Darren Rovell, CNBC sports business reporter and handicapping skeptic, posted an article on tout Adam Meyer and his website, RealMoneySports.net.  Meyer, as you may know, has surprised many by advertising his sports pick selection service behind home plate at Florida Marlins games. The visual of a tout’s advertisement in a stadium where games are being played is somewhat shocking and appears to be unprecedented. But Meyer’s advertising strategy isn’t the most interesting – or surprising – part of Rovell’s article.

Adam Meyer won big on the Kentucky Derby. Reportedly, he put $25,000 on Animal Kingdom to win and the bet paid $543,000. Meyer has a photo of the winning tickets to verify his claim. But those aren’t the really surprising numbers in Rovell’s column on Meyer.

Meyer goes on to claim that he has more than 11,000 people who pay $199 a month for his handicapping selections which gets them 15-20 picks a week. 11,000 subscribers at $199 per month equals $2,189,000 in revenue per month for Meyer’s sports service. Or $26,268,000 in revenue per year. But that’s not all.

There are a “group of bettors” that pay Meyer $10,000 for “even more games.” He doesn’t quantify how big the group is but let’s just say, conservatively, it’s another 50 people. 50 clients at $10,000 per subscription and Meyer adds another $500,000 in revenue.

Lastly, there is the Platinum Club. Again, according to Meyer, he has 67 gamblers in his Platinum Club who pay . . . wait for it. . . $250,000 per year for an all-access pass to the mind of Adam Meyer. If you have 67 members paying you $250,000 a year, you’re generating another $16,750,000 in annual revenue.

So, if we add up all the self-reported revenue claimed by Adam Meyer and reprinted by Darren Rovell, we get $43,500,000. That’s 43 million, 500 hundred thousand dollars in revenue per year claimed by a tout. And, of course, he says he bets all the plays he recommends and has a 59.7% win rate so he’d be making even more money in winnings from his own plays.

If we are to believe these numbers, Meyer would be making more than any NFL player. He sails past Peyton Manning who made a mere $30M last year. He makes more than Alex Rodriguez who only pulled in $32M. He also bests Manny Pacquiao who also scraped by with just $32M. Heck, if Rovell’s article is to be believed, Meyer made more money than Tom Hanks last year who earned just $30M. About the only celebrity we can find who earned more than Meyer – according to his self-reported numbers – is Johnny Depp. And while Depp made $50M, we don’t know what Meyer allegedly made by betting his own selections, so he may have even claim to have earned more than the Pirates of the Caribbean star. And who knows, since Meyer says he has clients who are “famous doctors, lawyers, and actors,” maybe Johnny Depp calls Meyer to get down on a Marlins / Pirates game.

A tout claiming $43M in annual revenue is surprising – even by tout standards. Will any media outlet follow-up to attempt to verify any of Meyer’s claims? We can only hope.

The sports advisory business – or touts, as they are more commonly called – is home to many unsavory characters. High profile media outlets have done solid reporting jobs investigating the claims made by many of these outfits. HBO’s ‘Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel’ did a piece on the legendary tout Stu Feiner during which they had Feiner compete with a 2 year old girl and a dog. To no one’s surprise, Feiner came in last.

Sports Illustrated did an expose on the tout industry and exposed Ron Bash (aka The Coach) who promised to blow his brains out if his picks were wrong. He was wrong but his ‘brains’ are still in his head. Kevin Duffy, one of the preeminent pick sellers, also was hit by SI as his ad touted his ‘big weekend’ despite the fact that the ad was delivered to the newspaper before the very weekend he claimed to have ‘crushed his bookmakers.’ In the same piece, SI took after Stu Feiner and monitored his selections for four weeks. The results: 19-32 for a 37% win rate. Meanwhile, Feiner’s company was touting a far different record for the exact same time period to potential customers. A classic tout move.

We take pride in exposing touts so we’ll be breaking down different pick-sellers here on Wagerminds. Our system allows users to make their picks using real consensus Vegas lines and we grade each and every pick. It’s transparent and each wager recommendation is time stamped. If you’re good, this site will prove it. And just as importantly, if you’re bad, this site will prove it.

Most touts, of course, have no interest in such transparency. But we’re going to shine some light on different touts to help consumers better understand this industry.

John Harrison is listed as the owner of VegasKillers. The website – VegasKillers.com – is registered anonymously to an address in Las Vegas that doesn’t seem to exist.  And the technical contact listed for the site is ‘Ted Bundy,’ seemingly a reference to the notorious serial killer.  In his bio, Harrison claims he is “widely considered to be the most accurate sports bettor in the world today.” Now, there are some well-known professional gamblers like Billy Walters and Steve Fezzik but no one in the sports handicapping world – perhaps with the exception of Mr. Harrison’s family members – would actually point to John Harrison as the most accurate in the world. But how accurate is he?

Well, his online record claims he’s hitting at a 56% rate. That’s a relatively modest claim for a tout, frankly, as many claim absurd 70+% win rates. As of October 5th, Harrison claims this 56% win rate has led to plus 367 units. According to Harrison’s system, your bankroll is 100 units. If he recommends a 1 unit play, he’s recommending you bet 1% of your bankroll. His self-policed online record as of October 5th has him making 19 plays over the past year where his clients would risk 20% or more of their bankroll on a single game including 2 games where he recommends playing 50% of your bankroll on a single game. Now, do any real professional gamblers risk 20% of their bankroll on a single game – of course not. Would any sane person risk 50% of their bankroll on a single game – of course not. But that’s how Harrison gets his alleged 56% win rate to generate an alleged positive 367 units.

To no one’s surprise, Harrison’s self-reported record has him going an astounding 15-5 on his largest plays (defined as risking 20 units or more). Do you really believe that?

Also worth noting is that 4 weeks into college and pro football season, his VegasKillers.com record hadn’t changed at all since April 29, 2011 (thanks to internetarchive.org for that nugget). And this was despite the fact that was he consistently touting his NFL picks over at his blogspot blog during each of the first four weeks of the NFL season. Still believe his record?

John Harrison’s bio on VegasKillers described Harrison as a ‘legend.’ Well, this ‘legend’ has a LinkedIn profile where it says he attended Middlesex Community College from 2009-2011. Still believe his record?

The self-professed legend also does not participate in the most prestigious NFL handicapping contest in the world – the Hilton SuperContest. We asked him about his participation in the Hilton contest and he responded:

Also, you may wonder Harrison has a presence on the domain VegasKillers.com but also operate a separate John Harrison blogspot blog? Well, it’s hard to know but one potential reason could be to try to control search results for his name. See, if you Google ‘John Harrison Vegas Killers’ you’ll find a site ranking quite highly which accuses Harrison of being a scam artist. If you want to push that site further down the search results (so fewer people see it), you’ll want to have a bunch of domains that have your name in it with content you control. So is that why Harrison has a blogspot blog? Quite possible.  ‘Harrison’ keeps up this charade on Twitter as well running two mirrored accounts:

Another site ranking for Harrison’s name is SBForum.com where one former VegasKillers customer tells his story about paying for picks from Harrison. During his tenure as a VegasKillers customer, the former customer claims Harrison was down 42 units and kept losing ‘guaranteed’ picks. But Harrison distinguishes himself in the shady tout business by going further then anyone else we’ve ever reviewed – he faked his own suicide.

That’s right, “John Harrison” of VegasKillers had killed himself according to reports on VegasKillers.com from April 13, 2011. But he didn’t stay dead for long. Harrison was resurrected months later as he announced in his ‘I Am Back’ post on his blog on June 22, 2011. Actually, he wasn’t resurrected as he never died in the first place; instead, he claimed he faked the suicide to protect him and his family from a threatening former client who lost $50,000 betting on Harrison’s plays. Truly amazing stuff – even by tout standards.

In his ‘I’m not really dead’ post, Harrison points out that handicapping isn’t his ‘day job’ and that he’s a ‘Web Developer’ for a large company in the Northeast. It’s interesting that someone considered to be ‘the most accurate sports bettor in the world today’ has to have a day job. Oh, and it’s surprising that a professional ‘Web Developer’ has to use a free blogspot blog to tout his legendary sports picks. Or could it be that both of those claims are false? Seems likely.

Most recently, we’ve discovered a Twitter account called @CoverSteam. The account’s profile picture is the Covers logo.

This would lead you to believe it’s an official Covers Twitter account which is odd because all the account does is tweet links to John Harrison’s blog and retweet John Harrison’s promotional tweets. It’s a protected account, too, which made it all the more strange.  And as you can see from the image above, the owner of this Twitter account is using it to recruit people to be a ‘Covers Expert.’  We reached out to Covers to see if this was their account and, not surprisingly, they confirmed it wasn’t. They immediately told the account user to cease and desist using their logo and the account quickly changed the profile image.

Is Harrison behind this account which is an obvious and despicable copyright violation? Well, it’s impossible to tell but the account also links back to Harrison’s personal blog where he talks about his time in the service industry.

It’s on this blog that we learn that Mr. Harrison used to work at the Olive Garden – this, presumably, was before he was “widely considered to be the most accurate sports bettor in the world.” It’s difficult to determine how he has time to work at the Olive Garden, work as a ‘Web Developer’ and handicap games but these are all of his claims. Do you believe any of them?

The more you investigate who John Harrison & Vegas Killers really are, the more laughable the charade becomes.  Is John Harrison this guy’s real name? Maybe, maybe not. Is he ‘the most accurate sports bettor in the world today?’ Of course not. Is he accurately representing his record? Of course not. Should you pay for his picks? No, no, no.

There are countless John Harrisons out there and we’ll be writing about more as we find them. We think the industry has been far too quiet in exposing this nonsense and it’s given rise to the perception that everyone involved in sports gambling is tainted.

As a consumer, be careful.  Don’t buy picks from people who claim absurd winning percentages (or absurd unit wins).  You’re just going to lose money on their plays in addition to losing the money you spent on their picks. And if you’ve had bad experiences with touts, send us the details.

As we’ve said before, touts are a lot like professional wrestlers. They create larger-than-life personas full of bombast and sensationalism and, you know, they’re fakes.

No one fits this description better than Stu Feiner. In case you’re not familiar with Stu, he was big in the 90′s, like 3 button suits and The Spice Girls. Feiner is truly a legendary phony in an industry filled with phonies – and that’s no easy task. He’d yell about his 500 MILLION DIME LOCK OF THE CENTURY and berate listeners with absurd claims about his alleged winning percentages. While everyone with a functioning brain knew Feiner was a fraud from the beginning, he was ultimately exposed by HBO’s Real Sports when they put Feiner in a handicapping contest with a dog and a kindergartener. He came in last.

Amazingly, Stu Feiner is still at it. He still has a website (which we won’t link to, of course) but, best of all, he still cranks out YouTube videos. It appears Feiner has put up a cool 200 pounds since his glory days on the amazingly awful television show The Sports Advisors but his self-esteem has only increased with his waistline. And the result is pure entertainment gold. So, without further introduction, here is one of Stu’s latest YouTube videos. We’ll be posting more over the coming weeks as this is entertainment that simply should not be missed.

By the way, Stu is most definitely NOT SAFE FOR WORK:

Back in the old days – like, you know, back in the 1980′s – being a shameless tout was a bit easier. You could create some pumped-up persona, get a 900#, buy some cheap radio and television spots and whamo – you’re in business. You claim whatever record you wanted to and pump your Lock of the Month or the Game of the Year or the Parlay of the Century because consumers had no simple way of tracking results. It was a marketing business with zero accountability.

Well, now Google exists.

Thanks to a free Google search, potential tout customers can instantly find out what others are saying about that service. And boy does Google tell a lot of stories that touts don’t want told.

Let’s take Adam Meyer. Now, Meyer has received a tremendous amount of press coverage. When talking to CNBC, Adam Meyer claimed he generated over $40 million a year in revenue from his customers – a shocking number that no other media outlet has challenged. He will often post pictures of winning tickets from his Twitter account. He posted two different $200,000 Alabama (-2.5) tickets during the BCS Championship Game. Alabama won 21-0 so Meyer ‘won’ nearly $400,000. Do the pictures of these winning tickets prove anything? Of course not.

See, Meyer could well have bet LSU too. If he did, he would essentially just be paying the vig to enable a publicity stunt; a very effectively publicity stunt as potentials customers love to see ‘evidence’ of big winning tickets before paying for a tout’s picks. But touts can’t just rely on these publicity stunts to sell picks. They also need to worry about their Google results as nearly every potential customer is doing a Google search on a tout before paying for picks.

Well, Adam Meyer has a bit of a Google problem.

When you first type ‘Adam Meyer {space}’  into the Google search box, it auto-fills the most frequently searched term. And for ‘Adam Meyer {space}’ the most popular search term is ‘Adam Meyer scam.’ According to Google’s search tool, the term ‘Adam Meyer scam’ is searched 320 times every month. 

Obviously, that’s bad news for a tout as it instantly delegitimizes his ‘reputation’ in the eyes of the searcher. So how do you combat that? Well, it’s not easy. But it appears someone has come up with a creative way to try and control the results for this particular search term.

It’s called good old-fashioned search engine optimization (SEO). SEO, in case you don’t know, is how companies and website operators attempt to improve how their sites rank for certain search terms.   Someone is publishing the same article about the ‘Adam Meyer scam’ on hundreds of spam websites around the web. This article positions the term ‘Adam Meyer scam’ by telling the story of someone who, allegedly, was duped by some scammer who was pretending to be Adam Meyer. Get it? See, this content gives readers the impression that ‘Adam Meyer scam’ is searched because someone else is scamming people by pretending to be him. This article flips the script, so to speak.

Pretty clever.

We can tell this new content is a blatant – and rather ham-handed – SEO attempt by the structure of the content. First, these new ‘articles’ all use ‘Adam Meyer scam’ in the headline. They also almost universally use ‘Adam Meyer scam’ in the url. And these articles have been posted all over hundreds of the most obvious spam sites on the internet including sites like WeeklyShredder.com, Articlepix.com, SuperArticleDirectory.com and ArticleBliss.info. But the tell-tale sign that this is all dime-store SEO work is the embedded link in each of the articles. The linked term is ‘Adam Meyer scam’ and that link goes back to Meyer’s main business site – www.adamwins.com.  If you’re a hack SEO outfit, these are the kind of tactics you engage in to have adamwins.com rank first in Google for the term ‘Adam Meyer scam.’

Now, is it possible that these articles were written by some genuine person who was duped by someone else pretending to be Adam Meyer? Well, maybe. But why would they have paid to publish this article all over hundreds of spam sites? And why would they have embedded a hyperlink in the copy of the article for the specific term ‘Adam Meyer scam?’ And why would they have directed that link back to adamwins.com? It seems rather obvious, right?

It’s interesting that those in the tout business are developing more reputation awareness and are proactively taking measures to attempt to control how Google impacts their business.  In 2003, this sort of spam tactic might work for months or longer. Nowadays, Google knows better so this sort of low-brow SEO work likely won’t have a lasting impact on the Google results. Google is good at what it does and if your reputation is bad, the internet is going to find out. Of course, that’s bad news for the future of the tout business.

Danny Sheridan, “oddsmaker” for the venerable gambling publication USA Today, doesn’t bet on sports. This according to his interview with Covers.com.

So if you’re keeping track, this means Danny Sheridan, “oddsmaker,” doesn’t work at a sports book. And Danny Sheridan, sports betting expert, doesn’t bet on sports.

Sheridan has been in the tout business for a long time, however. Sports Illustrated wrote about his track record way back in 1977 and the results were not flattering.

We’ve had some back-and-forth with Sheridan on Twitter. After all, no one (except Floyd Mayweather of course) has a better self-policed track record of documenting winning predictions after games are over than Danny Sheridan. Sheridan has also taken to Twitter to claim that no Vegas sports book would take his action.

Now, it would surprise many people that most Vegas sports books have relatively low single game betting limits. But Cantor Gaming, the fastest growing sports book in Vegas, does accept large single game wagers. Indeed, that’s one of their primary competitive advantages. We asked Sheridan, via Twitter, if Cantor refused to take his action. We didn’t get a clear answer.

In the Covers interview, Sheridan says:

I’m writing a book about handicapping and in my book I challenge Vegas. I was talking to some of them,

and every one of them turned me down.

They won’t take my action. It’s pretty substantial – I thought they would. I checked with them and they

just don’t want it because they know, not that I am the best ever, they know I’ll probably win.

Now, let’s notice the language. Sheridan says he talked to “some of them” referring to Vegas books and “every one of them” turned me down. Wait, so every one of the “some” that he talked to turned him down? Did he check with Cantor Gaming? Sheridan wouldn’t mention specific sports books during the interview, according to Covers.

But Mike Colbert of Cantor did say this: “In three years of business, we have never turned anyone away from opening an account.”

So, do you believe Danny Sheridan when he says “they won’t take my action” or do you believe Mike Colbert (of soon to be publicly traded Cantor Gaming) when he says “we have never turned anyone away from opening an account.” Oh, before you decide, you should consider this: Danny Sheridan told Covers that “If someone will book me, if they let me bet $100,000 minimum a game, I just don’t see how they can beat me. I think the worst I can do would be 57 percent.”

The worst he can do is 57%? This from a guy who says he doesn’t bet on sports. Amazing.

The  “What I think I do vs. What I really do” meme has been making the rounds but no one has taken a shot at a sports bettors version. So we did.  Click on the image below to see the betting version:

Feel free to share to help set the record straight.

We’ve enjoyed exposing fraudulent touts in the past. You may remember John Harrison, the proprietor of Vegas Killers, who had such a bad record that he faked his own suicide. Well, now we bring you the amazing story of John Morrison.

According to his website, John Morrison is a “celebrated Ivy League graduate from Cornell University with a PhD degree in statistics.” Mr. Morrison has used this “Ivy League” education to create a “sports betting system” that hits at an astounding 97% win rate. Using his own “system,” Morrison won $185,000 last month. In the 2008-09 NBA season, he went 79-0. And the following year, he went 63-0. Combined, that’s a 142-0 winning streak in the NBA over two seasons. The odds of pulling that streak off are over 1 billion to 1. Put another way, you are substantially more likely to get killed by lightning.

Amazing, right?

And you can get access to this “system” for only $197.00.

Well, don’ reach for your credit card just yet because this “system” is nothing more than a fraud. But let’s spend some time analyzing Mr. Morrison’s website because it equal parts sophisticated con job and hilarious con job.

First, Morrison employs the classic “as seen on” tool to impress website visitors with his legitimacy. Except every place where Morrison says he has been “seen on” are websites where users can submit their own content.

YouTube? Yes, he’s been “seen on” YouTube because he’s submitted videos there. Google, Yahoo and MSN? Yep, he has a website so it can be found on search engines. Squidoo is entirely user-generated content so of course Mr. Morrison can be “seen” there. To the causal observer, the fact that Morrison’s work has been “seen on” these other sites may seem impressive. But it isn’t.

Second, Morrison uses a lot of testimonials to help convince visitors that his “system” is the real deal. And these testimonials are the most entertaining – and despicable – part of his site.

Morrison has rounded up testimonials from a former professional bowler, a former offshore sportsbook founder, a former mixed martial arts champion, an alleged Academy Award winning actor, a former tennis umpire, a former male model, a well-known ventriloquist from the 1950′s and, get this, the greatest badminton player in the history of Latvia.

A ventriloquist? A badminton player? Truly amazing choices for nonsense testimonials. You have to hand it to Mr. Morrison for his creativity.

But Morrison pushes the boundaries of decency – even by con men standards – by including video testimonials from a paralyzed man and a deaf mute who uses sign language to tell potential customers that he went “40-1″ in the NBA thanks to Morrison’s “system.” A new low even for touts.

Now, despite all these testimonials, how do we know Morrison is a fraud? Well, it’s painfully obvious, right? No one can pick games at a 97% success rate. No one. Not a human. Not a computer. It hasn’t happened and it will never happen. Predicting human behavior – especially in the confines of a sporting event – is beset by too many unknowable circumstances to have that level of success.

Another sign that this is all a hoax: the video testimonials have all the production quality of hostage videos released by terrorists. Except the hostage videos are less staged.

But besides the fact that the 97% win rate and the dime-store video work together scream fraud, there’s more to the story.

According to Cornell, they have no record of a John Morrison who graduated with a PhD in statistics. That alone kind of blows up the whole charade, right? Well, there’s more.

The server that hosts Morrison’s website (which we won’t link to because that would only benefit his site) also hosts a handful of other sites. One of them – Rich16YearOld dot com (don’t go there as it’s a scam site as well) – uses the same website structure and tried-and-true scam tactics of Morrison’s sports betting site. Except instead of a celebrated “Ivy League” PhD, this site is allegedly run by a 16 year old girl who is a savant at making millions with affiliate marketing. There are countless testimonials from “celebrities” like a movie producer just like on Morrison’s sports betting site. There’s a video with a voice-over by the 16 year old girl telling potential customers how easy making hundreds of thousands of dollars is with her secret affiliate ways. And, this site has the same punchline – she’ll give them to you for just $75.

Guess what? The 16 year old is a fabricated persona just like “John Morrison” the “Ivy League” PhD is a fabricated persona. Both of these fraud sites lead back to a company called TT Services in Worcester Massachusetts. And believe it or not, the company has a number of Better Business Bureau complaints. The listed owner is a man named Anthony Chou. He is, it appears, the man behind these sites.

Mr. Chou, it seems, spends a lot of time attempting to manipulate search engine results for terms like ‘sports betting system reviews’ and ‘John Morrison sports betting review.’ For instance, he (or an affiliate) pumped out a press release with the rather catchy title “Sports Betting Champ Reviews – Sports Betting Champ Scam – John Morrison Sports Betting Champ System.” This press release was posted at countless free press release websites which all then link back to OnlineSportsBettingExpert dot com. Of course, OnlineSportsBettingExpert dot com gives its best rating to. . . wait for it. . . the John Morrison system.

In the age of Google, scammers also have to be spammers. It’s their only means to attempt to do some amount of reputation management as it’s so simple for disgruntled customers (an admittedly redundant term, in the case of phony touts) to post online about their actual experiences with frauds like Morrison. And since the tout can’t get the reviews posted at other sites deleted, his only recourse is to create spam sites and get them ranked higher in the search engine results than the legitimate reviews. If it works, a casual searcher may only find the phony reviews and think paying $179 to Morrison is a worthwhile investment. But trust us, it isn’t.

Interestingly, the John Morrison scam doesn’t just end with a guy selling a bunch of worthless sports picks for $179. No, this scam is a bit more insidious. Watch the video below from Sportsbook Review for details on how an affiliate deal with an offshore book lead to an even worse deal for Morrison’s customers:

So what’s the takeaway? Well, John Morrison is obviously a phony. As are most touts. So before you ever pay anyone for sports picks, think long and hard about it. Then Google them thoroughly to see if there are bad reviews. If there is a hint of impropriety, don’t do it.

More than 90 million Americans have money invested in mutual funds. They are, by far, the most common investment vehicle for middle-class Americans. In total, mutual fund managers control over $13 trillion. That’s TRILLION, as in a thousand billion.

These highly compensated mutual fund managers control such enormous wealth because they have the smarts, the skills and the patience to provide impressive market-beating returns to their customers, right? Nope, not at all. Last year, 84% of mutual fund managers underperformed the broader stock market. And these results aren’t uncommon in the mutual fund business.

Mutual fund managers underperform because not only because they aren’t terribly good at making the right investment decisions at the right time but also because, just as importantly, they charge fees which eat into an investor’s returns.

Does that sound familiar? Well, it should. Because sports betting pick-sellers (aka touts) suffer from the exact same issues. The vast majority of touts aren’t terribly good at picking the right sides in the right games. As a result, clients don’t win. Worse yet, the fees touts charge eat into a sports bettor bankroll and makes it nearly impossible for them to make money over the medium or long term.

Now, it’s impossible to determine what percentage of touts lose money for their customers. Our educated guess: 99% of touts lose money. Okay, maybe it’s 98%. But it’s no less than that. A couple months ago, an article on Deadspin highlighted that 69% of handicappers at Pregame.com had lost money over an extended period of time (based on a study of nearly 26,000 picks). And that did not include the cost of the picks. If you factored in that cost, the percentage of losing handicappers at Pregame would be even higher.

Just like there are exceptions to the general failure rate in the mutual fund industry – like Bruce Berkowitz and Peter Lynch and John Neff – there are some exceptions in the pick-selling business – like RAS Picks.

But the exceptions are rare.

And that’s why we encourage people to be very very careful when buying picks from anyone. If they don’t have a long-term documented track record, don’t pay for picks. And even if they do show a long-term documented track record, Google them relentlessly to see what other independent websites (and past customers) have said about them.

If you’ve spent any time watching CNBC, you know the programming routine: trot out ‘expert’ after ‘expert’ after ‘expert’ to talk about where the market is going today, tomorrow or over the next month. Ask the ‘expert’ for their best stock idea – or what stocks they think will drop – and that’s the segment. Whether it’s Squawk Box or Power Lunch or Street Signs, it’s the same drill.

In many cases, the ‘experts’ CNBC highlights are financial analysts who are discussing their firm’s work analyzing specific stocks or sectors. For instance, one frequent CNBC guest, Dick Bove, is heralded as a bank stock expert. In mid-April, Bove pounded the table declaring “I think Morgan Stanley will allow you to buy that house on the coast of Spain. I think that stock is so cheap right now, it’s overwhelming. It should be bought and bought very aggressively, right now.” Morgan Stanley stock price at the time of Bove’s declaration: $18.22. Morgan Stanley stock price today: $14.25. So, if you followed Bove’s advice, you’re down a cool 28%. And you’re not buying that summer house on the coast of Spain.

But guess what? The results of Bove’s recommendations don’t really matter to the programming executives at CNBC. He still shows up on CNBC over and over and over again.

Beyond talking to financial analysts, CNBC also spends a considerable amount of on-air time interviewing mutual fund managers. For instance, CNBC welcomed Dan Nieman, manager of the Nieman Large Cap Value Fund, to hear his stock recommendations. Now, is Nieman a good mutual fund manager? Well, according to Morningstar, Nieman’s fund underperforms the stock market and investors would be far better off investing a low-cost ETF than Nieman’s fund.

And Dan Nieman isn’t the exception to the rule. By and large, mutual fund managers underperform the stock market and investors are better off avoiding them. Despite this, CNBC will trot out one underperforming mutual fund manager after the next during every business day of the year.

Why?

Well, CNBC is a media company. They need to program a lot of hours and, to do that, they need to talk to a lot of guests. And, frankly, there are only so many good analysts and money managers in the world and not all of them want to go on CBNC ever (let alone regularly). So, CNBC is left booking any fund manager who owns a suit and can speak in complete sentences.

Now imagine you’re Colin Cowherd. Or, better still, imagine you’re Chad Millman. And you have a frequent podcast where you discuss what’s going on in the sports betting world and a weekly ESPN Insider column about sports betting. Well, who do you have on as a guest? Frequently, Millman will host Teddy Covers, a tout. Or Vegas Runner, a tout. Or RJ Bell, CEO of Pregame.com, a tout oepration. Not surprisingly, many of the touts that appear on Millman’s podcast (or in his weekly column) have money-losing track records. So why does Millman have them on his show?

Well, that topic came up in a recent thread over at Beyond the Bets. And, according to Edward Golden from RAS Picks (one of the few tout operations with a long-term winning track record), when he asked Millman why he interviews touts who have proven to lose money for their clients over the long term, Millman responded by pointing out that “there just aren’t enough reputable people in the industry to interview and write about.”

Ain’t that the truth. It’s a sad truth, but it’s the truth nonetheless.

The public wants picks. Whether it’s a stock pick or a sports pick, they want a specific, actionable recommendation. And media outlets – whether it’s CNBC or ESPN – need to give the public what they want to keep their attention. So it’s not at all surprising that CNBC resorts to trotting out underperforming money managers as guests on their shows. And given there are only a handful of people with proven, long-term track records of winning at sports betting, it’s understandable that Chad Millman has resorted to interviewing articulate touts, even if those touts are proven money losers.

Now, whether ESPN should provide legitimacy to these tout operations by interviewing their pick-sellers is another matter entirely. And one that’s very much worth debating.

This September, CNBC will air a one hour show called ‘Money Talks,’ which, according to a press release, is a “docu-soap that follows Steve Stevens, his stable of agents and the clients who risk big dollars in the hope these guys have the expertise to consistently deliver winners. There’s a lot on the line as we follow the gamblers who wager a few thousand each week to the whales who routinely make six-figure bets.”

Who is Steve Stevens? He’s a “well-known” handicapper who runs VIP Sports in Las Vegas. Ever heard of him? Don’t feel bad, neither have we.

Stevens has a website where he touts himself and his sports-picking ability. On the front page of that site is the following video (NSFW language):

Now, we’ve covered the sports betting industry for years and we’ve never heard of the “well-known” handicapper Steve Stevens. But, after watching his introductory video, we can confirm the following: Steve Stevens is a phony who runs an old-fashioned boiler room pick-selling operation. He claims he picks games at a “70-69%, year in, year out.” Then his video kindly corrects his off-the-cuff remarks and points out he actually hits at a 71.5% rate. The actual odds of someone like Stevens hitting at 70% against the spread over an extended period of time? Approximately one trillion to 1.

Since we had never heard of Steve Stevens – or his company “VIP Sports Las Vegas” – we did some basic internet research. And we found some interesting things. It turns out that the domain name of Stevens’s tout operation was registered just eight months ago and it’s registered to a man named Darin Notaro.

Who is Darin Notaro?

Well, there’s a Darin Notaro in Las Vegas who was on probation for six federal felony counts of telemarketing fraud by wire when he was arrested for his role in a 1999 telemarketing scam that bilked elderly victims out of more than $234,000. Notaro was ordered to pay back $12,230 and sentenced to one year in jail. At the time of that arrest, Notaro was 25 years old. Two years later, at age 27, Notaro was arrested for another telemarketing scam where, again, he targeted elderly people. Oh, and Notaro, who has at least one confirmed alias of Darin Sasser, was arrested for a previous telemarketing scam at the age of 24.

Notaro isn’t just tied to VIP Sports Las Vegas and ‘Steve Stevens’ by the domain registration, though. Notaro is listed as the only principal of Executive VIP Services International. According to company filings, Executive VIP Services International is located at 4004 Schiff Drive in Las Vegas. That’s the same address where VIP Sports Las Vegas is located. And it’s the address pictured in Stevens’s introductory video on his tout website.

Here’s a look at the office featured in the trailer for “Money Talks” and Google street view of 4004 Schiff Drive (the office tied to Darin Notaro):

According to state filings, Darin Notaro is the President,  Secretary and Treasurer of Executive VIP Services International.

It appears Darin is also the company’s best salesperson. Here’s a photo of the sales board at VIPSportsLasVegas and, what do you know, Darin is the #1 seller for the week.

So, has convicted telemarketing scammer Darin Notaro simply adopted the alias Steven Stevens and is he the man pictured in the video on VIPSportsLasVegas.com? It sure seems that way.

But wait, there’s more. It turns out the Darin Notaro who is now going by ‘Steve Stevens’ is a friend of Floyd Mayweather.

Here’s an image from Floyd Mayweather’s ’30 Days in May’ documentary where Darin Notaro is described as a ‘friend’ of Floyd Mayweather and a ‘local businessman.’

In the “30 Days For May”, Notaro points out that his 4004 Schiff Drive office is right next door to Mayweather’s gym. Here’s Notaro referencing the 4004 Schiff drive office as his own (can’t host video, but full version with sound can be seen here, just skip to minute 17):

Left Turn Productions, one of the production companies that is developing ‘Money Talks,’ is the same production company that made ’30 Days in May,’ a documentary about Floyd Mayweather.

But that’s not all.

It appears that Floyd Mayweather and Darin Notaro have had a previous business relationship. According to this 2005 Sun Sentinel article, Darin Notaro was identified as the manager of Mayweather’s Philthy Rich Record label.

On Friday, 12 people from Philthy Rich Records led by junior welterweight boxing champ Floyd Mayweather Jr. checked into the hotel a day later than expected. The group, in town for Sunday’s MTV video music awards, said Hurricane Katrina wasn’t getting them down.

“The weather wouldn’t stop us from coming again,” said the group’s manager Darin Notaro. “We’ve got business here and we love the sand.”

Now let’s recap where we are: CNBC issued a press release boasting that it will air an hour long show about sports betting that will center around a Las Vegas-based tout. This tout has no verifiable track record at picking games. This tout’s company is owned and operated by a man named Darin Notaro.  There’s a Las Vegas-based Darin Notaro who has been arrested multiple times for telemarketing scams. The CNBC show is being produced by Left Turn Productions, a film production company that previously worked with Floyd Mayweather. Floyd Mayweather seems to have a long-standing business relationship with the same Darin Notaro who is now using the alias Steve Stevens to sell picks.

We  have not been able to locate a mugshot for the convicted felon Darin Notaro so we can’t definitely conclude that it’s the same Darin Notaro as the one posing as Steve Stevens. But, in just a few hours, we were able to raise all sorts of questions about ‘Steve Stevens’ and his boiler room tout operation.

Do you think CNBC – or any of the production companies involved – did any background check on “Steve Stevens” or his pick-selling company? It seems the answer is no.

We reached out to CNBC and Left Turn Productions for comment and neither responded.

Mike Hook, one of the pick-sellers on Pregame.com, has been accused of fraud by a Pregame customer.

The customer, who goes by the handle of theboz44, claims that Hook asked him to set up an account with his local bookie so he could make plays. After setting Hook up with an account, theboz44 claims that Hook proceeded to lose $5,000 over the subsequent 10 weeks. When asked for the money, Hook provided “excuse after excuse” including a claim that he hadn’t been paid by Pregame.com. Hook went on to lose another $3,000 according to the Pregame customer for a total loss of $8,000. As of two days ago, the customer had not received any money from Mike Hook or Pregame.com.

The detailed claims from the Pregame customer are below (and still posted in the Pregame forums):

For those of you that know me, know that I appreciate any and all help from this site.  Well Mike Hook took full advantage of that.

I was contacted by Mike about 10 weeks ago, and he was providing me plays…like a good capper does.  We’ll Mike wanted to know if I could get him an account with my bookie so he could make even more money.  I said sure and vouched for this Pregame Pro, and got him an account.  Well over the next 10 weeks Mike went on to lose over $5K which I fronted for the Mike with full expectations of being paid back.  Mike gave me excuse after excuse (Primary excuse was that he was waiting on Pregame to pay him), so I figured that he made money since he was a “Pregame Pro”.  Well last week Mike lost another $3K primarily on one 7-1 favorite, and now his total was over $8K.  Well I finally said that enough is enough and told Mike that he needed to pay the bookie this time and needed to come up with the $3K that he lost.

This week Mike told me that he got a loan to pay me back and on 3 different occasions he said he was making the deposit to pay me back.  Which he still hasn’t done.  I wasn’t even asking for the full amount…Just the $3K, and this great Pro couldn’t even come up with that.

So it is now obvious to me that Mike Hook is a fraud and planned nothing more than to steal from me.  He bet money he never had, and now has put my family at risk financially and perhaps physically, depending on what my bookie plans to do since I vouched for this guy.

I have Emails and Text Messages from him verifying everything that I have stated here, and will be seeking further action until I’m satisfied…and I’m pretty sure my bookie will do the same.

Like I said…Nothing in this post is a lie, because I don’t do that.  And if anyone from pregame would like to contact me to discuss, I’d be more than happy to cooperate.

Within hours, RJ Bell, Pregame CEO and Grantland contributor, responded in the Pregame forums to this allegation.

We all know a person is innocent till proven guilty – but as a Pro the standard is higher than for a regular civilian. Mike Hook is suspended as a Pro till the facts of this issue can be determined. If he is 100% innocent, he will be welcomed back with open arms. If guilty, the suspension will be permanent.

Whenever you are dealing with 20+ people, imperfections are inevitable. What Pregame.com can guarantee is we’ll try our very best to select the best people, and if a person is shown to be dishonest, we will stop working with them immediately.

One last thing we can guarantee . . . NO MATTER what, if you do business with Pregame and are wronged by a Pro, Pregame will 100% make up for any shortfall in all cases. 100% of the time, 100% of the shortfall.

Since the allegation, Pregame.com is no longer selling any Mike Hook pick packages and Bell confirms that Hook is “no longer with Pregame” (Hook is still listed on the site as a ‘Pro’ but users can’t buy picks).

We reached out to RJ Bell for comment on this allegation. He emailed us a response:

Wagerminds has not ever made a single positive comment regarding Pregame.com. If they aspire to become a voice of reason in the sports betting industry, honest and impartial reporting is required. I hope that is how they report on Mike Hook’s unfortunate personal struggles.

We’re waiting for comments from the Pregame customer who has made these allegations (and other Pregame customers who have had dealings with Mike Hook) as well as comments from Mike Hook. We expect to have more on this story over the coming days.

Last week, Mike Hook, one of the Pregame “Pros,” was accused of fraud by a Pregame customer.

According to the customer, Hook asked him to set up an account at his bookmaker. Hook then lost over $9,000 using that account over the next month and hasn’t paid a dime of the losses. After he made this complaint, we interviewed the Pregame customer to better understand his complaints.

Q. How long have you been active on Pregame?
A. 4 years

Q. How many Pregame pros have you purchased picks from and how much, in total, have you spent on those picks?
A. I have dealt with 6 or 7 pros, and spent about $1,000 on 50 – 75 plays.

Q. When did you first purchase a pick from Mike Hook? How much in total did you pay for Mike Hook’s picks?
A. I first started playing with Mike about 2 years ago, and purchased a few of his football picks. Mike would also post in the Pregame Forum about “Other Plays”. These plays were primarily comprised of Tennis, Golf, and MMA. He would post in the forum because Pregame didn’t have a way to purchase those plays from him for about 6 months. During that time period we won some money. The posters and I felt that Mike should get money for these plays and would make those comments online. Mike contacted me and said that I could Paypal him some $ if I felt that strongly about it. I felt at the time it was worth it. I would paypal him a few hundred dollars for his MMA & Tennis plays. I feel that know one should work for free, and we were winning. But all good things come to an end and I stopped playing for a while.

Q. How did you first start a relationship with Mike Hook outside the boundaries of the Pregame communication channel?
A. He contacted me via the message board and gave me his personnal email address. He was at the hospital visiting a friend a lot, and didn’t have time to check Pregame Forums and give away free plays. So emailing and texting were the best way to get his plays in time.

Q. When Hook asked you to set up an account for him with your local, what rationale did he provide?
A. He said that he had 2 accounts already open, but was looking for more ways to make more money.

Q. Were the bets he made the same ones he was selling as picks?
A. No…He played about 12 plays a day. He really did go nuts!

Q. Have you heard from Hook since you wrote your story on Pregame?
A. Nope…and I don’t think I will.

Q. Has anyone at Pregame offered to compensate you for this or offered to help you try to get your money back?
A. No. I even offered to send RJ the information but Mike Hook pretty much hung himself, so I guess it wasn’t needed. Pregame has done nothing to help at all.

We reviewed emails exchanged between Mike Hook and the customer. And we confirmed that the emails from Hook were sent from an email address that was listed as his on Pregame.com. At first, Hook asked to borrow $500 which he needed within 24 hours. In exchange for the $500, he said he’d pay back the $500 over the next two months and give the customer the rest of his picks free for life and a new set of golf clubs.

Unsurprisingly, despite the customer providing Hook with his emergency $500, no golf clubs ever showed up.

After the emails, we reviewed the betting account that was established for Hook. Over a 9 week period, Hook made over 400 bets on baseball, basketball, tennis, UFC, soccer, rugby, WNBA and pre-season football. During the first week, Hook’s average bet size was ~$125 and he won $571. In week 2, the average bet size went up to ~$250 and he lost $38. In week 3, the average bet size increased yet again: up to ~$350 and Hook won $1,950 that week.

Then the wheels came off.

Hook lost $3,038 in week 4. He lost $808 in week 5. He lost $478 in week 6. He lost $159 in week 7. He lost $1,089 in week 8. He lost $3,181 in week 9. And, in the last week his account was left open, Hook lost another $3,000.

It was in this final week that Hook took a $2,100 shot on a -700 favorite in rugby only to have the Gold Coast Titans upset the Canterbury Bulldogs. And then he bet $900 on an alternative run line play where he took the Blue Jays +2.5 runs (at -260) against the Oakland A’s. The Jays lost 5-1.

The grand total of Hook’s 10 week betting spree on someone else’s account: -$9,270.

We’ve looked at a lot of sports betting accounts. And we’ve reviewed a lot of touts and the picks they sell. Based on our experience, there’s a rather obvious conclusion here: the person putting the bets in on this account is not at all very ‘sharp.’ And he may well have a gambling problem.

The volume of bets; the type of bets; the rapidly increasing bet size to chase losses. Those are all worrisome signs, frankly. And no ‘sharp’ player, who has recently asked a virtual stranger to set up an online betting account for him, makes hundreds of plays across eight different sports over a ten week period.

Another remarkable part of this story: Mike Hook had been one of the better performing Pregame “Pros” according to an independent analysis of 33 Pregame pick-sellers posted at SportsBook Review.

Now, Mike Hook is gone from Pregame. And while Hook claims his side of this story hasn’t been told, he did not respond to our request for an interview.

As we all know, the tout industry is filled with fake personalities who make misrepresentations about their skills. It’s like professional wrestling (but far less entertaining and nearly everyone is out of shape).

Last month, the star of the tout industry was Steve Stevens (formerly known as Darin Notaro), a convicted telemarketing felon who will be featured in a CNBC show. Now, Mr. Stevens is one of the more extreme examples in the industry: he’s actually been in jail for swindling people out of money. Most touts aren’t quite so brazen. Instead, they’re usually just opportunistic sports bettors who think they can build a following through one marketing tactic (radio, Twitter, sports betting forums, etc) or another and think they can sell picks to supplement their income.

But virtually every tout is the same in one respect: the picks they sell for money are completely and totally worthless.

This week, we’re turning our attention to a new pick-seller: Kelly in Vegas. Now, we’re not suggesting that Kelly in Vegas is like Steve Stevens. He’s a felon, she isn’t. He’s running a boiler-room operation, she isn’t. Either way, though, buying picks from Mr. Stevens or Ms. Vegas is dumb.

How do we know you shouldn’t buy picks from Kelly in Vegas? Well, here’s a handful of reasons.

Let’s start with the most obvious.

1. She doesn’t have a long-term record of winning verified by any reputable third party.
   That alone should be enough reason, but we’ll go on.
2. She tweets about how she bets “right b4″ the game.
   Well, generally, that’s the telltale sign of a losing recreational bettor.
3. She crowd-sources picks from her Twitter followers.
   Now, if she was asking for the consensus view on a game so she could bet the other side, maybe that would be a respectable strategy. But, of course, even that mindless anti-public betting strategy would be a long-term loser.
   
4. She’s cranked out more than 44,000 tweets and guess how many referenced using the Kelly criterion to size her bets based on her edge? None.
   If you’re a capable sports bettor, you’re likely familiar with the Kelly criterion and use it to guide your bets. If you don’t use it (or are unfamiliar with it), you likely have no edge.
5. Through all of her tweets – and through all of the text on her website – how many times do you think she references getting the ‘best of the number’ or ‘beating the closing line?’ You guessed it: she never mentions it. Getting the best number is an indicator of a real, sustainable handicapping edge. If you consistently get a better number than the closing line, you’ll be a long-term winner. If you don’t, you won’t. And if you never reference the concept of line value, you have no idea what you’re doing.
6. She bets parlays. A lot, it seems.
   Keep this in mind: for every $100 bet on parlays at Nevada sports books, bettors lose $30 (a 30% hold percentage for the casinos). Compare that to a hold rate of ~5% for single team bets and you can quickly understand why parlays are nearly always a terrible bet.
7. She’s selling sports picks with pictures (and videos) of herself in a bikini.

We don’t know Kelly in Vegas. We do know she has built a following on Twitter over the past few years by being a real live scantily clad girl who is interested in sports betting. That’s a rarity and she has built an online identity around that uniqueness. We do know that she hit a $100 three team money line parlay last year where she won $8,352.50. That generated some Twitter followers but does it mean you should pay for her future picks? Of course not.

Images courtesy of @JimmyVaccaro & ItsAlwaysSunnyInDetroit.

If you’re on Twitter and follow a lot of the sports betting community, you may have bumped into “Oddsmaker Adam.” His LinkedIn profile claims he’s an “Oddsmaker/Odds Compiler” at Paradise Games.

A Twitter follower sent us his article exposing much of Oddsmaker Adam’s background. We had been tipped off about Adam’s background before but hadn’t taken the time to track down all his previous aliases like the author of the blog post did. Our only interaction with Adam was when he criticized us for exposing Darin Notaro’s (aka Steve Stevens, the star of CNBC’s show Money Talks) history as a convicted felon. Criticizing us for outing a pick-seller as a convicted telemarketing felon seemed like an odd fight to pick but, for some reason, it bothered Oddsmaker Adam.*

Since the publication of the blog post exposing Adam’s pick-selling background under different aliases, Adam has responded with a lengthy defense of his background.

In his post, Adam claims all of previous pick-selling operations went bad because of bad circumstances and unsavory partners. Leaving aside the particular details of whether he really got sick and whether his mom really busted his pick-selling operation, we’d like to point out the most obvious truth that he never references. And, if you’re contemplating buying picks from this guy, you should consider this reality.

Adam points out how low his living expenses are. He writes:

The truth is for me and my girlfriend to live in Colombia, all we need is $1500 a month. Rent is $400, bills are no more than $150. I make $3,300 a month non-taxed through my one job. If I can save that each month and run a service for others and make money to live off of doing it, why wouldn’t I do it?

To recap: it’s cheap to live in Colombia (though his LinkedIn claims he lives in the Dominican Republic but regardless). He makes enough at his day job to pay his expenses. So, you see, he just sells picks for $1 per day to make a little extra money.

And here is Adam’s self-reported record:

Week One (9/28-10/5) 17-21-1 +$190 Profit from $3985 Risked
Week Two: (10/6-10/12) 11-12-0 -$125 Loss from $2525 Risked
Week Three: (10/13-10/19) 10-1-0 +$1175 Profit from $1150 Risked
Week Four: (10/20-10/26) 6-2-1 +$510 Profit from $950 Risked
Week Five: (10/27-11/02) 5-3-0 +$190 Profit from $880 Risked
Week Six: (11/03-11/09) 3-5-0 -$440 Profit from $840 Risked
Week Seven: (11/10-11/16) 5-10 -$480 Profit from $1570 Risked
Week Eight: (11/17-11/23) 12-8-1 +$860 Profit from $2220 Risked
Week Nine: (11/24-11/30) 8-5-0 +$510 Profit from $1415 Risked
Week Ten: (12/01 – 12/07) 4-2-0 +$300 Profit from $690 Risked

Regular Bets: 81-69 +$2690 Profit from $16215 Risked for an ROI of 16.5%.
Public Burials: 12-3 +$970 Profit from $1760 Risked for an ROI of 61.3%.

In less than three months, a $100 bettor is up $3,660** according to Adam’s own bookkeeping.

Now, let’s assume Adam’s record-keeping is legitimate, he’d also be up ~$3,660 if he was betting only $100 on each of his recommended plays. Surely, though, a guy who has such a long-term winning record and who is located offshore would be betting more than a measly $100 on each of his own picks, right?

If he is just a dime bettor (betting $1,000 per play), he’d be up a healthy $36,660 in just a matter of months. That’s about as much as he makes in a full year at his day job. And that’s with a relatively small $1,000 per play. If he’s been winning long-term and his bankroll is growing accordingly, surely he’d be betting more than that – and winning even more.

Which begs the obvious question: If a guy is a long-term winner at betting on sports and he lives offshore and can bet legally at a lot more outs than anyone in the United States, why in the world would he need to sell picks for $1 a day? You likely know the answer.

* Via Twitter, Oddsmaker Adam asked us to publish the private messages he sent us following his argument with us over the Darin Notaro story. Ordinarily, we don’t publish private messages people send us since, when people opt to send a private message rather than a public one, we assume they want those messages to be private. But, since he asked, below are the private messages he sent us before unfollowing our Twitter account. These private messages were sent on August 8th in follow-up to public tweets he sent on July 31st (which he subsequently deleted) where he expressed his views that a) by writing about Notaro’s felonious past, our reporting had “gone too far,” and b) since we (probably) bet online, our criticism of Notaro was like one speeding motorist calling the police on another speeding motorist.

“I owe you an apology for my rant a week ago. Been thinking about things for a bit now and realize how dumb what I said came off as. I grew up in a town of 2,000 people, finished high school in a city of 2 million where for three years everyone did things to show how they were better than each other and did whatever it took to jump on other people. I guess I am always quick to take a side in things like this. Obviously I took the wrong side and took things completely out of context. I am sorry for blowing up your time line, and I am sure add to your frustration over the subject. I am a little on the outside looking it, so I can’t fully relate to how annoying it must be to have pieces of trash like this keep making their mark on the industry. The more I looked into your website, the more respect I have for you

** Corrected from previous version thanks to Twitter tip.

In what will be a recurring feature, we’ll be highlighting particularly terrible tout write-ups. This won’t be an easy task, of course, as there will be a lot of candidates to wade through. But, this initial ‘winner’ is a runaway.

Marco D’Angelo is the General Manager of Picks at Pregame.com. In his page on Pregame, he describes his handicapping style:

I combine statistical handicapping with schedule dynamics to come up with my plays. Schedule dynamics are what I like to refer to the who, what and why. Know WHO your opponent just played and WHO they play next looking for letdown or look ahead situations.

With that as background, let’s take a look at his ‘Double Dime Play’ College Game of the Week from January 8th, 2014.

Analysis: PLAY:  WASHINGTON
RATING: DOUBLE DIME PLAY

Tonight in college basketball were going to look to make it three in a row for the week as were (sic) going to take Washington in college hoops. I like this matchup as although Utah only has two losses on the season this team doesn’t play the same on the road as they do at home. For the season they are averaging 85 points per game but on the road they’re averaging just 67 points per game and their shooting percentages are down on the road as well. They’re shooting just 49% from the field and from three-point land they only hit 24% on the road. Also very alarming for Utah is the fact that their foul shots are are hitting at just 53% in the road games where at home they shoot 74% from the line. I like Washington at home here tonight against Utah as my numbers have them winning by 6 to 8 points.

TAKE WASHINGTON as MARCO’S COLLEGE GAME OF THE WEEK

According to Mr. D’Angelo, Utah just isn’t the same team on the road. The Utes points per game  drop on the road. Their 3 point field goal percentage drops way off when they play on the road. And, it’s “very alarming” that their free throw percentage drops from 74% to 53% when they play away from home.

With such a marked home/road performance differential, you’re probably asking yourself: “I wonder how many games has Utah played on the road prior to January 8th to create these “averages?”" The answer? One. Yep, that’s ONE SINGLE GAME.

Also, let’s take a quick look through Utah’s impressive home performances. Utah did beat Evergreen State at home. They also whooped St. Katherine by a gaudy 124-51 final score. Oh, you’ve never heard of Evergreen State or St. Katherine? Of course you haven’t. See, in total, 9 of Utah’s first 13 home games were against teams ranked #285 or worse in KenPom.  So, yes, Utah appears to play well at home (not counting the fact that they’re playing remarkably terrible teams).

These write-ups from Pregame “pro” handicappers are meant to give the average bettor some insight as to how a “pro” analyzes a game. Now, there may be worse ways to analyze a college basketball game than focusing on acontextual stats like points per game and looking at home/road splits without realizing you’re dealing with a one game sample size or adjusting for strength of schedule but not sure what those worse ways would be. Uniform color, maybe?

Again, this sort of analysis is not rare in the tout world. But this “effort” was particularly laughable.

Be sure to check back to look for our next installment in terrible tout write-ups.

*Hat tip to the industry veteran who brought this to our attention. 

** Image via Pregame video on YouTube.

In 1991, Rick Reilly wrote an outstanding article in Sports Illustrated that exposed a number of pick-sellers as scammers. In the article, titled “1-900-Ripoff,” Reilly captured the tout industry with the opening sentence of the second paragraph:

In a world of cheats, cons, grifters, swindlers, carnival barkers and people you would not want to change your fifty, the brotherhood of so-called sports advisers is a gutter unto itself.

In 1987, the Los Angeles Times published an article that exposed the countless scam tactics used by tout services like Mike Warren and Larry Dukehart and Danny Sheridan.

Fast forward to 2014.

Just before the Super Bowl, the New York Times Magazine published a lengthy article on sports betting in Las Vegas which glorified “professional gambler” and tout Vegas Runner. A day later, The New Yorker ran an article highlighting the alleged handicapping prowess of tout Marc Lawrence. Meanwhile, ESPN Insider publishes content from touts like Teddy Covers and Grantland features articles by RJ Bell, the CEO of one of the country’s largest pick-selling operations. When he was at CNBC, Darren Rovell uncritically published an article reciting the claims of tout Adam Meyer that he generates over $40M in revenue per year selling picks.

Oh, and CNBC is running an entire series of “reality television” shows that celebrate a convicted telemarketing felon turned handicapper (Darin Notaro, aka Steve Stevens) who uses old-fashioned boiler room tactics to sell sports picks.

It sure seems as if there has been a marked change in how mainstream media covers touts.

Why is that?

Well, there are probably a few dynamics in play.

First, mainstream media companies have a greater need for more content than they had in the past. The need for more content, inevitably, leads to a lowering of standards for content. And, next thing you know, ESPN Insider, which requires a paid subscription, is publishing articles by Teddy Covers. We’ve covered this dynamic before when examining why ESPN is like CNBC.

Another related factor: there is more interest in sports betting. The discussion of point spreads and betting has gone fully mainstream. ESPN shows each game’s point spread on it’s ticker. Every major media company’s app also lists point spreads for football and basketball games. If you ask Siri the spread for a game, she can get it for you.

As the interest in sports betting has grown, the demand for content has grown. And with a greater demand for content, mainstream media outlets have turned to people in the sports betting industry who seem to have knowledge of sports betting. Unfortunately, in many cases, the people mainstream media turned to are touts who are more than happy to share their expertise to increase their exposure and help build their bona fides which, in turn, helps them sell more picks to unsuspecting customers.

But beyond the increased need for content generally, and the increased need for sports betting content specifically, there’s likely another factor influencing how the mainstream media covers touts.

Tout tactics have changed.

In the ’80s and ’90′s, touts invented larger-than-life personalities, like professional wrestlers, and they’d sell picks mostly via heavy-handed telemarketing. They’d buy radio and television time, they’d yell about locks of the century, they’d encourage viewers to call toll-free numbers to get a free pick, and then they’d upsell. Once they got your phone number, they’d call you over and over and over again until you bought some kind of package. And then they’d call you more. The fraud was so blatant that it begged for ridicule and investigation.

Now, touts are subtler. They still use fake names, of course, but they don’t scream and yell. And, for the most part, they don’t badger potential customers with non-stop telephone calls. Instead, many try to portray themselves as advanced analysts by regurgitating nonsensical trends. It’s a kinder, gentler tout world than it used to be. And, as a result, the mainstream media is both more comfortable turning to them for content and less inclined to investigate their business practices.

But this changed dynamic between the mainstream media and touts doesn’t change the inescapable conclusion: if someone is selling picks, the likelihood that they are a long-term winner is ~0%. So whether it’s Stu Feiner selling you a pick by taking his shirt off and screaming at you or Vegas Runner updating you on “true steam” moves, buying picks from these sorts of touts is a losing proposition.

RJ Bell is the most-quoted sports betting personality in the country. He is the Founder and CEO of Pregame.com and the Founder of FreePicksByEmail.com. He’s regularly referenced by many major media companies including Bloomberg, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times. And he has a particularly friendly relationship with Colin Cowherd, regularly appearing on the ESPN radio host’s show.

Pregame.com is likely the largest pick-selling site in the sports betting industry. There are 25 Pregame “pros” who sell picks on Bell’s website including Vegas Runner and Steve Fezzik.

Bell has described Pregame as the most transparent pick-selling operation in the industry. In his words:

The fact that Pregame.com has 100% transparency is beyond debate.

EVERY picks from EVERY Pro EVER is available for review.

Can’t do better than that. And none of our major competitors come close.

The Big Lead interviewed RJ Bell this past week and, according to Bell, asked him “tough questions.” In the interview, Bell remarked on Pregame’s transparency once again, saying:

“We’ve had guys that made a mistake with their record — we are adamant about our transparency — every pick, ever, from every pro, is available for review. Pros are able to promote themselves from their records, but it’s their responsibility to be accurate.”

So, given Bell’s insistence that Pregame leads the pick-selling industry in transparency, we thought we’d pose some straightforward questions to him here in hopes that he’ll answer them, transparently and honestly.

1. You’ve written that you’re more transparent than other major pick-sellers but Right Angle Sports, the most influential pick-selling operation, lists their complete record on their website in a manner that lets users view their total pick history in a matter of seconds. There is not a single Pregame Pro who has their complete lifetime record listed in any easily-accessed manner. Given this, how can you claim that Pregame is more transparent than others in your industry?

2. Given that you believe transparency is paramount, can you provide Vegas Runner’s overall record since he’s been selling picks for your company?

3. Can you provide the lifetime record for each of the other Pregame pros as well? These figures are next to impossible to determine using the data your site provides while they are just two clicks away on one of your competitor’s site.

4. Pregame used to sell picks for a pro named “Stan Sharp.” The biography on your site indicates “Stan Sharp” only makes money by betting on sports and is also one of the most “feared bettors” in Las Vegas. We’ve heard from multiples sources that Stan Sharp’s picks were simply another Pregame pro’s picks being re-branded and sold as if they came from a unique pro bettor. Did the identity “Stan Sharp” belong to another Pregame pro also selling picks under a different name? And why did Pregame stop selling Stan Sharp picks last year?

5. The term “pro” implies that someone is exclusively making their living from betting on sports. How many of the Pregame pros do just that and how many have paid jobs in other industries?

6. Since you believe in each of the Pregame pros enough to sell their picks to your customers, do you also bet your own money on every Pregame pro selection? If not, why not?

** Update: You can read Bell’s response to our questions here.

Yesterday, we posted six open questions for RJ Bell, the Founder and CEO of Pregame.com. Bell sent us the following written response, which we are publishing it its entirety with no edits. Our original questions are in italics.

****

Unbiased critics provide a valuable service to any industry. At times in the past I’ve felt as if Wagermind’s coverage of Pregame.com has been less than balanced. In this case, the clarifications you’re requesting concerning our transparency all strike me as fair, so I’m happy to participate.

By “major” I meant to convey doing substantial business selling picks from multiple handicappers. Wagerminds itself used the exact same adjective (“the major tout sites”) in this tweet – while stating in the same conversation that the other major sites (Covers and Don Best) are “currently being out-disclosed by Pregame”. So, it would seem that we agree about our superior level of transparency. (Though we disagree on the use of the word “tout” – here are my published thoughts on the topic)

Regarding RAS, as a sports bettor, I am impressed by his results. As a businessman in the sports picks industry, I must note the limitations of who his marketing approach can benefit. Charging an amount for access that only large bettors can afford will effectively attract big-dollar customers, while ignoring the needs of average bettors. Free content is an alternative way RAS could help the vast majority who cannot afford his premium rates, but his free content is nearly non-existent.

Pregame.com’s Steve Fezzik also has a big-dollar program called “Bet Like A Pro” – charging an amount that only large bettors can afford. What is one-of-a-kind about this program is that it’s truly pay only if you profit – offering a 100% cash refund if you don’t profit enough long term to pay for the service and make money on top of that. RAS attempted a profit guarantee in the past (though without accounting for cost of service), but later rescinded the offer. Fezzik has been with Pregame.com since 1/11/2013 – and it’s the first time in his career he’s made all of his picks available to the public. His lifetime record at Pregame is tracked daily at the site (contrary to the statement in your question). To date, followers of Fezzik have won 39.8 units. We are necessitate that Fezzik provides substantial free content daily.

2. Given that you believe transparency is paramount, can you provide Vegas Runner’s overall record since he’s been selling picks for your company?

3. Can you provide the lifetime record for each of the other Pregame pros as well? These figures are next to impossible to determine using the data your site provides while they are just two clicks away on one of your competitor’s site.

****

Combined answer for question 2 and 3:

I’ll start by answering a semantics question semantically: Websters defines business transparency as “visibility of information.” It’s a simple fact that Pregame.com provides a graded public archive of every pick ever made by every Pro. It’s irrefutable that our picks are totally transparent.

But I’m happy to address what isn’t visible: lifetime records. Pregame.com’s marketing mandate for Pros is they are free to promote the truth. Lifetime records are promoted by Fezzik and Andre Gomes (winning an amazing 8 straight NBA seasons, including +51 units this season).Others provide season-to-date records. Others focus on shorter term streaks. What drives these decisions, like any business, is customer preference. Sales numbers are not open to debate, and the fact is customers care more about a 14-2 run than a 55% season. Savvy readers understand that 55% is an amazing long-term result, but the reality is most pick buyers look at a promotion for “55% winners this year” and are underwhelmed. I personally wish this were not the case, since many of our competitors are much more aggressive with convoluted streaks and countless Games of the Year. But, like most industries, pick buyers care about the sizzle at least as much as the steak. The goal of any business is to provide what the customer values. That’s exactly what Pregame.com does.

I’m proud of the fact that our promotion approach is no different than the typical mutual fund. When a fund outperforms the market over X period, they promote that – without being obligated to promote the period which is less impressive. In both the case of Pregame.com and mutual funds, the raw data is available to consider for any time period the customer is interested in. Why would sports betting picks be held to a higher standard than mutual funds? Why should pick sellers be the only professionals forced to promote in a way that will turn off the average customer?

What people need to understand is bias against pick sellers discourages talent from entering the industry. Most people are incentivized by compensation – and every expert scared off by the hating is one less expert sharing their expertise with the public.

What also needs to be called out is the intimation that sports picks customers aren’t smart enough to know what they value. The best any business can do is: promote honestly, offer transparency, and provide what they promise. Pregame.com has an open thread in which anyone is free to report any promotion discrepancies, we’ve already covered transparency, and when it comes to providing what we promise, Pregame.com has an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau.

Our customers are fully empowered with all the information required to make a decision. Many of Pregame.com’s customers are medical doctors, attorneys, PhDs, and members of other accomplished professions. It’s nothing less than objectionable to not respect their freedom to decide what they want to spend their money on.

4. Pregame used to sell picks for a pro named “Stan Sharp.” The biography on your site indicates “Stan Sharp” only makes money by betting on sports and is also one of the most “feared bettors” in Las Vegas. We’ve heard from multiples sources that Stan Sharp’s picks were simply another Pregame pro’s picks being re-branded and sold as if they came from a unique pro bettor. Did the identity “Stan Sharp” belong to another Pregame pro also selling picks under a different name? And why did Pregame stop selling Stan Sharp picks last year?

****

Stan Sharp stopped selling picks at Pregame.com in May of 2012. At the time, Stan was the only Pro who chose not to directly engage with the community. I came to believe that direct connection with the customer was not only preferred, but was necessary. Stan had always been adamant about his anonymity, working directly with a single Pro he trusted (thus, this unsubstantiated rumor). When Stan was unwilling to connect with others directly, he was cut from the site. Stan sold quite well for us, but I decided that the uncertainty that stemmed from anonymity (this question, even years later, for example) worked against our mission of openness. To this day, both of our major competitors fail to demand the same standard that Pregame.com made the difficult financial decision to require.

On a related topic, the sports betting industry has a long history of using professional names. More than a few of our Pros do. For some, no doubt, the motivation is separation of their personal and pick selling life. I’ve been weighing this valid desire with the value of even more openness. I will likely soon mandate a change. In my case, I use the professional name of RJ Bell because my given name (Randall James Busack) has a last name that is far from memorable. I didn’t think it made much business sense to try to grow a brand with a last name people had trouble pronouncing. I’ve never hidden my use of a professional name (in fact, I updated my Pregame.com bio last summer to include that fact). No different than many in Hollywood, Literature, and other professions – but once again the sports betting industry for some unfair reason is judged more harshly. In fact, a blogger recently got excited that he found an online interview I did with my hometown newspaper which referenced my given name. He didn’t seem to comprehend that if I were trying to hide anything, I certainly wouldn’t give an interview discussing it! Sports betting badly needs better qualified critics.

5. The term “pro” implies that someone is exclusively making their living from betting on sports. How many of the Pregame pros do just that and how many have paid jobs in other industries?

****

The act of selling picks would make it impossible for them to “exclusively” make their living betting on sports. Pro is short for professional. If you make money selling picks for Pregame, you are quite literally a Pregame Pro.

6. Since you believe in each of the Pregame pros enough to sell their picks to your customers, do you also bet your own money on every Pregame pro selection? If not, why not?

****

I would never suggest that anybody bets every pick released by all our Pros every day. Such massive volume would be untenable. I’ve personally always been an advocate for handicapping the handicappers (i.e., considering the handicapper’s areas of specialization, current form, and pick confidence rating). I have personally bet sports 99% percent of days since I was 14 years old. These days, picks from Pregame Pros make up a majority of the information I consider in all sports except NFL (the one sport I do original handicapping work in).

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify your remaining questions out Pregame.com’s transparency. I understand that with leadership comes scrutiny. By the same token, other industry leaders should receive an equal level of scrutiny. I trust that Wagerminds will fairly dish it out.

RJ Bell, CEO and Founder of Pregame, provided answers to our questions about Pregame’s transparency. In his answer, Bell compared Pregame’s level of disclosure to the mutual fund industry’s disclosure. In his words:

I’m proud of the fact that our promotion approach is no different than the typical mutual fund. When a fund outperforms the market over X period, they promote that – without being obligated to promote the period which is less impressive. In both the case of Pregame.com and mutual funds, the raw data is available to consider for any time period the customer is interested in. Why would sports betting picks be held to a higher standard than mutual funds? Why should pick sellers be the only professionals forced to promote in a way that will turn off the average customer?

This is a misstatement.

Mutual fund advertisements are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In an attempt to protect consumers from misleading advertising, the SEC has laid out strict rules for how mutual funds can advertise their performance. If a fund ever references their performance, they must also disclosure their 1, 5 and 10 year performances (or shorter if the fund has not been around for that long). If a fund violates these rules, they can be sanctioned.

Meanwhile, Pregame advertises performance like this:

These are the three Pregame pros featured on the top left of the ‘Buy Picks’ page. As you can see, the sample sizes that are being advertised range from 5 picks to 29 picks. Now, if Pregame were disclosing at the same level of a mutual fund, they’d also have the 1, 5 and 10 year  (or lifetime, if shorter) records for each of these pros. But they don’t.

And if you try to find the 1, 5, and 10 year (or lifetime) record of any of these pros, the Pregame website will force you through hundreds of captchas such that it would take hundreds of man hours to determine these longer-term records. Over at Vanguard, one of the largest mutual fund companies, you can find the long term performance of any of their funds with a few clicks of your mouse. It literally took us less than 30 seconds to find.

No captchas. No clicking through calendars by day. No hiding.

The claim that Pregame engages in promotion “no different” than the typical mutual fund is either ignorance or deception. Or both.