Synchronicity And Deja Vu

[kirklancaster]

I had another 'weird' experience of 'synchronicity' on New Years Eve day, which I wasn't going to post because of much heated controversy when I posted similar incredible but perfectly true phenomena in an earlier thread, but because this incident was followed by an equally weird example of 'Deja Vu' yesterday morning, I cannot resist posting for your comments.

The first example of 'synchronicity' was witnessed by 6 people, and the second of 'Deja Vu' was witnessed by my wife and her sister.

On the morning of the 31st of December, I was 'chilling' at home with my wife and two other couples, and at around 12.30 I switched the T.V. to the racing channel for me Dean and Ben to watch while our three partners went into the kitchen to make coffee and snacks where they remained to carry on chatting.

Dean had already placed horseracing bets that morning at his home via his online bookies account, but none on any races at Punchestown in Ireland, and I had not even looked at horseracing for weeks.

Then the 1.45 race at Punchestown came on and my attention was immediately drawn to the rank outsider in the field - a horse called; 'He'llberemembered' at odds of 33/1. I had a persistent strong intuition that this horse was going to win and I told Dean to back it.

I have had these inexplicable strong intuitions many times before and I immediately went onto my own online account and placed an each way bet on the horse at 33/1 even though there was a strong 7/4 favourite in the field and despite there being only 2 places.

Dean knows all about my 'intuition' as he's been my friend for years, so he used my laptop to place a sizable win bet on the horse as he never backs each way.

And here comes the really weird part; just before the race was due to be off Dean went to the downstairs cloaks which was through the kitchen and through the utility room, and as he walked past the women who were seated chatting over coffee, he overheard his own girlfriend saying; "yeah, but he'll be remembered for all the right reasons".

Now, Dean knows all about 'synchronicity' from me and has witnessed many occasions when it has happened, so he immediately doubled back and told us about what had happened as he hurriedly placed another win bet on the horse. He then continued to the toilet.

(It later transpired that the women had been discussing Cliff Richard and the damage the sex allegation had on his image.)

Dean returned as the runners were off and he jokingly warned me that I'd better be right with my 'intuition' and my theories on 'synchronicity'.

The race was quite eventful; the strong favourite fell, and our 33/1 rank outsider was in a thrilling finish with 'Sadler's Risk' - a strongly fancied 7/2 shot - only to lose by a 'head' in a photo finish and come second.

I was OK each way, but Dean had lost, and though he was quite philosophical about it and blamed himself for not backing it each way at those huge odds, he did 'rib' me about my intuition that the horse would 'win'.

Now here's the perfectly true, really weirdest part of all - later that day, it was announced that the horse who had won the race; Sadler's Risk, was disqualified due to having carried 4lb less weight than he should have, and the runner up, 'He'llbe remembered' was promoted to winner.

The ensuing cheering from my front room could have been heard a mile away, and the girls came in to see what the fuss was about. Marie - Dean's girlfriend - was so pleased that she had played a part in this win that she immediately commandeered most of his winnings.

Here's the result copied and pasted from the Racing Post:

Race Result Punchestown Wed, 31st Dec, 2014
2m. 4f. Hurdle.

1st hd He'llberemembered (IRE) 11-9 (Mrs Mary Lett)
SP 33/1
P G Fahey
J J Burke(3)

settled behind leaders, slight mistake 3rd, left 3rd at 5th, mistake 4 out, slight mistake 3 out, ridden into 2nd entering straight, challenged last, disputed run-in and kept on well, just held home (promoted to 1st)

Now, I wasn't going to relate the above true incident, because of being called everything from a liar to an over imaginative dreamer in my last genuine post on synchronicity, but Dean, Marie, Ben, Hayley and my wife all say that they will join TIBB just to confirm this - and other weird occurrences they've witnessed with me and synchronicity (for want of a better term), then a very real incident of 'Deja Vu' which occurred yesterday determined me to 'post and be damned'.

My wife Tracy, and Marie and me, were sprawled (on separate sofas) watching a film - 'Con Air' with Nicolas Cage - when Tracy made a remark about John Malkovich who plays 'Cyrus The Virus. I immediately had that strange sensation which we call 'Deja Vu' and told them so, adding that the postman comes and pushes a huge amount of mail through the door, and within a minute that's exactly what happened; the postman came and huge amounts of mail thudded onto the hall floor through the letterbox.

Synchronicity and Deja Vu. Reasonable, non-aggressive responses please, especially from anyone who has also experienced these phenomena too.

[Ammi]

...hmmm, I don't know what your theories are on this..synchronicity/deja vue ..I know we've all probably experienced these things and it does feel a bit weird but I think for everyone that there are just times in our lives where things align like that and because it does feel a bit spooky, we remember them and take note of them but for the majority of time, these things don't happen but those times are just not of any note because of that...I can't give an explanation about the horse race because I believe that sometimes 'odd' things just happen and not everything can be explained..and with your mail...well, after the hoidays and delayed post, it would have probably been one of the busiest mail days and also New Year is a huge time for junk mail etc and just end of year stuff to come through..?..I do totally believe you btw..I don't think you have anything to 'prove' and it's also what you believe to be the reasons for what happened...

[Northern Monkey]

I agree with Ammi.This stuff happens to me loads.With me it's usually stuff on telly.I'll be talking to my girlfriend and someone on telly will say the exact word i just said at around the same time.Or i'll hear a word that i've hardly ever heard before and then i'll hear it 3-4 times on the same day in different places.It happened to me in early December quite a few times,I think i even posted on here about one incident in a thread.My girlfriend told me i should pick the lottery numbers.Honestly though...I just put it down to coincidence.I'm quite a skeptical person generally with things.I believe certain things but this stuff and religion and ghosts etc i don't.

[kirklancaster]

...hmmm, I don't know what your theories are on this..synchronicity/deja vue ..I know we've all probably experienced these things and it does feel a bit weird but I think for everyone that there are just times in our lives where things align like that and because it does feel a bit spooky, we remember them and take note of them but for the majority of time, these things don't happen but those times are just not of any note because of that...I can't give an explanation about the horse race because I believe that sometimes 'odd' things just happen and not everything can be explained..and with your mail...well, after the hoidays and delayed post, it would have probably been one of the busiest mail days and also New Year is a huge time for junk mail etc and just end of year stuff to come through..?..I do totally believe you btw..I don't think you have anything to 'prove' and it's also what you believe to be the reasons for what happened...

Thank you Ammi,

Some scientists say 'Deja Vu' is merely a delay in the perception of 'data' by our senses and the processing of it by our brains, but that does not explain the occurrence of this phenomena when other individuals are not only present but are part of it.

It is - as you say - so widespread an experience that I feel it is dismissed too readily.

As to 'intuition' and 'synchronicity' - this too is far more widespread than most would believe and there have been many notable studies and books written on the subject, but again, it is a very real phenomena which is too readily dismissed.

We all know and have experienced 'sixth sense' moments in our lives; thinking of someone we haven't seen for years when the phone rings and it's them calling, suddenly and inexplicably calling off going to a party only to find out later that your 'worst enemy' surprisingly attended etc, but we dismiss it as 'coincidence' (a nice convenient word if ever there was one).

I know that some non natural (I desist from saying 'supernatural') phenomena exists which we term 'synchronicity' and I know another non natural force exists which we call 'intuition', but neither can really be explained away in purely orthodox scientific terms.

I once received a £10.00 free bet on my 'Paddy Power' account, and as it was an unexpected bonus and not my own money, I indulged myself and backed horses with it strictly according to my intuition regardless of form etc.

I ended up winning over £1,500 by way of 90% continuously winning small each way bets. (Can be proven)

I have sadly, also wagered my own loot in the distant past purely on my intuition and lost, because - as I now know from much experience - such a 'force' comes in cycles and is impossible to predict or control - - if only I could.

Once again, however, the statistical success rate when my 'intuition' is in full flow far exceeds given accepted 'chance' expectations, and cannot readily be dismissed or explained away as coincidence which is something entirely different.

Perhaps only gamblers can fully understand the significance of backing a horse to win a race, when its odds are 40/1 because its form figures read; Pulled up, Pulled up, Fell, Pulled up, Fell, Last, Fell, and there is an odds on favourite in the field and others with impressive form figures, only for the 40/1 shot to win.

Anyway, Ammi, thanks for your feedback - intelligent, informed, relevant, and non-aggressive as always.

[arista]

[Some scientists say 'Deja Vu' is merely a delay in the perception of 'data' by our senses ]

For Sure


GPEwTfJSmhU

[kirklancaster]

I agree with Ammi.This stuff happens to me loads.With me it's usually stuff on telly.I'll be talking to my girlfriend and someone on telly will say the exact word i just said at around the same time.Or i'll hear a word that i've hardly ever heard before and then i'll hear it 3-4 times on the same day in different places.It happened to me in early December quite a few times,I think i even posted on here about one incident in a thread.My girlfriend told me i should pick the lottery numbers.Honestly though...I just put it down to coincidence.I'm quite a skeptical person generally with things.I believe certain things but this stuff and religion and ghosts etc i don't.

Thanks Paul.

Have you ever sat and seriously thought about just what 'coincidence' is Paul? It's one of certain 'terms' which we have come to accept to explain away phenomena of which a lot is inexplicable within the parameters of accepted science.

I think you may be actually more 'receptive' to 'non-natural' forces than you think.

[kirklancaster]

[Some scientists say 'Deja Vu' is merely a delay in the perception of 'data' by our senses ]

For Sure

GPEwTfJSmhU

What?

A delay in the 'perceiving and processing' of data by our own senses and brains is perfectably feasible to answer why we personally may feel we have experienced an exact given situation before, but how can it account for a situation where other people outside our own personal physiological processes are involved - especially where dialogue with such people ensues, during which a prediction is made of an event specific to the 'Deja Vu experience, which is then fulfilled?

People forming an external reality as part of a Deja Vu experience are independent of our physiological processes and not subject to any anomalies therein, so there's absolutely no way that such an experience can be explained away by 'science'.

[Ammi]

..ok, I have loads to do and you're distracting me, Kirk..:laugh:..so I'll just make this little one last post at the moment...

..I guess I can't really understand the analogy used with the horses because I don't understand the betting principles as such or 'intuition' bets etc..?...my son has a friend who is somewhat brilliant at maths and sciences...I mean really gifted...anyway..he dropped out of uni because he had a huge success with poker and so decided to proceed with that professionally...he had huge wins and was in all of the big world poker championships etc and made many hundreds of thousands in his very young life..now the thing with that was that he never felt 'lucky' as such or ever had instincts but his skills were merely mathematical because he was so gifted so it was all basically calculated...?..that doesn't mean that he never lost though because you can never totally work out every scenario etc so obviously he had huge losses as well...anyway..maybe there is a similar 'mathematics' which could also be applied with horse racing and the outsider bet..?..(or whatever it's called..)...but because you believe in intuition/sychronicity etc...you've accepted that and haven't explored any further, that you indeed more have quite a gifted mathematical brain and without realising it...these are not 'hunches' but something worked out by that brain and obviously with unpredictability..you'll still win some and lose some, type thing...?...hmmm, it's interesting....

..with what Paul said...I do think that our minds at certain times more than others are attuned to hearing or seeing a certain thing and noting it more than at another time and there would also be lots of reasons for that..but then having heard that something etc....we then stay attuned and alert to hearing it repeated and think....wow, that's odd...but it may be that others have said it around us lots of times or we have seen it on TV etc but other factors with our thought processes or things that have been in our minds at that time mean that we haven't actually heard it/or our brains haven't acknowledged it..?...

...sorry it's a rushed post and I hope it makes sense/I have so many chore to do....:amazed:..


..I'll be interested to read lots of thoughts in this thread though....

[Crimson Dynamo]

Jesus H Kirk, every betting punter does this - its the same as a granny betting on a National Horse with the same name as her postman as he reminds her that morning to bet and the horse wins.:joker:

I very much doubt you would ever post on here about the ones that did not win but you had a similar "feeling in your water"

People only remember the things they want and forget all the rest.




"déjà vu as caused by a person having a brief glimpse of an object or situation, before the brain has completed "constructing" a full conscious perception of the experience. Such a "partial perception" then results in a false sense of familiarity"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9j%C3%A0_vu

[Northern Monkey]

Thanks Paul.

Have you ever sat and seriously thought about just what 'coincidence' is Paul? It's one of certain 'terms' which we have come to accept to explain away phenomena of which a lot is inexplicable within the parameters of accepted science.

I think you may be actually more 'receptive' to 'non-natural' forces than you think.To me,Coincidence is just 'chance'.With only so many words in our vocabulary,So many horses in a race,So many numbers in the lottery,So much time in our lives and with so many people in the world.
Chances are,Certain paths will meet at certain times.Even multiple times.For instance,With so many people who play the lottery,Chances are that somebody will win it.I think that 'coincidence' is inevitable.Yes these things do seem to happen to people in groups of incidences and that i cannot explain.Maybe our brains are more perceptive of certain things at times or maybe 'chance' plays its part.However for me,That is not enough evidence of a controlling power making this happen.Although i am not totally closed minded or set in my opinion.It is just the most likely scenario that i can see.

[Cherie]

I had another 'weird' experience of 'synchronicity' on New Years Eve day, which I wasn't going to post because of much heated controversy when I posted similar incredible but perfectly true phenomena in an earlier thread, but because this incident was followed by an equally weird example of 'Deja Vu' yesterday morning, I cannot resist posting for your comments.

The first example of 'synchronicity' was witnessed by 6 people, and the second of 'Deja Vu' was witnessed by my wife and her sister.

On the morning of the 31st of December, I was 'chilling' at home with my wife and two other couples, and at around 12.30 I switched the T.V. to the racing channel for me Dean and Ben to watch while our three partners went into the kitchen to make coffee and snacks where they remained to carry on chatting.

Dean had already placed horseracing bets that morning at his home via his online bookies account, but none on any races at Punchestown in Ireland, and I had not even looked at horseracing for weeks.

Then the 1.45 race at Punchestown came on and my attention was immediately drawn to the rank outsider in the field - a horse called; 'He'llberemembered' at odds of 33/1. I had a persistent strong intuition that this horse was going to win and I told Dean to back it.

I have had these inexplicable strong intuitions many times before and I immediately went onto my own online account and placed an each way bet on the horse at 33/1 even though there was a strong 7/4 favourite in the field and despite there being only 2 places.

Dean knows all about my 'intuition' as he's been my friend for years, so he used my laptop to place a sizable win bet on the horse as he never backs each way.

And here comes the really weird part; just before the race was due to be off Dean went to the downstairs cloaks which was through the kitchen and through the utility room, and as he walked past the women who were seated chatting over coffee, he overheard his own girlfriend saying; "yeah, but he'll be remembered for all the right reasons".

Now, Dean knows all about 'synchronicity' from me and has witnessed many occasions when it has happened, so he immediately doubled back and told us about what had happened as he hurriedly placed another win bet on the horse. He then continued to the toilet.

(It later transpired that the women had been discussing Cliff Richard and the damage the sex allegation had on his image.)

Dean returned as the runners were off and he jokingly warned me that I'd better be right with my 'intuition' and my theories on 'synchronicity'.

The race was quite eventful; the strong favourite fell, and our 33/1 rank outsider was in a thrilling finish with 'Sadler's Risk' - a strongly fancied 7/2 shot - only to lose by a 'head' in a photo finish and come second.

I was OK each way, but Dean had lost, and though he was quite philosophical about it and blamed himself for not backing it each way at those huge odds, he did 'rib' me about my intuition that the horse would 'win'.

Now here's the perfectly true, really weirdest part of all - later that day, it was announced that the horse who had won the race; Sadler's Risk, was disqualified due to having carried 4lb less weight than he should have, and the runner up, 'He'llbe remembered' was promoted to winner.

The ensuing cheering from my front room could have been heard a mile away, and the girls came in to see what the fuss was about. Marie - Dean's girlfriend - was so pleased that she had played a part in this win that she immediately commandeered most of his winnings.

Here's the result copied and pasted from the Racing Post:

Race Result Punchestown Wed, 31st Dec, 2014
2m. 4f. Hurdle.

1st hd He'llberemembered (IRE) 11-9 (Mrs Mary Lett)
SP 33/1
P G Fahey
J J Burke(3)

settled behind leaders, slight mistake 3rd, left 3rd at 5th, mistake 4 out, slight mistake 3 out, ridden into 2nd entering straight, challenged last, disputed run-in and kept on well, just held home (promoted to 1st)

Now, I wasn't going to relate the above true incident, because of being called everything from a liar to an over imaginative dreamer in my last genuine post on synchronicity, but Dean, Marie, Ben, Hayley and my wife all say that they will join TIBB just to confirm this - and other weird occurrences they've witnessed with me and synchronicity (for want of a better term), then a very real incident of 'Deja Vu' which occurred yesterday determined me to 'post and be damned'.

My wife Tracy, and Marie and me, were sprawled (on separate sofas) watching a film - 'Con Air' with Nicolas Cage - when Tracy made a remark about John Malkovich who plays 'Cyrus The Virus. I immediately had that strange sensation which we call 'Deja Vu' and told them so, adding that the postman comes and pushes a huge amount of mail through the door, and within a minute that's exactly what happened; the postman came and huge amounts of mail thudded onto the hall floor through the letterbox.

Synchronicity and Deja Vu. Reasonable, non-aggressive responses please, especially from anyone who has also experienced these phenomena too.


I must admit I thought you were better than this Kirk :nono: Women retiring to the kitchen while the menfolk watched TV - I don't know about Deja Vu, but I hope your wife gave you a kick up the ass when they left and you remembered it.:hehe:

[Northern Monkey]

I must admit I thought you were better than this Kirk :nono: Women retiring to the kitchen while the menfolk watched TV - I don't know about Deja Vu, but I hope your wife gave you a kick up the ass when they left and you remembered it.:hehe:Women love it in there,It's their natural habbitat:joker:

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-v1d6EXPVbI8/T80WVvyCalI/AAAAAAAAEoM/solAEyurSsU/s1600/escaped.png

[Crimson Dynamo]

"There are two features of coincidences not well known among the public. First, we tend to overlook the powerful reinforcement of coincidences, both waking and in dreams, in our memories. Non-coincidental events do not register in our memories with nearly the same intensity. Second, we fail to realize the extent to which highly improbable events occur daily to everyone. It is not possible to estimate all the probabilities of many paired events that occur in our daily lives. We often tend to assign coincidences a lesser probability than they deserve."

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/coincidences_remarkable_or_random/

[user104658]

If this was real there would be gamblers who, on average over a year, are making profits. There aren't. Not unless they're cheating (with either insider info or odds manipulation via betfair). They don't exist. Therefore what you're talking about is a combination of coincidence (incidentally - occasional improbable coincidence is a statistical certainty) and plain old dumb luck. A 33/1 shot coming first is not rare, it's not even unusual, it happens every day. 100/1 shots come in every day. It happens against odds on favourites... The favourite you're talking about wasn't even a strong favourite at those odds. Also you mentioned that the race was paying only two places, which means there weren't many horses in the race. And... Err... One of those was disqualified.

[user104658]

I agree with Ammi.This stuff happens to me loads.With me it's usually stuff on telly.I'll be talking to my girlfriend and someone on telly will say the exact word i just said at around the same time.Or i'll hear a word that i've hardly ever heard before and then i'll hear it 3-4 times on the same day in different places.It happened to me in early December quite a few times,I think i even posted on here about one incident in a thread.My girlfriend told me i should pick the lottery numbers.Honestly though...I just put it down to coincidence.I'm quite a skeptical person generally with things.I believe certain things but this stuff and religion and ghosts etc i don't.

This is actually an observed psychological phenomenon to do with how we process data. At any given second, all of your senses are being flooded with information, far too much to process at one time, so it gets filtered and "junk data" is never seen / heard / felt. Words that you don't really know, if it's not in an important scenario, usually get filtered as junk data and rejected from short term memory (as if it was never said). Then what happens is, one day you hear it in a context that lets you understand the word, and you think "ooh, that's an interesting word!" and it becomes active in your subconscious. Then, for a few days after that, every time you hear that word it "registers" and you think "Hey, there's that word again!" - it's not longer being filtered out of perception. Et voila! The word isn't actually "appearing" or being used any more than it was before. You're just noticing it for the first time.

[user104658]

Likewise, as above, people probably say a phrase like "he'll be remembered" quite often, as with the kitchen wife in the OP. It's a common and not significant phrase. It only gained significance and was noticed because it also happened to be the name of the horse that was running.

[Cherie]

Women love it in there,It's their natural habbitat:joker:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-v1d6EXPVbI8/T80WVvyCalI/AAAAAAAAEoM/solAEyurSsU/s1600/escaped.png

:joker:

[kirklancaster]

I must admit I thought you were better than this Kirk :nono: Women retiring to the kitchen while the menfolk watched TV - I don't know about Deja Vu, but I hope your wife gave you a kick up the ass when they left and you remembered it.:hehe:

:joker: There is a T.V. in the kitchen Cherie, and the women charitably 'elected' to leave us - no, actually 'permitted' us to hog the room TV for a change, seeing as we usually have to sit and suffer their choices of programs on the room TV.

Don't worry Cherie, us men know our place. :hehe:

[kirklancaster]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-v1d6EXPVbI8/T80WVvyCalI/AAAAAAAAEoM/solAEyurSsU/s1600/escaped.png

:laugh2::laugh2: Just as insanely hilarious as usual LT:hehe:.

[Kizzy]

:laugh2::laugh2: Just as insanely hilarious as usual LT:hehe:.

:hehe:

[kirklancaster]

Women love it in there,It's their natural habbitat:joker:

:joker: You're a braver man than me Paul - even with that joker you stuck on there! :hehe:

[Northern Monkey]

:joker: You're a braver man than me Paul - even with that joker you stuck on there! :hehe:Hey my natural habitat is in the garage.I'm not ashamed to admit it.Stereotypes are only bad if they're false :laugh:

[kirklancaster]

If this was real there would be gamblers who, on average over a year, are making profits. There aren't. Not unless they're cheating (with either insider info or odds manipulation via betfair). They don't exist.

What do you mean; “If this was real”? Are you saying I am lying?

The only dishonest person on this thread thus far is you, because – once again, and as always when you answer my posts – you are employing ‘Strawman’ tactics to enable you to try to appear ‘clever’ by trying to defeat my statements with your ‘psychobabble’.

You are once again ignoring what I actually write, deliberately misconstruing what I state and relating it out of context in your transparently dishonest posts along with sweeping and ridiculous presumptions which you pass off as ‘authorative’ fact, when they are in fact mistruths.

"There aren’t no gamblers who on average over a year are making profits? They don't exist."

Where, pray tell me, are your sources for such a false statement? Maybe you should tell that to the legendary JP McManus, Zeljko Ranogajec, or Bob Rothman. Or maybe you should have told it to Alan Woods before he passed away, or closer to home, Alan Cunningham who I know personally and who has amassed a million pound plus personal fortune from punting on racehorses and greyhounds in the 20 years or so since he packed in his lowly paid job on the bins to become a full time professional gambler.

Why, in my own heyday, I was even banned from 2 small independent bookies because they didn't like my ‘winning streaks’.

Yes, most punters do lose over a year – any year and most years – but to state that no gamblers make profits over a year is more laughable false presumption masquerading as authoritive fact.

“Therefore what you're talking about is a combination of coincidence (incidentally - occasional improbable coincidence is a statistical certainty) and plain old dumb luck. A 33/1 shot coming first is not rare, it's not even unusual, it happens every day. 100/1 shots come in every day. It happens against odds on favourites... “

LMAO – You are certainly a comedian. "A 33/1 shot coming in first happens every day, and 100/1 shots come in every day."???????

Where, pray tell me, are your sources for such a false statement?

And “100/1 shots coming in every day happens against odds on favourites”.

Show me corroborating proof for your banal statement.

“The favourite you're talking about wasn't even a strong favourite at those odds. Also you mentioned that the race was paying only two places, which means there weren't many horses in the race. And... Err... One of those was disqualified.”

You are really missing the point and talking crap as usual:

The horse backed was the total rank outsider at 33/1.
Those odds were offered by the bookies because they reflected its mathematical probabilities of winning in that field of 5 other horses who all had proven levels of superior form.

The other odds were 7/4, 7/2, 7/2, 5/1 & 8/1. So at 33/1 ‘He’llberemembered’ was deemed by all the bookies (whose job is to know their business) as having virtually ‘no chance’ of winning in a field of 5 other horses who all had proven levels of superior form.

The favourite’s odds of 7/4 did not make it a strong favourite? Don’t be so ridiculous. Given the high levels of comparable form of the other runners apart from He’llberemembered’ - as shown by the close odds of these others – certainly meant that ‘Jennies Jewel’ was indeed a strong favourite at 7/4.

Yes, one was disqualified – the winner; ‘Saddler’s Risk’ who was carrying 4lbs less than he should have done, which – even to you – must mean that if he’d carried his correct weight, rather than winning a photo by a head he’d have lost to ‘He’llberemembered’ by a couple of lengths at least.

This means that the rank 33/1 outsider was not only the winner of the race in the Stewards Room, but he would also have been the winner against the odds had there been no weight anomaly with Saddler’s Risk.

So, your; “And... Err... One of those was disqualified.” is meaningless, because all 6 runners did run, so He’llberemembered’ beat them all despite having ‘virtually no chance of doing so”.

So, having put you right on your wrong presumptions, we’ll now get to the point which you are so patently missing; It was not the fact that we backed a 33/1 rank outsider which won, but how we came to back it.

I have no relatives called 'He'll be remembered' , had no previous knowledge of the horse (Irish racing) and had not seen a racecard for the race, yet when the horse names first came on screen I immediately told Dean and Ben it would win. This was inexplicable intuition and was actually voiced before any betting shows were screened.

Yes, that was inexplicable 'intuition', the 'synchronicity' part came when Dean walked into the kitchen at the very second that his girlfriend Marie said the "He'll be remembered for..." part of her ongoing speech.

Incidentally, when you state to EyeballPaul:

“Likewise, as above, people probably say a phrase like "he'll be remembered" quite often, as with the kitchen wife in the OP. It's a common and not significant phrase. It only gained significance and was noticed because it also happened to be the name of the horse that was running.”

