"The morning was hot, and the exercise of reading left her mind
contracting and expanding like the main-spring of a clock, and the
small noises of midday, which one can ascribe to no definite cause, in
a regular rhythm. It was all very real, very big, very impersonal, and
after a moment or two she began to raise her first finger and to let
it fall on the arm of her chair so as to bring back to herself some consciousness of her own existence. She was next overcome by the
unspeakable queerness of the fact that she should be sitting in an
arm-chair, in the morning, in the middle of the world. Who were the
people moving in the house – moving things from one place to another?
And life, what was that? It was only a light passing over the surface
and vanishing, as in time she would vanish, though the furniture in
the room would remain. Her dissolution became so complete that she
could not raise her finger any more, and sat perfectly still,
listening and looking always at the same spot. It became stranger and stranger. She was overcome with awe that things should exist at all .
. . She forgot that she had any fingers to raise . . . The things
that existed were so immense and so desolate . . . She continued to be conscious of these vast masses of substance for a long stretch of
time, the clock still ticking in the midst of the universal silence."
(Vi r g i n i a Wo o l f , The Voyage Out, 1915)
we were watching Woolfy with Liz & Burton a few
weeks ago. What actors! son of a bitch.
On Tue, 29 May 2018 13:32:53 +0100, thang ornerythinchus ><thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
"The morning was hot, and the exercise of reading left her mind
contracting and expanding like the main-spring of a clock, and the
small noises of midday, which one can ascribe to no definite cause, in
a regular rhythm. It was all very real, very big, very impersonal, and
after a moment or two she began to raise her first finger and to let
it fall on the arm of her chair so as to bring back to herself some
consciousness of her own existence. She was next overcome by the
unspeakable queerness of the fact that she should be sitting in an
arm-chair, in the morning, in the middle of the world. Who were the
people moving in the house – moving things from one place to another?
And life, what was that? It was only a light passing over the surface
and vanishing, as in time she would vanish, though the furniture in
the room would remain. Her dissolution became so complete that she
could not raise her finger any more, and sat perfectly still,
listening and looking always at the same spot. It became stranger and
stranger. She was overcome with awe that things should exist at all .
. . She forgot that she had any fingers to raise . . . The things
that existed were so immense and so desolate . . . She continued to be
conscious of these vast masses of substance for a long stretch of
time, the clock still ticking in the midst of the universal silence."
(Vi r g i n i a Wo o l f , The Voyage Out, 1915)
### - wonderful prose, but don't ever forget, metaphorically speaking, to
don chemical hazard gloves & mask etc 'before' dealing with old virginia
heh, 'coz she actually ended up in a nut house?
ditto Nietzsche 'coz he's pretty toxic too, only with him you'll also
require tongs ;)
"I've accomplished everything I set to do. All that remains now is for
them to get rid of me..."
--Nietzsche's last words from the nut house wherein he too died haha :)
On Tue, 29 May 2018 14:28:14 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2018 13:32:53 +0100, thang ornerythinchus
<thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
"The morning was hot, and the exercise of reading left her mind
contracting and expanding like the main-spring of a clock, and the
small noises of midday, which one can ascribe to no definite cause, in
a regular rhythm. It was all very real, very big, very impersonal, and
after a moment or two she began to raise her first finger and to let
it fall on the arm of her chair so as to bring back to herself some
consciousness of her own existence. She was next overcome by the
unspeakable queerness of the fact that she should be sitting in an
arm-chair, in the morning, in the middle of the world. Who were the
people moving in the house – moving things from one place to another?
And life, what was that? It was only a light passing over the surface
and vanishing, as in time she would vanish, though the furniture in
the room would remain. Her dissolution became so complete that she
could not raise her finger any more, and sat perfectly still,
listening and looking always at the same spot. It became stranger and
stranger. She was overcome with awe that things should exist at all .
. . She forgot that she had any fingers to raise . . . The things
that existed were so immense and so desolate . . . She continued to be
conscious of these vast masses of substance for a long stretch of
time, the clock still ticking in the midst of the universal silence."
(Vi r g i n i a Wo o l f , The Voyage Out, 1915)
### - wonderful prose, but don't ever forget, metaphorically speaking,
to
don chemical hazard gloves & mask etc 'before' dealing with old virginia
heh, 'coz she actually ended up in a nut house?
ditto Nietzsche 'coz he's pretty toxic too, only with him you'll also
require tongs ;)
"I've accomplished everything I set to do. All that remains now is for
them to get rid of me..."
--Nietzsche's last words from the nut house wherein he too died haha :)
What's funny about that?
what the housewives of shantytown
took Friday off? come on now,
you can throw shit at each other
like the best of them? ha ha ha !
what the housewives of shantytown
took Friday off? come on now,
you can throw shit at each other
like the best of them? ha ha ha !
### - well, thang's in australia and 'fuck-all' ever happens down there!
so nuff said haha... and jeremy's prolly still trying to think up
something to post that *hasn't* gots any 'trump' in it heh (which should >prolly keep him busy for quite some time then lol) so i guess it's all
down to you & moi son!
now then... didn't win fuck all on the gee-gee's today (2 places & 3
losers, damn!) so am bristling for a scrap!
hoo-flung-dung!?!
hoo-hoo??
what, YOU lookin' for some? - no??
then i guess it's dungless in london here boss!
so now am considering gettin' shit-faced instead hehehe :D
(actually smoking some loverly hashish here boss, something that's
decidedly rare these days 'coz of all the home-grown weed/skunk 'and'
because we live on an island; presumably the increased border controls
that stops it from ever coming in for the last few years...)
and well mmm... that's good shit! lol
;)
### - btw if ya likes to study 'form' (as i do...) then you can get it
here:
https://www.racingpost.com/racecards/
click the epsom tab, and then the 'see all races on one page' link
pure form! :)
made my picks, but with huge races of 20-runners in some of 'em, it's
gonna be more like walkin' on water on only one leg to win this! lol :)))
hoppin' along here boss!
50,000 here i come! :)
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 04:29:33 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
### - btw if ya likes to study 'form' (as i do...) then you can get it
here:
https://www.racingpost.com/racecards/
click the epsom tab, and then the 'see all races on one page' link
pure form! :)
made my picks, but with huge races of 20-runners in some of 'em, it's
gonna be more like walkin' on water on only one leg to win this! lol
:)))
hoppin' along here boss!
50,000 here i come! :)
Sucker.
You won yet?
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 00:08:19 +0100, thang ornerythinchus ><thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 04:29:33 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
### - btw if ya likes to study 'form' (as i do...) then you can get it
here:
https://www.racingpost.com/racecards/
click the epsom tab, and then the 'see all races on one page' link
pure form! :)
made my picks, but with huge races of 20-runners in some of 'em, it's
gonna be more like walkin' on water on only one leg to win this! lol
:)))
hoppin' along here boss!
50,000 here i come! :)
Sucker.
You won yet?
### - you'd literally have to BE jesus to win summat like that lol :)))
a 7-horse accumulator?? it's hard enough to get just ONE winner - let
alone 7?!
that particular bet included the english derby as well ffs?? LOL
but it's a free bet every saturday! and not always so difficult...
accumulators are what have always liked though, as there's very little
chance of winning something without getting involved in some crafty
betting, the skill required enormous, and beyond accident whenever they do >come in due to the tremendous odds against winning involved...
didn't win that one (who could! lol) but have had some great wins in the
past and some damn near misses too! best have ever has was 6 winners! all >favourites true, but any 6-fold accumulator is a really high score! have >achieved several 5-fold accumulators of note + also many many 4-folds; the >best of which paid 4,450/1!
as an added note, many years ago i actually achieved a rather crafty
7-fold accumulator, albeit in a roundabout way... i.e. non-runners count
as wins here in accumulators they just don't pay anything, so if you gots
2 actual winners and a non-runner it counts as a treble! and, one time i >picked 7 horses and did what they call a 'super heinz' bet that includes, >singles, doubles, trebles, 4-folds, 5-folds, 6-folds & a single 7-fold >accumulator! a total of 120 combination of bets or summat lol, AND because
of the weather that day one whole race meeting was canceled which gave me
6 non-runners, and the other horse won @ 11/2! so technically a full
7-horse accumulator! one in which every bet paid!
didn't pay much tho' @ only 5p hehehe; but the bet cost around £12 and i
got back nearly 50! howzat!
so a 7-horse accumulator by the back door so to speak hah! a fuckin'
miracle mate!
no one gets those!?!
but i did :)
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 11:03:26 +0100, thang ornerythinchus <thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 01:36:51 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 00:08:19 +0100, thang ornerythinchus
<thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 04:29:33 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
### - btw if ya likes to study 'form' (as i do...) then you can get it >>>> here:
https://www.racingpost.com/racecards/
click the epsom tab, and then the 'see all races on one page' link
pure form! :)
made my picks, but with huge races of 20-runners in some of 'em, it's >>>> gonna be more like walkin' on water on only one leg to win this! lol >>>> :)))
hoppin' along here boss!
50,000 here i come! :)
Sucker.
You won yet?
### - you'd literally have to BE jesus to win summat like that lol :)))
a 7-horse accumulator?? it's hard enough to get just ONE winner - let
alone 7?!
that particular bet included the english derby as well ffs?? LOL
but it's a free bet every saturday! and not always so difficult...
accumulators are what have always liked though, as there's very little
chance of winning something without getting involved in some crafty
betting, the skill required enormous, and beyond accident whenever they >> do
come in due to the tremendous odds against winning involved...
didn't win that one (who could! lol) but have had some great wins in the >> past and some damn near misses too! best have ever has was 6 winners!
all
favourites true, but any 6-fold accumulator is a really high score! have >> achieved several 5-fold accumulators of note + also many many 4-folds; >> the
best of which paid 4,450/1!
as an added note, many years ago i actually achieved a rather crafty
7-fold accumulator, albeit in a roundabout way... i.e. non-runners count >> as wins here in accumulators they just don't pay anything, so if you
gots
2 actual winners and a non-runner it counts as a treble! and, one time i >> picked 7 horses and did what they call a 'super heinz' bet that
includes,
singles, doubles, trebles, 4-folds, 5-folds, 6-folds & a single 7-fold
accumulator! a total of 120 combination of bets or summat lol, AND
because
of the weather that day one whole race meeting was canceled which gave >> me
6 non-runners, and the other horse won @ 11/2! so technically a full
7-horse accumulator! one in which every bet paid!
didn't pay much tho' @ only 5p hehehe; but the bet cost around £12 and i >> got back nearly 50! howzat!
so a 7-horse accumulator by the back door so to speak hah! a fuckin'
miracle mate!
no one gets those!?!
but i did :)
Fuck me, I have a second year at high distinction in Social & Economic Statistics and I can't understand the maths above (I've had a smoke
though and switched off).
Glad ya won (grudgingly)...
### - it's far from as-complex as you might think, so it's perhaps just
the way i described it that's confused you here...
e.g., if you have 5 horses picked and you're only, for instance, trying to get 3 winners out of that 5 (3 from 5) then there are 10 possible combinations of 3 from among those 5 picks (10 possible trebles) to bet on...
there are also 10 doubles (10 x 2 possible combinations of 2 out of that same 5)
similarly, there are 5 possible combinations of 4 winners from out of that same 5
e.g.; horses 1234 or 1235 or 1245 or 1345 or 2345
so now we have out of 5 horses:
10 possible doubles
10 possible trebles
5 possible 4-folds
+ the one possible single accumulator if all 5 win
so how to bet on that?
well, my fav. bet currently is, for example:
10 x 10p win trebles
5 x 10p win 4-folds
and a 10p win accumulator
total bet costs = 16 bets @ 10p = £1.60
if only 3 of those 5 win (any 3) then it pays 1 single treble @ times whatever the sp prices are
e.g., for the sake of argument let's say they all win @ 5/1
= 5/1 x 5/1 x 5/1 x 10p
10p x 5/1 = 50p + the original stake back of 10p = 60p total now going
onto the next 5/1 =
60p x 5/1 = 300p + the original stake of now 60p = 360p going onto the
next 5/1 =
360p x 5/1 = 1800p + the original stake of now 360 = 2160
= pays £21.60 for any 10p stake win treble where they all pay @ 5/1
now if 4 romp home out of that 5, and all @ 5/1, you can add the next line to the above:
2160 x 5 = 10800 + the original stake of 2160 = 12,960p
which, if you work it out, is the same as all those 5/1's all actually paying 6/1 because they always also include getting back your original stakes each time (e.g., 10p x 6 x 6 x 6 x 6 = 12,960p) so a quick way to figure winning prices is to always add 1 to whatever it wins at, e.g., 7/2 = 3.5 to 1, but actually pays 4.5 to one, etc etc...
now if all 5 win, then this is where even quite low prices can start to massively add up heh
e.g., adding this extra line for 5 winners to the above to get:
12,960p x 6 (...6 includes the original stake remember) = 77,776p (= £777.76)
PLUS you also gets the 5 paying 4-folds + 10 trebles to boot!
= a rather amazing amount results!
£777.76 for the full accumulator + £648 for the 5 x 4 folds + £216 for the
10 trebles!
= £1,641! and for a total stake of only £1.60!
but 10 pence be damned!
because my usual bet is more along the lines of:
10x 10p win trebles (to at least try and cover the whole bet with should only 3 win)
5 x *50p* win 4-folds
and a *50p* each way accumulator!
= a £4.50 bet
accordingly, any 4-fold wins would now pay at the rate of 50p x 1296 = £648!
and if all 5 win?? well fuck me it doesn't even bear thinking about lol :)))
7776 x 50p accumulator = £3,888!
PLUS the 5 X 4-folds @ 1296 x 5 x 50p = £3,240
PLUS the 10 trebles @ 216 x 10p = £108
= £7,236 won for a bet of only £4.50!
iow: a lowly £4.50 in the above example becomes £7,236!
perforce winning prices vary widely and have to be calculated accordingly
more usually i'll make my picks first, see what prices they are after picking 'em, and then bet on 'em accordingly (upping the stakes if they're all low prices, reducing the stakes if they're all high etc...)
done :)
in the example of trying to pick SEVEN winners out of SEVEN lol, add 2
more lines to the above for some literally quite staggering figures, a
mere 10p turning even into 100's of 1000's at the far end!
but, one can always be a little more realistic and only hope to get say 4 winners out of a possible 7 picks; in which case there are 35 possible combinations of 4 from 7 = 35 bets @ whatever stake you decide (35 x 10p bets = £3.50 for instance) plus there are also 35 possible trebles too, so if you're gonna try to cover all those and all the 4-folds too the costs soon start to mount up prohibitively?
from experience i've found that 5 is the better number of picks to play with, it's affordable and it pays pretty well too if/when it wins (i.e., a single treble win out of that will usually at least get the full cost of your bet back + any 4-fold will pay handsomely...)
any clearer? :)
e.g., in a 7-horse accumulator there are a max of:
7 singles bets
21 possible doubles
35 possible trebles
35 possible 4-folds
21 possible 5-folds
7 possible 6-folds
1 7-fold accumulator
to cover 'all' those possible bets @ 10p = 127 bets = £12.70
so maybe best to leave out the singles (unless they're all high prices for instance)
leave out the double too, unless again they're all good prices...
back the trebles
back the 4-folds
back the 5 folds
& the accumulator
plus maybe vary the bets depending on their prices too
10p trebles = £3.50
10p 4-folds = £3.50
05p 5-folds = £1.05
and maybe say a 20p each-way accumulator (each-way refers to all 7 getting placed in the first 3 @ 1/5th of the full starting prices/odds; a 10/1 horse coming second thus pays 10/1 divided by 5 = 2/1 + your original
stake = 3/1... 7 horses all paying 3/1 adding up to still quite a large
sum (2,187/1) depending on how big/small your stake is... )
total bet = £8.45
(have had a 5-horse bet today for instance costing £4, so am keeping my fingers crossed so to speak hehehe... better run you hairy bastards! run!)
:)
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 01:36:51 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 00:08:19 +0100, thang ornerythinchus
<thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 04:29:33 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
### - btw if ya likes to study 'form' (as i do...) then you can get it >>>> here:
https://www.racingpost.com/racecards/
click the epsom tab, and then the 'see all races on one page' link
pure form! :)
made my picks, but with huge races of 20-runners in some of 'em, it's
gonna be more like walkin' on water on only one leg to win this! lol
:)))
hoppin' along here boss!
50,000 here i come! :)
Sucker.
You won yet?
### - you'd literally have to BE jesus to win summat like that lol :)))
a 7-horse accumulator?? it's hard enough to get just ONE winner - let
alone 7?!
that particular bet included the english derby as well ffs?? LOL
but it's a free bet every saturday! and not always so difficult...
accumulators are what have always liked though, as there's very little
chance of winning something without getting involved in some crafty
betting, the skill required enormous, and beyond accident whenever they
do
come in due to the tremendous odds against winning involved...
didn't win that one (who could! lol) but have had some great wins in the
past and some damn near misses too! best have ever has was 6 winners!
all
favourites true, but any 6-fold accumulator is a really high score! have
achieved several 5-fold accumulators of note + also many many 4-folds;
the
best of which paid 4,450/1!
as an added note, many years ago i actually achieved a rather crafty
7-fold accumulator, albeit in a roundabout way... i.e. non-runners count
as wins here in accumulators they just don't pay anything, so if you
gots
2 actual winners and a non-runner it counts as a treble! and, one time i
picked 7 horses and did what they call a 'super heinz' bet that
includes,
singles, doubles, trebles, 4-folds, 5-folds, 6-folds & a single 7-fold
accumulator! a total of 120 combination of bets or summat lol, AND
because
of the weather that day one whole race meeting was canceled which gave
me
6 non-runners, and the other horse won @ 11/2! so technically a full
7-horse accumulator! one in which every bet paid!
didn't pay much tho' @ only 5p hehehe; but the bet cost around £12 and i
got back nearly 50! howzat!
so a 7-horse accumulator by the back door so to speak hah! a fuckin'
miracle mate!
no one gets those!?!
but i did :)
Fuck me, I have a second year at high distinction in Social & Economic Statistics and I can't understand the maths above (I've had a smoke
though and switched off).
Glad ya won (grudgingly)...
we got two horses in the meet at Santa Anita
on sunday. I'm a Goat, Double Touch.
Gary Stevens is riding Double Touch.
Big race day for Fathers Day at Santa Anita.
same as it ever was. Ain't gonna be no
NBA final game this year on Pop's day.
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 11:03:26 +0100, thang ornerythinchus ><thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 01:36:51 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 00:08:19 +0100, thang ornerythinchus
<thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 04:29:33 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
### - btw if ya likes to study 'form' (as i do...) then you can get it >>>>> here:
https://www.racingpost.com/racecards/
click the epsom tab, and then the 'see all races on one page' link
pure form! :)
made my picks, but with huge races of 20-runners in some of 'em, it's >>>>> gonna be more like walkin' on water on only one leg to win this! lol >>>>> :)))
hoppin' along here boss!
50,000 here i come! :)
Sucker.
You won yet?
### - you'd literally have to BE jesus to win summat like that lol :)))
a 7-horse accumulator?? it's hard enough to get just ONE winner - let
alone 7?!
that particular bet included the english derby as well ffs?? LOL
but it's a free bet every saturday! and not always so difficult...
accumulators are what have always liked though, as there's very little
chance of winning something without getting involved in some crafty
betting, the skill required enormous, and beyond accident whenever they
do
come in due to the tremendous odds against winning involved...
didn't win that one (who could! lol) but have had some great wins in the >>> past and some damn near misses too! best have ever has was 6 winners!
all
favourites true, but any 6-fold accumulator is a really high score! have >>> achieved several 5-fold accumulators of note + also many many 4-folds;
the
best of which paid 4,450/1!
as an added note, many years ago i actually achieved a rather crafty
7-fold accumulator, albeit in a roundabout way... i.e. non-runners count >>> as wins here in accumulators they just don't pay anything, so if you
gots
2 actual winners and a non-runner it counts as a treble! and, one time i >>> picked 7 horses and did what they call a 'super heinz' bet that
includes,
singles, doubles, trebles, 4-folds, 5-folds, 6-folds & a single 7-fold
accumulator! a total of 120 combination of bets or summat lol, AND
because
of the weather that day one whole race meeting was canceled which gave
me
6 non-runners, and the other horse won @ 11/2! so technically a full
7-horse accumulator! one in which every bet paid!
didn't pay much tho' @ only 5p hehehe; but the bet cost around £12 and i >>> got back nearly 50! howzat!
so a 7-horse accumulator by the back door so to speak hah! a fuckin'
miracle mate!
no one gets those!?!
but i did :)
Fuck me, I have a second year at high distinction in Social & Economic
Statistics and I can't understand the maths above (I've had a smoke
though and switched off).
Glad ya won (grudgingly)...
### - it's far from as-complex as you might think, so it's perhaps just
the way i described it that's confused you here...
e.g., if you have 5 horses picked and you're only, for instance, trying to >get 3 winners out of that 5 (3 from 5) then there are 10 possible >combinations of 3 from among those 5 picks (10 possible trebles) to bet
on...
there are also 10 doubles (10 x 2 possible combinations of 2 out of that
same 5)
similarly, there are 5 possible combinations of 4 winners from out of that >same 5
e.g.; horses 1234 or 1235 or 1245 or 1345 or 2345
so now we have out of 5 horses:
10 possible doubles
10 possible trebles
5 possible 4-folds
+ the one possible single accumulator if all 5 win
so how to bet on that?
well, my fav. bet currently is, for example:
10 x 10p win trebles
5 x 10p win 4-folds
and a 10p win accumulator
total bet costs = 16 bets @ 10p = £1.60
if only 3 of those 5 win (any 3) then it pays 1 single treble @ times >whatever the sp prices are
e.g., for the sake of argument let's say they all win @ 5/1
= 5/1 x 5/1 x 5/1 x 10p
10p x 5/1 = 50p + the original stake back of 10p = 60p total now going
onto the next 5/1 =
60p x 5/1 = 300p + the original stake of now 60p = 360p going onto the
next 5/1 =
360p x 5/1 = 1800p + the original stake of now 360 = 2160
= pays £21.60 for any 10p stake win treble where they all pay @ 5/1
now if 4 romp home out of that 5, and all @ 5/1, you can add the next line
to the above:
2160 x 5 = 10800 + the original stake of 2160 = 12,960p
which, if you work it out, is the same as all those 5/1's all actually
paying 6/1 because they always also include getting back your original
stakes each time (e.g., 10p x 6 x 6 x 6 x 6 = 12,960p) so a quick way to >figure winning prices is to always add 1 to whatever it wins at, e.g., 7/2
= 3.5 to 1, but actually pays 4.5 to one, etc etc...
now if all 5 win, then this is where even quite low prices can start to >massively add up heh
e.g., adding this extra line for 5 winners to the above to get:
12,960p x 6 (...6 includes the original stake remember) = 77,776p (= >£777.76)
PLUS you also gets the 5 paying 4-folds + 10 trebles to boot!
= a rather amazing amount results!
£777.76 for the full accumulator + £648 for the 5 x 4 folds + £216 for the >10 trebles!
= £1,641! and for a total stake of only £1.60!
but 10 pence be damned!
because my usual bet is more along the lines of:
10x 10p win trebles (to at least try and cover the whole bet with should
only 3 win)
5 x *50p* win 4-folds
and a *50p* each way accumulator!
= a £4.50 bet
accordingly, any 4-fold wins would now pay at the rate of 50p x 1296 =
£648!
and if all 5 win?? well fuck me it doesn't even bear thinking about lol
:)))
7776 x 50p accumulator = £3,888!
PLUS the 5 X 4-folds @ 1296 x 5 x 50p = £3,240
PLUS the 10 trebles @ 216 x 10p = £108
= £7,236 won for a bet of only £4.50!
iow: a lowly £4.50 in the above example becomes £7,236!
perforce winning prices vary widely and have to be calculated accordingly
more usually i'll make my picks first, see what prices they are after
picking 'em, and then bet on 'em accordingly (upping the stakes if they're >all low prices, reducing the stakes if they're all high etc...)
done :)
in the example of trying to pick SEVEN winners out of SEVEN lol, add 2
more lines to the above for some literally quite staggering figures, a
mere 10p turning even into 100's of 1000's at the far end!
but, one can always be a little more realistic and only hope to get say 4 >winners out of a possible 7 picks; in which case there are 35 possible >combinations of 4 from 7 = 35 bets @ whatever stake you decide (35 x 10p
bets = £3.50 for instance) plus there are also 35 possible trebles too, so >if you're gonna try to cover all those and all the 4-folds too the costs
soon start to mount up prohibitively?
from experience i've found that 5 is the better number of picks to play
with, it's affordable and it pays pretty well too if/when it wins (i.e., a >single treble win out of that will usually at least get the full cost of
your bet back + any 4-fold will pay handsomely...)
any clearer? :)
e.g., in a 7-horse accumulator there are a max of:
7 singles bets
21 possible doubles
35 possible trebles
35 possible 4-folds
21 possible 5-folds
7 possible 6-folds
1 7-fold accumulator
to cover 'all' those possible bets @ 10p = 127 bets = £12.70
so maybe best to leave out the singles (unless they're all high prices for >instance)
leave out the double too, unless again they're all good prices...
back the trebles
back the 4-folds
back the 5 folds
& the accumulator
plus maybe vary the bets depending on their prices too
10p trebles = £3.50
10p 4-folds = £3.50
05p 5-folds = £1.05
and maybe say a 20p each-way accumulator (each-way refers to all 7 getting >placed in the first 3 @ 1/5th of the full starting prices/odds; a 10/1
horse coming second thus pays 10/1 divided by 5 = 2/1 + your original
stake = 3/1... 7 horses all paying 3/1 adding up to still quite a large
sum (2,187/1) depending on how big/small your stake is... )
total bet = £8.45
(have had a 5-horse bet today for instance costing £4, so am keeping my >fingers crossed so to speak hehehe... better run you hairy bastards! run!)
:)
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:23:59 AM UTC-4, slider wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 11:03:26 +0100, thang ornerythinchus
<thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 01:36:51 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 00:08:19 +0100, thang ornerythinchus
<thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 04:29:33 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
### - btw if ya likes to study 'form' (as i do...) then you can get it >> >>>> here:
https://www.racingpost.com/racecards/
click the epsom tab, and then the 'see all races on one page' link
pure form! :)
made my picks, but with huge races of 20-runners in some of 'em, it's >> >>>> gonna be more like walkin' on water on only one leg to win this! lol
:)))
hoppin' along here boss!
50,000 here i come! :)
Sucker.
You won yet?
### - you'd literally have to BE jesus to win summat like that lol :))) >> >>
a 7-horse accumulator?? it's hard enough to get just ONE winner - let
alone 7?!
that particular bet included the english derby as well ffs?? LOL
but it's a free bet every saturday! and not always so difficult...
accumulators are what have always liked though, as there's very little
chance of winning something without getting involved in some crafty
betting, the skill required enormous, and beyond accident whenever they >> >> do
come in due to the tremendous odds against winning involved...
didn't win that one (who could! lol) but have had some great wins in the >> >> past and some damn near misses too! best have ever has was 6 winners!
all
favourites true, but any 6-fold accumulator is a really high score! have >> >> achieved several 5-fold accumulators of note + also many many 4-folds;
the
best of which paid 4,450/1!
as an added note, many years ago i actually achieved a rather crafty
7-fold accumulator, albeit in a roundabout way... i.e. non-runners count >> >> as wins here in accumulators they just don't pay anything, so if you
gots
2 actual winners and a non-runner it counts as a treble! and, one time i >> >> picked 7 horses and did what they call a 'super heinz' bet that
includes,
singles, doubles, trebles, 4-folds, 5-folds, 6-folds & a single 7-fold
accumulator! a total of 120 combination of bets or summat lol, AND
because
of the weather that day one whole race meeting was canceled which gave
me
6 non-runners, and the other horse won @ 11/2! so technically a full
7-horse accumulator! one in which every bet paid!
didn't pay much tho' @ only 5p hehehe; but the bet cost around £12 and i >> >> got back nearly 50! howzat!
so a 7-horse accumulator by the back door so to speak hah! a fuckin'
miracle mate!
no one gets those!?!
but i did :)
Fuck me, I have a second year at high distinction in Social & Economic
Statistics and I can't understand the maths above (I've had a smoke
though and switched off).
Glad ya won (grudgingly)...
### - it's far from as-complex as you might think, so it's perhaps just
the way i described it that's confused you here...
e.g., if you have 5 horses picked and you're only, for instance, trying to >> get 3 winners out of that 5 (3 from 5) then there are 10 possible
combinations of 3 from among those 5 picks (10 possible trebles) to bet
on...
there are also 10 doubles (10 x 2 possible combinations of 2 out of that
same 5)
similarly, there are 5 possible combinations of 4 winners from out of that >> same 5
e.g.; horses 1234 or 1235 or 1245 or 1345 or 2345
so now we have out of 5 horses:
10 possible doubles
10 possible trebles
5 possible 4-folds
+ the one possible single accumulator if all 5 win
so how to bet on that?
well, my fav. bet currently is, for example:
10 x 10p win trebles
5 x 10p win 4-folds
and a 10p win accumulator
total bet costs = 16 bets @ 10p = £1.60
if only 3 of those 5 win (any 3) then it pays 1 single treble @ times
whatever the sp prices are
e.g., for the sake of argument let's say they all win @ 5/1
= 5/1 x 5/1 x 5/1 x 10p
10p x 5/1 = 50p + the original stake back of 10p = 60p total now going
onto the next 5/1 =
60p x 5/1 = 300p + the original stake of now 60p = 360p going onto the
next 5/1 =
360p x 5/1 = 1800p + the original stake of now 360 = 2160
= pays £21.60 for any 10p stake win treble where they all pay @ 5/1
now if 4 romp home out of that 5, and all @ 5/1, you can add the next line >> to the above:
2160 x 5 = 10800 + the original stake of 2160 = 12,960p
which, if you work it out, is the same as all those 5/1's all actually
paying 6/1 because they always also include getting back your original
stakes each time (e.g., 10p x 6 x 6 x 6 x 6 = 12,960p) so a quick way to
figure winning prices is to always add 1 to whatever it wins at, e.g., 7/2 >> = 3.5 to 1, but actually pays 4.5 to one, etc etc...
now if all 5 win, then this is where even quite low prices can start to
massively add up heh
e.g., adding this extra line for 5 winners to the above to get:
12,960p x 6 (...6 includes the original stake remember) = 77,776p (=
£777.76)
PLUS you also gets the 5 paying 4-folds + 10 trebles to boot!
= a rather amazing amount results!
£777.76 for the full accumulator + £648 for the 5 x 4 folds + £216 for the
10 trebles!
= £1,641! and for a total stake of only £1.60!
but 10 pence be damned!
because my usual bet is more along the lines of:
10x 10p win trebles (to at least try and cover the whole bet with should
only 3 win)
5 x *50p* win 4-folds
and a *50p* each way accumulator!
= a £4.50 bet
accordingly, any 4-fold wins would now pay at the rate of 50p x 1296 =
£648!
and if all 5 win?? well fuck me it doesn't even bear thinking about lol
:)))
7776 x 50p accumulator = £3,888!
PLUS the 5 X 4-folds @ 1296 x 5 x 50p = £3,240
PLUS the 10 trebles @ 216 x 10p = £108
= £7,236 won for a bet of only £4.50!
iow: a lowly £4.50 in the above example becomes £7,236!
perforce winning prices vary widely and have to be calculated accordingly
more usually i'll make my picks first, see what prices they are after
picking 'em, and then bet on 'em accordingly (upping the stakes if they're >> all low prices, reducing the stakes if they're all high etc...)
done :)
in the example of trying to pick SEVEN winners out of SEVEN lol, add 2
more lines to the above for some literally quite staggering figures, a
mere 10p turning even into 100's of 1000's at the far end!
but, one can always be a little more realistic and only hope to get say 4
winners out of a possible 7 picks; in which case there are 35 possible
combinations of 4 from 7 = 35 bets @ whatever stake you decide (35 x 10p
bets = £3.50 for instance) plus there are also 35 possible trebles too, so >> if you're gonna try to cover all those and all the 4-folds too the costs
soon start to mount up prohibitively?
from experience i've found that 5 is the better number of picks to play
with, it's affordable and it pays pretty well too if/when it wins (i.e., a >> single treble win out of that will usually at least get the full cost of
your bet back + any 4-fold will pay handsomely...)
any clearer? :)
e.g., in a 7-horse accumulator there are a max of:
7 singles bets
21 possible doubles
35 possible trebles
35 possible 4-folds
21 possible 5-folds
7 possible 6-folds
1 7-fold accumulator
to cover 'all' those possible bets @ 10p = 127 bets = £12.70
so maybe best to leave out the singles (unless they're all high prices for >> instance)
leave out the double too, unless again they're all good prices...
back the trebles
back the 4-folds
back the 5 folds
& the accumulator
plus maybe vary the bets depending on their prices too
10p trebles = £3.50
10p 4-folds = £3.50
05p 5-folds = £1.05
and maybe say a 20p each-way accumulator (each-way refers to all 7 getting >> placed in the first 3 @ 1/5th of the full starting prices/odds; a 10/1
horse coming second thus pays 10/1 divided by 5 = 2/1 + your original
stake = 3/1... 7 horses all paying 3/1 adding up to still quite a large
sum (2,187/1) depending on how big/small your stake is... )
total bet = £8.45
(have had a 5-horse bet today for instance costing £4, so am keeping my
fingers crossed so to speak hehehe... better run you hairy bastards! run!) >>
:)
I got a royal flush in a friendly poker game when I was about 23yoa.
Once I got three out of five in 1-49 number lottery lowering the odds
from a few billion to 10k x 10k if I had picked the next to correctly.
For guessing three of five on 20$ bucks.
Segwaying into cosmic consciousness I did have a long talk with the
universe about how I "deserved" to win, "miserable wretch that I am."
(have had a 5-horse bet today for instance costing £4, so am keeping my
fingers crossed so to speak hehehe... better run you hairy bastards!
run!)
:)
Spoken like a degenerate gambler
Now I know what reduced your station in life so. I detest gambling. I
think in your case it's the reverse...
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:45:19 +0100, thang ornerythinchus ><thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
(have had a 5-horse bet today for instance costing £4, so am keeping my >>> fingers crossed so to speak hehehe... better run you hairy bastards!
run!)
:)
Spoken like a degenerate gambler
Now I know what reduced your station in life so. I detest gambling. I
think in your case it's the reverse...
### - you merely don't 'understand' gambling so you dismiss something >potentially intelligent rather than examine it - who TOLD you it's bad?? :)
plus, there's actually a philosophy in it for the discerning person, and
it's definitely 'not' easy so listen very carefully! i.e., 'any' gambler >eventually comes to realise that 'long-shots' are not the best way to go >about things? that if you only pick long-shots all the time you'll defo
end up broke... the question (in life) being 'how' to play the odds >intelligently enough, assuming one is even aware of them, so that you get >'enough' of a return so as to be able to at least carry on/not starve >metaphorically speaking! ;)
some peeps, for example (and am again speaking philosophically here) >basically make their picks (their 'choices' in-life) with a pin! they have
a few half-hearted haphazard stabs at it, of course get nowhere (because
it just *isn't* that easy!) and usually give up never to try again...
conversely, if you only pick favourites all the time, even though they win >more often you'll never win enough because they're always such low odds?
so then, how to bet intelligently enough so as to get-by instead of ending
up in the doghouse?
even providing one can be detached-enough about it; there are literally
sooo many variables involved (dozens for each horse AND there's several >horses!) and thus so many, many things that can go wrong! one horse may >prefer firmer ground to another who historically runs better on softer >ground, so the weather plays a big part too! then there's the competition
to consider for their ages, weights, the distance they perform best at,
and even the jockeys riding them! the stable the horse is coming from may
or may not also be 'on-form' at the moment or not! the trainer too!
whether the course is a right-handed track or a left-handed one because >'some' horses will keep tight to a left turn but run-wide on a right turn >thus losing ground & vise-versa! it goes on and on! did the horse fall
over last time or was it pulled up! was it the favourite last time out! >there's also an old saying about "horses for courses" meaning some nags
tend to always do better on their own favourite course! and/or maybe it's
a female horse and it's having its bad time of the month lol... the list
of things that 'can' go wrong are nigh endless!
you yourself too may be either on-form or not on any particular day as
well hah! (sooo many floating variables see?) and there's no magical
formula for it all either see? so to even stand a chance in that business >you've got to be awake and on the ball and well aware too, else ya wont
last very long at all!
now then + assuming all of the above... just to get ONE winner under such >circumstances that ISN'T by just pure luck/fluke of being picked with a
pin, is difficult enough! so now multiply that by 5 (or even 7 heh) and >you'll begin to get a glimpse of where am coming from with all this?: the >conscious facing of impossible odds & cunningly surviving by being >increasingly selective! ;)
thus, to pick 3 winners and string them together in one bet is actually >pretty good! let alone string 4 or 5??
thus too very small amounts can very quickly add/multiply-up the more
winners you can string together (i hardly ever back singles for example, >unless it's like that nicely/so-appropriately named one with WILD in the
name hehehe, which won @ 9/1! i mean you get 4 x 9/1's together and see
just how it all multiplies up = 10x10x10x10 = 10,000/1! = thus on that
even a lowly 10c stake would actually fetch ya back $1000!)
accordingly heh, one can't possibly expect to win very often in such a >manner, you could do everything absolutely perfectly (just like life) and >still lose! so it's actually more a matter of everything all just coming >together in just the right way on just the right day... and, provided you >stick at it and don't go nuts in the process, you will eventually get some >wins! again, prices are everything from day to day too, so one day you'll
win only a little and another a whole heap!
iow: just like life itself, the whole thing's a huge challenge that keeps
ya well on yer' toes so to speak! but ya have to play it...
intelligently... or not at all to even stand a chance ;)
thus for moi, it's like doing metaphysical press-ups AND a sometimes daily >reminder (because i don't bet every day) of just 'how' tenuous everything >about life & living actually is hehehe... ;)
gambling in such a manner is actually... a leveler, one that brings ya
smack back down to earth time & again; and believe me that's a good thing!
:)"If the quark masses,or the basic forces, or the cosmological constant
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 11:00:38 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:45:19 +0100, thang ornerythinchus
<thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
(have had a 5-horse bet today for instance costing £4, so am keeping
my
fingers crossed so to speak hehehe... better run you hairy bastards!
run!)
:)
Spoken like a degenerate gambler
Now I know what reduced your station in life so. I detest gambling. I
think in your case it's the reverse...
### - you merely don't 'understand' gambling so you dismiss something
potentially intelligent rather than examine it - who TOLD you it's
bad?? :)
I've known degenerate gamblers who have been banned from the local
casino and revert to criminal gambling in very dangerous mileus. They
have lost everything except their lives.
plus, there's actually a philosophy in it for the discerning person, and
it's definitely 'not' easy so listen very carefully! i.e., 'any' gambler
eventually comes to realise that 'long-shots' are not the best way to go
about things? that if you only pick long-shots all the time you'll defo
end up broke... the question (in life) being 'how' to play the odds
intelligently enough, assuming one is even aware of them, so that you
get
'enough' of a return so as to be able to at least carry on/not starve
metaphorically speaking! ;)
There's a philosophical argument that it's highly immoral to expect
anything without exertion (ie winning without working).
I think the professional gambler is a myth in the long run. All legal
houses have the odds at least a fraction of one percent, and often
more, in their favour. You will lose in the long run.
some peeps, for example (and am again speaking philosophically here)
basically make their picks (their 'choices' in-life) with a pin! they
have
a few half-hearted haphazard stabs at it, of course get nowhere (because
it just *isn't* that easy!) and usually give up never to try again...
That's not me. I just never wanted to stake what I've got on
probabilities. You forget, I have a much better understanding of
statistics and probability theory than you, second year uni,
distinction. All binaries deviate towards the mean given a decent
sample, and the higher the sample, the closer to the mean. Gamblers
work on the variables - friction of fingertips on card edges, counting
cards dispensed (which works but is unacceptable because it works), imprefections in die and velvet, and so on. Superstition doesn't cut
it.
Horses break down entirely due to the factors which aren't stochastic
- food, age, time of day, form, the jockey, etc. Very little gambling involved in horses or dogs, rather it's knowing the variables and the
form.
conversely, if you only pick favourites all the time, even though they
win
more often you'll never win enough because they're always such low odds?
so then, how to bet intelligently enough so as to get-by instead of
ending
up in the doghouse?
Why not work? Most wealthy people got there by work, not by gambling.
True gamblers lose sooner or later.
even providing one can be detached-enough about it; there are literally
sooo many variables involved (dozens for each horse AND there's several
horses!) and thus so many, many things that can go wrong! one horse may
prefer firmer ground to another who historically runs better on softer
ground, so the weather plays a big part too! then there's the
competition
to consider for their ages, weights, the distance they perform best at,
and even the jockeys riding them! the stable the horse is coming from
may
or may not also be 'on-form' at the moment or not! the trainer too!
whether the course is a right-handed track or a left-handed one because
'some' horses will keep tight to a left turn but run-wide on a right
turn
thus losing ground & vise-versa! it goes on and on! did the horse fall
over last time or was it pulled up! was it the favourite last time out!
there's also an old saying about "horses for courses" meaning some nags
tend to always do better on their own favourite course! and/or maybe
it's
a female horse and it's having its bad time of the month lol... the list
of things that 'can' go wrong are nigh endless!
What I said above...
you yourself too may be either on-form or not on any particular day as
well hah! (sooo many floating variables see?) and there's no magical
formula for it all either see? so to even stand a chance in that
business
you've got to be awake and on the ball and well aware too, else ya wont
last very long at all!
now then + assuming all of the above... just to get ONE winner under
such
circumstances that ISN'T by just pure luck/fluke of being picked with a
pin, is difficult enough! so now multiply that by 5 (or even 7 heh) and
you'll begin to get a glimpse of where am coming from with all this?:
the
conscious facing of impossible odds & cunningly surviving by being
increasingly selective! ;)
thus, to pick 3 winners and string them together in one bet is actually
pretty good! let alone string 4 or 5??
thus too very small amounts can very quickly add/multiply-up the more
winners you can string together (i hardly ever back singles for example,
unless it's like that nicely/so-appropriately named one with WILD in the
name hehehe, which won @ 9/1! i mean you get 4 x 9/1's together and see
just how it all multiplies up = 10x10x10x10 = 10,000/1! = thus on that
even a lowly 10c stake would actually fetch ya back $1000!)
accordingly heh, one can't possibly expect to win very often in such a
manner, you could do everything absolutely perfectly (just like life)
and
still lose! so it's actually more a matter of everything all just coming
together in just the right way on just the right day... and, provided
you
stick at it and don't go nuts in the process, you will eventually get
some
wins! again, prices are everything from day to day too, so one day
you'll
win only a little and another a whole heap!
iow: just like life itself, the whole thing's a huge challenge that
keeps
ya well on yer' toes so to speak! but ya have to play it...
intelligently... or not at all to even stand a chance ;)
So how have you done over the years Slider? I get the impression you
don't have much by way of means. That means your experiment in
gambling has failed. Which means, my point is illustrated in your
case.
thus for moi, it's like doing metaphysical press-ups AND a sometimes
daily
reminder (because i don't bet every day) of just 'how' tenuous
everything
about life & living actually is hehehe... ;)
Do real pushups, hundreds of them. You'll lengthen the odds of an
early death.
gambling in such a manner is actually... a leveler, one that brings ya
smack back down to earth time & again; and believe me that's a good
thing!
Nope, getting out of bed is the leveler. Facing the day, as they say.
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 22:45:38 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 08:20:03 +0100, thang ornerythinchus
<thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 12:42:04 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 01:38:38 +0100, thang ornerythinchus
<thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 12:27:47 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 04:39:10 +0100, thang ornerythinchus
<thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 11:00:38 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:45:19 +0100, thang ornerythinchus
<thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
(have had a 5-horse bet today for instance costing £4, so am >>>>>>>>>> keeping
my
fingers crossed so to speak hehehe... better run you hairy >>>>>>>>>> bastards!
run!)
:)
Spoken like a degenerate gambler
Now I know what reduced your station in life so. I detest
gambling.
I
think in your case it's the reverse...
### - you merely don't 'understand' gambling so you dismiss
something
potentially intelligent rather than examine it - who TOLD you it's >>>>>>>> bad?? :)
I've known degenerate gamblers who have been banned from the local >>>>>>> casino and revert to criminal gambling in very dangerous mileus. >>>>>>> They
have lost everything except their lives.
### - yeah well, ya get degenerates in every circle going, so don't >>>>>> raise
the failures as prime examples of anything except failure...
Come on Slider, you're capable of better than that. Be objective.
Gambling is controlled by the state even in despotic countries in the >>>>> same way as other dangerous activies such as alcohol and cigarettes
are. That's because it is fucking ADDICTIVE to those of weak mind
and
weak will.
### - no you c'mon, you're not following what am actually
saying/suggesting here, even though you're still arriving at 'some'
correct conclusions albeit not completely on-context yet...
that those of weak will & mind perforce WILL perish in ANY field of
life!
life is harsh & utterly unforgiving! totally impersonal! 'anything'
such a
person gets involved in & with will likely + ultimately finish them
off!
You do realise don't you that precisely half the population has an IQ
below the median - almost 4 billion people are "below average IQ"
(although because the midpoint is a median and not a mean, most people
are between 90 and 110).
These are the ones by and large who are plundered of their worldly
belongings by the robber gambling barons. The pot is huge, and what
you are saying is that around half of the world's population, because
it is below the median IQ, will perish in any field of life.
Sounds a bit Hitlerian to me Slider.
And life is not harsh unforgiving and impersonal - not to homo sapiens
who is the peak of evolution and adaptation on this planet and who has
forced nature to our needs and wants. It may have been 100K years ago
but not now. Not in the era of fluoridated water on tap and conduited
power at call :)
### - alright alright, as usual you've gots totally fixed/closed ideas
concerning gambling & gamblers... and russians! and politics too! - and
nicotine! (oh that's right, you rescinded that last one didn't ya's heh;
changed your mind!)
No I just happen to be well read, thoughtful, logical, incisive and
*right*. Sorry about that :)
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 02:19:35 +0100, thang ornerythinchus ><thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 22:45:38 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 08:20:03 +0100, thang ornerythinchus
<thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 12:42:04 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 01:38:38 +0100, thang ornerythinchus
<thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 12:27:47 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 04:39:10 +0100, thang ornerythinchus
<thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 11:00:38 +0100, slider <slider@anashram.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:45:19 +0100, thang ornerythinchus
<thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
(have had a 5-horse bet today for instance costing £4, so am >>>>>>>>>>> keeping
my
fingers crossed so to speak hehehe... better run you hairy >>>>>>>>>>> bastards!
run!)
:)
Spoken like a degenerate gambler
Now I know what reduced your station in life so. I detest >>>>>>>>>> gambling.
I
think in your case it's the reverse...
### - you merely don't 'understand' gambling so you dismiss
something
potentially intelligent rather than examine it - who TOLD you it's >>>>>>>>> bad?? :)
I've known degenerate gamblers who have been banned from the local >>>>>>>> casino and revert to criminal gambling in very dangerous mileus. >>>>>>>> They
have lost everything except their lives.
### - yeah well, ya get degenerates in every circle going, so don't >>>>>>> raise
the failures as prime examples of anything except failure...
Come on Slider, you're capable of better than that. Be objective. >>>>>> Gambling is controlled by the state even in despotic countries in the >>>>>> same way as other dangerous activies such as alcohol and cigarettes >>>>>> are. That's because it is fucking ADDICTIVE to those of weak mind >>>>>> and
weak will.
### - no you c'mon, you're not following what am actually
saying/suggesting here, even though you're still arriving at 'some'
correct conclusions albeit not completely on-context yet...
that those of weak will & mind perforce WILL perish in ANY field of
life!
life is harsh & utterly unforgiving! totally impersonal! 'anything'
such a
person gets involved in & with will likely + ultimately finish them
off!
You do realise don't you that precisely half the population has an IQ
below the median - almost 4 billion people are "below average IQ"
(although because the midpoint is a median and not a mean, most people >>>> are between 90 and 110).
These are the ones by and large who are plundered of their worldly
belongings by the robber gambling barons. The pot is huge, and what
you are saying is that around half of the world's population, because
it is below the median IQ, will perish in any field of life.
Sounds a bit Hitlerian to me Slider.
And life is not harsh unforgiving and impersonal - not to homo sapiens >>>> who is the peak of evolution and adaptation on this planet and who has >>>> forced nature to our needs and wants. It may have been 100K years ago >>>> but not now. Not in the era of fluoridated water on tap and conduited >>>> power at call :)
### - alright alright, as usual you've gots totally fixed/closed ideas
concerning gambling & gamblers... and russians! and politics too! - and
nicotine! (oh that's right, you rescinded that last one didn't ya's heh; >>> changed your mind!)
No I just happen to be well read, thoughtful, logical, incisive and
*right*. Sorry about that :)
### - am just gonna snip it all at this point as you're going way off on
some unrelated tangent?
look, once you were just 'as-adamant' that nicotine was the very devil! >nothing could possibly make you budge on that stance!
and then you radically altered that stance? (reversed it actually...)
and that's the only reason i even 'mentioned' nicotine, alright?
the point being: you could just 'as-easily' be 'as-wrong' in this instance >too because, as in the case of nicotine, your mind is already made-up!
you're not 'open' to hearing anything different about what is, to you, a >closed subject! thus you don't even HAVE to examine it any farther; you've >already thrown it away! just as you'd thrown nicotine away! and, if only
on that basis/principle alone, am asking you to reconsider something
you've dispensed with a-priori!
that there's possibly quite a bit more to 'gambling' than meets your >judgmental eye currently!
look, once you were just 'as-adamant' that nicotine was the very devil!
nothing could possibly make you budge on that stance!
and then you radically altered that stance? (reversed it actually...)
and that's the only reason i even 'mentioned' nicotine, alright?
Nope. Not alright. You're full of deceptive nonsense as usual,
almost as deceptive as your blithe boast that your IQ measured 160+,
the same as that of Stephen Hawking and in the range of Albert
Einstein. How can anything you say after that bullshit ever be taken
without a massive grain of salt?
Nicotine is poison which is a bad thing, unless you're a pestilential arthropod :)
the point being: you could just 'as-easily' be 'as-wrong' in this
instance
too because, as in the case of nicotine, your mind is already made-up!
you're not 'open' to hearing anything different about what is, to you, a
closed subject! thus you don't even HAVE to examine it any farther;
you've
already thrown it away! just as you'd thrown nicotine away! and, if only
on that basis/principle alone, am asking you to reconsider something
you've dispensed with a-priori!
Gambling is fucking BAD you idiot because it snares those of weak will
and if the gambling is legally sanctioned, the house always has the
edge - otherwise, they don't stay in business.
It's as simple as that.
that there's possibly quite a bit more to 'gambling' than meets your
judgmental eye currently!
Nope. Bye.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 92:03:46 |
| Calls: | 2,069 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 11,134 |
| Messages: | 946,848 |