>
> Krus T. Olfard wrote:

>> "HC" aol.com> wrote in news:1169308042.223001.114540@
>> 51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com:
>>

>>>
>>> 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.
>