RicoS321

Worth a listen. Wasn't a massive of fan of his stuff from a comedic point of view (although the occasional one was very good), for a while he seemed to replace humour with swearing. However, not much wrong with this interview, and such an important message: https://www.channel4.com/news/ways-to-change-the-world-a-new-channel-4-news-podcast-tom-walker-aka-jonathan-pie

Cheers min, I'll gie it a try. Will be interesting to see if my 1.5MB internet will cope with it!

Aye, nae so good like, but they got there which was good. It'll be interesting to see which of them stays on. Seb Ross and McLennan probably leaving in the summer? Harvie not going to make it? Anderson?

He played on the left versus the huns and was pap. He's probably been at his best through the middle. It's all very good saying he played well on the left for Dundee, but his tracking back - as any Dundee fan will tell you - was awful for them. Again, it stems from not having either an additional centre midfielder. We could afford to put Stewart out left if Considine wasn't going to be left exposed, but that would definitely be the case. If Shinnie could have played a good portion of games at left back, depending on the opposition, then we'd have had that opportunity to put Stewart out wide, but does anyone really think a Stewart and Considine combination would be wise? I think McInnes genuinely - for whatever fucking reason - thought Tansey would provide us that option in midfield that'd allow us to try different things at different times, and Stewart probably would have fitted into that, but we're way to weak to afford the luxury of Stewart on a wing, and especially on the left.

1-3. Bottlers

Shame, seemed like a nice sort. If online discussions are anything to go by. Stooge ina.

Aye, it's very good like. Veep also worth a watch for the American version. Manc, fit ye watching Handmaid's tale on? Didn't realise it was oot yet.

Perfect, thanks. I've gone for 5th.

Aye, but that also has zero value to the bookie until you accept it. It's entirely notional. It is, for all intents and purposes, a new bet. Just as the bookie will not count your original bet as income until such times as you've lost that bet, the cash out cannot be assigned actual value until it has been accepted. But, can I go back to my question again? Can I put my William Hill/Bet365 etc bet on some sort of exchange? Or is cash out my only option if I use non-Betfair account?

Why? Did you send them a jobby? Surely using the terminals is about data collection?

^^^This. Get the votes altered SeaBass.

But of course it is worth nothing until a final action is taken, that's a fact. You're being offered money based entirely on the value of something that might happen at a point in time, just like you are placing a bet based on odds at a point in time. As soon as you place the bet it is worth nothing - to you - until some other action takes place. It's pretty easily demonstrated: Put £10 in betting account Bet £10, betting account = nothing Bet wins, betting account = bet x odds Bet loses, betting account = nothing Bet cashed out, betting account = cash out value At no other point will you receive money into your betting account.

Obviously that's a terrible example, a bit like using the example of the obese manny fa lived til he was 100 as a reason to not eat healthily. Anyone who cashes out a £1 bet probably shouldn't bet as you say. Although the bookie still has not won anymore then 36p on this occasion, they just didn't lose £999.36 in the process. Similarly your mate who always cashes out isn't a good illustration of the intelligent gambler. You suggest that people trade or hedge their positions, that's the bit I'm not familiar with in modern betting. I understood that you could do this on Betfair (the inventors of the cash out I believe), but I wasn't aware you could trade a Bet365/WillieHill bet for example. In other words, if I don't use Betfair then my only choice is cash out or bet the offered stake on the remaining bet (which is what yer doing). If I only use Betfair then perhaps I'm limiting my initial odds as a result? I dinna get the bit where you say they never use it, that's the part that's confusing me. At that point they have already decided that they want to cash out (going by yer six figure sum suggestion, they're clearly not just ditching their bet if they think they're going to lose through pride or something). Are there channels not available to me as an occasional bettor that they're using? Or do they just always use Betfair? To clarify too, bookies don't save money through cash out, they just don't lose as much, it's a very important distinction. Also, "they like people that cash out", isnae really a thing (other than yer mate) is it? People are not "cashers-out" or "non-cashers-out" surely? That must be something that is on a per-game basis, rather than per-gambler basis? Rocket being an example, could not be classed as a "casher-out", but does cash out on individual games. Anyone that cashes out every single time is clearly a moron and shouldn't be the basis of this conversation. Or was yer point not actually "never cash out" but "don't cash out unless you feel you'll otherwise lose and you can't trade your bet", in which case I think you, me and Rocket are probably all in agreement.

It'd certainly be nice to give the young dons a good send off before their contracts are terminated in the summer and we start over again.

But then you also didn't take cash out option when offered in all your other winnings, so they were a success too over the cash out system. I suppose IMO the better way to look at it is an entirely new bet, and that's how I'd always view it. Completely forget about what the original bet was because it's entirely irrelevant to the new bet. For example, if you put £10 on 1-0 with a £15 return in a game with ten minutes to go and you check yer cash out option and its £13.50, then you simply decide whether you want to gamble £13.50 on 0-0 over ten minutes for a £15 return as that is what your new bet is. I find that looking at it that way gives a more logical approach to it. It's no different then to any other "in-game" bet with an entirely new stake. If I'm watching a game, then I have the immediate (perceived) advantage of having a better understanding of what's going to happen next. I've bet on quite a few games that I've been watching on the telly when I have a suspicion that team X is going to stage a comeback or some such. This is no different.

To be fair, I dinna think that was yer original point. You said that no experienced bettor would ever use cash out. That's certainly the bit I found strange. I don't think anyone would use cash out on "most" bets, they would define each bet separately and base their judgement on the specific detail at the time. You've got to assume that even yer average bettor is a risk taker really, and so cash outs are probably in the minority. I'd go further and say that most cash outs are likely instigated by the bettor rather than bookie due to doubts over their stake. The problem you have is that you can't reliably measure the success of cash outs from a bookies perspective, because the bettor has to be in a position of refusal in order to measure that point of refusal. For example, if I put a bet on the dons to win 2-0 on Friday and went to the game and we were 2-0 up after 50 minutes, I could go online and check the cash out offer and choose to take it or not. If I accept and it remains 2-0 then we know the value "saved" by the bookie, similarly if I accept and a goal is scored we can see my gain. However, I could just as easily be pished and not check the status of that bet until full time. If Hertz pull a goal back or we score another, do we count me not taking the cash out that I never saw as a successful use of the cash out facility for the bookie? If so, what is the level of that success? Do we say that the maximum cash out odds were offered in the minute before Hertz/we scored, or do we take the cash out odds offered the minute after the second goal was scored, or before the second went in where I could have also got a portion of my 2-0 odds returned, or an average of all 3? You simply can't measure it as there's too much hidden/silent evidence that can't be quantified, because you're completely ignoring the overwhelming majority of bets where the bettor does not attempt to use the cash out facility whether in success or failure. Within our 2-0 example for instance, lets say the goals were in 82nd and 84th minutes. Those people who had a bet on 1-0 or 0-0 could conceivably have been offered cash out positions too and taken them or not. Do we count the number of bets not cashed out when the score was 0-0 and the bettor had 0-0 as a success for the bookie of the cash-out system or just a success of the normal win/loss process? Eh? Fars yer answers min? I'm fucking confused. Edit: in Rocket/BBs syndicate, each of their successes can also - by definition - as a success to them over the cash out system, as they did not cash out (unless they did). Each loss is is also - by definition - a success for the bookie because they did not cash out.

That will happen in the three days prior to the huns playing Killie. Get with the script min.

You should have cashed oot min.

So they should just give up because Stewart Milne - representing the company building the thing they're fighting against - suggests that it might be in vain? Do you think his is an impartial opinion on the matter? Regardless of your opinion on Kingsford, you must surely understand the importance of the process of being able to object in the courts? You'd have to be fucking stupid not to see that one day you could be on the Wanks end of a planning application that means a lot to you. Why is the "impartial" interviewer not asking Stewart Milne to explain the 20 years of hold ups on his side, and what fucking difference an extra few months makes to him, or the 3 month or so delay that happened already in this application because AFC didn't get their shite together. Just let the folk have their legal right as a citizen of the UK and stop the bullshit concern for their life savings*. As for the partisan crap fae dons fans, fucking hell, not everything the club says or does has to be pandered to, as if anyone that disagrees is some sort of enemy. They're very, very capable of getting things wrong, and the more scrutiny they get the better. *Aye, savings are weird like DD.

Why would you never use cashout? Is there an alternative? I'm not fully up to speed with modrin betting, but unless there is an alternative - like selling a bet to a third party willing to take those odds for the difference - then cashout is the only option. That bookies love it, or try to use it to their advantage in terms of sowing doubt in a punter's mind, is neither here nor there. If you have a specific objective from your betting, a knowledge/awareness of the game(s) that you're betting on then you simply choose when to use it. Knowing that the bookies are giving you crap odds is neither here nor there (no different to the original bet). If you believe that a game is going to change against your favour you wouldn't simply say "I da' cash oot min, fucking bookies" and then proceed to lose your money but not your betting-pride. That would be minorly retarded.

Yet it's strange that we all believe we should be taking points from the Tims and (to a much lesser extent) the Huns. I agree with Rocket when he says: I actually think the squad we've assembled is really poor this season. Worse than Hibs, probably somewhere between Killie and Hibs. That's why I'm really surprised by the level of expectation that fan's have for our performances against the better teams (I'm going to include hibs in that so as not to dwell on the "points against the old firm" shite as if it should have any relevance - points against better teams would be more appropriate, with Limassol etc included). Based on our squad, I'd say that we should be winning our home games against the huns and hibs (and hertz) and getting in the region of 3-4 points against the Tims). Anything more would be unrealistic in my opinion as we're really not that good. Outside our first 11, perhaps 13 players, we're way off what we should be. If we're missing one of our influential players (McLean, Shinnie or McKenna lets say, Christie earlier in the season) we should immediately revert to underdog against any of the top 4 at home. 2 players, we're looking at about Hertz's level and 3 we're a mid-bottom-six team. The thing about McInnes is that there are no surprises generally. He gets the team to perform at the level they should perform over a period of time with little variance (the odd really shite game, the odd really good game). I don't expect the sort of run you might get from a more inspiring manager. He's very technical and very cautious in approach to the game, and leaves little room to chance. We've come from behind to win just 3 times this season (although a bit harsh as we've had numerous clean sheets too). He's built a squad this season with glaring holes over last. The first 11 is decent, probably better than hibs, slightly worse than the hun post-January, but take any decent player out of that (I dinna mean swapping Arnason for O'Connor) and we're fucked. Look to the bench in any individual game and we're fucked. I don't think we have any right to expect to finish second this season, and I think it'll take a huge effort to do so. We need to keep everyone fit (McLean already suspended for Hibs I think?) and I don't think that's likely. With our squad, I think third would be about right if we were looking at it objectively. 3 home ties might just help us out though.

I suppose it's about scale. If Cove were moving their stadium to Westhill (which sounds absurd because it's Cove, which is nae in Westhill, unlike Aberdeen...) then I suspect there wouldn't have been that much complaint. It would a couple of hundred cars max to the area and could be easily contained within the stadium car park. The ruggers wouldn't build a 20K stadium, it'd be 5-6K max, so whilst there would be obvious complaint, it wouldn't be quite as vociforous. Everyone knows that ruggers hilariously dare each other to drink their own pish, and so no pish goes wasted. It's an hilarious public school jape don't you know? Like pig-fucking. It's hilarious in every way. Don't you understand humour?

I've spoken to rugby* and they said that Westhill was a shite location for any sporting arena. *whilst being careful not to get bummed

Yep, he played a good portion of his first season there. I think that when he signed his new deal it would have been with a desire to be playing in midfield in the majority of games. We've been a victim of his success in that role though. He's marauding as fuck when he plays left back, and we've missed that. Last season it wasn't an issue as we had something different. Hayes could rely on Considine to get hard up the airse of a winger as Considine could rely on Hayes to cover and he'd never be left two on one or in a position where he had to "split the two" which is where his pace lets him down. On the other side, Logan was playing well and getting high enough up the pitch that McGinn could come inside and offer more in there (to the detriment of Christie is has to be said). With Logan having a poor season (although he's improved lately), that's really exacerbated the issues on the left caused by Hayes' departure. We really needed Shinnie in left back this season and due to the signing of Greg Fucking Tanscunt, we weren't able to use that option enough. Anyway, I couldn't care less if we got a new centre mid instead of Shinnie or a new left back and keep Shinnie in centre mid. He's an asset in both areas for different reasons (my preference would be left back if pushed, as I think it's harder to get a player of that quality in there).

That's far I ging in the summer. Do you deliver yer burgers?