JR Miller's record

[phatboy]

J.R Miller is a great handicapper nuff said.

[sportshobby]

Just stick to what he's really good at - pro football.

And if you're not happy with 55% you might as well be calling JD's scorephone.

[SLAM DUNK]

Hitting 55% over 1000 games each year would be a tremendous accomplishment. A lot easier said then done, however. 550-450 each year, that would be +45 units year in an year out.

What if you are betting 2 dimes a unit, that could be a fairly adequate living.(I realize that is a BR of 100,000 but theoretically you will be making $90,000 every year).

Of course the big question is does he actually do it. I think doggie style said it best. If I am that good, I can find the 15 seconds a day to track my own record.

Also seems to me that if I was making people 45 units a year, each and every year, they would be taking a thread about me 100 deep saying how great I am.

The nice thing about claiming 55%, is that you never look too bad. Often you will be at 55% over the short run, and when you are not,
"well I am on a bad run".

See unlike with the scamdicappers of the world who claim 80% winners, it is a lot harder, and would take a lot longer to prove or disprove the claim. A 10-20 run for a guy that claims to hit 80% is total evidence that he is lying through his teeth, but the same run for a guy that claims to hit 55%, well it can happen.

[REALITY]

SLAM DUNK,
YOU WANT TO CHECK SOMETHING OUT.

GO TO WWW.DAVLERSPORTS.COM .

HE PUBLISHES A TREND SHEET WHICH HAS GONE 65% OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS.

HE GIVES YOU NOT ONLY THE TREND BUT THE LINE YOU MUST PLAY IT AT.

IF YOU CAN'T GET THE LINE HE QUOTES YOU THERE IS NO PLAY.

THERE ARE JUST A FEW PLAYS EVERY WEEK.

IF YOU HAVE THE SELF CONTROL AND PATIENCE TO PLAY STRICTLY THE PLAYS HE GIVES OUT, YOU CAN MAKE YOURSELF A PAY.

I ADVISED HIM TO POST THE PREVIOUS WEEKS AND SEASON RECORD ON THE COVER OF THIS WEEKLY EVERY WEEK.

IT IS BASED ON THE LINE YOU MUST PLAY AT SO THERE IS NO QUESTION OF HIS RECORD.

REALITY

[greg]

actually would be +55 units, if cost is 1k bet size 2bucks net profit 10k. 55% is damn good over 1000 plays per year. I would pay for this in a heartbeat net 50 plays per year without capping. Is jr. miller a good bet to equal or surpass 55% on a 1000 play per year basis? I would think that would be worth having documented if true at playable lines.

[SLAM DUNK]

Greg, thanks for the correction, up to $110,000 a year. Reality, not quite a 1000 plays a year, but impressive numbers nonetheless. Curious, you mentioned having one of the highest holds as a bookmaker, were you shading your lines based off some of these trends?

[REALITY]

R

Originally posted by SLAM DUNK:
Greg, thanks for the correction, up to $110,000 a year. Reality, not quite a 1000 plays a year, but impressive numbers nonetheless. Curious, you mentioned having one of the highest holds as a bookmaker, were you shading your lines based off some of these trends?

SLAM DUNK,
ABSOLUTELY NOT.

I PURPOSELY DON'T READ ANY PUBLICATION THAT IS SPORTS RELATED WHEN I AM SITTING IN THE BOX.

I CAN'T NAME PLAYERS ANYMORE,I CAN'T EVEN TELL YOU WHO IS LEADING THE STANDINGS IN THE SPORTS WHEN I SIT.

WHY?

DID YOU EVER HEAR THE PHRASE A LAWYER WHO REPRESENTS HIMSELF HAS A FOOL FOR A CLIENT...

IF I MAY PARAPHRASE:

AN OWNER WHO HAS A BOOKMAKER WITH AN OPINION HAS A FOOL FOR A BOOKMAKER...

IN ANOTHER POST SCOTTY S. ADMITTED THE TALENT WAS SMARTER THAN HIM.

TRUER WORDS WERE NEVER SPOKEN IN REGARDS TO HIM AND EVERY OTHER B.M. THAT EVER SAT IN THE BOX.

