Krus T. Olfard wrote:
>>
>> Ray Gordon, creator of lies and deceit wrote:
>>> There's nothing that says pushes have to count.
>>
>> A selection on a game is made, it is a selection on a game.
>>
>> Parker said he was going to produce 60 wins in 100 selections.
>>
>> There has been NO ARGUMENT presented, right or wrong, it hasn't even
>> been presented, as to why a push shouldn't count as one of his picks.
>>
>> Of course they count, he said "60 wins in 100 picks."
>>
>> If a pick pushed, it counts as one of the 100 picks. Why shouldn't it?
>>
>> So, he made 3 picks, and then made a 4th pick. Who the picks are on is
>> IRRELEVANT.
>>
>> His record is not at that time 2-0 but rather 2-0-2.
>>
>> The units are the same, but he used up two more picks.
>>
>> As this progresses, lets say when he's down to 50 picks, and he posts
>> one play and he pushes, his unit total remains the same but its another
>> notch off the 100 picks that he says hes going to produce 60 wins
>> with.
>>
>> "100 picks, 60 wins."
>>
>> There has been no argument presented as to why a push shouldn't count
>> as one of the 100 picks. It's a pick. He said 100 picks. Subtract a
>> pick from every winner, loser, and push posted, from the 100 picks.
>>
>> Anything less than that would be FRAUD.
>>
>> It's just the way it is. A push tiesup bankroll. It is a pick. He said
>> 100 picks. It counts as a pick.
>>
>> Unless the claimis that the push wasnot actually a pick . . . which is
>> ridiculous, because it is a pick. And he said 100 picks.
>>
>> "100 picks, 60 winners." That's what he said.
>>
>>
>>
>>> A push is a NO-PLAY. While
>>> it can be counted as a tie, it can also not be counted.
>>
>>
>> This is like saying that because "Ray Gordon" is an idiot, he can't
>> also be a moron.
>>
>> A push is not a "NO-PLAY." Only in so far as you don't lose any money
>> on it is it ano play. You make the bet, the game is played, it pushed,
>> you get your money refunded. But the game was still played. It may not
>> count as a unit, but it sure as shit counts as a play, because IT IS
>> ONE.
>>
>>> Either way is
>>> correct.
>>>
>>
>> If "Ray Gordon" didn't have somekind of ridiculous 60 wins in100 plays
>> bullshit routine running, it would be the same thing.
>>
>> But in this case it is not.
>>
>>> 2-0-2 and 3-1 are exactly the same +2.0 units using either system.
>>
>> THAT is correct.
>>
>>> For my
>>> "100 picks" I am not counting pushes.
>>>
>>>
>> That is INCORRECT, and "Ray Gordon" the EXPERT HANDICAPPER, knows it.
>>
>> The picks were made. Once you make a pick its yours to keep, as
>> evidenced by the fact that to cancel a bet, one has to make ANOTHER bet
>> and pay the vig. Even though that would result in only a $10 loss on
>> the two $100 bets, you STILL have to actually be in possession of the
>> $220 needed to do it . . . the $110 to actually make the bet in the
>> first place, and the $110 to buy back the other side. So even though it
>> pushed in this instance, you still needed to tie up $220 even though
>> you'll get it back at the end. If you don't have the $110 to use to
>> cancel the bet, even though there is no way you can lose more than $10
>> at the most, you can't cancel the bet if you don't have the extra $110.
>> One reason a person might not have the extra $110 is because maybe
>> they lost all their bankroll already.
>>
>> "100 picks, 60 winners."
>>
>> A push is a pick. A buyback is a pick. Not counting them as picks
>> towards the 100 picks total is FRAUD.
>>
>>
>
> I don't know shit about handicapping but it seems to me that if he had
> stated at the start before any picks were made that part of his claim
> would involve pushes not counting as picks then he would be standing on
> firm ground.
>
> My belief about things like this has always been that as long as you set
> the bounds within which the activity functions before the activity begins
> then you are okay but that if you try to start adjusting bounds after the
> activity has started then you've lost. This also includes if you are
> working within an accepted framework that you do not start trying to
> adjust that framework after the activity has started - sort of like in a
> free throw contest on a basketball court you do not get to start claiming
> that hitting the rim is worth 1 point after your ball hits the rim but
> does not go in.
>
Well Krus, here's the thing. There are two different things going on
here.
1) Does a "push"count as a pick?
and
2) Does buying back a pick count as two picks?
I would almost be willing to concede that a "push" dosn't count as a
pick, even though your money is tied up (and you need to have that
money available in your bankroll to make the bet in the first place). A
push is in fact referred to as a "no play" almost everywhere if not
absolutely everywhere.
But what we have here is something else. We're *really* talking about
buying back a pick you make, by betting the other side, thereby
cancelling it out and accepting the -0.10 units that it usually results
in.
Buying back a pick is NEVER referred to as a no play. So therefore in
this instance, the two plays (both on the same game, one pick on team A
and the other pick on the team they're playing, team B), SHOULD count
as two picks off the 100 he's claiming he will be posting.
Perhaps because the result of the buy back was two pushes, maybe they
shouldn't count as two plays off the 100. I need more info from
somebody with a degree in mathematics or statistics. My "instincts"
tell me that because the money is tied up pending the outcome and final
result of the game, they should count as picks.
He's fighting this because it's more difficult to pick 60 winners out
of 98 picks rather than 60 winners out of 100 picks.
In essence, he's giving himself an extra two picks to work with here in
order to achieve his 60 win goal.
I dunno . . . I'm no mathematician . . . but something tells me that
what he's doing might even be hurting his chances to achieve the 60%%
win rate that he is claiming he will do.
Because 60-38 = 61.22%% winners and 60-40 = 60%% winners.
I admit the math is confusing me, probably because I'm hungover like a
bat.
But being that as it is, I ahven't seena valid argument supporting the
notion that buying back a pick doesn't use up two picks.
He didn't post ONE play and it pushed, and he's calling it a no play
which might be reasonable.
He's talking about TWO plays, both on the same game, or buying back a
pick.
I really wish Brian, or Collard, or James, or Steve,etc. or one of the
other mathematicians from RGS would chime in here and clarify, and
include at the very least ASF in with their reply.
> --
> Krustavus Teofilus Olfard
>
>
>
> ------------------
> Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
> killfile me, if you have the balls.
>
> BTW: If there is one clear rule in this world, it's "Do NOT stick your
> finger in the ancient alien coffin."
