Posts by Casey Jackson4

So, here’s my take on this, and I’m definitely no expert:
The CIA is essentially sidelined right now, just stuck waiting.
Pension funds are holding out for a positive trend before they jump in, but since the move can really only be triggered by the CIA—who are currently blocked—we're looking at a bit of a closed loop. I guess the only thing that might actually help us is some fresh capital coming in from overseas. Given how things look with projected growth and inflation, I’m worried we might be waiting a long time. Not until those pension funds decide this market isn't undervalued anymore. And when that actually happens... who knows.
It feels like they're playing by that old rule: there's always a lower price to wait for.

Brandon Castillo4 said:I might agree with you on most things you’ve said here, but I can't get behind this specific point. Just because someone sells specific parlays doesn't mean they're a bad tipster. Sure, you have those types who just want to make a quick buck, build up some massive hype, and then pray for the best—and if things go south, they just vanish into thin air.

Then there are the people who are just tired of giving stuff away for free on public forums to people who don't appreciate it, so they set up a paid service instead. Whether those subscription sites are actually okay or not is a debate that's been going on since forever, I guess. I used to have the same mindset as you—like, why shouldn't someone be able to monetize their good picks if they're actually talented?

But after putting in about 20,000 posts across five different betting forums, my perspective has shifted a bit, and I think I see why someone would want to start a paid site. Provided, of course, they do it honestly.

The weird thing to me about these guys is that I never actually see them around. In my opinion, if someone wants to launch a paid service, they should probably spend some time posting for free first, just so people get a decent sample of what to expect.

The way it stands now, I don't see anyone sensible paying even a single dollar blindly. It’s just common sense, I suppose.

Oh, I think we've had a bit of a misunderstanding.
I’m talking about their $50 tip. That's just way too expensive; it feels like they're just trying to grab cash as fast as possible.
When Skeeve decides to run a paid site, I actually consider joining him—you get something like 70 tips over three months for $70, which works out to about a dollar per tip. Given the kind of Return he brings, it's worth it even if you're just playing $3.25 parlays.
But this? This is just ridiculous.
It doesn't mean the guys aren't good—they could be absolutely fantastic, for all I know. But most regular bettors can't afford to follow them with $500 just to stay in the green, so they'll probably end up with very few followers... though I guess they'll learn how it works through trial and error.😁

Yeah, maybe there's just too much logic involved for you 😁
But I suppose people have a right to know certain facts.

So:
To actually make anything on a bet like the one we saw recently (Schalke x2), your stake would have to be massive. If you put down $100, you're only walking away with $30.
You also have to account for the fact that most sportsbooks take a 5% cut on the stake—even some online ones—and those online sites usually have limits on how much you can even wager. So when you do the math:
A $100 stake (-$5 in fees) * 1.8 = $171, minus the $50 you owe the tipsters = a $21 profit. You could have easily just placed a Schalke x2 bet yourself and made the same amount without having to follow their picks at all.

But wait, it gets better!
On top of that, you get this lovely little situation:
😬

Here's what actually happens:
If they miss just one single pick, you’re out $100.
If they hit the next one, you've now spent $200 total, but you get back $171 (using the Schalke example). After you pay the tipsters their $50, you're sitting at a $79 loss after one miss and one hit.
Since the profit per pick is only about $21, they would need to predict five winning picks IN A ROW just for you to break even.
Then you'd finally be up by $2.
Basically, if they blow one pick, they’d have to give you the next five for free, and all five would have to be winners just to get you back to zero. By then, you've already poured $600 into their system, which is $1500 more than most small-time bettors have in their entire bankroll.

In that scenario, they’d be looking at a 5/6 or 83.33% hit rate at 1.8 odds.
Do you honestly know a single tipster out there who maintains that kind of percentage at those odds?
Can anyone even calculate what the Yield would be in that case? Making $2 on a $600 total stake? In percentages?
And does that even seem worth it?

A bit of advice for the tipsters:
Maybe re-evaluate your business model. Read a book on logic, maybe one on finance or math, and then try offering your services again in a way where you actually make a steady living from twenty followers while giving them a reasonable shot at making money off your picks.

Best,

p.s. I offer lessons in logic, finance, and math for $50 an hour. 😉

Interesting concept, though it’s honestly overpriced. I guess that just means you’re chasing a quick buck—which is usually the hallmark of a pretty bad tipster.
So, basically, you guys aren't great at this.
Makes sense, right? 😁

But hey, maybe there's someone here willing to drop a bet on a single game $333 and hand over nearly half their profit straight to you. Or, if you happen to miss just one pick, they'll end up paying $667 for two picks and still be down their $50.

*Assuming the odds are hovering around +100.

👍

Honestly, you don't even need to be standing two feet from the net. You just need to get the ball while facing the goal from maybe the 15 or 20-yard mark, assuming you have a few seconds to let it rip without anyone blocking your lane.

Fair point, I guess 👍

The whole point is they’re wasting their time on nonsense instead of drilling combinations that actually work. And I guess I agree with the OP—it makes zero sense why they aren't practicing scenarios where just one player is standing by the ball while the other three try to create an overlap. It shouldn't be about some basic "I'll pass it once and then he shoots" routine, because if you look at how things go down, the moment someone touches the ball—assuming it isn't a shot—the defenders in the wall jump out to close them down after maybe two or three passes, leaving someone with a wide-open shot and no wall in the way. I think that’s something they could really nail if they actually practiced it properly.

Honestly, I was pretty blown away by them. They sound incredible live, the singer brings this sort of positive vibe to the stage, and the music just kind of makes you want to move, I guess.
Way too good 👍