Isaac Rose-Berman

Selected tweets

@roundrobin42

How is it legal for Kalshi to run this Acuña ad saying “Kalshi has the best prices because they don’t have a house” when that is quite literally not true

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Wrote about Kalshi’s ridiculous claim that ~30% of its users are profitable

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full thread

Full post here https://howgamblingworks.substack.com/p/are-30-of-kalshi-users-really-profitable

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Reasonable ppl can disagree about exactly what % of users are profitable—@Sports__Proj and @goldenpants013 talked on The Risk Takers podcast about how they think it’s closer to 10%—but no one who knows anything thinks the ratio is close to what Kalshi says

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Evergreen

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Some extended footnotes in this post for the nerds

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

I wrote about the decline of social gambling, how one unintended consequence of legalized sports betting is less demand for prosocial alternatives, and how the cure to the male loneliness epidemic might just be more poker games

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full thread

Full post here https://howgamblingworks.substack.com/p/some-gambling-is-worth-protecting

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Did not coordinate with @DKThomp but his piece on the broader phenomenon is great

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Somehow convinced @propublica to put up $25,000 and let me advise @JakePearsonProP on the most irresponsible ways to gamble it. Went from betting $50 day to ripping thousands on microbets, tracking the offers that kept coming despite obvious signs of compulsive gambling

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full thread

Nothing in here will be surprising to people who know the gambling world. I wrote about how professional gamblers exploit this same process more than two years ago

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

But the reason I proposed this experiment to @propublica and think this piece is so valuable is that it doesn’t rely on anyone’s recollection after the fact. We documented the behavior and every inducement in real time, then watched how DraftKings responded

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

To be clear, our goal was not simply to “lose money.” We coordinated with experts and researchers to determine exactly what the behavior of a problem gambler looks like, and intentionally modeled Jake’s betting to match that

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

To be clear: I think sports betting should be legal, and that adults should be able to do it. The goal of the experiment was not to show that gambling is evil, but that a legal industry can—and currently does—prey on its most vulnerable customers

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Video coming out next week showing some of the more ridiculous moments: losing 7 straight bets and chasing losses until 1am, getting invited to the VIP program while attending a conference on gambling addiction, and more

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

For a more dramatized version of this story (with far higher stakes), I highly recommend this podcast from @halfkelly and @t_stephens97

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

About a year ago I had a call with a journalist at a major publication, who had obtained a public figure’s betting records. The man had wagered ten times his (publicly available) salary in the past year, and the journalist was planning an expose. They called me to learn about money laundering, how one could use stolen funds to gamble, and what tools gambling companies had to ensure people didn’t lose more than they could afford.

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full post
About a year ago I had a call with a journalist at a major publication, who had obtained a public figure’s betting records. The man had wagered ten times his (publicly available) salary in the past year, and the journalist was planning an expose. They called me to learn about money laundering, how one could use stolen funds to gamble, and what tools gambling companies had to ensure people didn’t lose more than they could afford. About three minutes in, I asked them how much the man had deposited and lost. The journalist was confused; “I just told you, he’s gambled more than $4 million.” “Yes,” I responded, “but how much did he LOSE? If I bet $100 on red twice and win once, I will have gambled $200 but netted $0. Amount gambled is a worthless statistic on its own.” We went back and forth for a few minutes, and the call was ended after I told them I couldn’t comment until I had more details. I never heard from the journalist again, and the story never ran. I’m not sure exactly what happened, although after asking around about the guy my best guess is that he was churning through some sort of online promotion, meaning the “$4 million wagered” had almost no correlation to the amount he won or lost gambling. Of course, the vast majority of people who gamble, in any form, will lose. At roulette and blackjack they’ll probably lose between 2-5% of what they wager, usually the same for sports betting or prediction markets unless they’re betting parlays in which case it’s likely between 10-20%. More people gambling necessarily means more people losing, and gambling losses all too frequently substitute for saving, investment, and other important expenses, meaning the spread of gambling is associated with widespread financial harm. But please, journalists, if you are going to cover gambling well you need to understand and articulate the difference between gambling LOSSES and gambling HANDLE. The guy in the video below is obviously gambling in a way likely to endanger his finances; one should never put their whole paycheck on the line. But *even if he does* gamble his entire salary in a year, that’s very different than spending his entire salary on drugs or alcohol, because he’s likely to get at least 80-90% back of what he puts in.
Read full thread

The conflation of losses and handle comes up most frequently when people talk about the total amount Americans bet (it’s about 10x what they lose). Wrote about it last year

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

To be clear I don’t dislike with the CBS report, or think they’re doing Bad Journalism. I just have had the same conversation 100+ times where people conflate handle/losses and don’t understand that someone can bet their entire salary (many times over!) without stealing money

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

2-0 gets more likely as the gap between players grows but it's not linear. Only a ~1% increase in straight sets when going from 50% pre-match win probability to 60%

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full thread

Bunch of reasons the real data starts at ~60% instead of ~50%, mainly revealed level (even though they were priced evenly pre-match new info has been revealed showing that they're better) and a wee bit of set 1=>2 momentum

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

I know every platform is trying to get as close to 100% uptime for in-play betting as possible, but it’d be cool if you could make it so odds are only live when the ball *isn’t* in play. Allow users to opt-in to guarantee they won’t get screwed by delayed streams or latency

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full thread

Thinking about this in the context of tennis (usually only betting during changeovers), but works for basically every sport. Know so many recs who bet without realizing they’re behind/something has happened, really bad user experience

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

The line between gambling, trading, and investing is blurrier than ever.

— American Institute for Boys and Men (@aibm_org) View post on X

Guy at the poker table last night told me, 100% sincerely, that he’s “moving some cash out of prediction markets to try and corner the market on Osama Bin Laden trading cards”

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

My grandkids asking about the 2026 season where Z****v won 2 grand slams

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

"Rafael Jodar" was a 6-month-long sociological experiment conducted by Harvard University. The study is now complete, thank you for your time.

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
More from this conversation

"dad, what was your clv on jodar/fils/nakashima 2026 us open futures like"

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

“Sportsbooks try to get equal money on both sides of every bet so they profit no matter who wins”

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full thread

Especially lopsided in the first couple rounds given these are mostly big favs which get thrown into parlays, but still funny to see the bet splits on DraftKings. Especially when in some cases the line is moving against the fav

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Rec friend was confused why a normal sized bet fading FAA got reviewed (nothing on his account ever does, price wasn’t even good) and I told him he might be the first bet on Hijikata they’ve taken amongst hundreds/thousands of bets on the match

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Kalshi social page never disappoints

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Main takeaway from @bet_bash is how amazing social gambling can be. Poker, craps, group sports bets, all just infinitely better than slots or gambling alone on your phone

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full thread

The people yearn for nuanced discourse on vice potency

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

The craziest part of the "debunking" is that the analyses Kalshi attacks for inflating retail losses actually massively *undercount* them. They mostly tally taker losses to makers and exclude fees, which are enormous and paid almost entirely by retail takers

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full thread

When @dan_bernstein_ ran the numbers on parlays a couple months ago he found fees accounted for ~30% of total parlay losses. A similar ratio would mean total retail losses in 2026 on parlays are likely ~$420 million, not $294 million

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

During the World Cup, takers lost $288 million before fees, and users collectively paid $430 million in fees. Given takers pay ~80% of fees, "regular users" paid ~$350 million in fees, for a total loss of ~$640 million

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Even the @rooseveltinst report, which Kalshi described as “hilariously wrong,” was (I’m 95% sure) tallying losses pre-fee; actual losses by regular users are surely more than double that, given lifetime fee revenue in May 2026 was ~$900m (now ~$1.3b)

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Average taker price for non-parlays is $0.45 ( vs $0.18 for parlays), which is about a 4% fee ($0.02 on a $0.45 trade). Makers hold way less than 4%, meaning Kalshi is capturing the bulk of taker losses

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

TL;DR: In aggregate, for every dollar takers lose to makers, they lose more than a dollar to Kalshi in fees––meaning analyses that estimate retail losses excluding fees will often undercount by 100% or more

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

If anything being a market maker on an open exchange is far more noble than being the sole market maker on a platform, because you only get filled when you provide your counterparties with the absolute best price!

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Getting great feedback so far

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full thread

Even better

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Surprisingly good take from @JoeyKnish22 about prediction markets’ bad press at 44:24

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full thread

Also from @ThonMisser on this ad

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Imagine literally knowing the speech but still losing money because Trump ignores it to ramble on about windmills

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Guy courtsiding at the Home Run Derby just bought $100 worth of 50/50 raffle tickets #sometimesyoujustfeelit

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Ah yes Kalshi, notoriously the place where casual users get the best price!

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full thread

Some fair critiques, plenty of silly spins. Not sure about the methodological error they claim Roosevelt engages in, but their takeaway feels...obvious? Like, Kalshi's fee revenue is massive, obviously market makers are profiting, the $ has to come from ordinary users!

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

I can't get over how hilariously wrong this is. Like, even if you condition on tight spreads, prices for end users depend on fees! I could run an exchange and charge 50% fees on winning trades, obviously that wouldn't provide better prices for users!

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Massive posted volume + thick tick sizes + high taker fees + lack of mass retail trading is a crappy combo for price-sensitive users/smaller market makers. Have to either take a bad price or wait forever to get filled/only get filled when adversely selected

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full thread

For plenty of games, especially close to kickoff, it doesn't matter as much bc there's so much retail action. But in the last week have heard more frustrations about *too much* posted volume, by makers trying to avoid taker fees who are having trouble getting filled

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Mexican flow got the market makers talking crazy

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Was unsure about some of these numbers but just posted a limit order with 2m shares in front of me and it got filled in 5 min, so yea insane volume. Would love to know what % of trades on Mexico are coming from Mexico

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

This is the first time any player (man or woman) has beaten another seven times in a row while being an underdog every time

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
More from this conversation

At least since ~2005, using data from @12Xpert, and including Laver Cup matches. 3 players have done it 6 times: Nishioka vs Evans, Ostapenko vs Swiatek, and Stosur vs Zvonareva.

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Also, was before this streak started, but can't think about this matchup without remembering this scene from @scott_seiver. Was watching the the match with friends in college when my roommate goes "wait is that Scott fucking Seiver???" https://x.com/BenRothenberg/status/1776103572683317256

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Great catch! Could only find some betting data from the 2 non davis cup 2001 matches, which did both have Johansson as a slight dog. Tried to use @tennisabstract elo ratings to estimate odds for the previous matchesbut didn't work, seems very plausible he went 8 straight!

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Gambling on the World Cup has made me much more bullish on sports prediction markets/exchange betting. Something beautiful about high limits, low vig and a reduced menu where wagers are actually aligned with the game

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
More from this conversation

Maybe silly and won't translate to other sports (Americans clearly love props/SGPs/extended betting menus), but esp after recent CFTC rules which restrict the types of wagers that will be allowed, I'm more optimistic about the future of sports "trading" https://x.com/johnarnold/status/2064863972864475192?s=20

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

This is also why I love donating to @JeffreyBenson12 at Circa when I'm in Vegas, just feels like sports betting "done right"

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

You can fairly easily get ~1% hold on 3-way moneylines (just clicking, not placing limit orders), I'd call that low vig

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
More from this conversation

Imagine being a billionaire team owner afraid of a little gamble. Like when @Flupnolide gets it all in with a flush draw in a $5k pot and asks to run it twice, total wimp

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

I get this, and as we discussed on yesterday’s @CirclesOffHQ I think relegation risk in soccer is an obvious thing owners/teams should be able to hedge, just like any company seeking to avoid catastrophic risk (insurance). But it’s not clear to me there’s a relevant version for

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full post
I get this, and as we discussed on yesterday’s @CirclesOffHQ I think relegation risk in soccer is an obvious thing owners/teams should be able to hedge, just like any company seeking to avoid catastrophic risk (insurance). But it’s not clear to me there’s a relevant version for US sports. Do we really want a world where owners are *completely* flattening revenue curves, and are the PR/incentive problems associated with doing that via betting against one’s own team really worth it?

Lot of Zverev discourse today. As someone who stands strongly in the anti-Zverev camp, I’d like to better articulate my thoughts. 1) Alexander Zverev is very likely a domestic abuser. The odds are, in my opinion, at least 80% (2 women, timelines/stories corroborated by others,

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full post
Lot of Zverev discourse today. As someone who stands strongly in the anti-Zverev camp, I’d like to better articulate my thoughts. 1) Alexander Zverev is very likely a domestic abuser. The odds are, in my opinion, at least 80% (2 women, timelines/stories corroborated by others, reported photos/messages, etc). 2) There is a non-zero chance the allegations are false/made up. No charge against him has ever been proven, and the ATP’s investigation couldn’t substantiate the claims. 3) Given 2), it is not possible/fair for him to be removed from the tour. 4) This situation is objectively horrible for tennis, and there is no easy way to deal with it; taking action isn’t feasible but not taking action means lots of people will be, justifiably, furious. 5) Stuff like this is worse for tennis vs team sports because bad actors can more easily be hidden if there are 10 others on the field; in tennis there’s only one. 6) All of this is complicated further by the fact that Zverev is really good, and seemingly destined to be a fixture at the top of the game for years to come (despite being a lifelong underachiever). Also because there are parts of his story––diabetes, injury recovery, constantly coming so close and finally crossing the line––that are very inspirational. If I knew there was an 80% chance someone punched and strangled their girlfriend, I wouldn’t send them to jail, because that is not beyond a reasonable doubt. I would not, however, want them to be the face of a sport, or see them idolized and held up as examples for young people and fans. For all those saying there wasn’t enough proof to convict and therefore the sport shouldn’t address it, or that we should separate one’s actions on and off the court: sure, but that strategy is bad for the long-term health of this sport. I’ve spoken to ~a dozen people this week (men and women, mostly women) who aren’t big tennis fans but are aware of the allegations and either stopped watching or expressed displeasure towards the tour because of them. I love tennis, and want to be able to enjoy it knowing that, even if my guy loses, the other guy kinda deserves it—or at least that I don’t *actually* hate him. As a big Alcaraz fan, it stinks when Sinner beats him, but it doesn’t ruin me: Sinner is a decent guy, a good role model. Zverev very likely isn't, and it sucks that someone who is almost certainly a horrible person has now cemented himself in tennis history. In summary: Alexander Zverev won a grand slam, and everything is worse now.
More from this conversation

Also

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Heartwarming, and almost certainly honest. It takes incredible dedication and discipline to achieve what Zverev has, even without his diabetes and injury. Doesn’t negate/mitigate any of the abuse allegations, or what him winning means for fans and the sport.

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

This is awful. I used to go almost every year with friends in middle/high school, these tickets were at most ~$75. Gave kids of all backgrounds the chance to see world class players and develop a lifelong love for the sport

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full thread

The extra $ isn't even going to players, or the USTA/tournament for reinvestment. Just ticketmaster and scalpers

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Add in volume from Robinhood, 18-20s, and non-sports and it’s pretty clear at least the 2nd part here is true: very few recs are actually choosing PM over sportsbooks/DFS+, and cannibalization (in legal states) is, for now, minimal

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full thread

Products will surely get better, likely in advance of this NFL season, but PM volume is so clearly a regulatory arb and anyone arguing otherwise is not being serious

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Kalshi people talking about prediction markets' low fees

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Really don’t like stuff like this from FanDuel, especially since they’re better than competitors in so many other ways

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full thread

Every other book gives fair odds when parlaying series bc they are independent events, only on FanDuel does it become an SGP where they tack on extra vig

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

NBA asking for a ban on 18-20yo trading for sports event contracts

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full thread

Other NBA asks include: Blocking Prohibited Traders, Cooperation with League lntegrity-Related lnvestigations, Reporting of Prohibited Trades and Potentially Suspicious Trading, Data Sharing, Official League Data, and Limits on Approved Markets. https://comments.cftc.gov/PublicComments/ViewComment.aspx?id=115498&SearchText=

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Prediction market liquidity provider

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Would love for someone at Kalshi to clarify what % of fees come from 18-20 year olds. If they're 4% of volume, my rough math puts them at 10-15% of fees paid (assuming they're mostly market takers), which seems crazy high for a demographic often without an income

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
More from this conversation

I agree, but then I'm confused what this is in reference to, given (I think) they've never made any reference to retail trading numbers https://x.com/j0hnwang/status/2046650948471468386?s=20

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

No bc taker volume is ~2/3 of overall volume (recs betting longshots), so 18-20yo would make up ~12% of taker volume. And potentially making worse predictions/paying more in fees than avg users

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Enjoyed speaking with @brantjames for this piece

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full thread

This is mostly how I feel, even though the vast majority of pro-PM content isn't from the companies themselves they're obviously at fault because of the marketing decisions they make https://x.com/yieldchad/status/2041631619564343581?s=20

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Annoyed to still be on this, but: there's a fundamental, maybe unresolvable disagreement between people who think gambling can be rational entertainment––even if it means losing money––and those who see losers as necessarily suckers

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
More from this conversation

Obviously a ton of gamblers are overconfident or delusional about their chances, but many aren't, and dislike being looked down upon by someone who pretty clearly thinks he's better than them for enjoying something they see as legitimate entertainment

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Doesn't the fact that you spent the majority of the NFL season losing basically nothing mean that those who are able to "stick to a system" will be mostly ok?

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Maybe obvious but Kalshi’s fee structure and the nature of posting/taking liquidity means you can assume most takers are recs and most makers are sharp, so the relevant comparison to sports betting handle is taker volume which is just ~33% of total volume bc recs love longshots

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full thread

Source: Kalshi API. Varies by market, in golf/politics it’s 10-15% bc ppl are betting big dogs. Should be adjusted downward even more bc of roundtrip trading. Just annoyed at ppl conflating volume w handle when recs are betting $1 vs Sig’s $99 and it shows up as $100 in volume

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

People will say stuff like this and then not even bet, like cmon if markets are so wrong stop arguing online and go become a billionaire!

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
More from this conversation

Re 1) yes but PM are at least a relevant datapoint, not useless and 2) maybe I’m wrong but feels like 95% of the time ppl say stuff like that it’s followed up with or implied that they/some other metric is more accurate in which case it could be used to profit

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

If someone gave you $100 that you have to play roulette with, you get to keep 50% of any winnings, and you're down to your last spin with $50 left, would you bet

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
More from this conversation

Poll results

  • less than $50 7.6%
  • $50 on red or black 28.2%
  • $50 on a 1 number (35/1) 53.4%
  • not sure/show results 10.8%

500 votes · Final results

The answer is bet it all on the 35/1, because you want to maximize potential earnings. EV of 2 is 0 bc at most you end with $100 and get nothing. EV of 3 is ~43 ((50*35)-100)/38. Making the EV maximizing decision doesn't make you a degenerate!!! https://x.com/roundrobin42/status/2032168693484949858?s=20

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

basically the same math/reasoning as to why it is optimal to bet free bets on the longest possible odds

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

if you end with $100 that’s 0 in profit so you get $0

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

love when my free market pricing is worse than sportsbooks

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
More from this conversation

Kinda irrelevant here, the taker fees make pricing the same or worse than sportsbooks on most sports things. Kalshi almost never top of any oddsscreen

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

yea but most of users are never going to use them, so it's fair to equate take order pricing and overall consumer pricing

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Guy on my flight just opened his Robinhood app, sold $500 of Amazon stock and put it on all Canada’s women to win the curling gold medal. Thank god for financial innovation!

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
More from this conversation

You’re right. He was also watching curling on his iPad, play is almost certainly sharp. Tailing.

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Credit card bans for online sports betting are popular and intuitive (people shouldn't be going into debt to fund gambling!) but there is pretty solid evidence they don't really do anything, and touting them as a major reform that will solve problems is, imo, counterproductive

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full thread

@SteveRuddock @jamiesalsburg put it well a couple months ago

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Also, strikes me as pretty poor form to cite the reason the UK banned credit card deposits but not cite the major report they commissioned evaluating the policy change which found those bans ineffectual??

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

DraftKings had 12 promoted SGPs yesterday, with odds ranging from +465 to +1400. They went 0/12

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full thread

Ironically this one was the closest to hitting, needed 3 more Drake Maye rushing yards

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Math isn't perfect bc they were quite correlated (6 included a JSN TD) but assuming they were all -25% EV, the odds of them going 0/12 was ~1/3

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Was a pleasure talking about the expansion of online gambling and its effects on young men today with @VickyNguyenTV @MorganRadford @NBCNews

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Requiring Google to allow users to disable YouTube shorts would be the greatest tech regulation in history

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full thread

Same reasoning applies to sports betting + casino apps that won’t let users disable casino, people should be able to turn off products they don’t like / are addictive

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Death, taxes, djokovic winning from 2 sets down

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
More from this conversation

at most books yes (grades as a winner if the 1st set finishes), if one had bet this it would've paid out in full

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Friend who doesn’t bet has $ on the Seahawks

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Incredible things are happening

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

Was pretty confused how this could be true when 90% of volume is sports, then I realized it's just bc sports bets resolve quickly so positions don't stay open. Nice job to whoever figured out how to present the data in a way that doesn't show sports dominating tho

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
Read full thread

from how to lie with statistics

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

To be clear, if anyone has a real reason open interest is a better metric than volume I am all ears. Just feels like some clever statistical trickery

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

such a massive misunderstanding of how anything works. the cashout button literally prints money for fanduel, they *want* you to cashout bets they just can't offer it 1% of the time when action is occurring. also they're way better than other books w 100% cashout pre usually

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X
More from this conversation

surely this guy cannot be making $280,000 per month selling picks???

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

it's like buying insurance, the amount they're offering you is (almost) always less than what the bet is worth. if you have a cashout option of, say, $100, the bet (at that point) might actually be worth like $120.

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X

think of it like this. instead of a td scorers you bet heads on 3 straight coin flips. you bet $10 and the odds were actually fair, meaning your 3 leg parlay should pay out $80 (10*2*2*2). The first 2 coin flips are tails. The sportsbook now lets you cashout for $35. Should you?

— Isaac (@roundrobin42) View post on X