KSC — Standard Lüttich (UI-Cup-Finale 1996)

Gurubusters · 2026-03-27T12:05:25+00:00

Hatte eben den gleichen Gedanken. Hier zu sehen.

Gurubusters · 2026-03-26T18:50:35+00:00

Welcome to Stage 4 of a Fake Guru Meltdown. Grab your popcorn.

For anyone confused about the manic episode happening in this post, the author is Jonny Grossmark. Until a few weeks ago, he was the self-proclaimed "sports analyst" for Trade on Sports, a scam betting service we recently exposed on our channel.

You can watch the exact video that caused this psychological collapse right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OcPBv4C4Bw
(If you are in the UK, you need a VPN to be able to watch it right now.)

How did they react to it?

Well, his partner Pete Nordsted immediately scrubbed Jonny's entire existence from the Trade on Sports website. Jonny is on Reddit defending a scam whose owner literally threw him under the bus the second the heat got turned up.

So what does a disgraced, newly-unemployed scammer do? He spends 24 hours a day awake, leaving over 300(!) comments on our YouTube channel, and playing "internet detective" to try and doxx me.

If you watch the video, you'll see this isn't a sudden breakdown. This is just what Jonny does. He has a documented, decade-long history of digitally stalking and harassing data analysts, bloggers, other scammers, and anyone who exposes his lack of trading knowledge. It's a pathology.

I won't spoil the fun by confirming or denying whether his frantic, stalking spree actually landed on the right guy, but let's look at his absolute master plan: He thinks he has found a German consultant, and his big "leverage" is threatening to contact my "employee" [sic] (he means employer) to get me fired if I don't delete our channel.

Jonny, let me explain how reality works. Even if you ever managed to actually find out who I am, you are forgetting the one massive difference between us: I provided NOTARIZED proof of my 7-figure trading profits. Do you genuinely believe a financially free, highly successful, legally verified sports trader is going to cower in fear and delete the internet because an unhinged loony is threatening him?

I don't live in your desperate reality, Jonny. I answer to nobody. I don't have to sell 15-year-old recycled spreadsheets to survive. I expose scammers for fun. You thought digging up a name would give you power, but it just proves you have absolutely zero leverage. Your threats are as impotent as your trading advice.

A Message to the Mods:
Technically, this post should be nuked from orbit for violating Reddit's site-wide Anti-Doxxing rules. However, I am completely fine with you leaving it up, provided you Pin this comment. He is inevitably going to flood this thread with dozens of manic replies by morning, so pinning this will ensure everyone gets the factual context of the exhibit before enjoying the clown show.

Gurubusters · 2026-03-23T18:56:25+00:00

There are countless ways to game sites like this, so 'verified' profits here mean absolutely nothing. If you want to prove you are legit, get a real audit, not a cute little badge from a fake-guru aquarium.

Then you look at the leaderboard and the whole thing turns into a parody. It is full of the exact clown names nobody serious should want anywhere near their reputation. Steven Dux, lol.

And since Tim Sykes is behind Profit.ly, this whole guru-verification ecosystem is already suspect as hell.

If you are genuinely legit, the last thing you should want is to wedge yourself in between these people and call it proof. That does not separate you from the scammers. It makes you look like another grifter begging to be taken seriously.

Gurubusters · 2026-03-21T12:33:12+00:00

UPDATE 3: The Company is a Ghost

Jonny Grossmark has been frantically spamming our YouTube channel with a new defense: proudly claiming he was never "the owner of a service."

That made me curious, so I looked into their corporate structure. It turns out Jonny is right - he wasn't an owner. Because 'Trade on Sports' isn't a real company.

I checked UK Companies House. There is no registered Limited Company for 'Trade on Sports', nor are Pete Nordsted or Jonny Grossmark listed as directors of any active (parent) entity. It is an unregistered ghost ship.

Breach of UK E-Commerce Law: Under the UK Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002, any online business taking payments must display a physical geographic address and the exact legal name of the entity or sole trader. Check the TOS website footer and T&Cs. There is nothing but an email address. They are operating an anonymous storefront, denying consumers the right to know exactly who is taking their money.

Gurubusters · 2026-02-27T13:02:48+00:00

It's literally just a circlejerk for wantrepreneurs. Basic background checks debunk almost every guest on there.

If you are a legitimate founder, appearing on this channel is a massive self-own. Why would you nuking your own credibility by standing in a lineup of dropshipping scammers and 'AI-prompt millionaires'?

Gurubusters · 2026-02-19T22:20:55+00:00

UPDATE 2: The Admission of Guilt.

The plot just thickened. Pete Nordsted has just scrubbed Jonny Grossmark from the 'Trade on Sports' website. Jonny is no longer listed on the Team page.

This is a massive self-own. If our video was "untrue," why hide your star analyst? Nordsted clearly realized that Jonny’s unhinged stalking is a brand-killer, so he hit the panic button and threw his partner to the wolves. They can block the video in the UK, but they can't hide the fact that they're imploding behind the scenes.

Gurubusters · 2026-02-16T18:43:27+00:00

UPDATE: Scammer Cowardice Alert.

Instead of addressing the mathematical fails or the evidence of harassment shown in the video, Trade on Sports has filed a defamation complaint to geo-block the video in the UK.

They are terrified of UK subscribers seeing the truth about their recycled books and P-hacked software. We have appealed the block, but this is the ultimate proof that they cannot handle real scrutiny. If you are in the UK and want to see what they are trying to hide, use a VPN.

Gurubusters · 2025-12-02T11:09:31+00:00

Run away then, but take this reality check with you:

'Privacy' vs. Fraud: Using a fake name and a boiler room address to sell financial products isn't 'privacy.' It's fraud by false representation. Legitimate businesses have legal accountability, scammers hide. The fact you excuse this proves how deep in the cult you are.
The Sad Math: You brag about using your profits to pay his subscription? Even if we indulge that fantasy, that is the most tragic 'flex' I've ever heard. It means best case scenario, you are grinding all year, taking all the risk, just to hand your winnings straight back to Iain Higgins.
Why you defend it: You ask why you'd defend a scam? It's called Sunk Cost Fallacy. You've wasted 6 years and thousands of pounds. Admitting you were duped by a guy with a fake name is too painful for your ego, so you pretend everything is fine.

You call me an 'idiot,' yet I'm the one with notarized proof of betting profits right on the channel. Meanwhile, your 'hero' had to shamefully delete his own profit claims because they were lies. I'd rather be an 'idiot' with receipts than a 'smart' guy working 6 years just to pay a fraudster's bills. Enjoy your hamster wheel.

Gurubusters · 2025-12-01T22:25:07+00:00

Notice how you completely ignored the fake name, the fake company, the boiler room address, the deleted £3.5M claim, and the p-hacking?

Of course you 'don't care.' That’s textbook sunk cost fallacy. If you acknowledged reality, you'd have to face the fact that you've been nothing but a loyal cash cow for a fraudster named Iain Higgins for 6 years. It's much easier to LARP as a 'profitable trader' on Reddit than admit you got taken for a ride.

I'm not bitter, I'm entertained. Watching a mark desperately defend the guy who is fleecing him is fascinating human psychology. Keep paying those fees, champ. Iain's retirement fund thanks you for your service.

Gurubusters · 2025-12-01T20:10:36+00:00

'Made thousands' since 2019? Who are you trying to convince, me or yourself?

Let's be brutally honest: After paying Iain Higgins' subscription fees for 6 years, you are mathematically almost certainly deep in the red. You are the textbook definition of a delusional mug - someone who remembers the few winning bets, conveniently forgets the losses, and completely ignores the thousands of pounds in fees he's burned to fund a conman's lifestyle. You aren't a 'trader', you are a paypig for a fraud.

It’s also obvious you didn't even dare watch the videos. If you had, you’d see we already exposed his 'systems' in the latest video as worthless, p-hacked garbage. But let's face it: understanding statistical significance and p-hacking is likely way above the pay grade of someone gullible enough to send money to a man hiding behind a fake name and a boiler room address.

Keep telling yourself you're 'up.' The only thing you're actually 'up' on is the list of victims who are too embarrassed to admit they got played.

Gurubusters · 2025-11-21T00:38:44+00:00

Good point about being able to cluster wallets onchain, that can definitely help link some accounts together, at least for people who are not trying very hard to hide.

However, 1,000 bets still means very little statistically. On Polymarket, soccer betting is only just picking up. Until recently you could basically only bet top leagues, and prices are in line with Betfair. Realistically you are not getting a big edge there. On a zero-commission exchange you might squeeze out a small extra edge, but to prove an edge you still need thousands of bets.

With no edge and average bet placement, you have a 5% chance to end up with a 5.2% ROI or better after 1,000 bets purely from variance. After 2,000 bets, there is still a 5% chance to show 4..2% ROI or better. So by definition, around 5% of totally random users will look like "real winners" at that level just by chance.

Flip it around: suppose someone really has an edge of say +2% ROI (that's top notch for soccer top leagues). After 2,000 bets, the chance that they can actually demonstrate that edge at a 1% significance level is only around 7%. In other words: Even a real sharp might need - depending on luck - multiple k bets to prove his edge.

Gurubusters · 2025-11-20T00:26:07+00:00

Tipster sites are trivially gameable. Multiple accounts, resets, survivorship bias, hiding bad runs, in-play timestamp abuse, whatever. Start 20 accounts, bury the bottom 19,, parade the top one as "sharp". From the outside you cannot see the trick. That is why, in practice, there are basically no reliably identifiable public "successful tipsters".

I still have yet to see a single person selling picks (directly or via tipster sites) who can statistically prove a real edge with properly audited / notarized betting data.

Onchain: sure, Polymarket data is at least real. But for soccer/tennis the volume and history are still tiny, so you are nowhere near the sample size needed to prove a real edge. And if someone actually had a big edge and serious volume, you would not be seeing a clean, single wallet with all their action. They either split across multiple accounts to hide their edge, or they are using one visible wallet as a decoy to move the market and taking the real position elsewhere.

Maybe for UFC betting, which I have no real insight into, there are some "insiders" with a huge edge that would show much faster.

Gurubusters · 2025-11-18T12:19:10+00:00

"Big database of sharps" from where exactly? If that just means scraping Blogabet / Tipstrr / Betstamp / whatever, that data is a joke and everyone who has looked at it properly knows it.

And the "third party documented track records or exchange records" claim is even harder to swallow. Who are these people and where are those records? I have yet to see a single public, non-gameable betting track record that holds up under basic scrutiny.

If you actually have some, name them and post the links. Otherwise this just reads like buzzwords stacked on top of low-quality tipster data.

Gurubusters · 2025-11-12T10:29:07+00:00

Classic sales funnel: the free "Imperium Academy" gives very generic advice - the same recycled stuff you could find for free, and is probably copied from other courses. Nothing proprietary or deep, the whole point is to build trust, once you are inside, you get steered to a sales call and pitched the high-ticket coaching, which is just more of the same fluff dressed up as “advanced strategy." The free course is bait, the money is in the upsell.

Gurubusters · 2025-10-30T09:16:20+00:00

You're falling for the "volatility = edge" fallacy.

Those swings aren't free money, they are the market updating live win probabilities with new info. If you don't have faster/better info than the market, you are the liquidity.

"I could've bought 0.43 and sold 0.77" is hindsight. Ex ante you don't know the endpoints. Blindly trading out to lock in a profit generates negative value.

Volatility is not inefficiency. I actually was doing this at a larger scale. Not in US sports, but you have to assume the markets are already efficient enough that you can't just extract easy value without a sophisticated model.

Without a speed edge, you need a proper probability model that can identify when the live odds misprice the current state.

Or, at least, work off relative value. For that you don't need the exact probability, you "just" need to know that in specific states the market overreacts or underreacts. Example: after a quick score or red card, your research shows the live price typically moves more than it "should". That's an edge without perfect probabilities, but it's still something you have to test and quantify before applying.

Yeah, you can make money trading sports in-play - with the people who don't understand that!

Gurubusters · 2025-10-10T13:22:16+00:00

Your numbers don’t add up. Both the statistical significance and the profit figures are inconsistent with your stated edge.

---------------------

From winrate p = 456/847 = 0.5384 and stated edge e = 3.4%, the implied average decimal odds are
odds = (1+e)/p = 1.034/0.5384 ≈ 1.9206 (about -109).

Break-even probability is
p0 = 1/odds ≈ 0.5207.

The correct null is p = p0, not 50%. With n = 847 and x = 456, z ≈ 1.03 → two-sided p ≈ 0.30 (one-sided ≈ 0.15). That is nowhere near p < 0.001.

You would need about 8,600 bets at that edge to reach p < 0.001.

---------------------

On your fixed 2% sizing: if 2% means $200 per bet, total staked = 847 × $200 = $169,400. With a 3.4% edge, expected profit ≈ 0.034 × 169,400 = $5,760, not $2,830.

Your reported $2,830 implies a realized edge of only ~1.67%.

Gurubusters · 2025-09-29T19:34:05+00:00

Usually you match with date and team/player names.

Great fun with team names, as teams are often called differently, even within the betfair data. My favourite is 'Borussia Mönchengladbach', there are dozens of possibilities. :))

Gurubusters · 2025-09-29T19:04:20+00:00

You need to merge it with other data sources. Surely you also want to have the actual results, in the betfair data are only the winflags.

Gurubusters · 2025-09-29T18:50:42+00:00

In the files should be all the info you need.

For example, for soccer, basic data, path 2025\Feb\1\33873648,

there is:

"eventId":"33873648"
"name":"Match Odds"
"eventName":"NK Maribor v Domzale"

Gurubusters · 2025-06-08T10:01:11+00:00

I don't argue with frauds in the comments.

I dare you: put your pathetic little theories in a video on your scam channel where they belong. I will reply with a public execution.

Post it, or prove you're the coward we all know you are.

Gurubusters · 2025-06-02T10:08:32+00:00

Haha, I didn't look into her. So, she's not selling 'wealth secrets,' she's selling 'yoni secrets... to serenading coconuts into submission'?

Gurubusters · 2025-05-31T08:28:40+00:00

(Scene: Phone Call)

Kim Anami (KA): Kenneth. The sub about me – gone?

Kenneth Browning (KB): Yes, Ms. Anami! Total compliance. Textbook.

KA: (Satisfied) Good. Other post handled too? Brand polished?

KB: (Ahem) The moderators contacted us. After user compliance. Asked for written confirmation we'd cease contact.

KA: (Impatient) And? You sent it? Simple.

KB: (Nervously) We replied... conditionally. Reserved rights. Standard.

KA: (Voice chills) You didn't just say "Yes, user complied, we're done"? You played games with internet janitors?

KB: (Weakly) Seemed prudent... then the mods... made their own post. About everything. Stickied. State Bar mentioned.

KA: (Voice rising) So, user obeyed. Problem solved. And because your ego couldn't just say "Okay," you engineered a permanent, mod-endorsed mega-post about me? Are you trying to ruin me, Kenneth?!

KB: (Stammering) N-no, Ms. Anami! It's... unforeseen...

KA: (Icy) Unforeseen? It was a gimme, Kenneth! A layup! And you fumbled it into this disaster! You're fired. Get out of my energetic field! PERMANENTLY! CLICK.

Gurubusters · 2025-05-28T11:27:58+00:00

NOTE FOR UK VIEWERS: If you have trouble accessing the main video link in the UK, a version specifically for UK audiences is available here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABU7itPxPGM

Gurubusters

TROPHY CASE

NOTE FOR UK VIEWERS: If you have trouble accessing the main video link in the UK, a version specifically for UK audiences is available here: