RicoS321

Friday certainly begs the question as to why he didn't appear from the start in the semi. He allowed us, on Friday, to play a more suitable formation against the back 3, with two genuine front players as a partnership. I don't see that being required on Saturday, however he'll definitely be required from the bench if we want to shake things up a little. The monotony of the Rooney/May switch where zero changes was something that should have been dealt with in the summer by ditching Maynard immediately after our Euro exit and getting someone like Cosgrove in at that point. Stockley seems better than he was with hindsight, but I remember saying on here that we should start McLean up front against Apollon because neither Maynard nor Stockley would cut it at that level; it was clear Stockley's mobility isolated him against better teams. Whilst slightly slow and gangly on the turn, Cosgrove seems that little bit more mobile than Stockley and that will work well in our system, where Stockley's greater physical presence - useful down South - only really returned red cards. Still early days, but he looks to be the third option we've been crying out for, and I reckon both Rooney and May will get returns from playing alongside him. Perhaps our hit and hope strategy of signing players is finally paying off.......

No. No I can't.

Too late! I went for a Spurs and Sevilla double (tonight and Friday) at roughly evens. Plus £20 on Judd Trump in the snooker, who then proceeded to go quickly into a frame deficit after missing an easy blue. I thought I'd nip in before the odds reduced on potting the blue. Snooker is a stupid one, but it happened to be on whilst I was placing my other bet!

I was just joking about the dons, but yer second paragraph actually makes me think twice about it... given I had no idea I had the £60 in that account, I'm pretty much treating it as a free bet. However, I'm not confident the dons will win 2-0, nor Shinnie get the first, so I'll probably have a swatch around at the other games later in the week and see fit the deal is. I'll maybe try something more long term like you guys have been doing, with a system in place until I inevitably lose all the money during the world cup.

Good one sir! It must've been there for about two years, so I've nae missed it. Taking the money and running would more than likely be the best option given that I don't have any time to properly assess the current fitba markets. It'll probably go on 2-0 the dons with Shinnie first scorer instead though.

Right, I just spotted that I had £60 in my bet365 account. Fit's the recommendations for this week?

Aye, I think it's harsh to take down the entire rowie scene based on the failings of a couple of poor bakers. On the plus side, there was no mention of either jam or dairylea.

Agree about the pitch, it was great. As to be expected given the break it's had and the previous weather conditions causing it's prior state. Bit harsh on McGinn, he did a tremendous amount of dirty work. Some nice touches in the second half too, and allowed Shinnie to get beyond. Kept their wing back at bay in what was an excellent tactical display from the dons. We'd all love him to be producing more going forward, but he did what he was asked to do exceptionally well and even had a ten minute spell at left of a back five. We came up with something new last night against a back 3 and it worked very well. Cosgrove should have played against Motherwell instead of either Rooney or May and we should played in similar fashion to last night. We pressed them high with the two forwards and McLean pressing through the centre when required, keeping our shape and cutting out numerous plays high up the pitch. It's what we've been crying out for all season. Obviously McLean being available for this one was crucial to the success of the formation, but even without him we should have deployed this sooner. I think we'll revert back next week as I expect hibs will play a back 4i wth Considine and Shinnie in midfield as normal. Ball actually looked like a footballer last night, and really grew in confidence as the game went on. We'll need him in the run in, so more of that loon. Special mention to the stubborn cunt Levein. Clearly told his players that they must take the ball short from the keeper at all times, and they just continued to do so for 90 minutes, dicking about trying to find a short pass when our players had clearly cottoned on in the first minute and were pressing high. I'd have been fuming if I was jambo cunt watching that shit in the 85th minute. Classic Levein, completely unable to accept when he might be wrong and change it. In his early Utd years he use to be able to admit to making mistakes and try things, he came across as a good manager. Since his early Scotland days, he clearly got a complex (to be fair to him, he got some amount of abuse from the press when he was made Scotland boss for not being old firm enough) and won't accept fault for anything now at all. He comes across as a McGheeesque child.

I just re-read the headline and article and it says that he's agreed terms as you say. That cunt has to go like, he can't continue to be used by a club as its trojan horse for whatever reason they require. He should have been seriously disciplined after the McInnes debacle. He's being used. Although I don't doubt the McGregor story will come to fruition, it's inaccurate reporting and has no place on the BBC. If it's all gossip and speculation - as LA-Don suggests - then it has to clearly reported as that on the BBC. The Record or other cunt-rag can write what it likes, but the BBC has to be held to higher standards.

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.