Get ready for rates to rocket

Really2

Why because I did not bite.

I have no problem with jokes. I just like funny ones that is all:)

PS if you worry about things being misinterpreted perhaps you should use full quotes:)

Really2 wrote: »

Was the joke that I am sexist? I see the smile on the end, just that I struggling with any other way of it being a joke?

Not taking it personal, I just though it a bit odd.

JanCee

lostinrates wrote: »

I agree its ''different''[ but I'm beginning to wonder if it is completely different or different on a matter of scale.

As I say, I do not think it corelates to Mx and Treliac (and indeed our welfare system impacts) but I can imagine scenarios where it would make sense.

It also depends on the antiques. You can live pretty well with out furniture, but I'd like a bed (mine is antique) and really, I'd quite like a sofa (mine are antique) and wardrobes/drawers - mine are antique. If I were to use these things and sell my antiques I'd be selling to replace: a scale with not STR but downsizing.

No it is completely different. You can live without furniture but not without shelter. If I came round to your place and took away all your furniture you might be uncomfortable but you would survive. If I came round and threw you out onto the street you would struggle to survive.

I know that isn't going to happen, but this comparision between houses and antique furniture is just plain ridiculous.

lostinrates

JanCee wrote: »

No it is completely different. You can live without furniture but not without shelter. If I came round to your place and took away all your furniture you might be uncomfortable but you would survive. If I came round and threw you out onto the street you would struggle to survive.

I know that isn't going to happen, but this comparision between houses and antique furniture is just plain ridiculous.

But I don't think dopester is suggesting people live without shelter. I'm most certainly not. I'm not even suggesting people sell, I just think I'm getting an insight into dopeseters arguements. It is possible to live with out owning a home, under shelter.

Dan:_4

JanCee wrote: »

No it is completely different. You can live without furniture but not without shelter. If I came round to your place and took away all your furniture you might be uncomfortable but you would survive. If I came round and threw you out onto the street you would struggle to survive.

I know that isn't going to happen, but this comparision between houses and antique furniture is just plain ridiculous.

I couldn't live without furniture. And if anyone ever takes away my plasma and sky sports package, my life really would be over.

ad9898_3

Dan: wrote: »

I couldn't live without furniture. And if anyone ever takes away my plasma and sky sports package, my life really would be over.

Are you an MP Dan ?:D

Dan:_4

ad9898 wrote: »

Are you an MP Dan ?:D

My Sky Sports is the only thing I have in my sad life.

Oh, and the Mrs i suppose.

ad9898_3

Dan: wrote: »

My Sky Sports is the only thing I have in my sad life.

Oh, and the Mrs i suppose.

I'm hurt , what about your internet buddies ?:D

Dan:_4

ad9898 wrote: »

I'm hurt , what about your internet buddies ?:D

Good point. :beer:

Austin_Allegro

mewbie wrote: »

By the way? Have you tried folding a piece of paper in half eight times? Can't be done.

Gordon Brown could use this as a strategy for the General Election. 'All ballot papers must be folded 8 times and put in the box'. The ensuing chaos would mean the election would be postponed!

Thrugelmir

julieq wrote: »

Actually it does. There are plenty of people making very good livings out of gambling, it's really just a question of being able to assess risk in a narrow domain better than a bookmaker and manage liabilities.

The each way thing is interesting though, it's an old and well known dodge for boosting value on a racing gamble. An each way bet is two bets, one to win, one to place, there's a fixed formula to derive the place odds based on the win odds, and that imposes a structural weakness as the bookie is sometimes forced to lay odds greater than the probability of the outcome. If a horse is highly likely to win, it's possibly disproportionately likely to place.

You take a flat race with a short price odds on favourite with second and third favourites odds against and back the favourite each way. For this to work the race has to have as close to 8 runners as possible, but at least 8 runners.

Because these favourites are difficult to keep out of the places in flat races, you are effectively boosting the odds of the win above the probability of it happening which is the condition for value in a bet. Bookmakers hate to take these bets, and people taking them on are known as each way thieves (if not worse). Many will refuse to take the bets or reduce what can be bet on them to a bare minimum.

There's a variant which involves backing the 2nd and 3rd favourites each way in similar races on the basis that there is value in the place part of the bet. One of the 2nd or 3rd favourites (or both) is highly likely to place, but the place part of the bet will be odds against quite often.

Not that my £2 bets at the track are particularly smart (I backed a succession of 2nd favourites which came, err, second ) or likely to do anything other than buy my children ice creams, but it's a good way to learn about risk, and also a good day out. And you can pay the entrance price with Tescos vouchers

And I've never known a poor bookmaker. :rolleyes:

Ok so sometimes bookmakers lose money on a particular event bigtime.

Take the Derby on Saturday, the favourite at the off. Was down to the fact that somebody on course placed 2 £50,000 bets with different bookmakers. The horse wasn't even placed.

Those book makers would have gone home happy. :cool: