Roast Something is about to drop...

Remove this Banner Ad

You mean there are some GF tickets allocated to members before sponsors? News to me - gamble responsibly!!
Actually there isn’t.

I was just using journalism when posting that :D
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Will we miss finals without him??? I doubt it. We are set up well enough not to drop out of the top 8.
Indeed it will be interesting to see who we can throw in the fwd line this time.
As they say in the commercials, don't imitate but innovate.
A veteran player, a recycled mid season draftee, R2D2 or a long forgotten sweeper?
Different attributes, different fwd mix and let's see what works.
Did I say we would miss finals?
Because I’m pretty sure I didn’t. Top 2 I think is gone.
Top 4 is now a struggle.
He is the igniter, as the stats on 360 bore out last night.
Number 1 player in the AFL for goals scored in the first 10 minutes.
Hard to replace.
 
This is another bit that sh:ts me about the penalty. The intent is to prevent match fixing that undermines the integrity of the game. It was chump change and isn't enough to motivate match fixing. You'd think he was Hans Cronje or something. It was dumb to do but motivated by a bit of fun with mates rather than something sinister. Plus he self reported. I cant help but think those fairly important mitigating circumstances were not properly considered in handing out the penalty.

You know people can win tens of thousands off small multi bets right? And he's still on his initial draftee contract so it's not like he's rich yet.
 
You know people can win tens of thousands off small multi bets right? And he's still on his initial draftee contract so it's not like he's rich yet.
You really don’t seem to have a grasp on gambling and how it works.
If it’s a small outlay say for argument sake a $12 stake.
To win tens of thousands as you suggest, that’s odds of minimum 1000/1 (give or take).

You do realise if you’re getting $1000 for $1 your chances are LESS than 1 in a thousand?

Gambling outlets are not charity distribution centres (I know hard to believe) they’re there to say thanks, your money is our money.” They’re taking more than giving.

So doing a small bet for huge odds is (or should be) a “throw away“ fun thing.

Who knows, maybe a few bets and somebody flukes a win. That means 1,000 plus people have lost their dough.
 
You really don’t seem to have a grasp on gambling and how it works.
If it’s a small outlay say for argument sake a $12 stake.
To win tens of thousands as you suggest, that’s odds of minimum 1000/1 (give or take).

You do realise if you’re getting $1000 for $1 your chances are LESS than 1 in a thousand?

Gambling outlets are not charity distribution centres (I know hard to believe) they’re there to say thanks, your money is our money.” They’re taking more than giving.

So doing a small bet for huge odds is (or should be) a “throw away“ fun thing.

Who knows, maybe a few bets and somebody flukes a win. That means 1,000 plus people have lost their dough.

Lol... I'm quite clearly not disputing that at all, what I'm saying is that to the posters who say "well he only bet only $50" doesn't work as an excuse because you can bet say 20 on a multi involving multiple legs like Stevo to kick 3, Pendle to get 30, Maynard to kick a goal ect and potentially win a significant amount of money. If he was 1 leg off winning thousands of dollars maybe he changes how he plays in order to win that bet? That's corruption, and why the "he only bet small" argument doesn't have much weight.

Everything you say is incredibly obvious and has not been disputes by anyone as far as I'm aware, but thanks for the enlightenment.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lol... I'm quite clearly not disputing that at all, what I'm saying is that to the posters who say "well he only bet only $50" doesn't work as an excuse because you can bet say 20 on a multi involving multiple legs like Stevo to kick 3, Pendle to get 30, Maynard to kick a goal ect and potentially win a significant amount of money. If he was 1 leg off winning thousands of dollars maybe he changes how he plays in order to win that bet? That's corruption, and why the "he only bet small" argument doesn't have much weight.

Everything you say is incredibly obvious and has not been disputes by anyone as far as I'm aware, but thanks for the enlightenment.
My pleasure.
Happy to help

:)
 
Did I say we would miss finals?
Because I’m pretty sure I didn’t. Top 2 I think is gone.
Top 4 is now a struggle.
He is the igniter, as the stats on 360 bore out last night.
Number 1 player in the AFL for goals scored in the first 10 minutes.
Hard to replace.

If three years ago I told you that midway through 2019 season we will be 9 and 3, when one of our forwards named “Stephenson” will be suspended for half a season over a betting scandal, but there’s a bloke named “Daicos” who is available to come in and replace him ...

... you probably would have been all rainbows and lollipops.
 
Is it true that to win tens of thousands the odds have to be at least 1000 to 1?
You likely know the answer.
But in case.
To help your enlightenment the example used was a $12 stake, so multiplication is your friend.

In case you’re being smart (nothing wrong with that) there can be giveaways and boosts and all sorts of promotions but that money is coming from somewhere (advertising / promotion budget or offset by other bet forms).

Ultimately betting is about numbers. For the house to win, it must give less away than it takes.
So for $12 to become $12,000 the maths tells you the story (remembering the house wants its cut).
 
If three years ago I told you that midway through 2019 season we will be 9 and 3, when one of our forwards named “Stephenson” will be suspended for half a season over a betting scandal, but there’s a bloke named “Daicos” who is available to come in and replace him ...

... you probably would have been all rainbows and lollipops.
You old stoner you

o_O
 
If three years ago I told you that midway through 2019 season we will be 9 and 3, when one of our forwards named “Stephenson” will be suspended for half a season over a betting scandal, but there’s a bloke named “Daicos” who is available to come in and replace him ...

... you probably would have been all rainbows and lollipops.

That would have been basing Daics ability upon his old mans ability. Which I don’t think I would do.
But you are right about the no name Stephenson. If you had of spiced it up with the said player also having a heart issue then I would have been aghast.
But....now we aren’t dealing in fantasy but facts, I’ll repeat that Stephenson is a bigger loss than we think. And Daics still isn’t anywhere near Stephensons ability to turn a game.
 
in other news....


Is there other news....
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top