Bill Benter / Allan Woods/ Zeljko Ranogajec - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK harm-plan

Racehorse TALK



Bill Benter / Allan Woods/ Zeljko Ranogajec - Racing Talk - Racehorse TALK

Author Topic: Bill Benter / Allan Woods/ Zeljko Ranogajec  (Read 4066 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 22463
« 2020-Sep-02, 08:03 PM Reply #75 »
Just browsed through all of Entropy's remaining posts.

Doesn't strike me as someone who can't handle his gambling.

And he certainly appears extremely well informed about pertinent matters.

As well as someone whose occasional posts I look forward to.

As I and others here already said.

And note in one of his earlier posts where he says "great forum, guys".

Long, long time ago.

But at least we still have PP7 here and he might teach us to become hobby punters.

I didn't say Entropy couldn't handle his gambling.

I was concerned by his reaction in wanting the moderators to delete his membership in response to something that I said that was pretty innocuous really, and that did not reference him directly.

If there was a 1% chance that I had struck a nerve and this may have upset him I wanted to make it quite clear my position on anyone (not just Entropy) who may have gambling problems or may be feeling down for some other reason. It is the responsible thing to do.

Stop trying to change the narrative into something it isn't.

The vast majority of people who like to have a bet on the horses are hobby punters. They are not rich enough to be anything else.

You can be a hobby punter and still be profitable. And most importantly you can have a bit of fun.

Fun. You remember what that is jfc? That is the thing we have when entering into tipping comps. Talking about the footy. Talking about racing history and a myriad of other things on the forum.

You seem to be anything other than having fun at times.  :no:

 

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7303
« 2020-Sep-06, 05:36 PM Reply #76 »
I was concerned by his reaction in wanting the moderators to delete his membership in response to something that I said that was pretty innocuous really, and that did not reference him directly.

If there was a 1% chance that I had struck a nerve and this may have upset him I wanted to make it quite clear my position on anyone (not just Entropy) who may have gambling problems or may be feeling down for some other reason. It is the responsible thing to do.

Stop trying to change the narrative into something it isn't.

Innocous!

Your posts tried to contradict Entropy's posts, and thus his veracity.

First you asked a dumb question about the Chi test, appearing like you'd never heard of exploiting biased roulette wheels.

Then after I tried clueing you in, you attacked me.

When Entropy returned to elaborate you went after him.

Entropy then went into even more detail about the incident but you attacked his account further.

And after he understandably left, you deduced he may have gambling problems.

Charming!

For the record you've made an amazing number of mistakes in your baseless attack.


Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7303
« 2020-Sep-13, 06:18 PM Reply #77 »
jfc,

Sad sac!

Played and enjoyed Blackjack in Townsville for a while BUT only for a while.

Staff managed to spill coffee over me 3 times during my stints. This while I was trying something not mentioned in any books.

Make of that what you will.

Fours
So you've read every book about Blackjack ever written!

Wonder how many here believe you.

And presumably your secret strategy lost.

So why waste our time divulging that!

Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 6877
« 2020-Sep-13, 10:22 PM Reply #78 »
jfc,

Sad sac you are the one that struggles with originality.

I have given several original ideas for bettig on this forum.

Shown things to be true that doube dee said were impossible - ie improving both strike rate and returns on place betting by utilizing first fours from a reduced place bet.

I will keep my original ideas on black jack to myself. I do horse racing instead because it is both more interesting and more profitable. I understand others have made the same decision. Good for them as Casinos are a terrible environment as well. No one else got coffe spilt on them at my table during that time. Do the math unless thats a problem for you.

Fours

Online jfc

  • Group 1
  • User 723
  • Posts: 7303
« 2020-Sep-17, 06:38 PM Reply #79 »
Your post shows you are extremely unlikely to have ever read a decent blackjack book in your life.

Because if you had you would know something about Expectation and the Kelly Criterion.

And Variance - which is an important factor in blackjack. In a very different way to racing.

And as for your original method, it's obviously inferior to the standard ones.

Because one can make a lot of money with the standards, but you can't with yours.




Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 6877
« 2020-Sep-17, 11:20 PM Reply #80 »
jfc,

  :lol:   :lol:   :lol:   :lol:   :lol:

Funny how you are the one bitching..... and in the dark.

Fours

Offline Antitab#

  • Group 2
  • User 234
  • Posts: 2169
« 2020-Sep-18, 01:01 AM Reply #81 »
Bubba

Why did you pay tax.

No other professional punter of that era did.

The Ross Evans case seemed to absolve punters of the need.

Offline jkw

  • Maiden
  • User 2943
  • Posts: 1
« 2020-Sep-18, 01:04 PM Reply #82 »
The Qld Supreme Court made a gambling syndicate ruling recently.

Even with high turnover, complex computer systems and rebates, it was still ruled a gambling syndicate and not taxable?

https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/case/id/344997

Offline HarmersHaven

  • Listed
  • User 1861
  • Posts: 246
« 2020-Sep-18, 02:03 PM Reply #83 »
The Qld Supreme Court made a gambling syndicate ruling recently.

Even with high turnover, complex computer systems and rebates, it was still ruled a gambling syndicate and not taxable?

https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/case/id/344997

I'm only a handful of minutes in, but this promises to be a fascinating read.

Offline fours

  • Group 1
  • User 704
  • Posts: 6877
« 2020-Sep-18, 02:07 PM Reply #84 »
Oh Boy,

That will really piss some others off that were doing much the same and found to be taxable.

Fours

Offline JWesleyHarding

  • Group 1
  • User 231
  • Posts: 20346
« 2020-Sep-18, 02:22 PM Reply #85 »
Bubba
Why did you pay tax.
No other professional punter of that era did.
The Ross Evans case seemed to absolve punters of the need.

Oh, don't tell me Bubba's paid tax when he didn't have to.  :biggrin:   :biggrin:

And here he was before the last election practising all of his favourite financial callisthenic routines to avoid  the then impending franking credits burden.

Offline Antitab#

  • Group 2
  • User 234
  • Posts: 2169
« 2020-Sep-19, 02:04 AM Reply #86 »
Where has Bubba's post gone?
 
Maybe he didn't really pay tax.

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 22463
« 2020-Sep-19, 04:05 AM Reply #87 »
Where has Bubba's post gone?
 
Maybe he didn't really pay tax.

Here it is.

Bubba is an "upstanding citizen" (after you hear Frank Zappa say this cynically in one of his songs the term never seems the same after that)

I have no doubt Bubba paid all his taxes - less deductions for the expenses associated with his business - like entertaining Colourful Racing Identities.

Is it like the stock market Bubba where you can offset winning years (capital gains) against losses carried forward from previous years?


The term gambler's ruin is a statistical concept, most commonly expressed as the fact that a gambler playing a negative expected value game will eventually go broke, regardless of their betting system.
How would one define the term 'gambler's gain', where a 'gambler' plays a positive expected value game which will eventually guarantee make a profit due to their betting strategy ?
If someone bets another gambler 2/1 against on heads on a series of coin tosses I believe he would be guaranteed of making a profit.. that is a positive expected value game. You may ask who will offer that bet ? Of course, nobody, but If a gambler continually beats the odds on any outcome he will make a profit.
Rain is expected in Melbourne today, if I was offered 6/1 against that happening I would gladly accept those odds but if I was offered 4/6 on I would not. It is all about the odds nothing more nothing less.
All gamblers do not die broke.
From the late 1960s to the late 1990s I bet on all on course totes throughout Australia arbitraging on course bookmakers odds against the TAB odds. In those earlier days there was no Sky Channel, no betting to the jump in off course TABs, no laptop computers. The off course TAB odds did not reflect the true market odds, all the smart money was on course and was reflected in on course bookmaker's odds and to play the differential between those two markets did not require a university degree in mathematics,. Over those 30 years that advantage slowly but surely dissipated and since 2000 I have hardly had a bet, but for those 30 years I never had a losing year, and yes I paid tax on my winnings as I was full time punter from 1970 until 2000.
Betting in the current day is no doubt completely different and you probably do need to have programming skills etc  to bet against the likes of Z , where he receives rebates, but for those 30 years one did not, in fact a young eccentric, now deceased Tim Walsh, like his brother David, was just coming on the scene on behalf of Z and his team betting with laptops  as I was winding down .
« Last Edit: 2020-Sep-19, 04:13 AM by PoisonPen7 »

Offline Grega9430

  • Group3
  • User 267
  • Posts: 504
« 2020-Sep-20, 06:13 PM Reply #88 »
A  bit thinned skinned aren't we  :what:

Upset because I dared to state that we always hear winning stories and never the losing stories about gamblers.

You can delete your own account. Your a smart man. I'm sure you can work it out.

Checked your posts PP7 and you do some good work on this forum but in this case you lived up to your moniker, I was enjoying this thread especially given the long running previous thread was deleted but you seem to have put an end to that, so a sarcastic thanks from me.

Just a reminder this is a racing/gambling forum and we gamblers like to hear; and are interested in; winning stories, if you want us to hear losing stories about gamblers then start a thread, I'm sure most of us would have something to contribute but none of it would be very interesting.

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 22463
« 2020-Sep-21, 02:43 PM Reply #89 »
Checked your posts PP7 and you do some good work on this forum but in this case you lived up to your moniker, I was enjoying this thread especially given the long running previous thread was deleted but you seem to have put an end to that, so a sarcastic thanks from me.

Just a reminder this is a racing/gambling forum and we gamblers like to hear; and are interested in; winning stories, if you want us to hear losing stories about gamblers then start a thread, I'm sure most of us would have something to contribute but none of it would be very interesting.

Can you please quote to me where you think I have stopped people recounting tales about winning stories thanks Grega. Specifically please?

I deny that I have ever said anything of the sort.

I reserve the right to place a little healthy cynicism upon second-hand stories about people winning enough money to buy a Mercedes backing 27 Red on the roulette wheel. And doubly so for poker machine wins.

I'd also like someone to post here the results of any simulation where a chi-square test could give 27 Red a 20% higher chance than any other number - just a simulation would suffice. And something that is plausibly believable.

If someone can show me that then I will  :shutup:

Offline PoisonPen7

  • Group 1
  • User 55
  • Posts: 22463
« 2020-Sep-21, 03:00 PM Reply #90 »
Checked your posts PP7 and you do some good work on this forum but in this case you lived up to your moniker, I was enjoying this thread especially given the long running previous thread was deleted but you seem to have put an end to that, so a sarcastic thanks from me.


And just an FYI.

The previous thread was taken out of public view following an approach to the owner of this web site (which is not me) by the lawyers for one of the people mentioned in the subject title of this thread.

Repeated pleas by the owner seemed to fall on deaf ears so action had to be taken.

So if in the background there is some chatter that is saying "who knows what" between several parties jumping in on this thread unannounced, there is no agenda.

This site does not carry advertising (like Facebook and Twitter and punters.com) and is only surviving on the generosity of people digging into their own pockets.

It won't survive if people don't understand the difference between hearsay and fact.

There is a link at the top of the page if anyone wants to donate.


BACK TO ALL TOPICS
Sitemap