RicoS321

Nonsense. It's just the company Bolton/Bury/etc that's dead, not the club. You just set up a new one, play at the same ground with the same strip and with the same list of honours.

Aye, absolutely. Jack in there too, just allowed the game to be played in front of him, covering Logan and even Considine when they went up the pitch. We've not replaced most of those players (Cosgrove probably doing the best job of replacing Rooney, as McGinn isn't replacing McGinn currently!).

I think there were 2 x 20+ yard trundlers on target thanks very much! I know what you mean though, I'd have thought that at 0-0 at half time there might have been a change in tactic. That said, and noticeably more so at Pittodrie, they were decent at retaining possession and very good at pressing in the midfield, which meant changes would have been difficult with existing personnel (Ojo, especially, struggled over both legs but then as did Campbell when he came on). McInnes does tend to err on the side of caution, and that seems to be the difference in games like these (Maribor, and Limassol spring to mind), but I don't think we should over-estimate our squad's ability either as appeared to be happening post-Hearts. I still don't think we'll get close to the team we had a couple of season ago with Hayes, McGinn and Rooney banging in shite-loads and Considine firing hat-tricks for a laugh. In the end, I think that is our major issue.

It's pish. It was always going to be pish. TV rule for the TV game. Plastic as fuck.

In my opinion, the bit about Rijeka being a worse team than us. I'd have put them better than us, and better than Hertz but probably not quite as good as the hun (this season). However, when you're in Europe, it's generally difficult to tell how good a team are going to be in comparison to your own team because of the differences between the leagues, early in the season etc. So a team like Rijeka who are at least as good as us, you would generally be quite cautious away from home and try and sneak a goal. You wouldn't go all out in case they turn out to be better than expected and you get a hoofing. You keep it tight and when they begin to get frustrated and start pushing forward more in the last half hour of the game then you catch them out with a quick break. We failed because of a total fuck up by Logan, before which they had about 1 shot on goal. I think those are acceptable tactics in a game like the Rijeka one. They failed, of course, but the decision to play like that wasn't illogical.

Shinnie worked his fucking arse off in every game he played in and ensured that those around him did the same. He led by example. Some obvious limitations as a player, but a very good player for us.

How can you have any idea whether we set up the same or not? Picking the same (or similar) team doesn't mean the same tactics clearly. We lost a goal within 10 minutes (because we had nearly all our team in their half on that particular attack) and then a player in 20 with the tie completely over in 30 minutes. From that point on, a manager has to be pragmatic, whether it offends every spectator's eyes or not (it did). We weren't scoring 5 goals with 10 men, but we could very easily have let in another 3. There's a certain Mark McGhee who would have done, and did, exactly that and we appeared to have a mentality that thrashings were okay under him as a result (losing 2-0 or 9-0 doesn't matter). It was horrendous stuff last night, but that was due to individual errors rather than a tactical thing, which meant that the game was over before it started. They did press significantly more than they did in the first leg though, which was a surprise.

Nah, I'd say due to ability. We rarely look panicky under McInnes. We're generally far too conservative to be panicky. Ojo just didn't like being pressed, and it was obvious from the first minute (there was a couple of hints of it in his debut, but I assumed it was just first game nerves/fitness). The guys that have been here since last season are fine, but Leigh definitely way off and Hedges and even Gallagher looks a bit jaded at times. I think that the lack of Thursday games will actually do them good over the next few weeks.

To be fair to McInnes, tonight was the largely the players' doing. Ojo was abysmal and panicky as fuck on the ball and Leigh was a disaster at that first goal; he was marking the fucking white line of the box and just opened his body to show the guy where to hit it. Individual errors killed it after 10 minutes, with 20 minutes ensuring no way back in. The bookings were ridiculously soft - both should have been a talking to (i.e. one card for the two). Just shows that foreign refs are definitely not the answer. They were a decent side, but not amazing. They pressed very well tonight. We shouldn't have been giving away stupid goals in the away leg which set us up for the first goal fuck up here. Most worrying part are Main and Wilson again, plus Ojo in midfield and Leigh at left back. Ojo made a couple of glaring mistakes that a central midfielder shouldn't be making in the first leg, and he was terrible tonight. Giving away the ball and generally just being poor on it. However, I'd say the biggest issue is that we've not replaced Shinnie as a player and definitely not as a captain. Zero leadership on the park, with Joe having a poor game (he had to come for that ball for their second, it was his all the way). Wasn't actually expecting us to get through, but really didn't expect such a disaster.

I have no idea the answer to the question (cashout&win vs cashout&lose) as I'm not a bookie, but I have absolutely no doubt that a company using complicated maths to generate odds will definitely know the answer, because it's extremely simple to define in their existing databases (unless they've made a right cunt of it). Not just in total, but for every single punter. Because it might be sophisticated to be simple in a single instance, but that won't help the bookie going forward. Probably, but that they just stopped there is unlikely. The reason that I mentioned enticement was because of the large area that can be utilised (by the bookie) by knowing about cashouts not accepted/taken. If cashout is losing money based on your 1 vs 2 formula then this area is where that a bookie can reduce that deficit or turn it round. Cashout is effectively an advertising tool that directly draws the customer into the transaction. I can look at your cashout and say "I lost/you won", but I can also look at the number of times that you checked your bet, any previous cashouts that you ignored during those visits and the amount or the odds that it took for you to "break" and accept the cashout. Across a number of bets, I could probably make a semi-accurate prediction of what it would take to accept a cashout, how it varies from others and . I can then start personalising your betting and the odds I'd offer. I couldn't get to this point just by analysing the times you cashed out, I'd need to analyse the times you didn't cash out. I stand by that - obviously - but that is in relation to Minijc's point that we shouldn't ever use the cashout. I think that's ridiculous. However, if he'd said that his mates would never use cashout because they didn't want to reveal data to a betting company that could be used against him in future cashout settings then I'd probably have been interested. Because every time you do or don't cash out you give the bookie something more to work on. The key for me is not basing your decisions on what the bookie is offering. Going back to your original MK Dons mate, I'd be interested to know his thinking behind using the cashout? If it was because he had a feeling that they'd score then he's probably equally as likely to be wrong on any given occasion than he is right and so he'd be a prime target for the bookies to offer cashouts if their odds/predictions suggest a likely opportunity for them to reduce exposure. If he'd done his own calculations, had targetted a specific return or was actually watching the live game and could see that things were changing then using cashout is likely a great option for him.

No problem. It made perfect sense to me, and I think you're wrong. I think you miss a large part of the calculation (of whether cash out is of value to the bookie or the punter) by just looking at best that go on to win versus bets that go on to lose. Given that the data of those that cashed and went on to lose would be easily as available as the data for those that go on to win, I would think it extremely likely that the bookie would know the answer to your question. It would be exceptionally negligent not to. Cashout is an enticement. It's basically a form of advertising. It's like a whole new bet. If you don't take into account those that don't play (i.e. refuse the cashout) then you're missing a huge chunk of opportunity. I suspect the bookies don't have a great handle on that as I think it might be difficult to measure accurately.

I expect that the bookies have a very good idea, and they constantly "improve" the cash out to catch you out at specific times and with an optimum rate that is just enough to get you to cash out or not. It's a very crude measurement though, because every single bet won without cashout is as a result of the punter not using the cashout option in theory. If your local chap had seen and decided not to accept the cashout and MK Dons hadn't scored then that is a failure for the cashout too if your analysing its success in getting punters to sabotage their own winnings.

I hope we win 4-1 just to spite those mugs who spent hundreds of pounds to watch us play like fucking pussies in Croatia.

Stevie May 2 The Redemption

Fuck sake. Be as well starting Considine up front over Wilson or Main.

Is it? They beat FC Sutjeska. Getting to the play-offs is surely only as much of an achievement as the level of the teams you beat? In theory, we could get to the league cup final beating only 1st division teams. That wouldn't be classed as punching above our weight.

I don't know what you're talking about, I think Stephen Gleeson is an excellent prospect.

It's not really relevant as to whether or not the cash out function favours the bookies though is it? Regardless of the outcome, you're 100% more likely to win money with the cashout than without it. In other words, if it wasn't in existence (which I believe was the original argument - perhaps not this one), then there would have been no avenue for Rocket's boozer-chum to have recieved any winnings. In all cases where a cash out is offered, then, it is clearly 100% better for the punter to have had the option of cashing out than not. The decision to use it is another argument, which you'd have to know other factors (much much would he have won, was he party to the game etc).

Aye, but what would he hypothetically have got if MK Dons hadn't scored? Because that's the really important number.

Does that not require chromecast or similar?

Hun. I'll be there, as I am without doubt the biggest fan on the board. I could actually get Stevie May with my loyalty points and still have enough to get Steven Gleeson in to the game on Thursday, which is the only way you'll see him at Pittodrie again.

Weird. Although you'll pick up a 32GB usb very cheaply, so a bit of a bonus.

Did you try the above (I haven't watched it)? Also, I've found that sometimes some USB sticks are mot compatible with Smart TVs, but I've found it very hard to find which USD sticks are compatible with specific TVs. I couldn't find one that would work with my Panasonic, and ended up buying a USB3 connected hard drive rather than a stick, which worked. It's quite an old TV though, so I assumed the newer ones would work with any. Try asking Sharp themselves, the datasheet for that TV makes no mention of types of USB stick that might not work, but perhaps they have more info. I mostly end up just connecting my laptop to the TV for things that require it.

That was a fairly poor performance. The better team won. I wasn't convinced by all the chat about having assembled the best squad in years. The first 11 looks pretty good when fit, but the squad players look a different prospect. I don't get the clamour for Wilson to be given a start yesterday, he was fucking atrocious against Hearts - the worst player on the pitch. I wasn't happy with him being re-signed based on one half decent game post-split last season. Those wages (and arguably added to those of Main), should have gone on a far better striker. Like Taylor in defence, it was very high risk to be buying guys like Wilson and Main to be your fringe players. With Cosgrove a doubt for Thursday we've got to rely on them now and they've shown in the past that their not that reliable. Main would have probably been fine on his own as a cheaper alternative to May, but Main and Wilson just doesn't cut it. As others have said, taking in one of Wright or McLennan would be fine (and an ideal way to bed in your young players) but to have them both starting was always going to end in them both being taken off. I understand that the trip to Croatia would have been tiring and so freshening the team up was a good move, but we simply don't have a good enough squad to expect to win away from home with 4 of our first team players not playing. The signings have been better this season, but risks have been taken on Main and Wilson (and Taylor) that just didn't need to happen. We'll wait and see over the next few games however, we're not the first and won't be the last team to struggle and be very flat after a European away so once we get papped out on Thursday it'll be onwards and upwards!

Apparently we had a clause that if they didn't sell him before the end of his contract we get him back.