RicoS321

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.

Nonsense. If she's desperate, you'll get a good few months of top class BJs and biffing. Once that's over you ditch her again and she'll hate you forever. I'd have him back in January.

I'd take Collum over Muir any day. Shocking decision for the hun aside, Collum much improved over the last couple of years. Keeps up with the game and doesn't flash the cards nearly as much as he used to. Muir is a clueless fanny who regularly loses control of games.

Away to sign a new deal too. He was good for us, and left a better player than when he arrived with more experience. We've basically enhanced the value of one of their assets. Difficult to tell if it was worth it.

I've just realised that they appealed on the grounds of mistaken identity. It makes complete sense now. They were allowed to make their appeal because of that. The fact that it was patently not mistaken identity meant it couldn't be overturned. They've just spent money on the appeal to make a point. Fair enough. The SFA panel not in the wrong then it seems.

It may or may not be a load of shite, but you clearly do not understand any of the arguments so I wouldn't trust your judgement. The different demographic of fans are not in Aberdeen. That's the point of the club being called Aberdeen Football Club. It's not Aberdeenshire Football Club. The location doesn't adequately cater for Aberdeen supporters of Aberdeen football club. The notion of "a lifetime of convenience" is the most retarded thing I've ever heard. I live in Aberdeenshire, and have done for most of my life. I'm perfectly aware that by supporting a team called Aberdeen, I have to go to Aberdeen to watch them. It's a choice I made. There's no inconvenience, because I'm a person not born in Aberdeen supporting a team for Aberdeen. I don't expect them to move to Portlethen to make it easier for me. Being in Aberdeen is pretty fundamental to being Aberdeen Football Club. If you want a club to support that plays in Aberdeenshire (and the stadium fucking is, regardless of some constituency boundary that is bound to move post-bypass), then they should be called Aberdeenshire Football Club. It's the fact that you're so partisan that you miss the obvious irony when you make the point about people from Westhill didn't complain about building when they built all those Westhill hooses. You live in Garlogie, what the fuck are you doing at the beach looking for spaces? You could park anywhere from Anderson drive down and walk to Pittodrie within 40 minutes. Although you don't go to the games because it's not on your doorstep though, do you? Do you think that the traffic you experience going into town from Garlogie will in some way be easier for those coming out to Westhill? Or is this whole thing to you just some selfish: "it's better for me" as eluded to in your point 1? Again, you've totally missed the point. Nobody give a shite about the various exhibitions and meetings held regarding a stadium in fucking Westhill. The supporters of AFC were given no opportunity to review side by side plans of a re-developed 13,000 seater Pittodrie alongside the Westhill shite-dome and choose for themselves where they wanted the home of their club to be for the next 100 years or more. The fans did not choose Westhill, it was chosen for them. Then they were invited to meetings about it. You're a ridiculously partisan SNP supporter, why don't you apply some logic to it? If you voted for SNP because they wanted to build a new Primary in Garlogie and then the Tories won and came knocking on your door asking how you'd like the hooses to look that they're building instead would you tell them to fuck off? I think that the suggestion in the other thread by the club that UEFA would have forced us to play in front of 13K had we made the group stages should make AFC fans sit up and take note. If you seriously don't think you're being lied to then you're not looking hard enough.

That is vile, but the subject worthy of discussion in this debate. The Tims have taken the same club, different entity excuse to a whole new level. They are refusing to compensate the victims of the abuse because Celtic boys club was apparently a different legal entity to the Tims. A different legal entity, that supplied their team with players, trained on their facilities, toured their ground and had all the other attributes associated with being a part of Celtic fitba club. If the Tim support were "better" than the despicable hun, then they'd be calling it out for the shameful approach that it is. They'd put their partisan: "our club can do no wrong" attitude to one side and fight for their club to do the right thing. These were children in the care of Celtic football club when they were abused, in the same way as they'd have been in the care of Celtic football club if they'd gone on to success as a player. From that point of view they are one in the same thing. Utter scum. That said, in similar circumstances, I'm not sure what AFC and - more importantly - AFC fans would do. Are we any better?

Anyone who signed up to DNA is too pliant to question authority. Probably. I don't believe for a second that Pittodrie's capacity would have been restricted to 13K. That seems like an outright lie.