ABD Launches Campaign Against Speed Awareness Courses
Discussion
Given there are 8 pages of guff here and I'm still not sure what precisely Artey and Deeps beef is (scameras, all sheep, loud noises etc) I'm not hopeful that a complex algorithm based betting strategy articulation will be forthcoming.
Unless it is always bet on red and double your bets each time you loose
Unless it is always bet on red and double your bets each time you loose
CS Garth said:
Given there are 8 pages of guff here and I'm still not sure what precisely Artey and Deeps beef is (scameras, all sheep, loud noises etc) I'm not hopeful that a complex algorithm based betting strategy articulation will be forthcoming.
Unless it is always bet on red and double your bets each time you loose
Derp did tell us, way back on page 743. Oops, sorry. Page 4.Unless it is always bet on red and double your bets each time you loose
The trick is to not worry about whether you win or lose. It doesn't matter. That's what the man said.
derp said:
When I teach people I explain that the outcome of a bet is irrelevant, whether a bet wins or loses is totally 100% irrelevant to success.
...the result of each bet means nothing and is of no interest to me.
Probably less than 1 in 100 gamblers can fully understand that simple truth.
A successful gambler doesn't care if he wins. He doesn't care if he's a successful gambler. He just cares about gambling....the result of each bet means nothing and is of no interest to me.
Probably less than 1 in 100 gamblers can fully understand that simple truth.
<thinks>
Actually, I think that's somebody with a gambling addiction.
xRIEx said:
Talking about living on another planet...
This is tin-foil hat levels of delusion.
Why should SAC fees be refunded?
Why are they illegal in the first place?
If the SACs attended by offenders were deemed illegal and the punishment void, but the conviction still valid, would the money 'refunded' be used to pay for the FP that the offender would have got instead? If not, why not?
If you say the answers are in the ABD document, please give me a page and paragraph number and I'll give it a read.
Pages 2 and 3.This is tin-foil hat levels of delusion.
Why should SAC fees be refunded?
Why are they illegal in the first place?
If the SACs attended by offenders were deemed illegal and the punishment void, but the conviction still valid, would the money 'refunded' be used to pay for the FP that the offender would have got instead? If not, why not?
If you say the answers are in the ABD document, please give me a page and paragraph number and I'll give it a read.
Whether the SAC fee is refunded or used to pay the FPN is a good point. It would have to be ruled as to whether the original FPN is still valid, or out of date and void. Whether the payer of the SAC fee was party to the conspiracy of corruption, or acted innocently, will also have to be ruled upon.
TooMany2cvs said:
CS Garth said:
Given there are 8 pages of guff here and I'm still not sure what precisely Artey and Deeps beef is (scameras, all sheep, loud noises etc) I'm not hopeful that a complex algorithm based betting strategy articulation will be forthcoming.
Unless it is always bet on red and double your bets each time you loose
Derp did tell us, way back on page 743. Oops, sorry. Page 4.Unless it is always bet on red and double your bets each time you loose
The trick is to not worry about whether you win or lose. It doesn't matter. That's what the man said.
derp said:
When I teach people I explain that the outcome of a bet is irrelevant, whether a bet wins or loses is totally 100% irrelevant to success.
...the result of each bet means nothing and is of no interest to me.
Probably less than 1 in 100 gamblers can fully understand that simple truth.
A successful gambler doesn't care if he wins. He doesn't care if he's a successful gambler. He just cares about gambling....the result of each bet means nothing and is of no interest to me.
Probably less than 1 in 100 gamblers can fully understand that simple truth.
<thinks>
Actually, I think that's somebody with a gambling addiction.
deeps said:
TooMany2cvs said:
CS Garth said:
Given there are 8 pages of guff here and I'm still not sure what precisely Artey and Deeps beef is (scameras, all sheep, loud noises etc) I'm not hopeful that a complex algorithm based betting strategy articulation will be forthcoming.
Unless it is always bet on red and double your bets each time you loose
Derp did tell us, way back on page 743. Oops, sorry. Page 4.Unless it is always bet on red and double your bets each time you loose
The trick is to not worry about whether you win or lose. It doesn't matter. That's what the man said.
derp said:
When I teach people I explain that the outcome of a bet is irrelevant, whether a bet wins or loses is totally 100% irrelevant to success.
...the result of each bet means nothing and is of no interest to me.
Probably less than 1 in 100 gamblers can fully understand that simple truth.
A successful gambler doesn't care if he wins. He doesn't care if he's a successful gambler. He just cares about gambling....the result of each bet means nothing and is of no interest to me.
Probably less than 1 in 100 gamblers can fully understand that simple truth.
<thinks>
Actually, I think that's somebody with a gambling addiction.
deeps said:
xRIEx said:
Talking about living on another planet...
This is tin-foil hat levels of delusion.
Why should SAC fees be refunded?
Why are they illegal in the first place?
If the SACs attended by offenders were deemed illegal and the punishment void, but the conviction still valid, would the money 'refunded' be used to pay for the FP that the offender would have got instead? If not, why not?
If you say the answers are in the ABD document, please give me a page and paragraph number and I'll give it a read.
Pages 2 and 3.This is tin-foil hat levels of delusion.
Why should SAC fees be refunded?
Why are they illegal in the first place?
If the SACs attended by offenders were deemed illegal and the punishment void, but the conviction still valid, would the money 'refunded' be used to pay for the FP that the offender would have got instead? If not, why not?
If you say the answers are in the ABD document, please give me a page and paragraph number and I'll give it a read.
Whether the SAC fee is refunded or used to pay the FPN is a good point. It would have to be ruled as to whether the original FPN is still valid, or out of date and void. Whether the payer of the SAC fee was party to the conspiracy of corruption, or acted innocently, will also have to be ruled upon.
"We do not dispute that the police have the right to waive prosecution in some cases when an
offence comes to their attention. This is common practice where the offence is trivial or there are
extenuating circumstances."
Why should SAC fees be refunded? - not answered in the document or thread
Why are they illegal in the first place? - not answered in the document or thread
If the SACs attended by offenders were deemed illegal and the punishment void, but the conviction still valid, would the money 'refunded' be used to pay for the FP that the offender would have got instead? If not, why not? - not answered in the document or thread
"Will have to be ruled upon" - there is as yet no foundation for the claims SACs are in any way illegal. I note the ABD have not brought a case against the government or police forces; maybe their legal counsel also doesn't agree with them.
TheLuke said:
The courses are a good thing. I'm sorry I dont agree.
Teaching whats wrong and what can be done to correct that Is much better than just dishing out points willy-nilly.
In days of old etc, we didn't have SAC/tickets issued days etc after the event and have to rack our brains where we'd gone wrong. We had ye olde Traffic cop, with their legendary photographic memory to pull you up and refresh. I wonder how many new learners were saved from fatal errors by these old knights of the road, employing the old adage "stitch in time ". But of course in the days of the labour Government, this approach cost money,( with no recordable results ) and driving was downgraded to speed ( rather than INAPPROPRIATE SPEED) causes accidents . Teaching whats wrong and what can be done to correct that Is much better than just dishing out points willy-nilly.
i agree, that teaching what's wrong, BUT AT THE POINT OF DELIVERY, not some time later, when the offender is not in a position to appreciate the whys and whats of their action.
xRIEx said:
I can see nothing that supports their or your case, no citations for any legislation regarding the points raised. In fact, they go so far as to state that it is permitted in cases:
"We do not dispute that the police have the right to waive prosecution in some cases when an
offence comes to their attention. This is common practice where the offence is trivial or there are
extenuating circumstances."
Why should SAC fees be refunded? - not answered in the document or thread
Why are they illegal in the first place? - not answered in the document or thread
If the SACs attended by offenders were deemed illegal and the punishment void, but the conviction still valid, would the money 'refunded' be used to pay for the FP that the offender would have got instead? If not, why not? - not answered in the document or thread
"Will have to be ruled upon" - there is as yet no foundation for the claims SACs are in any way illegal. I note the ABD have not brought a case against the government or police forces; maybe their legal counsel also doesn't agree with them.
The legal case is being prepared. "We do not dispute that the police have the right to waive prosecution in some cases when an
offence comes to their attention. This is common practice where the offence is trivial or there are
extenuating circumstances."
Why should SAC fees be refunded? - not answered in the document or thread
Why are they illegal in the first place? - not answered in the document or thread
If the SACs attended by offenders were deemed illegal and the punishment void, but the conviction still valid, would the money 'refunded' be used to pay for the FP that the offender would have got instead? If not, why not? - not answered in the document or thread
"Will have to be ruled upon" - there is as yet no foundation for the claims SACs are in any way illegal. I note the ABD have not brought a case against the government or police forces; maybe their legal counsel also doesn't agree with them.
You say it's not been answered, I say it has been answered. We obviously have vastly different understanding of the words. That's why I said we live on different planets. How did I know you would quote that paragraph out of context without quoting the rest of it?
Who me said:
In days of old etc, we didn't have SAC/tickets issued days etc after the event and have to rack our brains where we'd gone wrong. We had ye olde Traffic cop, with their legendary photographic memory to pull you up and refresh. I wonder how many new learners were saved from fatal errors by these old knights of the road, employing the old adage "stitch in time ". But of course in the days of the labour Government, this approach cost money,( with no recordable results ) and driving was downgraded to speed ( rather than INAPPROPRIATE SPEED) causes accidents .
i agree, that teaching what's wrong, BUT AT THE POINT OF DELIVERY, not some time later, when the offender is not in a position to appreciate the whys and whats of their action.
True. These days it's all about the money unfortunately.i agree, that teaching what's wrong, BUT AT THE POINT OF DELIVERY, not some time later, when the offender is not in a position to appreciate the whys and whats of their action.
Disastrous said:
Set us straight then! I've been dying to hear this!
It's very simple, but as I said and as you can see first hand here, most people will never get it.Whether a bet wins or loses is totally irrelevant to success. When I try to explain this in terms of sporting events, nobody gets it, so I'll put it another way...
Just a quick simple example:
Betting £10 on each toss at odds of 2.0 predict the outcome of a toss of a coin 100 times.
Long term you will break even, whether you predict heads or tails is irrelevant, as is the actual result of each spin. It doesn't matter whether each spin wins or loses, a bet is judged at the point of placement not by the result.
The only way to ensure a profit is to back at odds that are greater than the true chance of the occurrence.
Same scenario, now betting £10 on each toss at odds of 2.1, as before the result of each spin is irrelevant, but long term you will make 5% profit on turnover. The bets can be judged as good value at the point of placement, the results were irrelevant.
Incidentally, all bookmakers such as Willhill etc will offer punters around 1.95 for heads and 1.95 for tails, hence with their built in value edge they don't care what the result is, just getting the punters through the door is enough to secure a profit.
Now all you have to do is find a way of accurately pricing events and getting bets matched with a built in value edge. You will make a percentage of turnover regardless of the results of events.
Most punters are not price sensitive, they believe they can predict the outcome of events, hence why so very few gamblers succeed.
deeps said:
It's very simple, but as I said and as you can see first hand here, most people will never get it.
Whether a bet wins or loses is totally irrelevant to success. When I try to explain this in terms of sporting events, nobody gets it, so I'll put it another way...
Just a quick simple example:
Betting £10 on each toss at odds of 2.0 predict the outcome of a toss of a coin 100 times.
Long term you will break even, whether you predict heads or tails is irrelevant, as is the actual result of each spin. It doesn't matter whether each spin wins or loses, a bet is judged at the point of placement not by the result.
The only way to ensure a profit is to back at odds that are greater than the true chance of the occurrence.
Same scenario, now betting £10 on each toss at odds of 2.1, as before the result of each spin is irrelevant, but long term you will make 5% profit on turnover. The bets can be judged as good value at the point of placement, the results were irrelevant.
Incidentally, all bookmakers such as Willhill etc will offer punters around 1.95 for heads and 1.95 for tails, hence with their built in value edge they don't care what the result is, just getting the punters through the door is enough to secure a profit.
Now all you have to do is find a way of accurately pricing events and getting bets matched with a built in value edge. You will make a percentage of turnover regardless of the results of events.
Most punters are not price sensitive, they believe they can predict the outcome of events, hence why so very few gamblers succeed.
There you go, you have done what you have done with every post in this thread. Made the assumption that "no one will get it" because they are more stupid or misguided that you. Where in fact it really is very simple.Whether a bet wins or loses is totally irrelevant to success. When I try to explain this in terms of sporting events, nobody gets it, so I'll put it another way...
Just a quick simple example:
Betting £10 on each toss at odds of 2.0 predict the outcome of a toss of a coin 100 times.
Long term you will break even, whether you predict heads or tails is irrelevant, as is the actual result of each spin. It doesn't matter whether each spin wins or loses, a bet is judged at the point of placement not by the result.
The only way to ensure a profit is to back at odds that are greater than the true chance of the occurrence.
Same scenario, now betting £10 on each toss at odds of 2.1, as before the result of each spin is irrelevant, but long term you will make 5% profit on turnover. The bets can be judged as good value at the point of placement, the results were irrelevant.
Incidentally, all bookmakers such as Willhill etc will offer punters around 1.95 for heads and 1.95 for tails, hence with their built in value edge they don't care what the result is, just getting the punters through the door is enough to secure a profit.
Now all you have to do is find a way of accurately pricing events and getting bets matched with a built in value edge. You will make a percentage of turnover regardless of the results of events.
Most punters are not price sensitive, they believe they can predict the outcome of events, hence why so very few gamblers succeed.
So, to summarise your sure fire way of winning at betting: all I have to do is find odds that are in my favour and bet enough times and I will (statistically at least) profit. Excellent. Of course you have already pointed this is exactly what bookmakers will not give you (they try to set the odds in their favour). Ok, not so excellent
So care to get to the point? How do you find those odds?
deeps said:
Disastrous said:
Set us straight then! I've been dying to hear this!
It's very simple, but as I said and as you can see first hand here, most people will never get it.Whether a bet wins or loses is totally irrelevant to success. When I try to explain this in terms of sporting events, nobody gets it, so I'll put it another way...
Just a quick simple example:
Betting £10 on each toss at odds of 2.0 predict the outcome of a toss of a coin 100 times.
Long term you will break even, whether you predict heads or tails is irrelevant, as is the actual result of each spin. It doesn't matter whether each spin wins or loses, a bet is judged at the point of placement not by the result.
The only way to ensure a profit is to back at odds that are greater than the true chance of the occurrence.
Same scenario, now betting £10 on each toss at odds of 2.1, as before the result of each spin is irrelevant, but long term you will make 5% profit on turnover. The bets can be judged as good value at the point of placement, the results were irrelevant.
Incidentally, all bookmakers such as Willhill etc will offer punters around 1.95 for heads and 1.95 for tails, hence with their built in value edge they don't care what the result is, just getting the punters through the door is enough to secure a profit.
Now all you have to do is find a way of accurately pricing events and getting bets matched with a built in value edge. You will make a percentage of turnover regardless of the results of events.
Most punters are not price sensitive, they believe they can predict the outcome of events, hence why so very few gamblers succeed.
So over time, all you can lose is £10 but that's balanced out by winning slightly more than £10 on a win?
Assuming all that's correct, do you still not need your bets to win in order to make money? You would only break even on the coin toss example in an infinite world as in reality, you could perfectly possibly flip 10000 tails in a row and wipe you out.
So in your earlier example of making 150 bets a day, I can understand the principle of looking for good value bets now (I think, if I understood you correctly) but I still can't see how a day of losing wouldn't be catatsrophic as presumably your 150 bets are across many sports and events, thus not linked in any way that could 'beat' the odds?
deeps said:
most people will never get it.
deeps said:
nobody gets it
You've said that so many times. Can't you see that it destroys any credibility to any point you make, however valid they may be ?It makes you look a bit simple if I am honest. I really don't mean that as an insult, just trying to reflect the perception that people who don't know you may have of you.
As for stating the bleeding obvious on the gambling front, that really doesn't help matters either.
Edited by nickfrog on Friday 29th July 10:15
deeps said:
Disastrous said:
Set us straight then! I've been dying to hear this!
It's very simple, but as I said and as you can see first hand here, most people will never get it.Whether a bet wins or loses is totally irrelevant to success. When I try to explain this in terms of sporting events, nobody gets it, so I'll put it another way...
Just a quick simple example:
Betting £10 on each toss at odds of 2.0 predict the outcome of a toss of a coin 100 times.
Long term you will break even, whether you predict heads or tails is irrelevant, as is the actual result of each spin. It doesn't matter whether each spin wins or loses, a bet is judged at the point of placement not by the result.
The only way to ensure a profit is to back at odds that are greater than the true chance of the occurrence.
Same scenario, now betting £10 on each toss at odds of 2.1, as before the result of each spin is irrelevant, but long term you will make 5% profit on turnover. The bets can be judged as good value at the point of placement, the results were irrelevant.
Incidentally, all bookmakers such as Willhill etc will offer punters around 1.95 for heads and 1.95 for tails, hence with their built in value edge they don't care what the result is, just getting the punters through the door is enough to secure a profit.
Now all you have to do is find a way of accurately pricing events and getting bets matched with a built in value edge. You will make a percentage of turnover regardless of the results of events.
Most punters are not price sensitive, they believe they can predict the outcome of events, hence why so very few gamblers succeed.
5%? You can get that as an interest rate on bank account accounts, never mind proper investments. You can probably get 5-10% on S&S ISAs (average performance was 7.4% in 2015 tax year) and you don't have to place 150 bets per week in order to get it- step 1: deposit money
- step 2: wait
xRIEx said:
5%? You can get that as an interest rate on bank account accounts, never mind proper investments. You can probably get 5-10% on S&S ISAs (average performance was 7.4% in 2015 tax year) and you don't have to place 150 bets per week in order to get it- step 1: deposit money
- step 2: wait
brman said:
xRIEx said:
5%? You can get that as an interest rate on bank account accounts, never mind proper investments. You can probably get 5-10% on S&S ISAs (average performance was 7.4% in 2015 tax year) and you don't have to place 150 bets per week in order to get it- step 1: deposit money
- step 2: wait
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff