a dumbass.
56:26 - Flup (Host)
I'm sorry. He deserved to get screamed at benched like caught potentially for this mistake. You cannot have this level of play. I don't know how this wasn't coached or if it was. The way you handle this is by just cutting them, and I think he deserved everything he had. But when you hit, it brings up such lawsuit liability that they have to fine, unfortunately, Because it can get compared to. I agree with you, Mike, the comparison isn't ludicrous, but that's what the player station could use that.
56:58 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
So did you say? Like he has to coach this better, like the, it's on the coach that he dropped the ball before the goal goal line well, I?
57:07 - Flup (Host)
I think in some regards potentially yes, because, like, if that, if that happens, like you have to, like, you have to discipline the player immediately.
57:16 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
Yeah, yeah, after the fact, but beforehand, do you think Jonathan Gannon should have done some drills where they no, no, no, obviously not, but like Practice your celebration after running in.
57:28 - Mike (Host)
You have to run into the end zone, drop it and then you get to celebrate.
57:31 - Flup (Host)
in practice, I'll have a special Well, I guess most of what I mean is like, I guess, like Gannon, like needs to, just like at that point, like make a public statement, like to the team, like, hey, this behavior is not acceptable, dipicardo is benched for the rest of the season or cut, or something like that. That's what he would coach If he did it by screaming. That's what he would coach If he did it by screaming. That's fine, and maybe that is coaching. So I guess, no problem with Gannon, so to speak. But although, to be fair, I do remember I think it was Jimmy Johnson, I forget which coach it was he had a great thing where he cut up third stringer for sleeping in a practice and then one of them said what would happen if Troy Aikman was sleeping in practice? And he said, oh, I'd wake him up because you have to have, you have to treat like certain players differently, and so it is. It is interesting to see, like, what would have happened if Kyle Murray did this? Like what would he have done?
58:24 - Mike (Host)
of course, I just, we can't compare athletes jobs to like, oh what if this happened? If this happened in my workplace and I would get in, of course, course. Yes, a player association wants to compare it to any other workplace. Then they can say every time a player fights in practice we're going to go ahead and fire them with cause, void any other guarantees in their contract. The players association would push back against that because it's not a regular workplace and I think that like to compare it to is kind of crazy. But I do agree he has to be fined in some manner.
58:52 - Jacob Gramenga (Host)
What about in a deli counter? Would this still be a no-go there? We saw a lot of well, we definitely saw a low IQ moment on the football field with Amari DiMarcato. We saw a lot of, I would say, low IQ tweets from this week on gambling Twitter. That'll do it for the show today. Thank you so much, everyone for tuning in, really appreciate it. Smash that like button if you enjoyed Subscribe for more content like this. We're back here every Friday 8 am with shows like this. We're back here Mondays when we're live at 1 pm Eastern Time, except for this Monday because it's Canadian Thanksgiving. There we go. Yeah, I knew there'd be something from Kanish on this one. Kanish Joey corporate would never miss never miss a day of work. But again, we'll be back soon for some more content here on circles off. Thanks so much.
