RicoS321

I see what you're saying Rocket, but Considine was trying to get back to cover his man (who he let get beyong himd in the first place) and was in the correct position. A more experienced player than Ferguson - like Considine - would have simply conceded the corner if they weren't comfortable launching it from that location. We definitely need Devlin back for the final, but if Ferguson does shite like that against the Tim, it will be punished too. He reminds me of Christie last season a little and it's an indictment of McInnes' shitey signings that we're asking this much of Ferguson in his first full professional season.

Same team, but Considine for Devlin. Unsurprising. Hope Wilson can actually do something and we get Anderson on sharpish if not.

It's a difficult one like. Anderson undoubtedly deserves it on merit. However, if he's rushed in and has a run of poor games then it could dent his confidence. He's getting the sort of minutes that we've been crying out for our youth players to get since McInnes arrived, easing them into a good strong career. I think he has a good way to go to become a starting 11 dons striker. Unfortunately for us, so do May, Cosgrove and Wilson. At least with Wilson we can send him back at the end of the season, and if he's finished then it's nae really our problem. If we have a plan that we follow when introducing youngsters (I'm not convinced we do) then we shouldn't sway from that just because Wilson is pap. If starting Anderson in the next few games is deemed good for him then get him in, if he's nae there and it could be detrimental then continue to give him regular minutes until he's up to speed. In short, do what's best for Anderson at this stage rather than what's best for the team. I'm with you like, I'd have him in to see what he can do. Although part of me would like to unleash him in the final instead.

Fucking right. I'm actually a free marketer if anything, it's just that I believe that a free market isn't free unless your free not to participate. Free from advertising, cronyism etc. That means that yer basic human rights need to be provided so that you can't be coerced into buying shite you don't need, you have to genuinely want something because it's fucking good or it's an activity you love. The basic problems of housing, food, travel, education etc should have been solved long ago and we should concentrating on advancements and enhancements now. Our existing economy isn't fit for that purpose. Corbyn is a capitalist. He's a social democrat. He won't solve climate change, he won't solve resource depletion, he won't solve species extinction, he won't solve air pollution. He will keep a car battery factory in Sunderland open, re-instate an inefficient nationalised rail network and he'll be a lot nicer than the current fuckers, but in ten years we'll (not me) be voting those fuckers back in again because "immigrants" or some shite.

I suspect the 350K homeless in the UK would have something to say about just how accessible that is. Indeed, just giving it to people makes perfect sense. The current system allows me to own multiple houses (I don't) and rent them to poorer people at a profit with no additional effort required. Those poorer people work far harder to pay that rent + tidy profit than me, the owner, because the overwhelming majority want to work and do something. Unqestionably. It's a simple case of arithmetic, where the number of UK houses exceed the number of UK citizens requiring housed, ergo we could decide quite easily to ensure that everyone has one. Throughout the entire history of humans people have been entitled to a living space without paying for it, the notion of land and home ownership is very recent. It's nothing to do with entitlement as a trait, it's simply a case of saying that people shouldn't have to make monetary payment in order to live a basic life. Giving people the fall back and freedom to choose what they can do to improve society rather than just how they can exploit others for the most gain could see massive returns. If folk want to sit at home and be sloths and not involve themselves in society, who gives a fuck? It won't make mine or your lives any worse. If everyone is entitled then there is no entitlement, just something that is.

If they're in surplus then why shouldn't they be a right? Yes, worked for, but graft? For what reason? If the building(s) itself already exists, then what does that graft add? If the vast amount of work done in this country (and many countries) produces fuck all, and if - by recognising this - we dispense of it, then what graft is there to do? Surely most graft these days - my graft, certainly - just produces unnecessary emissions working for a company that produces unnecessary emissions. I'd argue that the only way we'll ever solve the issue of climate change is to remove the unnecessary work and the unnecessary production. That'll involve making access to food and housing a human right.

What about collective self-discipline? What if your self-discipline requires the lack of self-discipline of others in order for it to be a success? What if the system defines success as "diseases cured", "species saved" or "help given" rather than "£s collected"? Winners at what? What is there to win? Being best at remembering Kings like Gove? Or best at being a little cunt like I was? Punishment for what? And to what end? What I remember are punishments for not wearing the correct uniform, for talking back to the teacher or for asking questions. Let not pretend that schoool was ever anything more than a "sit down and do as your told" place to put kids while their parents went to work. I agree with them. What the fuck should we need to graft for and why (I mean really graft, 5-7 days per week)? Housing, food, travel, health are all just badly managed supply and demand - we have enough for everyone. Why should a chilld born today have to fuck about with these trivialities which should be stuff that they just have as a right? Perhaps if they had these things as a default then they wouldn't be pissing about on betting sites trying to make their thousands on that one perfect bet. Perhaps if they weren't chasing that dream then Bet365 wifie wouldn't have the upper hand on them as a default because they'd focus on actual stuff with the freedom to do what they wanted. Agreed. She's playing the system by the system's rules. If she didn't, then Bet365 wouldn't be Bet365.

I don't understand what you mean by that? Are you suggesting that by regulating rather than educating that people need the physical barrier (banning betting etc) proscribed rather than being taught it or learning through experience? I struggle a little with the "nanny state" tag as I've never really been sure what it's supposed to mean - it seems like a bit of a catch-all to me. What would you say is the nanny state approach to gambling for instance? How does that approach result in increased stupidity of the average gambler? How does it prevent the state from introducing proper gambling regulation (or is it used as deflection whilst allowing the industry to do whatever the fuck its donations pay for)?

It was news, to the extent that I knew about it so I must have read it somewhere. I disagree. Pretty much everything is now classed as "personal responsibility" these days, and I don't buy it; or at least the extent to which it can make a difference. The state doesn't have to be responsible for the personal decisions of the stupid, it just has to attempt to prevent stupid people from being taken for a ride - especially when "taken for a ride" doesn't just mean losing £50, it can mean losing a home, losing friends, losing family, suicide. We, as a society, underfund education then an entire industry uses pyshcological techniques that they've spent billions perfecting to trick those under-educated (or simply with addictive traits) into parting with their money. It's similar to the food industry - tricking people into buying foods that they don't need resulting in mass obesity. Some may not fall for the gambling industry, but there are few how don't get drawn in by the food industry, or the pharmaceutical industry, or the chemicals /plastics industry. There's little difference between me buying the unnecessary chocolate bar than the gambling addict putting another £2 on the horses because it's just a small bet. We're all tricked to some degree, whether it be recycling or betting, because that's the way we've designed our economic system. Saying that it's a person's responsibility not to be tricked isn't really addressing the problem.

Absolutely. He's tightened up nicely going back the way where he was a little loose defensively (especially against Hearts). Nobody would suggest Considine getting back in there before January. I've a feeling he'll stay for the remainder of the season and we'll see McKenna leaving and Considine seeing out the season at left centre half until we replace. I'd be happy enough with that outcome. I'd like to see us ditching Reynolds and keeping Considine as centre half cover for another couple of years if he's happy to stay - proper Dandy.

Aye, definitely Considine for Ball. Ball should be cover for Shinnie and Ferguson, not the centre backs. Considine is comfortable enough on his wrong side and should slot in fine. Also, with Lowe going back in January (although he has indicated he'd like to stay) then we need Considine getting minutes. Devlin has a foot injury, which apparently has made him doubtful for the final, so I'm assuming it's not hugely serious but a few weeks out or something.

Decent game. Some good spells. Terrible defending for their goal, but not indicative of the overall performance. Forrest been excellent, Armstrong too. McKenna not done anything wrong, looks like he's been playing there for years. Paterson hoop at right back, but can probably be excused given he's a striker these days. Christie playing like he did at the beginning of last season - some great play littered with giving it away in stupid places, but overall good.

Gazza charged with sexual assault. Hall of fame awaits.

Brilliant. Top scamming happycamper.

Cheers min. Great question towards the end: "What do you think of Labour council's proposal for a rail link from the city to the airport?" Seeing if we're still paying attention.

Twitter? Fuck me, come on min. Everyone knows Mark McGhee's wikipedia page is where the knowledge lies.

Nah, not really min. You did say that nobody should use cash out. Pretty much word for word. It's that assertion that made me take note in the first place. I thought you were going to be able to tell me some alternative that I could use instead of cash out after already placing my bet on 365/PP or wherever. Mainly because, as only an occasional gambler, I feel like I could be taken for the mug that I am on an exchange as I'm not adequately knowledgeable. It's okay though, I don't care.

By "laying them off" and "effectively took my stake out" what do you mean? If I have £10 on the dons who are winning 2-0 with 35 minutes to go. I'm projected to win £15, but cash out is offering me just £12.50 at this point. I'm convinced that Shinnie is going to get sent off and we'll capitulate as I'm at the game and in a position to judge it better (in my opinion, obviously). Right now, I'm guaranteed £12.50 (by taking the offer), correct? (rhetorical) I've made the decision to cash out so I need to get a better return than £12.50 by going elsewhere (and not cashing out)? Or are you saying that if I put £0.50 on the dons to win then and £1.50 on the dons to draw elsewhere then I will very likely get better odds than 29/1 for the opposition win and 29/3 for the draw (obviously I'd have to make both bets)? Do you have a formula for this type of calculation? I can do this, but it only tests my odds: (-a+(a x Oa x Wa)) + (-b+(b x Ob x Wb)) +(-c+(c x Oc x Wc)) >= Z - a where a is stake 1, b is stake 2 and c is stake 3. Oa/b/c is odds and Wa/b/c is true or false win = 1 lose = 0 Z is cashout winnings for my example: Stake1 wins: (-10+ (10 x 3/2 x 1)) + (-0.5 + (0.50 x 29/1 x 0)) + (-1.5 + (0 x 29/3 x 0)) = £3 > £2.50 Stake2 wins: (-10+ (10 x 3/2 x 0)) + (-0.5 + (0.50 x 29/1 x 1)) + (-1.5 + (0 x 29/3 x 0)) = £2.50 >= £2.50 Stake3 wins: (-10+ (10 x 3/2 x 0)) + (-0.5 + (0.50 x 29/1 x 0)) + (-1.5 + (0 x 29/3 x 1)) = £2.50 >= £2.50 Am I right in thinking that we never really look for certain odds, we simply test those odds? In the above, I simply add the odds for a draw and a win from all my bookies and if all 3 stakes return true then I put the additional two bets on the draw and the loss and leave my win bet with the existing bookie? Thus I have returned greater than or equal to my cashout regardless of result. Interesting stuff min. I like it. How likely is it that those odds will exist elsewhere though, is it even close? Or is cash out always easier because they base the cashout on other bookies' odds on the draw and loss? What I mean is, is the cash out just an enticement for the uneasy gambler (so gives a shite return) or a is it aimed at the professional by calculating the other odds in the market and straying little either side of that?

How does this work then minijc? If I have a £10 bet with Bet365, I can sell that bet on an exchange? Or do I have to place my bet on the exchange in the first place?

Just to confirm, I assumed it was a joke. Anyway, second last of the Informer on the BBC last night. That is one top quality program. When they get it right, the BBC is top class.

Aye, ditch Russell for McGinn and move Armstrong forward. Forrest has been the pishest player in pretty much every Scotland game he's played in. Can't seem to play international fitba for some reason. Paterson better than Fletcher, but I agree that McLeish will probably play him.

You don't know anyone who has more than about 40 points? They're pretty much handing them out to anyone, you'll easily get a ticket if you want one.

You watched the last episode before the first three? That's an interesting tactic, I might give that a go.

How does that work like? You win the game so you get banned?

I know that, but that ignores the bets where the punter ignored the cash out offered though. How are those measured and are they included in the calculation of success?