Betting

[rocket_scientist]

ah see you can't help but snipe, you really over estimate the powers of the average punter to use cash out properly like you claim is easy to do, anyways I'm done, I've got several bets to run around and place today, no cash out will be used.

 

Is that because you know that your bet will win, or do you back all contingencies to guarantee profits?

 

What if your bet loses, would cash out NOT have helped you?

[rocket_scientist]

Another terminological weakness which highlights your critical thinking weakness is saying "using the cash out properly".

 

I would ask you what the proper way to use the cash out would be but you would just get more confused when you couldn't answer it.

[minijc]

Is that because you know that your bet will win, or do you back all contingencies to guarantee profits?

 

What if your bet loses, would cash out NOT have helped you?

Some of the markets I focus on cash out isn't on offer.

Another terminological weakness which highlights your critical thinking weakness is saying "using the cash out properly".

 

I would ask you what the proper way to use the cash out would be but you would just get more confused when you couldn't answer it.

search cash out on twitter on a Saturday at 5pm and you'll soon see your average user and how they've cashed out for a small profit or even a loss on a bet which goes on to win.

[rocket_scientist]

search cash out on twitter on a Saturday at 5pm and you'll soon see your average user and how they've cashed out for a small profit or even a loss on a bet which goes on to win.

 

I don't think Twitter is as powerful as the bookies own P & L's. In fact, it's an awesomely imbecilic addition to the debate.

 

The simple example I gave of further options between -1 and +3 being available being a good thing for the punter is not something you can admit. As you can see from Rico's post (which you have hitherto ignored), I'm not the only one who picked up on your confused thinking, as evidenced by your inability to express a coherent argument.

 

[minijc]

Keep rambling rocket.

[rocket_scientist]

This may help you understand;

 

The cash out option doesn't put profit into the bookies.

 

It helps them lose less if the bet goes on to win.

 

It hurts them greatly if the bet goes on to lose.

 

What data do you think you'll need to determine whether cash out overall helps the bookies or the punters?

 

I'll give you a clue; it's not social media.

[rocket_scientist]

Aye nae bother, you're the laughing stock in one of the gambling chats I'm in, two traders at major bookies in that, laughing at your take on cahs out, 'bookies friend'.

 

I didn't say bookies friend. I said punters friend (when the bet goes on to lose, the fundamentally crucial part you missed in your desperation not to be seen to be as intellectually handicapped as you appear to be).

 

Either you fail to grasp which side of the argument we're on or you can't think straight as evidenced by your inability to express properly.

[RicoS321]

search cash out on twitter on a Saturday at 5pm and you'll soon see your average user and how they've cashed out for a small profit or even a loss on a bet which goes on to win.

 

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

[rocket_scientist]

I just checked the prices between odds available on betfair and prices already taken on 365 on my/our picks on Saturday: -

 

Welling Utd.  4/9 365      no odds available betfair

Luton  1/2 365      1.55  betfair

Malaga  1/3 365      no odds available betfair

Ayr  8/13 365      1.63 betfair

Arbroath  10/11 365      1.90 betfair

MK Dons  1/3 365      1.36 betfair

 

Forget the betting exchanges Rico. I remember the average price advantage between betfair (make sure to use the exchange, not the sportsbook) and bet365 contracting in the last year or two I used to bet all the time, before giving up for 5+ years until I met an old mate in a pub on Boxing Day last year.

 

There's not enough price difference between them to worry about.

 

They're good for traders, they're not for the likes of you and me, punters.

 

[rocket_scientist]

 

Two classics in this video: -

 

1. "You're all clever people"...

 

says an uneducated man implying that he too is clever

 

2. using Dog racing as his example...

 

to explain absolutely nothing that any reasonably-intelligent mind didn't already know and what incredibly stupid people misinterpreted 

 

Edit: Does anyone ever make money on dogs (apart from the bookies obvs and the corrupt thieves who fix the book in cahoots with them)?

[rocket_scientist]

Just backed Holland v. France halfway through the first half. Unbelievably one sided so far. Only watching it cos daughter 1 is there (as she lives in Rotterdam and her work mates got her along).

[rocket_scientist]

Should I cash out at just over 1.6 minijc or wait for the full 2.6?

 

My having this option is a massive advantage to the bookies of course.

 

Edit: being offered 2.0 now after 73 minutes. Is this a good cash out?

[rocket_scientist]

Or should I put 0.6 on the draw (currently 11/4) and pray for anything other than an away win to guarantee a (smaller) profit?

 

Come on pro. You're the expert. A full time professional, so successful you don't need to work for "years".

[rocket_scientist]

Just stuck 0.2 on the draw at 17/2 after 87 minutes.

[rocket_scientist]

A lot pf people seem to be up in arms that the wifie who owns bet365 paid herself £265m this year, up from £217m last year.

 

I don't recall this being "news" a year ago? Is it the amount involved? Is 265m worthy of condemnation but 217m is ok?

 

Also in the news earlier this week was a dramatic increase in online gambling by the young. Yes society has an obligation to look out for its vulnerable but I'm sorry, the state isn't responsible for the personal decisions of the stupid. It's not like the punter doesn't know that there is a risk involved in placing a bet. A fool and their money etc.

 

If they're so unbelievably idiotic to use online casinos however - a method of "gambling" totally ignored by the sane - then I reckon there's a debate to be had there. These are pure evil in my book, software designed to profit with no "chance" being given to the punters, although Roulette in a real casino is also stacked against, their giving 35/1 for 37 possibilities with the green zero being the beacon of the mathematical stacking towards the house.

[donsdaft]

I'm not a betting man, wouldn't even know how to start filling out a football coupon.

 

If betting is your thing then fine, if you can afford to lose £50 on a Saturday afternoon ( or whatever) then great.

 

Occasionally you win, which is more than you ever get back financially from most hobbies.

 

I have to say though that the advertising has been racked up recently along with sports sponsorship etc.

 

I only see the advertising when I stream a game but it's truly appalling and obviously aimed at people with no brain.

 

I'm not saying that gamblers have no brain but obviously it's in the bookies interest to attract brainless people.

 

As a nation we really have to start banning these adverts but of course first they would have to get rid of their lottery and their bloody scratch cards.

[Barcosente]

It perhaps does not help much that the 3 main Scottish competitions in football are sponsored by 3 different gambling institutions.

 

Our government has seen to it that sugar tax is imposed on drinks to tackle obesity, an extra tax on alcohol, but yet fail to impose any type of meaningful tarrif on the huge windfalls betting companies are generating.

 

Nothing wrong in controlled gambling, but surely gambling has become as much an issue as becoming fat or alcoholic?

[rocket_scientist]

The advertising is nauseating but again, only works on the feeble minded.

 

What's interesting is how these clever advertising agencies appeal directly to their markets. The Coral campaign deliberately has a geeky gleck who's strapline is "don't bet silly, bet savvy". Ladbrokes ran with Mr Brightside and his gang of mates - including the token black of course (the generous one, handing out chips) - but these "characters" are peer craters (in old NE spik), deliberately chosen and engineered to act on-screen so as to "appeal"/ make a "connection" to "ordinary people". It's exactly the same with the over 50's markets, as we see in insurance and funeral plans etc., advertising and marketing using subjects that the feeble minded can "relate to". I preferred the aspirational model personally but advertisers are best placed to know with great precision what works best and when the majority of the population has been dumbed down to the extent it has been, and regressing worse year on year, it's easy pickings.

[RicoS321]

A lot pf people seem to be up in arms that the wifie who owns bet365 paid herself £265m this year, up from £217m last year.

 

I don't recall this being "news" a year ago? Is it the amount involved? Is 265m worthy of condemnation but 217m is ok?

 

It was news, to the extent that I knew about it so I must have read it somewhere.

 

Also in the news earlier this week was a dramatic increase in online gambling by the young. Yes society has an obligation to look out for its vulnerable but I'm sorry, the state isn't responsible for the personal decisions of the stupid. It's not like the punter doesn't know that there is a risk involved in placing a bet. A fool and their money etc.

 

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.

[rocket_scientist]

The problem is the stupidity of the nation. That the education standards have dropped so alarmingly is undoubtedly state-culpability but the bigger issue is a lack of self discipline, something the nanny state has allowed.

 

As for pharma and the foodchain, that's just plain old corruption, albeit aided and facilitated by the state. There is an argument that the doctors prescribing statins to adults and anti-depressants to kids should be shot but even here, it's a cultural system that has been engineered at the expense of the health and well being of the people. Diabetes earns too much for them to want to find a cure/better solution, that's a fucking crime in this day and age.

[RicoS321]

the bigger issue is a lack of self discipline, something the nanny state has allowed.

 

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)?

[rocket_scientist]

Self discipline? The biggest influence on success or failure, in most things.

 

Nanny state? No winners or losers at schools. No competition. No punishments. "Empowering" the kids. Flexible learning. Flexible working. Less and less responsibility. All wanting something for nothing. Not prepared to graft for it. Celebrity culture, albeit Z list.

 

I don't even have an approach to gambling, far less a nanny state approach. It is what it is. The fools are getting parted from their money. It was ever thus. Good that they're looking into it but castigating Mrs Coates or whatever her name is for seeing the future and making shedloads out of it shouldn't be the focus, even if it is a symptom. It is tall poppy syndrome all over again.

[RicoS321]

Self discipline? The biggest influence on success or failure, in most things.

 

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"?

 

Nanny state? No winners or losers at schools. No competition. No punishments. "Empowering" the kids. Flexible learning. Flexible working. Less and less responsibility.

 

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.

 

All wanting something for nothing. Not prepared to graft for it.

 

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.

 

 

Celebrity culture, albeit Z list.

 

I don't even have an approach to gambling, far less a nanny state approach. It is what it is. The fools are getting parted from their money. It was ever thus. Good that they're looking into it but castigating Mrs Coates or whatever her name is for seeing the future and making shedloads out of it shouldn't be the focus, even if it is a symptom. It is tall poppy syndrome all over again.

 

Agreed. She's playing the system by the system's rules. If she didn't, then Bet365 wouldn't be Bet365.

[rocket_scientist]

1. 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"?

 

2. 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.

 

3. 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.

 

1. Me no understand.

 

2. Winning at school sports isn't considered healthy these days. Participating is the only goal. I don't know if schoolteachers have noticed but life is actually quite competitive in the real world.

 

Punishment for not complying. I loved school so I find it very sad how you portrayed your experience of it. Maybe the schoolteachers you had were ALL shite (although I can't imagine that) but not shite enough in their own heads to ask for a 10% pay rise in the news today.

 

3. Sardonic. Or maybe ironic. No, sarcastic is probably closer.

[donsdaft]

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?

 

 

 

 

A right ?

 

Fraid not min

 

A roof over your head and food on the table should be achievable but they're not a right.

 

The vast amount of work done in this country produces fuck all ( a mistake which will definitely come back to haunt us) but these things still have to be worked for.