IF YOUR BM HAS AN OPINION AND IT GOES BAD HE WILL TAKE THE SHOP DOWN WITH HIM.

IF HE HAS A BONUS DEAL WITH YOU AND HE BETS YOU MIGHT AS WELL JUST CLOSE THE DOOR NOW.

IF HE IS OUT BETTING THE YANKEES IN THE A.M.-65 YOU CAN BET HE IS DEALING THEM -70 WHERE HE IS SITTING.

WHEN HE GOES BAD,THE SHOP GOES WITH HIM!

MY EXPERTISE IS CHARTING THE LINES I RESPECT AND POSTING THE STRONGEST LINE POSSIBLE.

IF THERE ARE 15 3.5'S AND 15 4'S ON A BASKETBALL GAME IN THE MORNING ,I WILL OPEN WITH THE NUMBER THAT IS CLOSEST TO THE CLOSING LINE 75-80% OF THE TIME.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MINIMIZATION OF EXPOSURE TRANSLATES TO ON YOUR BOTTOM LINE AT THE END OF THE SEASON?

IT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JUST MAKING A PAY AND MAXIMIZING THE FULL POTENTIAL OF A BIG OPERATION.

REALITY





[This message has been edited by REALITY (edited 07-15-2000).]

[J. R. Miller]

To set the record straight:

Every one of our picks are posted on our "Track Us Here" page as soon as games go off: http://www.professionalgambler.com/BLOWBYB.html

There is also a chart on the page showing precisely our record for the year-to-date. (Just scroll down a little.) Through yesterday - Saturday, July 15 - if we'd risked 2% of our original January 1st bankroll per bet, and never changed the size of our bet, we'd be "up" slightly over 50% for the year.

We have plenty of subscribers that would testify to that effect, and I'm always surprised when people question our integrity. Each and every pick is posted and left for 10-15 days, then transfered to the chart.

Our Professional Gambler Newsletter includes much more than picks, and we do sometimes advise parlaying certain bets, and we explain why, and we do recognize that our subscribers can find better lines than we use.

We feel it is much better for subscribers to get better lines than for us to "claim" better lines. We use actual published lines from Canbet.com (terrible lines!), Bowman's (a 20-cent baseball line!), Stardust, MGM, CRIS, Olympic, and ABC Islands.

I do not recognize any of you fellows as ever being subscribers, so I assume you are criticizing us based on conjecture. We expect to have upwards of 2,000 picks per year, and we expect a profit between 40 and 125 units per 1,000 picks - but not EVERY 1,000 picks. We also expect to more than triple our beginning bankroll every year, even though we're up "only" 50% so far this year, using 2% of our original bankroll as a betting unit.

There is a lot of valuable stuff on our site that doesn't cost you fellows anything at all. Come take a look. (http://professionalgambler.com/html) I am very proud of our website, and I stand behind everything on it. Best wishes - J. R. Miller

[Scott Landau]

Well said, JR! The sad aspect of our business is that it is so overridden with scum that anyone who sells his selections will have his integrity questioned.

[wintermute]

JR

I don't think any of the regular contributors to this forum question your integrity. I originally started this thread because someone in a prior thread posted a long list of rants directed at you from another forum following your nightmare August of last year.

I stated that I don't think your long-term record is as good as you claim. It may be but it certainly does not seem to be based on your performance over the last 2 years. I started tracking you because I was impressed by the quality of your web site and because you appear to be honest and reputable. I figured "Hell, if he can pick as many winners as he claims then I'll subscribe." As it turned out, my record over the last 2 years has been better than yours so I kept my money.

I did buy your book though and my hat is off to you on that - the best book I've read on handicapping. I might quibble with a few of the things you've written such as your interpretation of who pays the vig but that's like arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin - in the larger context of picking winners it just doesn't matter.

Incidentally, the reason I and probably most other posters on this site maintain our anonymity is that for the moment at least we may be engaged in an activity of questionable legality. It is usually not good practice to annoy governments of any kind. They hold all the good cards.

If you ever decide to post long-term historical records of your results in various sports here or on your web site I will read them with great interest.

Best of luck to you.

wintermute

[irish]

Well said Mute,it now appears some are willing to listen to this guy and at least hear what he has to say.The botton line on this fella is ,he is officially in the 5% group(gamblers who actually win in the long haul)I for one am getting a little weary(I KNOW DONT READ THEM IF YOU DONT LIKE THEM)of hearing self professed sharps claim ten dimes on this and five dimes on that b.s.Miller is the only poster here who can prove what is record is and the fact that it shows a profit at all with that many picks gets my respect!I hope he starts to give a little advise ,it sure beats I KNOW MORE THAN HE DOES b.s Sincerely Irish,,,,,,,

[J. R. Miller]

Let's take another run at who pays the vigorish...

In the wide, philosophical sense losers pay the vigorish, no doubt...And also the light bills and the salaries of all the employees and the property taxes of the casinos and the tv commercials, etc., etc.

We're not interested in the wide philosophical sense. We want to know how gambling works. Against craps, for example, if you risk $5 and lose, you lose $5. $5 is your 'unit' because that's how much you risk. However, if you win, you don't get back a "fair" amount. The amount returned is slightly less than the odds say you should get.

Same with roulette. If you risk $5 on "red" and lose, you lose the amount put at risk. The AMOUNT YOU PUT AT RISK is your betting "unit." If you win, your winnings are shorted; instead of the $5 X 19/18 you "should" get back, you get only $5. Your winnings are shorted by 5.29%.

It's the same with blackjack, slot machines, bingo, bacarrat - and sports betting. The house's commission is ALWAYS deducted from winnings. The amount a sports bettor puts at risk is his "unit", and if he wins, his winnings are shorted by 9.1%. This is NOT an opinion. This is the way it works.

[irish]

Doubt if you can make it any simpler than that J.R.Miller,

[SLAM DUNK]

Ok, JR have it your way. So what does that change. I still have to hit 52.38% to break even, I still make money if I hit over 52.38%, and the bottom line is the higher my winning percentage, the more money I make. So what is the point?

[zippy]

The overwhelming majority of Bettorsworld posters who took a stand on this issue correctly rejected the Miller position, and we explained in excruciating detail precisely how he’s wrong. I’ll make one final post on the matter, and after that, if he and the very few people who agree with him want to continue to post on it, I’ll let them get in the last word. Not because they finally have come up with a convincing argument, but simply because I’m sick of the issue.

Certainly one can look at the amount risked as one’s “unit,” and from that, one can deduce that the winner pays the vig. But, contrary to Miller’s dogmatic insistence otherwise, there’s nothing uniquely accurate to this perspective. On some types of wagers especially, most gamblers focus instead on the potential win amount as the “unit.” They are no more right or wrong to do this than Miller is to do it his way.

For example, consider a change in the vig. Say a bettor intended to make a football wager at the conventional 11/10 odds. Specifically, he decides to bet $110 to win $100. Then he is told that the wager in question is now at 12/10 instead. How does he react? He could either say 1) “Good grief, now if I make the same bet, I’ll only get back about $92 instead of the usual $100!” or 2) “Good grief, now if I make the same bet, I’ll have to put up $120 instead of the usual $110!” Both reactions are equally accurate. The second tends to be a lot more common—-most bettors keep the potential win amount constant at $100 and put up the extra vig in the form of risking $120 instead of $110—-but Miller-types who react in the former way are not wrong to do so. They’re just wrong in thinking that there’s something privileged and unique about that perspective, that “this is the way it works.”

Finally, I’ll paraphrase a point I made earlier. If you agree with Miller, then you are saying that it is correct to say that the winner pays the vig, and incorrect to say that the loser (or both) pays the vig. Hence, you must think there is something more than a semantic difference between the two. (If someone insists to me that something is a duck and is not a goose, then to be logically consistent, obviously he must think that ducks and geese are not identical things.) OK, so what’s the difference between a “winner pays” system and a “loser pays” system? According to Miller, all sportsbooks use a “winner pays” system. If a new sportsbook switched to a “loser pays” system instead, what would that look like? In what substantive way would that differ at all from the present system?

(The answer, of course, is that it wouldn’t differ in the slightest, because they are not two different systems, but two different ways of describing the identical system. Pure semantics.)