|
Sports » uk.sport.football » [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results
| [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #945096] |
Di, 04 April 2006 02:11 |
|
****House Of Hopeful Youks headed paper****
Mixed fortunes all round this week. TonyMac, of course, was the biggest
winner, and looks like running away with this thing if we're not careful.
As his closest competition for some time, I'm a little ashamed to have
fallen by the wayside but such is the SBL.
Following much deliberation and consideration, the sexiest betcunt goes to
Martin this time. The man has big hairy balls of desperation, and it paid
off. All the winning betcunts were very sexy this week, though, so they all
deserve mention of some sort.
Several of us totally fucked up on Chelsea of course, but Sid fucked up the
worst and as such must don the shameful MICATBG t-shirt for the week. Last
worn in week 2, I'm not sure it's been washed since then. Icky.
Ryan gets a Tiny Penis for placing an unclear betcunt, stating as it did the
result but not how many Youks he wished to stake. Poor show.
We lost a couple of hundred as a froup, but are still well in profit.
======================================================
* TonyMac (943) 650 on Arsenal WIN vs Aston Villa [at] 1.36 ret. 884 = 1177
* Dat ( 485 ) 255 on West Brom LOSE vs Liverpool [at] 1.62 ret. 413 = 643
Vicky ( 579 ) 79 on Bolton DRAW vs Man Utd [at] 3.4 ret. -79 = 500
* Martin ( 183 ) 83 on Fulham LOSE vs Portsmouth [at] 4.15 ret. 344 = 444
Joe ( 745 ) 345 on Birmingham LOSE vs Chelsea [at] 1.41 ret. -345 = 400
Steve H ( 412 ) 52 on Bolton WIN vs Man Utd [at] 4 ret. -52 = 360
* General (156) 156 on West Brom LOSE vs Liverpool [at] 1.62 ret. 253 = 253
* Mikey ( 223 ) 43 on West Brom LOSE vs Liverpool [at] 1.62 ret. 70 = 250
* Ben ( 50 ) 50 on Coventry LOSE vs Preston [at] 2.75 ret. 138 = 138
Parkes ( 94 ) Retired = 94
* Kevin ( 15 ) 15 on Huddersfield WIN vs Barnsley [at] 2 ret. 30 = 30
Chopsy ( 60 ) 30 on Bolton WIN vs Man Utd [at] 4 ret. -30 = 30
* Roondog ( 5 ) 5 on Fulham LOSE vs Portsmouth [at] 4.15 ret. 21 = 21
JdS ( 25 ) 15 on Newcastle LOSE vs Tottenham [at] 2.6 ret. -15 = 10
Poleson ( 30 ) 20 on Everton LOSE vs Sunderland [at] 10 ret. -20 = 10
Ryan ( 5 ) Tiny Penis = 5
Kullrad ( 12 ) on Tiny Metal Prick [at] ret. -10 = 2
Bobby Int ( 23 ) 23 on Birmingham LOSE vs Chelsea [at] 1.41 et. -23 = 0
Osbourne (222) 222 on Birmingham LOSE vs Chelsea [at] 1.41 ret. -222 = 0
Sid ( 300 ) 300 on Birmingham LOSE vs Chelsea [at] 1.41 ret. -300 = 0
======================================================
Balances:
TonyMac 1177
Dat 643
Vicky 500
Martin 444
Joe 400
Steve H 360
General 253
Mikey 250
Ben 138
Parkes 94
Kevin 30
Chopsy 30
Roondog 21
JdS 10
Poleson 10
Ryan 5
Kullrad 2
Bobby Int 0
Osbourne 0
Sid 0
==============
Stats:
Betcunts placed: 17
Won Bets: 8
Lost Bets: 9
Froup Profit for this week: -201
Average odds: 2.88
Percentage of froup balance staked: 51.30%
Froup balls bigness: 1.48
Income: 85
Income so far: 3724
Froup balance: 4366
Are you being served? 642
======================
--
"VIVA Las BETCUNTS!!!1one!1!!cuntski!!1!1!" - Elvis Presley
http://uksf.org.uk/betcunt/
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #945098 ] |
Di, 04 April 2006 02:42 |
|
"Joe Horowitz" <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in
> Several of us totally fucked up on Chelsea of course, but Sid fucked
> up the worst and as such must don the shameful MICATBG t-shirt for the
> week. Last worn in week 2, I'm not sure it's been washed since then.
> Icky.
> Osbourne (222) 222 on Birmingham LOSE vs Chelsea [at] 1.41 ret. -222 = 0
> Sid ( 300 ) 300 on Birmingham LOSE vs Chelsea [at] 1.41 ret. -300 = 0
Hiya, Os. How're you?
Sid
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #945099 ] |
Di, 04 April 2006 03:13 |
|
Sid <sidESSSPAMMMMM [at] MMMMMMAPSSSSEnerte.net> wrote in news:49dtn7Fo9okfU1
[at] individual.net:
>> Several of us totally fucked up on Chelsea of course, but Sid fucked
>> up the worst and as such must don the shameful MICATBG t-shirt for the
>> week. Last worn in week 2, I'm not sure it's been washed since then.
>> Icky.
>
>> Osbourne (222) 222 on Birmingham LOSE vs Chelsea [at] 1.41 ret. -222 =
0
>> Sid ( 300 ) 300 on Birmingham LOSE vs Chelsea [at] 1.41 ret. -300 = 0
>
> Hiya, Os. How're you?
>
Heh, I'm very good thank you Sid. I'm happy enough with my 0 youk haul
for the week. I wanted to make a jump that might possibly offer me a path
into the big money froupers and it all went to fuckery. Pretty much a
suitable return for my faith in Mourinho tbh.
And now I can settle back into 4 weeks of microcockery while I prepare my
assault on the 2006/7 SBL.
--
Cheers, Os
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #945101 ] |
Di, 04 April 2006 03:13 |
|
"Joe Horowitz" <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in
news:2RiYf.7940$zI1.7244 [at] fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
> ****House Of Hopeful Youks headed paper****
>
> Osbourne (222) 222 on Birmingham LOSE vs Chelsea [at] 1.41 ret. -222 = 0
Sid ( 300 ) 300 on Birmingham LOSE vs Chelsea [at] 1.41 ret. -300
Thank you Joe, I think this spells my exit from the SBL for the current
season. I'll get my 'Don't bet on Chelski' forehead tattoo done and we'll
catch up the HOHY for the new season in August.
--
Cheers, Os
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #948419 ] |
Di, 04 April 2006 11:17 |
|
In article <2RiYf.7940$zI1.7244 [at] fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey says...
> ****House Of Hopeful Youks headed paper****
>
> Following much deliberation and consideration, the sexiest betcunt goes to
> Martin this time. The man has big hairy balls of desperation, and it paid
> off.
This is all too much, I've splurged too early. Again.
>
> TonyMac 1177
This cunt has got it won. Unless he does something daft.
> Dat 643
> Vicky 500
These 2 cunts might be tempted into something rash......
> Martin 444
.....allowing this cunt to sneak into second place. Unlikely though. I'm
just basking in the glory of being ahead of Joe.
> Joe 400
> Kullrad 2
Not doing bad for a dead cunt.
M
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #948425 ] |
Di, 04 April 2006 16:45 |
|
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" <bennunn [at] depro.co.uk> wrote in message news:49f2ucFodr4oU1 [at] individual.net...
> My make-or-break AMY gamble paid off this week, and there was the added benefit that Chelsea were held after
> attracting lots of Youkage. Good times. Lucky times.
> Even if Chelsea had won, Sid's decision would still have been rubbish IMHO. He risked his entire competition life when
> he didn't need to, and now looks to be out of contention. (I risked my life too, obviously, but because I'd reached
> the inflection point where it was the correct move).
I have to AWTWP. Last week's panic betcunting surprised me.
I think people sometimes forget that the last SBL round on the
final day of the season is the biggest, most juciest day of the
entire season because of the potential to double betcunt, including
a carry-over betcunt. In that situation, there's not going to be a
huge advantage in having 1200 Youks over having, say, 700 Youks.
Both will probably still have to bet ATY on two successful results
anyway. It's just that the 700 Youker would probably have to go
for something bigger than home wins for Chelsea and Man Utd in
order to win. I've thought for the entire season that anyone with
a couple of hundred Youks on that final day will be in with a shot
and I stand by it.
>> Ben 138
>
> Woo, most Youks I've had all season. But a very tough decision to be made next week, whether to continue the gambling,
> or revert to a more conservative betcunt and see how others do.
Indeed. I'll be very interested to see how you play it from this
point on.
--
Mike
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #948429 ] |
Di, 04 April 2006 17:24 |
|
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 12:17:34 +0100, "Sir Benjamin Nunn"
<bennunn [at] depro.co.uk> wrote:
>Even if Chelsea had won, Sid's decision would still have been rubbish IMHO.
>He risked his entire competition life when he didn't need to, and now looks
>to be out of contention. (I risked my life too, obviously, but because I'd
>reached the inflection point where it was the correct move).
Perhaps my estimation of Tony's ability is too high, but I think
anyone who wants to challenge him is going to have to take some
serious risks from here on in (I've felt that applied to myself for
the last couple of weeks).
Sid could have held 50 or perhaps 100 back, but the time when that is
a sufficient platform from which to launch an attack is slipping away
very quickly, if not already as highlighted by your own bet.
Sid just decided to make his stand now when there's still some hope of
getting amongst it. He gambled on very short odds which many others
thought was an attractive bet, and who the fuck could have imagined
that the fucked up Brummiefucks would prove to be such a hurdle?
As before, I (quite clearly being someone who knows nothing of betting
principles) still can't see how taking the risk to get in touch now
with the finishing line looming is any less valid than sitting back
and hoping everyone in front of you fucks up so much that a couple of
unlikely long odds wins right at the death will get you there. In a
way I think it's the more gallant approach.
If, as you intimated, Tony could conceivably win without risking
further losses, isn't it imperative that at least someone puts
themselves into a position which forces him to continue competing?
--
Dat
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #948431 ] |
Di, 04 April 2006 17:27 |
|
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 00:11:42 GMT, "Joe Horowitz"
<my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey> wrote:
>Several of us totally fucked up on Chelsea of course,
I have to admit, for about 15 minutes there I was a Birmingham fan.
Which is strange as I was Chelsea's biggest ghey cheerleader last
week. Then again, it was Everton for two weeks prior to that.
I've nearly worn this nice blue shirt out.
--
Dat
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #948433 ] |
Di, 04 April 2006 17:28 |
|
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 10:17:47 +0100, Martin <news [at] mandab.co.uk> wrote:
>> TonyMac 1177
>This cunt has got it won. Unless he does something daft.
AWTWP.
>> Dat 643
>> Vicky 500
>These 2 cunts might be tempted into something rash......
Too late. I've had a rash for about a month. Our only hope is to pray
that it's contagious.
>> Martin 444
>....allowing this cunt to sneak into second place. Unlikely though. I'm
>just basking in the glory of being ahead of Joe.
Ben's heading in the right direction. Underestimate him at your peril.
--
Dat
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #948434 ] |
Di, 04 April 2006 17:30 |
|
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 11:09:11 +0000 (UTC), comps [at] riffraff.plig.net
(Vicky Conlan) wrote:
>According to <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey>:
>>Ryan gets a Tiny Penis for placing an unclear betcunt, stating as it did the
>>result but not how many Youks he wished to stake. Poor show.
>
>I assumed he meant an AMY
Me too. Still, he's no worse off.
>>* TonyMac (943) 650 on Arsenal WIN vs Aston Villa [at] 1.36 ret. 884 = 1177
>>* Dat ( 485 ) 255 on West Brom LOSE vs Liverpool [at] 1.62 ret. 413 = 643
>> Vicky ( 579 ) 79 on Bolton DRAW vs Man Utd [at] 3.4 ret. -79 = 500
>
>Dammit, Dat, you're not /meant/ to take me seriously when I tell you it's
>your opportunity to go ahead!
I always take you seriously.
I actually wanted to go with a ManU win, but that seemed a bit too
risky considering your bet.
--
Dat
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #948439 ] |
Di, 04 April 2006 17:51 |
|
"Michael Cunningham" <superman [at] spamxxblockuksf.org.uk> wrote in message
news:EEvYf.7834$j7.294066 [at] news.indigo.ie...
> "Sir Benjamin Nunn" <bennunn [at] depro.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:49f2ucFodr4oU1 [at] individual.net...
>> My make-or-break AMY gamble paid off this week, and there was the added
>> benefit that Chelsea were held after attracting lots of Youkage. Good
>> times. Lucky times.
>
>> Even if Chelsea had won, Sid's decision would still have been rubbish
>> IMHO. He risked his entire competition life when he didn't need to, and
>> now looks to be out of contention. (I risked my life too, obviously, but
>> because I'd reached the inflection point where it was the correct move).
>
> I have to AWTWP. Last week's panic betcunting surprised me.
Not me.
I've already seen enough evidence of people who are quite good at predicting
the outcomes to football matches, but rubbish at understanding Expected
Value, Risk Aversion and assessing the true value of odds.
Sid's betcunt last week was a particularly typical example. He backed
Chelsea, because Chelsea usually win, and he stuck all his Youks on it.
But he started off with 300, which was only a bit less than half the
leader's tally, and Chelsea were underpriced, given that they were playing
away against a team who unarguably have a lot more to play for than them.
Considering the potential scenarios, it is just not a sensible bet at all.
Chelsea win: Sid has about 420 youks, still probably behind TMAK.
Chelsea draw: Sid has nothing and is out of the competition.
Chelsea lose: Same thing.
Your own bet, OTOH, was the perfect balance of risk and reward, given the
position you were in. Whatever the outcome of that game you would still be
in a competitive position.
Likewise, Joe could have pissed away all his Youks, but chose to play it
more conservatively, knowing that Chelsea not winning was a real
possibility, and thus leaving himself youkage to play with in the future.
> I think people sometimes forget that the last SBL round on the
> final day of the season is the biggest, most juciest day of the
> entire season because of the potential to double betcunt, including
> a carry-over betcunt. In that situation, there's not going to be a
> huge advantage in having 1200 Youks over having, say, 700 Youks.
> Both will probably still have to bet ATY on two successful results
> anyway. It's just that the 700 Youker would probably have to go
> for something bigger than home wins for Chelsea and Man Utd in
> order to win. I've thought for the entire season that anyone with
> a couple of hundred Youks on that final day will be in with a shot
> and I stand by it.
AWTWP.
Another thing I've noticed is that the weekly 5 Youk salary has become
almost meaningless as the competition has progressed, and yet we all started
from the same humble balance. Fascinating.
>>> Ben 138
>>
>> Woo, most Youks I've had all season. But a very tough decision to be made
>> next week, whether to continue the gambling, or revert to a more
>> conservative betcunt and see how others do.
>
> Indeed. I'll be very interested to see how you play it from this
> point on.
I expect I shall wager 55 youks on something a bit longer than even money.
BTN
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #948459 ] |
Di, 04 April 2006 20:46 |
|
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" <bennunn [at] depro.co.uk> wrote in message news:49fivtFo9fcrU1 [at] individual.net...
> Considering the potential scenarios, it is just not a sensible bet at all.
>
> Chelsea win: Sid has about 420 youks, still probably behind TMAK.
> Chelsea draw: Sid has nothing and is out of the competition.
> Chelsea lose: Same thing.
Well, I do agree and it's not a bet I'd have gone for but the thing
I love most about the SBL is the differing ways that people play
it. It's a thing of beauty to see how the likes of Sid and TMAK
have played it in comparison to the likes of you and me. I'd
hate to see everyone employ the same strategy.
> Your own bet, OTOH, was the perfect balance of risk and reward,
> given the position you were in. Whatever the outcome
> of that game you would still be in a competitive position.
Thank you, sir. I'm pleased with how I've played it so far. As I'm
sure you can guess, I've taken a lot from discussions that you and
I have had about this sort of thing in the past and applied a lot of that
without having a conspiracy conspiring against me. More than
anything, I'd say my strategy has been to give myself a chance at
the end. Not necessarily to be leading going into the last week
because that's more luck than anything but just to have a shot.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think I've just stolen
your SBL gameplan.
> Likewise, Joe could have pissed away all his Youks, but chose to
> play it more conservatively, knowing that Chelsea not winning was
> a real possibility, and thus leaving himself youkage to play with in
> the future.
AWTWP. Joe's strategy has been a delight to watch.
> Another thing I've noticed is that the weekly 5 Youk salary has become
> almost meaningless as the competition has progressed, and yet we all
> started from the same humble balance. Fascinating.
Indeed. As has the penalty for non-betting. Sure, it's embarrassing
to have a Tiny Penis for a week but when you've got a few hundred
Youks, the lack of a 5-Youk top-up is pretty irrelevant.
--
Mike
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #948467 ] |
Di, 04 April 2006 21:31 |
|
"Vicky Conlan" <comps [at] riffraff.plig.net> wrote in message
news:e0tk4n$k89$1 [at] magenta.plig.net...
> According to <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey>:
>>Ryan gets a Tiny Penis for placing an unclear betcunt, stating as it did
>>the
>>result but not how many Youks he wished to stake. Poor show.
>
> I assumed he meant an AMY
Yeah, so did I.
But the HOHY is not at liberty to make such assumptions.
>>* Kevin ( 15 ) 15 on Huddersfield WIN vs Barnsley [at] 2 ret. 30 = 30
> Woohoo! He won one!!
Daddy rox11!!one!1
--
Joe
Pay it fast it will be great..!!!
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #948468 ] |
Di, 04 April 2006 21:36 |
|
"Sir Benjamin Nunn" <bennunn [at] depro.co.uk> wrote in message
news:49f2ucFodr4oU1 [at] individual.net...
> Of course. This illustrates the end-game theory perfectly.
>
> When you're big-stacked and approaching the end of the competition, the
> importance of every move is far greater than it was earlier in the season,
> and the amounts waged much greater.
AWTWP. In retrospect, though, I don't regret my betcunt too badly, as I
kept enough back to keep me in the running. It was a lowish-risk betcunt
which still fucked up for me, no worries though.
> TMAK could potentially just bet one Youk each week from now on, and would
> have a good chance of staying ahead of the pack without risking his
> balance.
AWTWP. But then he could have been doing that for a few weeks now, that
he's pushed and pushed his luck to further his advantage shows a steely
determination which scares me a little.
> My make-or-break AMY gamble paid off this week, and there was the added
> benefit that Chelsea were held after attracting lots of Youkage. Good
> times. Lucky times.
Indeed. I think yours was a good betcunt whichever way it went, tbh.
> Even if Chelsea had won, Sid's decision would still have been rubbish
> IMHO. He risked his entire competition life when he didn't need to, and
> now looks to be out of contention. (I risked my life too, obviously, but
> because I'd reached the inflection point where it was the correct move).
AWTWP, sort of. I've bet AMY twice this season, both on extremely short
odds. It's not real money, so the gulf between yourself and first is part
of the risk factor, therefore betting safe carries it's own risk either way.
> Woo, most Youks I've had all season. But a very tough decision to be made
> next week, whether to continue the gambling, or revert to a more
> conservative betcunt and see how others do.
Such is the SBL. The fact that mathematically, everyone is still in the
running until the final round of betcunts are all placed makes for an
interesting comp with good legs.
And a nice penis.
--
Joe
Pay it fast it will be great..!!!
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #948477 ] |
Mi, 05 April 2006 00:12 |
|
According to <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey>:
>>>* Kevin ( 15 ) 15 on Huddersfield WIN vs Barnsley [at] 2 ret. 30 = 30
>> Woohoo! He won one!!
>Daddy rox11!!one!1
He was very glad to hear he won. Apparently he thought it was 1-1.
--
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #948519 ] |
Mi, 05 April 2006 18:48 |
|
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 19:46:41 +0100, "Michael Cunningham"
<superman [at] spamxxblockuksf.org.uk> wrote:
>... More than
>anything, I'd say my strategy has been to give myself a chance at
>the end. Not necessarily to be leading going into the last week
>because that's more luck than anything but just to have a shot.
If you are suggesting that leading with your conservative just keep
within reach strategy would be mostly luck then I agree, though
perhaps more likely to be the result of everyone elses lack of it.
However, on the off chance that you were alluding to Tony heading the
table either at present or should he do so going into the last round
as nothing more than a good ride on the fickle winds of fate, then I
think you'd be doing him a great disservice. (I doubt that you were,
but part of being a team player requires that I keep an eye out for my
strike partner)
>Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think I've just stolen
>your SBL gameplan.
Joe, you might like to give serious consideration to forcibly bringing
Mikey's participation in this wonderful competition to an end. Petty
theft would seem to indicate that he's taking the whole thing far too
seriously, and now that he's discovered that it meets his immediate
needs, I'm concerned that it may lead to more serious misdemeanours.
I'm not all that worried about Mikey per se. Every man should be
permitted to paddle their own canoe and all that. What does give me
pause for thought though is that you may find yourself being held to
account should the HOHY continue to encourage his habit now that
obvious cracks have surfaced.
I don't know about your green and pleasant land, but over here those
that encourage irresponsible gambling are starting to find themselves
staring up at a gigantic magnified eyeball. And I'm sure I don't need
to remind you that bar staff/owners have in the past been held liable
for a patron's silly actions in circumstances where they continued to
serve him after he'd quite clearly enjoyed more than his fill.
It would seem that the onus of care is a shared burden these days.
Tread carefully, that's all I'm saying. And what's more, given Mikey's
previously cautious record in this comp, I'm sure he'd agree, if he
were himself an' all.
--
Dat
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #948528 ] |
Mi, 05 April 2006 22:41 |
|
Dat <dat_004 [at] yahoo.co.uk> reduced the crowd to uncontrollable tears by
saying news:ctr732lvfh8hlq50d1aeprng9ad3bvum6i [at] 4ax.com:
>>... More than
>>anything, I'd say my strategy has been to give myself a chance at
>>the end. Not necessarily to be leading going into the last week
>>because that's more luck than anything but just to have a shot.
>
> If you are suggesting that leading with your conservative just keep
> within reach strategy would be mostly luck then I agree, though
> perhaps more likely to be the result of everyone elses lack of it.
>
> However, on the off chance that you were alluding to Tony heading the
> table either at present or should he do so going into the last round
> as nothing more than a good ride on the fickle winds of fate, then I
> think you'd be doing him a great disservice. (I doubt that you were,
> but part of being a team player requires that I keep an eye out for my
> strike partner)
Thanks Dat. You're my new favourite me-defending-possibly-
misinterpreted-Mikey's-statement-hopefully-so strike partner.
Stating the obvious with this, but it is basically a game of chance.
Ben's obviously more experienced with the whole betting lark, what with
his knowledge of John McRirrrirrikirrick's hand signals etc., but I've
always gone with what my groins tell me, and by-and-large that's been
enough.
Recently, I've been significantly influenced by what other people's
balances are and what bets they've placed, but always have I tried, poor
Yorath (Terry), to put a bit of logic on the less G14y betcunts, going
as far to actually check recent form and penis size.
Tbh, I was surprised that so many people put faith in teh Chelsea last
week, especially given their recent form and the fact that Brum are
playing to stay up.
I'm really looking forward to the last few weeks of the SBL, come what
may, because this is where the mad silly bollock-brained results start
coming in.
I think I'm in a position where people have to do one of the following
to catch up if I were to try and consolidate my position by placing very
few Youks from here on in.
1) Bet a decent amount of their Youks, as Vicky has done with her bets
this week, on two relatively long-odds results, albeit both eminently
possible.
Wins in both will give Vicky the lead by probably a large margin. Losses
in both will still leave her with a sizeable sum, but obviously facing
the prospect of falling further behind and having to go for longer odds
in subsequent weeks.
2) Betting all their Youks on the cunty G14, with an excellent chance of
getting ~140% of their Youks back, coupled with the horrid possibility
that their season will be over should one of the giants fail to overcome
their opposition.
3) Summon the Ghost of Skyjam to point the way.
Who knows, I may analblast all my Youks on a couple of bankers that fail
to come in and I'll be posting next week with the MICATBG crotchless
bermuda shorts.
Anyway, fuck it, it's only a game, albeit an engrossing and suspenseful
game that has cemented my planetary respect and deep, satisfying manlove
for Joe.
I've just heard that a swan in Fife has died of bird 'flu. As a marc of
respect, we should all suspend our balances, it's what he would have
wanted.
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #948542 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 01:30 |
|
"Dat" <dat_004 [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:ctr732lvfh8hlq50d1aeprng9ad3bvum6i [at] 4ax.com...
> If you are suggesting that leading with your conservative just keep
> within reach strategy would be mostly luck then I agree, though
> perhaps more likely to be the result of everyone elses lack of it.
It doesn't really make a difference who's leading on any week other
than the one after the last weekend of the season. And the only
two totals that matter are the one you've got to play with going
into that last weekend and the one you've got afterwards. I think
I'll go into that last weekend with a total that will give me a chance.
And if we played the SBL for the next twenty years, I think I'd go
into all subsequent final weekends with a total that would give me
a chance. Same with Ben if he didn't have a conspiracy working
against him. It's a system that will almost always lead to at least
a small profit. Others would be leading with a big total in some
seasons and nowhere to be seen on zero Youks in others. My
point was that my preference is the former.
> However, on the off chance that you were alluding to Tony heading the
> table either at present or should he do so going into the last round
> as nothing more than a good ride on the fickle winds of fate, then I
> think you'd be doing him a great disservice. (I doubt that you were,
> but part of being a team player requires that I keep an eye out for my
> strike partner)
Not so. I actually think TMAK has played a masterful game over
the last couple of months since his AHY bet on Barcelona. He's
pushed on and on, never just settling and letting others close the
gap. He's even forced fatal mistakes from his rivals -- Most noticably
last weekend. Sid and Os are fucked because Tony put them under
so much pressure that they felt they had to gamble everything to keep
up. It's been a masterclass in how to lead from the front. But -- and
last weekend was proof of this -- the difference between having 1100
Youks and having 0 Youks can often be pure good or bad fortune.
I just think it'll be a fascinating experiment to see if TMAK reproduces
this form next season and the one after that. If he does, he should be
doing it professionally.
--
Mike
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #948553 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 02:19 |
|
****House Of Hopeful Youks headed paper****
"Dat" <dat_004 [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ctr732lvfh8hlq50d1aeprng9ad3bvum6i [at] 4ax.com...
> Joe, you might like to give serious consideration to forcibly bringing
> Mikey's participation in this wonderful competition to an end. Petty
> theft would seem to indicate that he's taking the whole thing far too
> seriously, and now that he's discovered that it meets his immediate
> needs, I'm concerned that it may lead to more serious misdemeanours.
Thanks for your concern, Dat, but I think we'll be okay. We've handled
Mikey before and we're confident we could do it again if needed. He's not
actually the troublemaker he's portrayed as, he just needs a voice and some
toys to throw now and again.
> I'm not all that worried about Mikey per se. Every man should be
> permitted to paddle their own canoe and all that. What does give me
> pause for thought though is that you may find yourself being held to
> account should the HOHY continue to encourage his habit now that
> obvious cracks have surfaced.
>
> I don't know about your green and pleasant land, but over here those
> that encourage irresponsible gambling are starting to find themselves
> staring up at a gigantic magnified eyeball. And I'm sure I don't need
> to remind you that bar staff/owners have in the past been held liable
> for a patron's silly actions in circumstances where they continued to
> serve him after he'd quite clearly enjoyed more than his fill.
This is true. But then, the HOHY covers it's own arse in this respect with
the 'not a proper betcunter' rule. Anyone who can't afford to keep
betcunting gets thrown off the premises, might seem harsh but negates the
possibility of ruining some cunts life with this shit.
> It would seem that the onus of care is a shared burden these days.
AWTWP. Some bookies will allow punters to go deeply into debt with them,
then send out the heavies for collection. That's their business. The HOHY
runs a friendly, ethical ship, and we recently were commended by a
gevernment agency in a report on gambling problems.
I quote:
"The House of Hopeful Youks has proven itself to be the most responsible and
socially conscious of all gambling organisations, and we commend them on
their approach. It is understood that their customer service is also highly
rated, whether or not this fledgling business can ever survive in a
cut-throat world is a matter of some doubt, but in an ideal society all
bookmakers would be run this way. Recommend offering them some sort of
tax-relief to encourage expansion".
Which was nice.
> Tread carefully, that's all I'm saying. And what's more, given Mikey's
> previously cautious record in this comp, I'm sure he'd agree, if he
> were himself an' all.
I think Mikey likes and respects the SBL, and would never act in any way he
didn't believe to be in protection of it's integrity. The HOHY values his
custom greatly, as it does yours.
However, we thank you again for your concerns, and wish you the very best of
luck in the season run-in.
--
"VIVA Las BETCUNTS!!!1one!1!!!!legalities1!1!" - Elvis Presley
http://uksf.org.uk/betcunt/
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #948593 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 00:56 |
|
Dat <dat_004 [at] yahoo.co.uk> reduced the crowd to uncontrollable tears by
saying news:11453252eugoir2vp46h98stf73at1b92h [at] 4ax.com:
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 00:11:42 GMT, "Joe Horowitz"
> <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey> wrote:
>
>>Several of us totally fucked up on Chelsea of course,
>
> I have to admit, for about 15 minutes there I was a Birmingham fan.
> Which is strange as I was Chelsea's biggest ghey cheerleader last
> week. Then again, it was Everton for two weeks prior to that.
>
> I've nearly worn this nice blue shirt out.
Ffs Dat, you didn't have to burn a gloryhole into my vintage 1980's League-
winning Hafnia-sponsored Everton top.
How the fuck am I going to explain that to Trevor Steven?
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #948597 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 01:47 |
|
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 20:41:44 GMT, Tony McChrystal
<tony.mcchrystal [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>Thanks Dat. You're my new favourite me-defending-possibly-
>misinterpreted-Mikey's-statement-hopefully-so strike partner.
I like to think of it as erring on the side of caution.
>Stating the obvious with this, but it is basically a game of chance.
Chance would be a fine thing. You'd be pushing shit uphill with a used
tissue without teh luck, but I think it takes that and a bit more. A
little something special if you like.
>Recently, I've been significantly influenced by what other people's
>balances are and what bets they've placed,
So you should be. We're coming to get you. You've been out front too
long and our legs are fresher. Your only hope of staying with us as we
sweep onwards is to put AYY on a Real Sociedaddy win this weekend.
I'm going out in a flurry of anti-Kilmarnockness myself now that the
title is secure, so I can afford to be generous.
>Tbh, I was surprised that so many people put faith in teh Chelsea last
>week, especially given their recent form and the fact that Brum are
>playing to stay up.
It was pure madness. Especially when some lucky fucker had won with a
similar bet just the week before. You can try and milk the same cow
twice, but unless you have the warm, smooth hands she's gonna kick you
where it hurts sooner or later.
>Who knows, I may analblast all my Youks on a couple of bankers that fail
>to come in and I'll be posting next week with the MICATBG crotchless
>bermuda shorts.
I'm banking on this one. You haven't waxed and you know you haven't!
>Anyway, fuck it, it's only a game...
You'll never get anywhere with that attitude young man.
--
Dat
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #948600 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 01:48 |
|
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 00:30:52 +0100, "Michael Cunningham"
<superman [at] spamxxblockuksf.org.uk> wrote:
>"Dat" <dat_004 [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:ctr732lvfh8hlq50d1aeprng9ad3bvum6i [at] 4ax.com...
>> If you are suggesting that leading with your conservative just keep
>> within reach strategy would be mostly luck then I agree, though
>> perhaps more likely to be the result of everyone elses lack of it.
>
>It doesn't really make a difference who's leading on any week other
>than the one after the last weekend of the season. And the only
>two totals that matter are the one you've got to play with going
>into that last weekend and the one you've got afterwards. I think
>I'll go into that last weekend with a total that will give me a chance.
>And if we played the SBL for the next twenty years, I think I'd go
>into all subsequent final weekends with a total that would give me
>a chance. Same with Ben if he didn't have a conspiracy working
>against him. It's a system that will almost always lead to at least
>a small profit.
Couldn't agree more. Barring the last couple, where I think even you
have had a look at the widening void, you've rarely risked much more
than your top up. I actually think you've aimed a little low given
your ability to predict results. Time will tell I guess.
The main difference between yourself and Ben that I can discern, other
than the cuntspiracy and the blurriness, obviously, is that he often
seems tempted by the longer odds. Consequently he wins less.
The two of you show though that even playing conservatively can result
in very different outcomes.
>Others would be leading with a big total in some
>seasons and nowhere to be seen on zero Youks in others. My
>point was that my preference is the former.
I can understand that. You've probably been the most consistent poster
in all my time here. Betting similarly fits perfectly.
I expect that most seasons will pan out like this one with the end
nearing and one or two leading by quite a margin, a few more trailing
but well within reach stretching back to anyone like yourself who
maintained a what they have they hold strategy, and considerably more
floundering around pretty much out of it (I had high hopes of
finishing in that last lot when we began).
My aim as we've sailed along has been to attempt to hang on to the
following pack, but personally I wouldn't be feeling all that
comfortable being as far back as you. Too many with superior
firepower.
Several weeks ago I was behind you and very unhappy with the way
things were going. The leaders were bolting and something had to be
done. I realized that whilst I don't have much of a clue when it comes
to gambling, I'm not the worst person at picking results and that I
was allowing the idea of big returns to influence matters too much.
Hence bigger money on less risky outcomes rather than chasing the
odds.
Wearing the right underpants come match time also has a lot to do with
it, but I'll be fucked if I'll admit to wearing women's underwear on a
public forum.
>> However, on the off chance that you were alluding to Tony heading the
>> table either at present or should he do so going into the last round
>> as nothing more than a good ride on the fickle winds of fate, then I
>> think you'd be doing him a great disservice. (I doubt that you were,
>> but part of being a team player requires that I keep an eye out for my
>> strike partner)
>
>Not so.
I'm glad. I misunderstood but I'm not sure that we are out of the
woods yet...
> I actually think TMAK has played a masterful game over
>the last couple of months since his AHY bet on Barcelona. He's
>pushed on and on, never just settling and letting others close the
>gap. He's even forced fatal mistakes from his rivals -- Most noticably
>last weekend. Sid and Os are fucked because Tony put them under
>so much pressure that they felt they had to gamble everything to keep
>up. It's been a masterclass in how to lead from the front. But -- and
>last weekend was proof of this -- the difference between having 1100
>Youks and having 0 Youks can often be pure good or bad fortune.
Yah, that's football/betting/life, very little is certain. Luck plays
a major part in it all. However your last sentence is partly why I
took issue with your original comment regarding luck.
Obviously anyone could lose ATY in a single rush of blood. That
notwithstanding, Tony has been at the front of this thing or very
close to it throughout almost the entire competition. Why has lady
luck had anymore to do with that than where anyone else finds
themselves? (Even you as your position is dependant upon everyone
elses). I'd argue that consistency lends itself to less.
Taking it further, why don't we just draw straws to decide the SBL?
I know, I've taken it to the extreme as is my wont. I think what you
meant with your original statement (the one I wasn't entirely sure
about) was that anyone of several could find themselves sitting in
front going into the final round, and I agree. I just didn't want
anyone underestimating how powerful and erotic, not to mention
powerful and erotic Tony's efforts have been, least not Tony himself.
I would however qualify your last sentence by saying that the
difference between having lots of youks and none can be down to little
short of luck. What last week showed is that people were willing to
risk 300+ because, as you so rightly highlighted, Tony was so far
ahead and the endtime is near. There's a difference between someone
building and maintaining a sizeable lead and those that had so far
failed to do so feeling that matters were getting desperate.
Too pedantic? Just thinking of the Tony, man. It's all about the Tony.
>I just think it'll be a fascinating experiment to see if TMAK reproduces
>this form next season and the one after that. If he does, he should be
>doing it professionally.
He may not be quite as dominant, but I doubt that you'll find him
haunting street corners begging for youks.
This is where I don't see your approach being any better than those
who have gambled early. Excluding winning by attrition, which I don't
think is all that likely given the number in the field and the keen
awareness some seem to have of the goings on in the world of premier
league football, you're likely to achieve your aim of entering the
last round with an outside chance, a very long shot should you
continue to trail the leader by so much and still have three or four
competitors with at least double your youkage. To attempt to draw some
sort of comparison with poker (which I'm loath to do because it isn't
a very good fit but is no worse than my previous race one), you're
looking to play a couple of hands for the title with quite possibly
the lowest stack at the table (of those with any hope) by a not
inconsiderable sum against people who have imho displayed no less
talent for this thing than yourself.
You've toiled all season with the aim of securing a stab in the dark
as far as I can see, which imo ain't any better than those who sought
to arm themselves with a longer sword or nightvision goggles perhaps,
before the deathmatch. You've been more circumspect with your
comments, but you did agree with Ben's opinion that Sid's AMY bet was
rubbish. I don't see it that way and it grates a little. Quite a bit
actually.
Is deciding to spin the prize wheel early and taking the risk of
putting yourself in with a reasonable chance of competing towards the
end less clever than puttering along and hoping that the final odds,
however long and unlikely they might be, are going to be sufficient to
give you any hope of overtaking the half dozen or so folk in front who
have to date had more "luck" and won't be required to depend upon such
unlikely results?
I don't think either way is particularly worse than the other and
would quite like to sit down with Ben and have him explain the error
of my ways with simple diagrams and the like. I was crap at
probability and statistics though, so it'd most likely be a lost
cause. Tbh it all makes my head spin, which is why it's taken me
almost an hour to mould this reply which still falls short of what I'm
attempting to convey.
To my mind those like Tony who risked ATY early have almost given
themselves two bites at the SBL cherry. Their actions have put them
into a position where they could continue to play conservatively (had
they wanted to) and still take the lesser odds as we head towards the
end. Had they lost the lot, the ten or twelve rounds remaining
wouldn't have precluded them from still getting back into a position
not dissimilar to yours with some sensible betting and the necessary
dollop of luck.
Canny dood that TMAK.
Still wouldn't mind seeing you wipe that goofy smile off the smug
bugger's face though.
--
Dat
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #948601 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 01:48 |
|
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 00:19:58 GMT, "Joe Horowitz"
<my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey> wrote:
>Thanks for your concern, Dat, but I think we'll be okay. We've handled
>Mikey before and we're confident we could do it again if needed. He's not
>actually the troublemaker he's portrayed as, he just needs a voice and some
>toys to throw now and again.
Hmm, he sounds like a bit of a cunt to me.
>This is true. But then, the HOHY covers it's own arse in this respect with
>the 'not a proper betcunter' rule. Anyone who can't afford to keep
>betcunting gets thrown off the premises, might seem harsh but negates the
>possibility of ruining some cunts life with this shit.
Yes, that seems to cover vagrants, but my concern was more to do with
associating with known criminals and possibly being seen to be
encouraging their habit.
I'm sure you know what you're doing. Just keep an eye on him if he
brings his laundry though. I've watched a few cop shows and the
laundering seems to be where it all comes out in the wash.
>"The House of Hopeful Youks has proven itself to be the most responsible and
>socially conscious of all gambling organisations, and we commend them on
>their approach. It is understood that their customer service is also highly
>rated, whether or not this fledgling business can ever survive in a
>cut-throat world is a matter of some doubt, but in an ideal society all
>bookmakers would be run this way. Recommend offering them some sort of
>tax-relief to encourage expansion".
>
>Which was nice.
It certainly is. Their comment regarding continuing viability should
be ringing alarm bells though. You don't want to become yet another
Carrot Cake.
>I think Mikey likes and respects the SBL, and would never act in any way he
>didn't believe to be in protection of it's integrity.
I'm often struck by the way some employers, particularly those that
busy themselves on several fronts, sometimes think that menial staff
should have as much concern for their business as they themselves do.
I don't just mean in an "it's your livelihood too" manner, more an "I
pop in to do what I've got to do late at night even though it's
inconvenient (because I'm off enjoying a business lunch, an afternoon
on the golf course, and tending to my other enterprises most of the
time), why can't you do the same?" way.
I worry that you may have developed a similar faith in your patrons.
> The HOHY values his
>custom greatly, as it does yours.
Oh you're so sweet. I really like HOHY Joe. Everyday Joe is good too,
more than, but HOHY Joe is like an angel or something.
>However, we thank you again for your concerns, and wish you the very best of
>luck in the season run-in.
You too, Joe, you too.
--
Dat
|
|
|
| Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 33 results [message #948608 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 01:55 |
|
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 22:56:15 GMT, Tony McChrystal
<tony.mcchrystal [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>Dat <dat_004 [at] yahoo.co.uk> reduced the crowd to uncontrollable tears by
>saying news:11453252eugoir2vp46h98stf73at1b92h [at] 4ax.com:
>> I've nearly worn this nice blue shirt out.
>
>Ffs Dat, you didn't have to burn a gloryhole into my vintage 1980's League-
>winning Hafnia-sponsored Everton top.
>
>How the fuck am I going to explain that to Trevor Steven?
I'd start off by pointing out that it's only a friction burn and that
I tried to ease it's pain by applying a salve.
--
Dat
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Di Sep 7 06:41:02 CEST 2010
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,17768 Sekunden |