This is yet more false presumption stated as authorative fact.

Once she has joined Tibb to do so, Marie will tell you herself that she cannot remember even using the phrase before, and she should know facts about her own life much better than you purport to.

And, you are once again missing the point;

Which is; what are the odds of Dean walking in at the precise second that the phrase; ‘He’ll be remembered’ was being spoken by his girlfriend out of all the times he could have walked in during the 90 minutes or so of constant conversation the girls were having in a separate room?

Psychologist treat thyself. Or at the very least stop using 'Strawman' techniques to appear clever in your responses to my honest posts, and stop trying to pass psychobabble and false presumptions off as authorative facts - or start supporting your contentions with some evidence for a change because you really are becoming tiresome.

[user104658]

Too long Kirk, didn't read. I've worked as a manager for a (very busy) bookmakers for five and a half years. Rank outsiders win every day. 33/1 shots win every day. 100/1 shots win several times a week. Last week a £3 lucky fifteen return thousands because all four horses won, none of them at less than 15/1, one at 50/1. In the last year, I have taken / processed over 100,000 bets. That's me, personally. So yeah... That's my sources. First hand experience. If you like, I'll come back to this thread in a week with a list of winners at odds of 33/1 or greater, in races with 6 runners or more. I'm just generous like that I suppose.

7/4 alongside not one but two 7/2 shots is not a strong favourite, no. A 6/4 with nothing else in the field bigger than 4/1? Thats an "almost certain". But again, an 8/15 shot will lose to a 7/1 2nd fav as an everyday occurance. This is why the bookies always win.

The professional gamblers you are talking about who make a career out of these things have detailed and specific knowledge of the horses, courses, trainers and performance in training. I did mention "insider knowledge". Another protip: the odds makers fiddle the odds to make horses that they know are going to run poorly look like a favourite, and better horses look like outsiders, because a huge majority of everyday punters bet on 1st/2nd favs habitually. That's why those in the know are dangerous, and that's why anyone betting £100+ at around 6/1 or greater regularly will find themselves having their stakes or ability to take a price restricted.

Average punters who do not have this insider knowledge - and who are not involved in odds fixing rings online - do not have sustained wins over time. Period. The reason for this is that psychic abilities / mysticism / future prediction is nonsense, and because lucky streaks are based purely on coincidence which can be completely and easily deconstructed with a basic understanding of statistics. To put it simply: thousands of things are happening to almost 7 billion people every day, running to a total of several trillion "events per day". That several of these events will coincidence in ways that seem highly improbable is not strange, it is not providence, it is not paranormal - it is mathematical certainty.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Too long Kirk didnt read,


:joker::joker::joker:

[Crimson Dynamo]

as i said

when we read about all Kirks bets based on "feelings" that did not win

then, we have a thread

[user104658]

:joker::joker::joker:
I feel like a bit of a hypocrite now to be fair, mine was a bit long too... :joker:

[Marsh.]

This happens to me a lot. When I hear a new word that I didn't know before and suddenly I keep hearing it all over the place.

[Crimson Dynamo]

This happens to me a lot. When I hear a new word that I didn't know before and suddenly I keep hearing it all over the place.

That is to do with the canes in your brain

[Marsh.]

I never said it was magic so there. :idc:

[Cherie]

That is to do with the canes in your brain

What like a walking stick or candy :hehe:

[user104658]

Not to beat a dead horse but...

NAAS 1.30 (http://www.racingpost.com/horses/result_home.sd?race_id=616120&r_date=2015-01-04&popup=yes#results_top_tabs=re_&results_bottom_tabs=ANALYSIS)

33/1 winner vs a 4/5 odds on sp favourite in 2nd.


Plumpton 2.20 (http://www.racingpost.com/horses/result_home.sd?race_id=615773&r_date=2015-01-04&popup=yes#results_top_tabs=re_&results_bottom_tabs=ANALYSIS)

20/1 winner ahead of 9/2 in 2nd and 11/4 fav in 3rd.

Those were both today and it's a slow racing day. Want some synchronicity? The 11/1 winner of the 2.50 is called "I told you". Which I did. Oh and "remember I told you" was of course a famous catchphrase of a big brother contestant who was evicted. And we are on a big brother forum! Omg omg omg someone call morpheus, I think I'm The One.

[Kizzy]

Proper little rainclouds of doom some people :joker:

[bots]

If one believes in synchronicity, where is the harm in it?

Thing is, everyone automatically shuts off when they hear the word statistics but statistical mechanics applied to a universe can explain anything. Mix this together with the fact that events are only truly random up to a given point and you get what can be described as synchronicity :spin:

[user104658]

If one believes in synchronicity, where is the harm in it?

Thing is, everyone automatically shuts off when they hear the word statistics but statistical mechanics applied to a universe can explain anything. Mix this together with the fact that events are only truly random up to a given point and you get what can be described as synchronicity :spin:

There's no harm in it in general, but when it comes to gambling it drives me mental when people try to apply anything to it other than plain dumb luck. There isn't anything more to it. I've heard 7 million "systems" and double that of "feelings" of various descriptions and it... just... no.

[kirklancaster]

Too long Kirk, didn't read. .

LMFAO -- This post is longer but I advise you to read it:
.
I have told you before on other threads that once your 'strawman' responses are challenged you "keep moving the goalposts" and this exactly what you are doing now.

You made sweeping and ridiculously erroneous presumptions which you passed off as authorative facts in your response, but yet once I rebutted this nonsense of yours with facts, and challenged you to provide corroborating evidence for your ludicrous statements, you try to cover up the fact that you cannot provide such evidence by ridiculously claiming 'not to have read' the post because it's "too long".

How can anyone seriously respond to a post on any thread without first properly reading and therefore understanding the post they are commenting on?

In addition, it is incredible if you didn't read my response, that you have so clearly tried to tailor your response to the points made in it (even though you fail miserably to counter them by doing so. As you always do.) Instead, you trot out psychobabble and opinionated waffle about statistics and mathematics which are irrelevant and do not address the points I made in my original post, or the points I challenged in your response.

For example, you stated: “A 33/1 shot coming first is not rare, it's not even unusual, it happens every day. 100/1 shots come in every day. It happens against odds on favourites...”

Then - as if to corroborate the truth of the above stupid statement, you quote (after googling The Racing Post results);

“33/1 winner vs a 4/5 odds on sp favourite in 2nd.” And, “20/1 winner ahead of 9/2 in 2nd and 11/4 fav in 3rd.” Yet this does not corroborate anything, for 2 races from one single day, is not “everyday”, and where is the 100/1 daily winner you stated as fact? Never mind one against an odds on shot.

Further, you post; “Those were both today and it's a slow racing day.” and by this statement - in true dishonest ‘Strawman’ fashion - you seek to persuade the readers who are not familiar with horseracing that ‘on a better day, when racing isn’t "slow" there would be even more 33/1 winners in addition to the boasted of daily 100/1 winner. So let’s test the truth of this:

Here’s the results for the 3rd of January 2015:
CORK: 10/1, 7/4, 2/1, 5/1, Evens, 5/2, 3/1
LINGFIELD: 3/1, 10/1, 6/1, 5/1,3/1, 5/1, 7/2
WINCANTON: 11/10, 11/4, 10/1, 5/1, 7/2, 8/1
NEWCASTLE: 30/100, 5/2, 13/2, 7/1, 7/2, 7/2, 3/1
SANDOWN: 3/1, 6/4, 5/1, 5/2, 4/9, 9/1, 5/2

So here we have 34 different grade and types of races at 5 different class and types of course so it was definitely not a ”slow racing day”, and yet there is no 33/1 shot or 100/1 shot in sight. In fact, the highest SP was a mere 10/1.

That was informative, let's do it again:

Here’s the results for just the 2nd of January 2015:
AYR: 8/13, 9/2, 14/1, 4/1, 7/2, 7/2, 11/10
DUNDALK: 100/30, 7/1, 6/1, 7/4, 13/2, 8/1, 9/4
SOUTHWELL: 13/8, 10/1, 11/2, 6/5, 9/4, 1/3, 11/4
FFOS LAS: 1/4, 5/2, 11/2, 3/1 11/1, 10/11, 4/6
WOLVERHAMPTON: 5/2, 4/1, 6/4, 6/1, 4/1, 5/6

So here we have another 34 different grade and types of races at another 5 different class and types of course, and also then, another day when it was definitely not a ”slow racing day”, and yet there's still no sign of your boasted ‘daily’ 33/1 shot or ‘daily’ 100/1 shot. In fact, the highest SP was a mere 14/1.

So are your two ‘authorative statements’, that: “A 33/1 shot coming first is not rare, it's not even unusual, it happens every day. 100/1 shots come in every day. It happens against odds on favourites...” and: “33/1 shots win every day. 100/1 shots win several times a week.” really as factual and true as you try to have us believe?

ARE THEY HELL. They are totally untrue, and just more totally ridiculous and dishonest smoke-screening by a master ‘Strawman’ proponent to try to justify his total lack of real substance in a counter argument he – once again – waged to make himself appear ‘clever’.

33/1 winners do happen – I’ve backed them. 100/1 winners do happen – I’ve backed two. But they are not common as you claim as fact and do not "happen every day" as you stupidly claim as fact, and nor do the true statistical facts bear out your ridiculous, hysterical, and immature claims.

Your utter dishonesty in making such claims appear as fact is further compounded when one takes into account your further statement; “I've worked as a manager for a (very busy) bookmakers for five and a half years.” because, if you work in a bookies, then you know full well that "33/1 winners do not happen every day”, and "100/1 winners" certainly do not "happen every day" or even "several times a week”as you ridiculously claim as fact.

The above statement of yours actually baffles me, because it’s just a week ago on another thread where you were similarly embroiled in another ‘Strawman’ argument against me, that you claimed you were a ‘psychologist’:

"28-12-2014, 09:18 AM.
although as a psychologist I certainly don't find it shocking”


Anyway, back to your stupid statements of fact; to deliberately use such false ‘statistics’ to prop up a non-existent argument is dishonest, as is your next piece of ‘Flim-Flam’:

“Last week a £3 lucky fifteen return thousands because all four horses won, none of them at less than 15/1, one at 50/1. In the last year, I have taken / processed over 100,000 bets.”

Winning multiple bets such as Lucky 15’s, Heinz, Canadians, etc do happen, but they are not at all common because of the odds involved, which simply calculated are 2,839 x the £3 total stake, or a return of £8518.20 – and that’s calculating odds of 50/1, 15/1, 15/1 and 15/1, on a (presumable) each way bet at 1/5 of the odds for a place, because you stated I x 50/1 winner and that all other winners were at least 15/1.

Odds of over 2,800 to 1, yet you deviously use this ‘winning multiple’ bet to try to persuade the reader that such winning bets involving big priced winners are common – which they most certainly are not, as the odds clearly show, and as does the fact that bookies would be wiped out if they were.

Now onto your claim that: “In the last year, I have taken / processed over 100,000 bets.”

Let’s generously assume that you work a 5 day week and 8 hours per day. That’s 40 hours per week. Let’s further assume that you work 48 weeks per year.

That’s 1,920 hours per year. 100,000 bets divided by 1,920 = 52.08 bets taken/processed per hour. Or almost one bet each and every minute of every hour of every 5 day week – without lunch breaks, tea breaks or toilet breaks, and without having to answer telephone calls, talk to punters, or go to the bank?

My bets are written out so precisely and I've never been served in a bookies as quickly as that – and that is only when the bet is being accepted and photocopied then handed back, it gets even more messy and lengthy if I ask for the 'on show odds' to be written on and authorised.

Of course, as a ‘Manager’ you may be referring to processing’ bets, i.e.; checking them to see which horse won, which horse lost, which were ‘non runners’, calculating returns on winners etc , in which case one bet processed every minute is miraculous – especially without allowing for lunch breaks, tea breaks or toilet breaks, and having to answer telephone calls, talk to punters, or go to the bank, and the ridiculousness of such a statement is magnified if you work fewer than 8 hours per day, or fewer than 5 days per week, or fewer than 48 weeks per year, because I’ve allowed you those totals - - I'm just generous like that I suppose. LMAO.

So far from being relevant and substantiating, your statement: “In the last year, I have taken / processed over 100,000 bets.” is just yet another totally laughable false claim passed off as ‘authorative fact’ as part of your ‘Strawman’ Modus Operandi.

Now let’s come to the part where you write: “That's me, personally. So yeah... That's my sources. First hand experience. If you like." and perhaps then you will explain just why you feel your ‘first hand experience’ should be accepted as a valid ‘source’ of ‘substantiating evidence’ when you so arrogantly and totally ignore or dismiss my personal first hand experiences as ‘untrue’ or ‘nonsense’?

I write with truth, passion and integrity. I do not ‘dream’, exaggerate or delude myself – I am probably one of the most coldly clinical, analytical people you could meet when it comes to serious matters, and just because my own personal experiences do not fit in with your own blinkered views of life, does not render them ‘untrue’ or ‘nonsense’.

Your statements above have been shown up for the laughable mistruths they are, and your 'authorative statement' that the 7/4 favourite in that particular field was "not a strong favourite" is equally as laughable.

What's more, the rest of your post is totally irrelevant to the subject of my original post.

I do not need educating on 'insider knowledge’,’ false favourites’, or any other of the irrelevant waffle which you use to obscure the very real fact, that having once again, succumbed to ego, and butted into one of my posts merely to defeat my contentions to make yourself appear ‘clever’, you have once again done so without any genuine factual or relative arguments with which to help you counter my contentions, and so, once again, have resorted to ridiculing without cause, disagreeing without factual justification, passing off fallacy as fact, and relying on the ‘Strawman’ principle that that the audience is ignorant of the nuances in the original argument.

Anyone really analysing your great wodge of text and referring to my original post 'side by side' which your ‘great wodge of text‘supposedly addresses, can clearly see that far from addressing it, your ‘great wodge of text’ is totally irrelevant.

For example; “Average punters who do not have this insider knowledge - and who are not involved in odds fixing rings online - do not have sustained wins over time. Period” is irrelevant and incongruous, because in my original post I do not claim that they do. In fact I never even mention such a matter, nor anything remotely to do with it. So your inclusion of this statement is just more unrelated, unwarranted, irrelevant waffle used dishonestly to obscure the fact that you have nothing to honestly counter my contentions with – 'a smokescreen’ in other words.

Just as this further irrelevant waffle is also more 'smoke-screening':“The reason for this is that psychic abilities / mysticism / future prediction is nonsense, because lucky streaks are based purely on coincidence which can be completely and easily deconstructed with a basic understanding of statistics. To put it simply: thousands of things are happening to almost 7 billion people every day, running to a total of several trillion "events per day". That several of these events will coincidence in ways that seem highly improbable is not strange, it is not providence, it is not paranormal - it is mathematical certainty” -–

-- Which all sounds very impressive you clever little man, but all totally irrelevant and therefore having no place in any response or counter to my original post, because, once again I never mentioned “psychic abilities, mysticism, or future prediction” anywhere in my post.

What’s more, I couldn’t give two flying fecks how many events are happening to how many billions of people “every day” because such statistics have nothing at all to do with my post, which was ‘specific’ to my own totally true, totally inexplicable experience involving a specific race, at a given time, on a given day, and involved ‘intuition’ and ‘synchronicity’ – both very real, scientifically recognised phenomena despite what you, the self proclaimed “Sage of All Truth” arrogantly claim to the contrary in the face of overwhelming evidence which you do not address.

Finally, I’ll come to your juvenile attempt at ridiculing me; “Want some synchronicity? The 11/1 winner of the 2.50 is called "I told you". Which I did. Oh and "remember I told you" was of course a famous catchphrase of a big brother contestant who was evicted. And we are on a big brother forum! Omg omg omg someone call morpheus, I think I'm The One”

Oh yes, oh yes, you certainly think you are the one, because your arrogant egoism is overwhelming but your credentials for being so are underwhelming, and you are not as ‘clever’ as you think you are. Far from it.

You would not last one round with me in a properly conducted formal debate, where ‘Strawman’ tactics are instantly recognised and prohibited, and only legitimate ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ arguments are permitted, and the examples you cite in your last piece of nonsense are not ‘synchronicity’, do not relate in any way to the experience I relate in my original post, and your inclusion of them is neither to add to the subject discussion, nor genuinely offer a legitimate counter view – it is to ridicule me, and elevate your own wrongly perceived ‘status’ as an intellectual.

To prove to all readers that you are merely perpetuating the same 'Strawman' tactics you have always done in arguments with me, I reproduce below extracts from certain responses I made to you after suffering the same fraudulent hokum on other threads:

Quote:
“The true irony in your attempt at sarcasm T.S., is that - once again - you are deliberately misquoting what I said in my many posts on this subject, the last of which I reproduce below:

'Gunman takes hostages in Sydney cafe' 18-12-2014, 02:01 PM

"First of all T.S. you are once again starting to argue from a completely false premise because I have already stated - at length - that not all terrorists are 'psychopaths' who were simply 'born wrong', and I am not going to keep repeating myself to defend myself against false argument for argument's sake."

“You elected to 'exit' that particular 'debate' without answering the above lengthy post, so please now have the grace not to continue to attempt to ridicule me by misquoting what I said.

If you feel that my post above did not satisfactorily resolve our 'difference of opinion', then you should rejoin that particular thread with yet another 'counter argument' - not petulantly continue to misquote me in other posts on other threads.” End of Quote.

After I made the above response to you, you posted another 4 times including one very lengthy response to Ammi, but you did not answer my response quoted above, or even acknowledge it.


And later, when I posted to you:

Quote:
[I]“LMAO - You are the one misquoting others in order to cover up fatal flaws in your very weak argument - not me, and you have resorted to childish skits instead of properly addressing my last post on the 'Gunman takes hostages in Sydney cafe' thread, which you completely avoided. So who is 'backpedaling'?
Come let us debate and discuss like sensible informed adults.” –-

-- you tellingly failed to answer that post too.

Anyway, you have a right to disagree with any propositions or views in my post, but you have not the right to call me a liar when I make truthful statements regarding personal experiences.

You have the right to offer opposing views if such views are genuine, but you have not the right to oppose my views when such opposition is pure ridicule unaccompanied by any corroborating facts.

As outlined in the above two excerpts of mine from another thread, you attack and ridicule without justification, using dishonest ‘Strawman’ techniques to do so, then when you are exposed for doing so, you run and hide and no longer address the issue directly, but instead immaturely ‘snipe’ by making groundless, sarcastic reference to the thread you have fled from on other threads.

I acknowledge your intelligence and knowledge, but I deplore your continued dishonest tactics, and therefore feel it better if you now ignore my posts and I will reciprocate in kind, because there is nothing to be gained in trying to debate or discuss with you.

Thank you.

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://ispeakeasyblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/dangersign-too-much-text1.jpg

[Niamh.]

I must admit I thought you were better than this Kirk :nono: Women retiring to the kitchen while the menfolk watched TV - I don't know about Deja Vu, but I hope your wife gave you a kick up the ass when they left and you remembered it.:hehe:

:laugh2:

But OT, yeah this happens to me sometimes (not the betting thing but like you'll say a word and a second later they'll say the same word on TV or whatever) More often though it doesn't happen so I don't think it's that weird that the odd time it does :shrug:

[kirklancaster]

https://ispeakeasyblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/dangersign-too-much-text1.jpg

:joker: But necessary - Old Chinese Ploverb:

"Pwenty sheet need pwenty toiwet paper"

[Crimson Dynamo]

:joker: But necessary - Old Chinese Ploverb:

"Pwenty sheet need pwenty toiwet paper"

that was coined by

Hoo Flung Dung

[kirklancaster]

that was coined by

Hoo Flung Dung

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Will I ever get the last 'funny' in with you? :bawling:

[kirklancaster]

If one believes in synchronicity, where is the harm in it?

Thing is, everyone automatically shuts off when they hear the word statistics but statistical mechanics applied to a universe can explain anything. Mix this together with the fact that events are only truly random up to a given point and you get what can be described as synchronicity :spin:

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

Thank you Bitontheslide for your intelligent and knowledgeable input.

[user104658]

Tedious again Kirk... you need to work on your prose.

A) I never claimed that "daily" 33/1 shots coming in are all horse bets. 33/1 bets come in every day. I promise. It's just a fact. I also didn't say that 100/1 shots win every day. I said "several times per week". Now who's twisting facts to suit, Kirk? Or perhaps you didn't properly read the post. Tut tut. Tut.

B) I have never claimed to be employed as "a psychologist" - I have a degree in Psychology, and work for a bookmakers. Both of these facts have been mentioned several times by me in several threads - it's not a secret. I am aware that it's pretty disheartening, but there you go. I have qualifications, and an ongoing interest, in psychology.

C)

Let’s generously assume that you work a 5 day week and 8 hours per day. That’s 40 hours per week. Let’s further assume that you work 48 weeks per year.

That’s 1,920 hours per year. 100,000 bets divided by 1,920 = 52.08 bets taken/processed per hour. Or almost one bet each and every minute of every hour of every 5 day week – without lunch breaks, tea breaks or toilet breaks, and without having to answer telephone calls, talk to punters, or go to the bank?

I work 3 to 5 days per week, but you're being a bit generous with the shift length there. A full shift is 13 hours. A "short" shift is 7. My shop takes roughly 1000 bets per day on a normal weekday, roughly 1.5k on a Friday and almost 2k on a Saturday. Max 2 staff Sunday to Friday and single-manned 5.5 hours per day. I was estimating, but feel free to do your little maths bit with the figures in hand. Again - these are not all horse bets but that is completely irrelevant... bets are bets and odds are odds and presumably, synchronicity is synchronicity, and isn't somehow magically related to only one sport. Maybe that's being presumptuous? Maybe magical horse-racing fairies are indeed involved with this particular super power. If that is the case then please accept my sincerest apologies in advance.


You would not last one round with me in a properly conducted formal debate, where ‘Strawman’ tactics are instantly recognised and prohibited, and only legitimate ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ arguments are permitted

Do you know what else is recognised? Ad hominem. And red-faced frustration, Kirk. *ahem* *finger flex*

1) "total lack of real substance in a counter argument he – once again – waged

2) to make himself appear ‘clever’."

3) "as you stupidly claim as fact, and nor do the true statistical facts bear out your:

4) ridiculous,

5) hysterical,

6) and immature claims"

7) "your stupid statements of fact;"

8) "your next piece of ‘Flim-Flam’"

9) "arrogant"

10) "your blinkered views of life"

11) "laughable"

12) "irrelevant waffle"

13: "make yourself appear ‘clever'"

14) "sounds very impressive you clever little man"

15) "the self proclaimed “Sage of All Truth” "

16) "juvenile attempt"

17) "Oh yes, oh yes, you certainly think you are the one"

18) "your arrogant egoism is overwhelming but your credentials for being so are underwhelming"

19) "you are not as ‘clever’ as you think you are. Far from it."

20) to round this out to 20, you also use "LMFAO" at least twice...

You also use the word "Strawman" to attack me personally no less than NINE times. Naughty, naughty Kirk. You would be out of any formal debate on your arse because you can't hold your temper :joker:. You also have precisely zero experience of what I am like in a formal debate because this is a reality TV forum that I come onto for entertainment... usually in my pyjamas. You're being massively presumptuous. Maybe you would be different, too? I don't know. I'm not convinced, because you have such a temper, Kirk! How does one keep that in check, formal setting or not?

Regardless, if you were truly the expert masterdebater that you claim to be, you would be well aware that repeatedly bleating "strawmaaaan" is not a particularly effective debating tactic.

Then, of course, there's the issue of your unashamed hypocrisy:

but you have not the right to call me a liar when I make truthful statements

You call me a liar throughout your entire post, good sir. Or perhaps you feel that you have a greater number of "rights" than I do? :hehe:

[kirklancaster]

[QUOTE=Toy Soldier;7449038]Tedious again Kirk... you need to work on your prose.

A) I never claimed that "daily" 33/1 shots coming in are all horse bets. 33/1 bets come in every day. I promise. It's just a fact. I also didn't say that 100/1 shots win every day. I said "several times per week". Now who's twisting facts to suit, Kirk? Or perhaps you didn't properly read the post. Tut tut. Tut.
/QUOTE]

More side-shifting, backtracking and smoke-screening - Don't those Goal Posts get heavy when you keep shifting them as much as you do?

1) You're saying you didn't say that "100/1 shots win every day"
2) I said you did , so now you accuse me of "twisting facts to suit."

Let's see who is telling the truth shall we? Here cut and pasted in its entirety is your post on this very thread from yesterday at 1.16 PM. Post Number 15:

QUOTE:
Yesterday, 01:16 PM #15
Toy Soldier

"If this was real there would be gamblers who, on average over a year, are making profits. There aren't. Not unless they're cheating (with either insider info or odds manipulation via betfair). They don't exist. Therefore what you're talking about is a combination of coincidence (incidentally - occasional improbable coincidence is a statistical certainty) and plain old dumb luck. A 33/1 shot coming first is not rare, it's not even unusual, it happens every day. 100/1 shots come in every day. It happens against odds on favourites... The favourite you're talking about wasn't even a strong favourite at those odds. Also you mentioned that the race was paying only two places, which means there weren't many horses in the race. And... Err... One of those was disqualified."
______________________________________
Last edited by Toy Soldier; Yesterday at 01:27 PM.
END OF QUOTE.

:laugh: Didn't say it? Psychologist heal thyself thy mind be delusional.

QUOTE:
"I never claimed that "daily" 33/1 shots coming in are all horse bets. 33/1 bets come in every day. I promise. It's just a fact."
END OF QUOTE.

More blatant side-shifting, backtracking and smoke-screening because seeing as how my post was specifically to do with a HORSERACE and no other sport, and the phraseology of your response was specific to HORSERACING, it is pathetic nonsense to now try and claim that the daily 33/1 shots coming in which you stated as 'truth' didn't just refer to HORSE BETS. :joker: Desperate or what?

I mean, come on now - look at your terminology and phraseology:

QUOTE:
"A 33/1 shot coming first is not rare, it's not even unusual, it happens every day. 100/1 shots come in every day. It happens against odds on favourites.. The favourite you're talking about wasn't even a strong favourite at those odds. Also you mentioned that the race was paying only two places, which means there weren't many horses in the race. And... Err... One of those was disqualified."
END OF QUOTE.

What other sports are won by 33/1 shots on a DAILY basis? Golf? Football Matches? Darts? Boxing? Egg And Spoon Races?

And what about: "The favourite you're talking about wasn't even a strong favourite at those odds. Also you mentioned that the race was paying only two places, which means there weren't many horses in the race. And... Err... One of those was disqualified." Does this not PROVE that you were referring to my post which was HORSERACE specific and that you were talking specifically about HORSERACING bets? LMFAO:joker:

QUOTE:
B) I have never claimed to be employed as "a psychologist" - I have a degree in Psychology, and work for a bookmakers. Both of these facts have been mentioned several times by me in several threads - it's not a secret. I am aware that it's pretty disheartening, but there you go. I have qualifications, and an ongoing interest, in psychology.
END OF QUOTE.

When someone qualifies an opinion in a post with "As a PSYCHOLOGIST" , then he is passing himself off as if that was his profession.

You may well have a "degree in psychology"" but I would not guess as much from the psychobabble dross in your posts, and it certainly does not 'dishearten' me. Why should it? I am happy being me, and certainly have discerned nothing in you as far as I'm able to, to create any form of 'envy' in me because I am not in the slightest an envious person anyway, and am much too stoical and philosophical for such traits.

There is one thing though - if you do have a 'degree in psychology', it may beggar the question of why you have worked in a bookies for 5 1/2 years?

The rest of your long post is utter drivel in which you continue to smoke-screen and continue to present assumptions dressed as authorative fact without any factual basis for doing so.

Such as repeatedly stating that I can't hold my temper. :joker: LMFAO.

I have boxed since I was 8 years old and worked as a doorman for 20 years in clubs from Leeds to Scarborough to Liverpool to London, so I am superbly disciplined in staying physically cool under pressure and maintaining my 'temper'.

I have also debated individually and as part of a team for many years, so I am superbly disciplined in staying emotionally and psychologically 'cool' - even when faced with tiresome pseudo intellectuals - and in maintaining my 'temper'.

And nowhere in my posts do I display any signs of 'losing my temper' so you have no factual basis for making your false statement -- but when did that ever stop you as I have proved above.

Unless you are such an adept 'qualified psychologist' that you can diagnose such a clinical condition in me over cyberspace without knowing, meeting or seeing me, and without any discernible manifestations of symptoms to aid you in such a diagnosis?

Which, if are such a 'hot shot', then beggars the question of why you have worked in a bookies for 5 1/2 years?

Anyway, as to the lengthy list of my transgressions (pity you do not exercise such diligence when ensuring your posts are honest and actually relevant to the subject matter) yes - I plead guilty to deliberately and wilfully using terms such as 'ridiculous', 'immature' and 'stupid' because the only way to best describe something is by using the best and most apt descriptors, but this has nothing to do with; "Ad hominem" and if you view it as attacking your character then so be it, because you have certainly attacked mine by calling me a liar first among other things.

You're a 'psychologist' so you should be familiar with the terminology for someone who attacks without grounds only to whinge when the person being attacked retaliates with greater force. You know; like I'm minding my own business and someone punches me repeatedly for no reason, but inflicts little or no damage, but then I punch him back and he complains because my one punch broke his jaw? Well, it's the same with verbal arguing. If I post, then you elect to respond with pap laced with insult, then don't whinge and complain when I give it back but with more potency.

And as for; "red-faced frustration" :joker: I will coldly and calculatingly assure you of this - you do not possess any quality to cause in me "red-faced frustration" and you flatter yourself if you delude yourself that you do.

Finally; because you most certainly do employ 'Strawman' tactics, then I make no apologies for stating as much.

Now, I suggest we bid 'farewell and adieu' - unless you wish to continue?

[user104658]

Kirk, I have NOT accused you of being a liar or of making your story up. These things happen. In fact, a month or so ago, I placed a little bet on a horse at 11/1, because my wife had texted me to tell me that my daughter Betty was being particularly moody (changing the name and the emotion for the sake of privacy in this example) and then not ten minutes later, I spotted a horse called "Betty Is Moody". It was an outsider and won. This is the sort of event that you are referring to in your OP - I have absolutely no dispute with the FACTS of your post - I merely disagree with the reasons for it happening. i.e. it is purely chance / coincidence, my wife sends me dozens of texts every day, hundreds of horses run every day, the names coincided, and it happened to win, as outsiders often (yes, often) do. It is not Fate or The Universe or Jesus or Gandalf or Mystic Meg. But I am perfectly willing to accept that you believe whatever mumbo-jumbo you happen to believe. People believe in far stranger things :shrug:. That doesn't mean I have to accept it as any sort of reality.

tl;dr: I think what you're saying is utter bull**** but I accept that it's a brand of bull**** that you buy into. That doesn't make you a liar. I have not called you a liar.

Now, onto your huge, pathetic angry rant: That was one massive ad hominem personal attack there Kirk. And you claim to be able to hold your temper whilst resorting to repeated personal insult after personal insult? Mocking my job and asking "why I would be doing it" when you have little / zero idea what my personal circumstances are? I'd have been more than willing to tell you, had you asked, but instead, you have been attempting to (for unfathomable reasons) physically intimidate me by pointing out that you "were a bouncer for 20 years" and then later alluding to "punching people repeatedly" and "breaking their jaw"? :umm2: I have plenty that I could say about you kirk, based on your opinions in a number of threads, but have not, because I have enough decorum not to reduce myself to such loutishness.

[kirklancaster]

Kirk, I have NOT accused you of being a liar or of making your story up. These things happen. In fact, a month or so ago, I placed a little bet on a horse at 11/1, because my wife had texted me to tell me that my daughter Betty was being particularly moody (changing the name and the emotion for the sake of privacy in this example) and then not ten minutes later, I spotted a horse called "Betty Is Moody". It was an outsider and won. This is the sort of event that you are referring to in your OP - I have absolutely no dispute with the FACTS of your post - I merely disagree with the reasons for it happening. i.e. it is purely chance / coincidence, my wife sends me dozens of texts every day, hundreds of horses run every day, the names coincided, and it happened to win, as outsiders often (yes, often) do. It is not Fate or The Universe or Jesus or Gandalf or Mystic Meg. But I am perfectly willing to accept that you believe whatever mumbo-jumbo you happen to believe. People believe in far stranger things :shrug:. That doesn't mean I have to accept it as any sort of reality.

tl;dr: I think what you're saying is utter bull**** but I accept that it's a brand of bull**** that you buy into. That doesn't make you a liar. I have not called you a liar.

Now, onto your huge, pathetic angry rant: That was one massive ad hominem personal attack there Kirk. And you claim to be able to hold your temper whilst resorting to repeated personal insult after personal insult? Mocking my job and asking "why I would be doing it" when you have little / zero idea what my personal circumstances are? I'd have been more than willing to tell you, had you asked, but instead, you have been attempting to (for unfathomable reasons) physically intimidate me by pointing out that you "were a bouncer for 20 years" and then later alluding to "punching people repeatedly" and "breaking their jaw"? :umm2: I have plenty that I could say about you kirk, based on your opinions in a number of threads, but have not, because I have enough decorum not to reduce myself to such loutishness.

Oh Dear Lord. :shrug:

I think you really need to sit down and look back through the threads, then
be truthful with yourself, because we are where we are now because I have finally tired of you constantly posing responses to my posts which were definitely nothing more than deliberate sniping and misquoting and misconstruing of what I was stating for no other reason than to make yourself look superior at the cost of making me look foolish and ill informed.

You even continued to snipe at me with sarcastic comments on other threads where I had not even then posted, as the following excerpt from the 'White Jihadi' thread proves. I had not even posted on that thread when you wrote:

"Impossible! Terrorism is genetic and only affects brown monsters, not white humans."


This was a direct reference to my views from another thread, but you were - of course - misquoting me, even though I had repeatedly told you that you were doing so when you made the same misquote on the other thread.

First Livia recognised what you were so wrongly trying to do and posted to 'put you right' but to no avail, then Ammi did the same, but you then went on to make yet another snide sarcastic comment again misquoting me into the bargain:

"Oh, and how to rape pretty little white boys. Apparently."

I never mentioned anyone 'raping' anyone in the post I made which you based your snide remark on and that is a fact. I was making reference to a young, effeminate looking, long haired white boy joining ISIL and the fondness for just such boys which certain Arab races are famous for.

I was referring to consensual mutual sex between what was then considered to be a Western boy traitor and the disgusting murdering bastards he was thought to have joined, and it was scathing ridicule to be honest.

Yet, misquote me you had done in yet another unwarranted sarcastic comment.

And it did not stop there, because later, in your response to Ammi, you said:

"Despite Kirk's inference (and after, with hypocrisy, suggesting that I have misquoted HIM)"


Again, I was not involved with any conversation with you, but again, you make a snide comment about me and actually call me a hypocrite for suggesting that you have misquoted me. But I was not a hypocrite because I told you once again that you had misquoted me - which you had, once again.

As for not calling me a liar - you have done so by intimation or default several times: but I cannot be arsed to search for instances.

You believe what I'm saying is utter bull**** and I believe the psychobabble which you spew out is utter bull****. So we'll leave that there.

Further: I have never bullied anyone in my life and never tried to intimidate anyone either. How does physical intimidation work over cyberspace when two people are hundreds of miles apart and both are unknown to each other?

I genuinely used the 'punch' analogy (as I have used it on here before) to illustrate that it is wrong for you to whine that I have been personal and to list examples, when it was you who invaded my space to attack me and get personal several times - as I have shown above.

More: Just as you revealed your degree in psychology to lend weight to an argument, and revealed your 5 1/2 years as a bookies 'Manager' to help illustrate your point about betting, then I revealed the fact that I boxed and worked the doors, and have debated for years, to illustrate my point that I am disciplined physically, mentally, and emotionally not to lose my temper, and this was simply to rebut your ridiculous accusation that I had lost my temper. Nothing more, nothing less - but I explained as much in my post.

Finally, I am amazed by your last paragraph:

"I have plenty that I could say about you kirk, based on your opinions in a number of threads, but have not, because I have enough decorum not to reduce myself to such loutishness."

I welcome any legitimate response to anything which I have to say if it is not a thinly veiled attempt to ridicule for ridicule's sake. I adore Livia, Ammi and Nedusa, but all three have not always agreed with my opinions, but we have never fallen out.

I have had massive ding-dongs with LeatherTrumpet over differences of opinion and he can take the piss, but I seriously, deeply respect him, in fact I have great affection for him.

So you see, my problem with you is not of my making or choosing.

And now - again - I suggest we leave it here.

[user104658]

OK then, a little honesty, I was utterly dumbfounded by your xenophobic comments in the "hereditary terrorism" thread and have taken against you since then. I can admit that. I don't think I misread what you were saying - although I have paraphrased it in extreme ways - I know what you meant and I know what I think of it. Perhaps I need to let that go. But then, somewhat astoundingly, you've even felt the need to add little droplets of casual racism to this very thread so it's not particularly easy. I get that you're "of another time". Or whatever. I still think it reeks.

Also, since you mention other members / liking / respect - I get the distinct impression that you're quite often given extra leeway / the occasional free pass with these extreme views by other members because they happen to generally like you otherwise. That irks me. I don't like favouritism in any form and I think you benefit from it.

You've stated that we should "leave it" several times now but I note that you are apparently not willing to do so unless you are the one to "have the last word"... so, I will allow you that, despite myself not being the one to previously suggest that the matter is dropped. I don't really have anything more to say than this, anyway.

[kirklancaster]

OK then, a little honesty, I was utterly dumbfounded by your xenophobic comments in the "hereditary terrorism" thread and have taken against you since then. I can admit that. I don't think I misread what you were saying - although I have paraphrased it in extreme ways - I know what you meant and I know what I think of it. Perhaps I need to let that go. But then, somewhat astoundingly, you've even felt the need to add little droplets of casual racism to this very thread so it's not particularly easy. I get that you're "of another time". Or whatever. I still think it reeks.

Also, since you mention other members / liking / respect - I get the distinct impression that you're quite often given extra leeway / the occasional free pass with these extreme views by other members because they happen to generally like you otherwise. That irks me. I don't like favouritism in any form and I think you benefit from it.

You've stated that we should "leave it" several times now but I note that you are apparently not willing to do so unless you are the one to "have the last word"... so, I will allow you that, despite myself not being the one to previously suggest that the matter is dropped. I don't really have anything more to say than this, anyway.

Thank you T.S for your admission. As far as I am concerned we have cleared the air and should both continue unshackled by past issues.

I do not hold grudges anyway, and I am very fair when it comes to giving credit where I believe it is due. If you look back through the threads you will see where I have applauded several of your posts because I personally identified and agreed with what you were saying in them. I did not allow any disagreement we had on other subjects on other threads to affect my objectivity and never will to the best of my ability.

As for my opinions on 'Terrorism'; I detest all forms of bullying, and to me terrorism is the ultimate form of bullying, and therefore I detest terrorists with a vengeance.

When my extreme hatred of terrorists is reflected in my posts on the subject and is perceived as xenophobia or racism by others, then so be it. I seek only to be offensive to terrorists, and if others who have more 'moderate' views on terrorists are also offended, then that is 'collateral damage' as far as I am concerned because these 'others' were not my target. So I make no apologies for any view I have ever expressed on terrorists.

As for "other Forum Members 'giving me a free pass' because they like me", and "favoritism" - I sincerely do not believe that I am that popular on here, so I must disagree with you. I feel that the more likely truth, is that more people actually agree with my 'extremist' views on terrorism than you realise, and this - and only this - is the reason that more people do not take issue with me when I post those views.

Finally, T.S. I posted this - not to have the last word, but to try to clear up the couple of points above, as well as assure you that for me, this matter is now ended and I hope that we can now both move forward.

[Northern Monkey]

Well thank god for that.My eyes are bleeding :cheer:

[Cherie]

Well thank god for that.My eyes are bleeding :cheer:

:laugh:

[user104658]

Well thank god for that.My eyes are bleeding :cheer:

This viral thread featuring two bodybuilders arguing about how many days are in a week (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751) will cheer you up. It's loads better than this thread. Seriously, once it gets going it's magical.

One actually screenshots a calendar...

And yes... this thread reminded me of it :joker:

[kirklancaster]

This viral thread featuring two bodybuilders arguing about how many days are in a week (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751) will cheer you up. It's loads better than this thread. Seriously, once it gets going it's magical.

One actually screenshots a calendar...

And yes... this thread reminded me of it :joker:

How is it 'magical'? And how does it remind you of this thread? It's a bunch of bodybuilders arguing about basic mathematics.

[Northern Monkey]

This viral thread featuring two bodybuilders arguing about how many days are in a week (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751) will cheer you up. It's loads better than this thread. Seriously, once it gets going it's magical.

One actually screenshots a calendar...

And yes... this thread reminded me of it :joker:That just hurt my brain:laugh:

[Niamh.]

This viral thread featuring two bodybuilders arguing about how many days are in a week (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751) will cheer you up. It's loads better than this thread. Seriously, once it gets going it's magical.

One actually screenshots a calendar...

And yes... this thread reminded me of it :joker:

I had to stop reading that, I was getting embarrassed for them :hehe:

[bots]

This viral thread featuring two bodybuilders arguing about how many days are in a week (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751) will cheer you up. It's loads better than this thread. Seriously, once it gets going it's magical.

One actually screenshots a calendar...

And yes... this thread reminded me of it :joker:

If ever there was an example of why not to take steroids that's it :laugh:

[user104658]

How is it 'magical'? And how does it remind you of this thread? It's a bunch of bodybuilders arguing about basic mathematics.
Are the pyramids not magical? That thread is one of the great wonders of the digital world!

This thread reminded me of it in that it was overly long, quickly became eristic, and because after several pages of confusion the OP (is it OK to train day on day off) is never actually answered!... And because several large posts of ours in this thread were "big brother fans arguing about mathematics"... If you boil them right down.

[kirklancaster]

Are the pyramids not magical? That thread is one of the great wonders of the digital world!

This thread reminded me of it in that it was overly long, quickly became eristic, and because after several pages of confusion the OP (is it OK to train day on day off) is never actually answered!... And because several large posts of ours in this thread were "big brother fans arguing about mathematics"... If you boil them right down.

Oh - I see T.S. Ok, I get you now, but I'm sure me and you are going to have other long discussions but hopefully on a respectful level and no vitriol. :laugh:

[Nedusa]

This viral thread featuring two bodybuilders arguing about how many days are in a week (http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751) will cheer you up. It's loads better than this thread. Seriously, once it gets going it's magical.

One actually screenshots a calendar...

And yes... this thread reminded me of it :joker:

Thanks TS for this LMFTO on this one.... Omg have these guys been over training or what. As another poster said , definite steroid abuse lol



.

[James]

http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7601920&postcount=16

Sometimes I've thought 'I wonder' about things like this, but the thing about coincidences is that you only notice them when they happen.

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/photoshop/7/3/0/167730_v1.jpg

[Niamh.]

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/photoshop/7/3/0/167730_v1.jpg

:omg:

[Crimson Dynamo]

:omg:

that film scared the sh1t out of me

[Crimson Dynamo]

today or yesterday i posted about a bar of choc called super moose

i have not thought about it for decades

just this minute my brother emailed me a pic of the bar

no word of a lie


kirk teas

:suspect: