RicoS321

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?

Cash out is clearly an excellent option if you know when to use it. I think it's very difficult to argue otherwise. Whether the bookies lose less money by having it as an option or not is really neither here nor there. As a tool it's entirely agnostic of that. If you're not in attendance at a match (or event you're betting on) then - simply due to lack of information - you're probably equally as likely to lose money by sticking with a soon-to-be-losing bet than you are to lose an increment of money you could have won by cashing out. It's something that bookies and traders will not have data on (because it didn't happen) and so their statistics will be flawed. It's all safe to say that there a lot of traders who know fuck all about anything just as in any other line of work.

I've finished it. It turns out that the little boy is gay in the end and he dies of prison-aids. I hope I haven't given away too much.

Surely this just gives McLeish the opportunity to correct his mistakes so far and save face a little. Play a back line of Tierney, Devlin, McKenna and Robertson and use the injury excuse to switch Tierney to right back like Strachan did previously. Still a very strong back 4 with two good attacking full backs. ----------------McGregor----------------- Tierney---Devlin---McKenna--Robertson ------------McGregor----Armstrong------ -Fraser----------Russell-----------GMS-- ----------------Paterson------------------ Sorted.

The Sinner on Netflix might be a bit easier for you though.... It's pretty good actually.

You guys must be too thick for Man In The High Castle.

Same as Friday. Perhaps Anderson in for Wilson.