5th October 2005, 07:08 PM
|
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Jan 1970
Posts: 135
|
|
take a break
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by crash
Doc.
Having a go at someone's spelling/grammar [education] is a good trick when you are going to disagree with their argument. It adds weight [but not logic I'm afraid] to your own point by saying with the innuendo: 'I'm a better speller so I'm obviously more intelligent and therefore my point of view is correct'.
After just lambasting a poster in another thread for the crime of using innuendo about someone else's forum handle to put their view down, here you are pulling the exact same trick of using innuendo to put my point down [of course by mentioning Sportz you have allowed yourself the out of 'I was just joking' in case you need it] with no factual logic whatsoever to support your condemnation. You can't beat hypocrisy for a profession on the net. You should take up politics :-)
|
For God's sake crash I was talking "tounge in cheek". Now I know it may not be that obvious in written form but truly ruly - it was merely a poor attempt at dry humour (I was having a back-hand crack at Sportz).
Now that we've made up let's face the cold hard facts (an approach you normally embrace as distinct from the comatosed dreamers that proliferate this Forum). The premise of your original post is wrong.
The punter who places fewer wagers will not enjoy an advantage over the punter who places many wagers - JUST BECAUSE HE PLACES FEWER WAGERS.
If that is not the premise of your original post then you will need to spell things out a little clearer as it appears I am not alone in my misunderstanding.
When I said "negative expectation" I did not mean the punter is engaging a thought process. I meant (and it is widely understood) the methodology employed produces a loss over a series of bets ie buying lotto tickets is a -ve expection game.
Come on now crash, lighten up - your work is at normally the top of the pile.
..............
|