His Background is as a writer for Hee-Haw. Does that qualify him as a pro gambler ? I'd rather see a math background.
A comedy writer as a tout, is like an electing an actor to be the governor of California, or a wrestler to govern Minn.
A comedy writer as a tout, is like an electing an actor to be the governor of California, or a wrestler to govern Minn.
In 'civilian' life, J. R.'s written 100's of TV shows, including the comedy classic Hee-Haw. (Yes, fellows, he helped audition the Hee-Haw girls! Tough work, but somebody had to do it.)That's Misty Rowe in the photo at left and Gunnella Hutton - "Nurse Goodbody" at right...He's written 6 books, and was awarded Kentucky's highest civilian honor, the rank of Colonel, in 1991. J.R. also wrote the TV special GAMBLING IN AMERICA and the pilot episodes for AMERICA'S CASTLES for Cinetel Productions. His show, I-40 PARADISE, was the first sitcom written especially for cable television. He also helped write the talk show NASHVILLE NOW with Ralph Emery, and other hit TV shows. He recently served as consultant to the producers of the TV special, HIGH ROLLERS' LAS VEGAS.
Hadn't taken a look at his site in a while...
So I've taken another look at it. He leads the reader in the right direction by giving enough decent information to sounds credible. He points out that nobody will hit 70%, the importance of bankroll management, that it is tough to beat 50% and to become a successful sportsbettor.
He then turns around and states that professionals look for 54-58% vs -110 with at least 2000 bets a year. He states that a pro hitting 55%, claiming that as conservative, over 2000 bets will make 100 units. He then talks of jumping from 1% units to 2%, pointing out that 2% would give a 200% return.
He then goes on to claim that all it takes to achieve these results is 54% and good bankroll management, and that all of this is within our reach by taking a look at the order page where we will get "how-to" materials from the most respected handicappers in the business.
He then leads you on about how he doesn't mean to make it sound easy (yes he does) and that most reading this site should not attempt to do it (again, giving "credible" info) but he gives leads the reader on giving them the impression that they could be the exception.
This is all standard sales strategy.
A few specific things I'll pick at:
address only those bets wherein the player must risk as much as 11 to win 10; - pointspreads and over/under bets. Against this type of bet, anyone at all can expect to win 50 percent
Sorry JR they can't expect 50% since they won't make true random selections unless they are flipping a coin.
Typically, a full-time professional sports bettor can have at least 2,000 opinions per year and an "edge" (an expectation of winning) of between 54% and 58% of those bets wherein he must risk 11 to win ten.
Please show me a sportsbettor that will hit 58% vs -110 with at least 2000 bets. 52% just doesn't sound sexy enough though does it?
If his bet size is only 1 percent of his beginning bankroll, and even if he does not increase the size of his bets as his bankroll increases, he makes 100 percent profit on his original investment every year. Risking 2 percent of his original bankroll, he figures to make 200 percent profit per year.
Sorry JR but if we're hitting at least 55% and only making 6 plays a day why are we only betting 1-2% on these? Why not bump it up to 3% or 4% and make a killing? Especially since you mention 55% vs -110 is "conservative" so we really could expect 56-58%. Why not just make it 5%?
Changing his bet size when his bankroll increases (or decreases) by 50%
Pretty inefficient JR. 20% is more reasonable.
The most obvious giveaway is that phonies tend to make outrageous claims
Such as 58% vs -110 over at least 2000 picks.
Another dead giveaway concerns money management.......You're probably already at least somewhat familiar with two such ideas, the so-called 'Kelly criterion' and the 'star system.'
The belief that all bets must have the same edge and that overbetting doesn't exist clearly places you in this category yet again.
With the break-even point at about 53%
Actually JR the breakeven point at worst is 52.4%. If you are intelligent enough to shop for lines (as any decent sportsbettor is) then you will effectively be betting anything from a 0c (or even scalpable) to an 8c line at the very worst. Usually 1c-5c which gives us a vig of 0.25% to 1.2% to overcome. JR you should really point out the importance of shopping - it is much easier to need just 50.13% to 50.6% to breakeven rather than your 52.4%.
When risking 11 to win 10 it is best to use no more than 2% of your bankroll per bet
Being the fool I am I believed that it was the edge and probability of winning that should determine max bet size. Silly me.
JR I notice how you are caught up with winning 55%+ vs -110. Suggesting you should aim for such high winrates suggests you believe people should pass on lower ev bets? What about the 50.5% bets when you need 50.2% to breakeven? The fact that you suggest to pass over an edge is laughable. You state that 150 55% bets is as profitable as 50 60% bets, well what about the hundreds of marginal bets?
Of those genuine professional-level sports bettors I've known, most would never risk more than two percent of their working bankroll on any single bet, and all of them usually risk much less than that
Really? I guess they're not hitting 55% then JR? Or maybe they've been listening to you too much?
We expect between 40 and 110 units' profit per 1,000 picks (but not every 1,000 picks) . Risking 2% of your bankroll per bet and tripling your bankroll over a 12-month period is 300+% annual profit. What are the chances of tripling your money every year in the stock market?
between 4% and 11% ROI? Versus -110? Very impressive JR. Yet you still only recommend a max bet of 2%. At least you were kind enough to throw the reader 300%.
Okay I have had enough. JR definitely has a BS in BS. He stated that it is easy to spot a phony if you know what you're talking about - JR that may just be the one thing you are right about.
So I've taken another look at it. He leads the reader in the right direction by giving enough decent information to sounds credible. He points out that nobody will hit 70%, the importance of bankroll management, that it is tough to beat 50% and to become a successful sportsbettor.
He then turns around and states that professionals look for 54-58% vs -110 with at least 2000 bets a year. He states that a pro hitting 55%, claiming that as conservative, over 2000 bets will make 100 units. He then talks of jumping from 1% units to 2%, pointing out that 2% would give a 200% return.
He then goes on to claim that all it takes to achieve these results is 54% and good bankroll management, and that all of this is within our reach by taking a look at the order page where we will get "how-to" materials from the most respected handicappers in the business.
He then leads you on about how he doesn't mean to make it sound easy (yes he does) and that most reading this site should not attempt to do it (again, giving "credible" info) but he gives leads the reader on giving them the impression that they could be the exception.
This is all standard sales strategy.
A few specific things I'll pick at:
address only those bets wherein the player must risk as much as 11 to win 10; - pointspreads and over/under bets. Against this type of bet, anyone at all can expect to win 50 percent
Sorry JR they can't expect 50% since they won't make true random selections unless they are flipping a coin.
Typically, a full-time professional sports bettor can have at least 2,000 opinions per year and an "edge" (an expectation of winning) of between 54% and 58% of those bets wherein he must risk 11 to win ten.
Please show me a sportsbettor that will hit 58% vs -110 with at least 2000 bets. 52% just doesn't sound sexy enough though does it?
If his bet size is only 1 percent of his beginning bankroll, and even if he does not increase the size of his bets as his bankroll increases, he makes 100 percent profit on his original investment every year. Risking 2 percent of his original bankroll, he figures to make 200 percent profit per year.
Sorry JR but if we're hitting at least 55% and only making 6 plays a day why are we only betting 1-2% on these? Why not bump it up to 3% or 4% and make a killing? Especially since you mention 55% vs -110 is "conservative" so we really could expect 56-58%. Why not just make it 5%?
Changing his bet size when his bankroll increases (or decreases) by 50%
Pretty inefficient JR. 20% is more reasonable.
The most obvious giveaway is that phonies tend to make outrageous claims
Such as 58% vs -110 over at least 2000 picks.
Another dead giveaway concerns money management.......You're probably already at least somewhat familiar with two such ideas, the so-called 'Kelly criterion' and the 'star system.'
The belief that all bets must have the same edge and that overbetting doesn't exist clearly places you in this category yet again.
With the break-even point at about 53%
Actually JR the breakeven point at worst is 52.4%. If you are intelligent enough to shop for lines (as any decent sportsbettor is) then you will effectively be betting anything from a 0c (or even scalpable) to an 8c line at the very worst. Usually 1c-5c which gives us a vig of 0.25% to 1.2% to overcome. JR you should really point out the importance of shopping - it is much easier to need just 50.13% to 50.6% to breakeven rather than your 52.4%.
When risking 11 to win 10 it is best to use no more than 2% of your bankroll per bet
Being the fool I am I believed that it was the edge and probability of winning that should determine max bet size. Silly me.
JR I notice how you are caught up with winning 55%+ vs -110. Suggesting you should aim for such high winrates suggests you believe people should pass on lower ev bets? What about the 50.5% bets when you need 50.2% to breakeven? The fact that you suggest to pass over an edge is laughable. You state that 150 55% bets is as profitable as 50 60% bets, well what about the hundreds of marginal bets?
Of those genuine professional-level sports bettors I've known, most would never risk more than two percent of their working bankroll on any single bet, and all of them usually risk much less than that
Really? I guess they're not hitting 55% then JR? Or maybe they've been listening to you too much?
We expect between 40 and 110 units' profit per 1,000 picks (but not every 1,000 picks) . Risking 2% of your bankroll per bet and tripling your bankroll over a 12-month period is 300+% annual profit. What are the chances of tripling your money every year in the stock market?
between 4% and 11% ROI? Versus -110? Very impressive JR. Yet you still only recommend a max bet of 2%. At least you were kind enough to throw the reader 300%.
Okay I have had enough. JR definitely has a BS in BS. He stated that it is easy to spot a phony if you know what you're talking about - JR that may just be the one thing you are right about.
very well done MR J. gyno, thanks man.. Quantum Leap it appears we differ on how to define a "good guy". When someone asks me what it means to be a good person the word "honesty" immediately comes to my mind. I do not consider con artists (which JR is) to be good guys. JR is so far from honest, he will write anything, including blatant lies in order to get you to buy his "service"..
"The only business in the world bigger than gambling is religion...but gambling is not nearly so corrupt." - J. R. Miller
what a hypocrite
"The only business in the world bigger than gambling is religion...but gambling is not nearly so corrupt." - J. R. Miller
what a hypocrite
the irony to me comes from the person who is saying the quote(Miller), not from the quote itself..but i personally think in an idealistic sense most religion, whether you are atheistic or theistic, is less corrupt than gambling. Many of the people who run or orchestrate a religious community have been extremely corrupt and worse than people in the gambling industry.. but I have very little knowledge of casino execs/bookies etc.. and can only go from what I've heard. Most religious messages have been distorted by those in power to extract money from the poor (such as indulgences in the Catholic Church).
Quantum and Doug not sure about calling him a good guy. Overall I think he is a good guy as I have talked to him several times. The fact is though he is misleading and deceptive and loses more than wins and isn't that the only thing we care about here? It took me a long time to figue out that he, depite a mountain of "professional" information, is a total loser. ANd that what he is. Rumors are his brother did most of the capping and he died a few years ago. That hurt him.
Here's a look at JR's tracking from a few years ago:
http://web.archive.org/web/20031206093813/www.professionalgambler.com/BLOWBYB.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20031206093813/www.professionalgambler.com/BLOWBYB.html
doug that archive.org site is pretty cool..here's a quote from JR himself about a person who plagiarized from his book.
There's something sad about plagiarists, even though they are criminals. Quite aside from the anger of having been robbed of my work, there is part of me that can't help pitying these hopeless losers. What character could these men possibly possess? They are without the ability to feel ashamed, willing to do anything for personal gain - like a sneak thief or a purse snatcher. They have no skill, so they cheat people for a living. They are reduced to parasites and thieves... How humiliating for them - and for their families.
- J. R. Miller
How Ironic, isn't it?
There's something sad about plagiarists, even though they are criminals. Quite aside from the anger of having been robbed of my work, there is part of me that can't help pitying these hopeless losers. What character could these men possibly possess? They are without the ability to feel ashamed, willing to do anything for personal gain - like a sneak thief or a purse snatcher. They have no skill, so they cheat people for a living. They are reduced to parasites and thieves... How humiliating for them - and for their families.
- J. R. Miller
How Ironic, isn't it?
I had subscribed to his plays years back. He does not have a winning percentage.
It does not do anyone any good if the winners are not consistent.
I have yet to find any service which can consitently pull out winners. No point in paying for service. You can find a lot of decent cappers on RX providing good picks for free.
It does not do anyone any good if the winners are not consistent.
I have yet to find any service which can consitently pull out winners. No point in paying for service. You can find a lot of decent cappers on RX providing good picks for free.
There aren't many. Perhaps Nitrobets... but they kind of cheat on lines, and include props that move too much. There was a guy ( Edward) doing college, but he'd move lines with his picks.
If a tout gets too successful ( usually short-term,anyway)...lines move and no value is left.
I don't think any are worth paying for, certainly not Miller !
