[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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
LINGFIEL 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."

[I]“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:
“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.