Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Punting - why value is the key

1235

Comments

  • #202
    Colonel Sanders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭Colonel Sanders


    RoverJames wrote: »

    In isolation all that guarantees is that eventually you'll end up with unit stakes so small that they can't be expressed in Euro or pounds.

    You're bladdering on about your op again I see, bookies make money! Unreal, we all know that.

    Again it is a theoretical application of a concept I believe to be fundamental

    A concept you claim to understand but have not appeared to on this thread

    A concept you claim I am "struggling" with yet despite repeated calls cannot point me to my posts where there is "evidence" of my "struggle"


  • #203
    Colonel Sanders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭Colonel Sanders


    RJ, did you or did you not state, and I quote:

    Any post relying on the law of large numbers can be disregarded as its not relevant to selective punting

    If you did say this it is proof you haven't a clue what you are on about


  • #204
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Colonel Sanders wrote: »
    RJ, did you or did you not state, and I quote:

    Any post relying on the law of large numbers can be disregarded as its not relevant to selective punting

    If you did say this it is proof you haven't a clue what you are on about

    I did indeed, as I consider a number in the range of 750 small out of a pool of over 500k, the selective punter selects this small number of events, the bookies have them priced consistently, some of them are bad value, some are good and some are about right in bookies terms.

    Your insistance that the law of large numbers can be applied to a small finite number of non routine selections is nothing short of ludicrous, its not throws of the dice old boy.

    You can apply your theory to roulette spins etc if the wheel isn't biased, you can't apply it to everyone's punting habits no matter how much you'd like to.

    Your inherent problem is that you apply the fluke or luck label or the value label to all positive ROI from a sample regardless of its size, that's an inherent conceptual flaw that you can't overcome in your own head.

    Its born out of an inability to pick winners yourself, regardless of value imo, you than speel out the value muck as you have nothing else to contribute.

    If I don't have a clue how did I from a 190 euro betting bank lay over 1000 horses on betfair and now have over 1500? What are the chances of that happening if I don't have a clue?


  • #205
    Colonel Sanders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭Colonel Sanders


    RJ we have went through this before on this very thread. In which you:

    1. Stated I was "struggling" with these concepts yet could not point me to any post where this was apparent
    2. You posted a load of rubbish such as the quote above that suggested you don't actually understand the theory of what I am discussing (you've backed this up in your last 2 posts)
    3. More than once you've told me I said something I did not
    4. Not once when called to point to these posts where I allegedly said these things could you actually do so

    If you like re-read what we spend several pages discussing again. I'm not posting the same thing all over again


  • #206
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Colonel Sanders wrote: »
    ............
    3. More than once you've told me I said something I did not
    ...........

    Nothing short of a lie, hardly my fault you can't comprehend ;)

    I think it is yourself who posted that "you seem to be saying" when I was saying nothing of the sort, the problem being your comprehension :)

    Regarding rubbish, your application of the law of large numbers to selective punting is nothing short of rubbish.

    What's amusing is that even though you have a pure maths degree you can't apply what you've learned (or learned off ;) ) appropriately :)

    From your posts here I think you'd struggle with honours maths for the leaving cert.

    Please do answer how I have turned €190 into €1500 since August by laying short priced horses (1000+) on Betfair if I don't have a clue :)

    While I do that you wait for PP once a week enhancements so you can practise what you preach, ie knowing nothing about your selections :)

    Q.E.D as the maths numpties say, Q.E.D. :pac:
    (don't lose the head now old boy)


  • #207
    Colonel Sanders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭Colonel Sanders


    Your honour, the prosecution will show that RJ hasn't got a notion about the theoretical concepts discussed in this thread
    RoverJames wrote: »

    Regarding rubbish, your application of the law of large numbers to selective punting is nothing short of rubbish.

    Prosecution rests your honour


  • #208
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ...... Or if the prosecution has a clue they'd reckon you have no idea how to apply the theoretical concepts you speel on about.

    Your post highlights how you want to be judge and jurythough, ft9 got that spot on ;)


  • #209
    Colonel Sanders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭Colonel Sanders


    FWIW I've been accused by at least 3 posters of attributing their successful punting to "luck". This is not what I stated if they bothered to read (and understand) what I posted they'd see this. I'll not respond to any further posts on this topic as I've repeated myself at least 3 times

    Secondly I'll not reply to any further posts that call my ideas "wrong", "flawed", "inept" or suggest I'm "struggling" based on posts along the lines of "look at my (finite) betting history & I don't care about value". Again I've replied to this repeatedly

    *eagerly awaits a juvenile comment stating I'm running out of ground or that another poster has "won"*


  • #210
    RichieLawlor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,873 ✭✭✭RichieLawlor


    Nice how CS list 4/5 points and RJ picks one out of the middle to answer and skips the rest.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    RichieLawlor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,873 ✭✭✭RichieLawlor


    RoverJames wrote: »
    A very decent thread and the OP is on the ball. In my opinion the bookies prices on each horse running are typically 15% less than what would be required for a consistent level stakes punter to break even longterm.

    Oh look what I found. RJ first post in the thread.


  • #212
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    RichieLawlor wrote: »
    Nice how CS list 4/5 points and RJ picks one out of the middle to answer and skips the rest.

    Sure he won't answer my query ;)
    Nice how you have no opinion of your own today, your last one made you look a gnome.


  • #213
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    RichieLawlor wrote: »
    Oh look what I found. RJ first post in the thread.

    Read on....


  • #214
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Colonel Sanders wrote: »
    FWIW I've been accused by at least 3 posters of attributing their successful punting to "luck". This is not what I stated if they bothered to read (and understand) what I posted they'd see this. I'll not respond to any further posts on this topic as I've repeated myself at least 3 times

    Secondly I'll not reply to any further posts that call my ideas "wrong", "flawed", "inept" or suggest I'm "struggling" based on posts along the lines of "look at my (finite) betting history & I don't care about value". Again I've replied to this repeatedly

    *eagerly awaits a juvenile comment stating I'm running out of ground or that another poster has "won"*

    Everyone's betting history is finite ;)
    No doubt you struggle with that concept too.


  • #215
    Colonel Sanders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭Colonel Sanders


    Exhibit B your honour
    RoverJames wrote: »

    Everyone's betting history is finite ;)
    No doubt you struggle with that concept too.

    It's official, you're either
    1 trolling
    2 more clueless than even I thought

    I hope for your sake its 1 as if its 2 then wow. Simply wow!

    Not sure why I'm bothering but.....

    Where have I said elsewhere. If you read the OP (and understand - I really think the understanding bit is what you're having trouble with) you'll see I am referring to value being a "fundamental" if success in the long run is your goal.

    Remember the OP which you stated was on the ball?

    In any case I will no longer respond to your posts unless you actually post something of substance worthy of replying to relevant to the thread which I have not already answered multiple times.

    And I'm most certainly not holding my breath on that one.....


  • #216
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ah repeat it all again :pac:
    Just scan the notes and lash them up.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    mdwexford
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,280 ✭✭✭✭mdwexford


    But RJ has made 1200 in 4 months laying 9 horses a day.

    He must be an expert. :rolleyes:

    Wow smilies are fun.


  • #218
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    mdwexford wrote: »
    But RJ has made 1200 in 4 months laying 9 horses a day.

    He must be an expert. :rolleyes:

    Wow smilies are fun.


    Few things, I'll point out for you
    - as you reckoned the 2012 Gold Cup was a two horse race your knowledge of punting is very weak
    - as you reckoned both Long Run and KS both should have been shorter your knowledge of value is non existent as the bookies won't be giving much value on the market leaders in the Gold Cup
    - €1500 - €190 is not €1200
    - I don't lay horses every day so your 9 a day estimate is way out
    - I'm no expert but am 100% confident neither yourself
    Colonel Sanders or RichieLawlor have the ability, intellect or knowledge of racing, punting or value to do what I've done.

    - your buddy reckons 750 is a large number, my number of bets is far in excess of that, to do what I've done says something that the three of ye won't like.
    - Maths boy would like to put it down as luck or a fluke, it can't be value as he reckons I have no clue about that.


  • #219
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Colonel Sanders wrote: »
    ..........

    Concept 3: The Law Of Large Numbers

    ........If we could place an infinite number of bets we would be certain to achieve our EV .................
    Colonel Sanders wrote: »
    ..............

    Where have I said elsewhere. If you read the OP (and understand - I really think the understanding bit is what you're having trouble with) you'll see I am referring to value being a "fundamental" if success in the long run is your goal....................

    We can't place an infinite number of bets, the smaller the number the less the results can be explained by the law of large numbers.

    750 horse racing bets is a small number.

    I make all of my betfair profit due to value so I am not at all struggling with the understanding of anything you have posted, you are struggling with the application of your degree, as you've said you are pedantic.


  • #220
    RichieLawlor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,873 ✭✭✭RichieLawlor


    RoverJames wrote: »
    Few things, I'll point out for you
    - as you reckoned the 2012 Gold Cup was a two horse race your knowledge of punting is very weak
    - as you reckoned both Long Run and KS both should have been shorter your knowledge of value is non existent as the bookies won't be giving much value on the market leaders in the Gold Cup
    - €1500 - €190 is not €1200
    - I don't lay horses every day so your 9 a day estimate is way out
    - I'm no expert but am 100% confident neither yourself
    Colonel Sanders or RichieLawlor have the ability, intellect or knowledge of racing, punting or value to do what I've done.

    - your buddy reckons 750 is a large number, my number of bets is far in excess of that, to do what I've done says something that the three of ye won't like.
    - Maths boy would like to put it down as luck or a fluke, it can't be value as he reckons I have no clue about that.

    I'd kill myself if it took me 1000 bets to earn 1200 quid.

    I think you might be a bit slow. Calm down there old boy :rolleyes:


  • #221
    Colonel Sanders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭Colonel Sanders


    Colonel Sanders wrote: »

    There is none so blind as those that will not see

    Probably worth bumping


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Colonel Sanders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭Colonel Sanders


    RJ look up "convergence in probability" and "almost surely"

    If you can grasp that concept re-read my posts (especially the ones responding to people saying I said they were merely "lucky" or the ones where you said I can't apply the law of large numbers to selective punting) & then may begin to make sense

    *que jibe about college notes*


  • #223
    faoile@n
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 338 ✭✭faoile@n


    Why are you repeatedly using the notional figure of 750 to discredit the OP when in fact you place a number of bets far in excess of that?


  • #224
    Colonel Sanders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭Colonel Sanders


    Colonel Sanders wrote: »

    Concept 3: The Law Of Large Numbers

    The law of large numbers says, in lay mans terms, that the larger the number of "good" bets we place the closer and closer our profit on turnover will get to our EV (5% in the coin toss example)

    You should also reference this part of my "on the ball" OP if you are about to post about "luck" and what you believe I have said about it (but not been able to quote)


  • #225
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    faoile@n wrote: »
    Why are you repeatedly using the notional figure of 750 to discredit the OP when in fact you place a number of bets far in excess of that?

    750 bets over 50 years - selective punting.
    I don't practise selective punting, I lay horses I reckon are underpriced on betfair. The number of bets I place would be a large number over 12 months.


  • #226
    mark renton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,696 ✭✭✭mark renton


    Why cant we all just live in peace and harmony?


  • #227
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Colonel Sanders wrote: »
    RJ look up "convergence in probability" and "almost surely"

    If you can grasp that concept re-read my posts (especially the ones responding to people saying I said they were merely "lucky" or the ones where you said I can't apply the law of large numbers to selective punting) & then may begin to make sense

    *que jibe about college notes*

    I have no intention whatsoever of looking at any reference you advise:)
    Colonel Sanders wrote: »
    You should also reference this part of my "on the ball" OP if you are about to post about "luck" and what you believe I have said about it (but not been able to quote)

    Again, not applicable to all punters.


  • #228
    Colonel Sanders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭Colonel Sanders


    Have edited below to include other factors that influence p:

    What the hell, for the last time (and I mean last time):

    A +ive RoI is due to one of 2 mutually exclusive things:

    1. The gambler has placed a series of bets where the weighted EV is +ive
    2. The gambler has placed a series of bets where the weighted EV is -ive, but variance has been kind

    I will call the person "lucky" if 2 is the case. If p is the probability of 1, 1-p is the probability of 2

    If you show me a +ive RoI based on 10 bets I am not very confident whether its down to 1 or 2 so I might estimate p to be in the region of 0.5

    If you show me a +ive RoI over 1,000 bets I will be more confident 1 is the case (confident bit not certain). I will assign a value in excess of 0.5 to p but a value less than 1.

    If you show me a +ive RoI over 10,000,000 bets I will be even more confident 1 is the case and would assign a value to p that would be very close to 1 (but not equal 1)

    This is how the law of large numbers is relevant to finite samples of bets.

    In the limiting case where we have an infinite sample p=1 (and hence the probability of option 2 is 1-p = 0) i.e. you cannot win in the long run unless your weighted EV is +ive

    EDIT: the above is the case where we only know:
    1. Whether RoI is positive (not the size of it)
    2. The numbers of bets

    There would be other influences on p also

    eg the size of the RoI and actual turnover. Perversely the conditional expectation of a -EV punter given he's shown a +ive RoI over the short term can actually be quite high depending on the average price they're taking

    Markets they're betting on. If the RoI is based on roulette p is close to zero (can't say zero as they may be in cahoots with a casino worker)

    Staking. If they're betting fivers and showing a huge loss after 9,999 bets then bets an even 10k to show a profit after 10,000 that would influence p

    etc etc etc

    There are any number of factors you could consider (given the information is available) to influence your estimate of p


  • #229
    Colonel Sanders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭Colonel Sanders


    RoverJames wrote: »
    I have no intention whatsoever of looking at any reference you advise:)
    .


    Would this be because you wouldn't have a clue what the content meant?

    Seriously this is my last reply (directly to you) unless you can actually add something worthy of reading to the thread


  • #230
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    RichieLawlor wrote: »
    I'd kill myself if it took me 1000 bets to earn 1200 quid.

    I think you might be a bit slow. Calm down there old boy :rolleyes:

    The ROI after commission is quite decent, so too is starting from a small betting bank and letting it grow by profit.

    Only to be sneered at by f*ck wits who have no clue :)


  • #231
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Colonel Sanders wrote: »
    Would this be because you wouldn't have a clue what the content meant?

    Seriously this is my last reply

    Not at all, I'd haveno interest in reading references not applicable to small sample sizes made up of what are essentially outliers.
    Seems as you have no clue about the application of the law of large numbers I'd suspect your latest reference point is equally misunderstood by yourself.

    A pure maths degree, you're some add for it.

    Best of luck with the paddy power enhancements, when that hits a losing run thetes always GA :)


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    Colonel Sanders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭Colonel Sanders


    Damn iPhone why can't I post smiley faces & get in on the fun


  • #233
    byronbay2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭byronbay2


    RichieLawlor wrote: »
    I'd kill myself if it took me 1000 bets to earn 1200 quid.

    In fairness, that is one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever read on Boards - and I'm including AH and CT in that!
    I reckon this thread has run it's course (it's been fun!) and all you can do is agree to differ at this stage.


  • #234
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Colonel Sanders wrote: »
    What the hell, for the last time (and I mean last time):..................
    Colonel Sanders wrote: »
    ..............

    Seriously this is my last reply
    Colonel Sanders wrote: »
    Damn iPhone why can't I post smiley faces & get in on the fun

    Quite indecisive as well as not knowing much about selective punting, pickng winners etc etc :)


  • #235
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 23,339 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    byronbay2 wrote: »
    In fairness, that is one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever read on Boards.........

    You wouldn't hear it in the canteen in Fas ;)


  • #236
    Colonel Sanders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭Colonel Sanders


    byronbay2 wrote: »
    I reckon this thread has run it's course.

    I actually agree with you tbh


  • #237
    Slattsy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,775 ✭✭✭✭Slattsy


    RichieLawlor wrote: »
    I'd kill myself if it took me 1000 bets to earn 1200 quid. QUOTE]

    Start a log and lets see how long it takes you to reach 1200e ;)


  • #238
    mark renton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,696 ✭✭✭mark renton


    U gonna man up Richie?


  • #239
    RichieLawlor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,873 ✭✭✭RichieLawlor


    mark renton wrote: »
    U gonna man up Richie?

    So if I start a log and put up a €1500 win/lay bet on Simonsig for the Arkle and win the bet, does this make me a better punter than RJ

    I assume it would since I would have more profit.

    Lol maths

    Lol sample size


  • #240
    Slattsy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,775 ✭✭✭✭Slattsy


    RichieLawlor wrote: »

    So if I start a log and put up a €1500 win/lay bet on Simonsig for the Arkle and win the bet, does this make me a better punter than RJ

    I assume it would since I would have more profit.

    Lol maths

    Lol sample size

    Ha. Fair point.
    But ya know what I meant (smiley face)


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Colonel Sanders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭Colonel Sanders


    Smiley face

    This could become the craze that sweeps the nation


  • #242
    mark renton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,696 ✭✭✭mark renton


    Colonel Sanders wrote: »
    Smiley face

    This could become the craze that sweeps the nation
    Would be useful for mobile cause I cant find the feckers...

    Btw I think the OP could have been more simply explained if it was from a bookies perspective rather than a punters, as a bookie will only have the number of bets for consideration.


  • #243
    mdwexford
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,280 ✭✭✭✭mdwexford


    RoverJames wrote: »
    Few things, I'll point out for you
    - as you reckoned the 2012 Gold Cup was a two horse race your knowledge of punting is very weak
    - as you reckoned both Long Run and KS both should have been shorter your knowledge of value is non existent as the bookies won't be giving much value on the market leaders in the Gold Cup
    - €1500 - €190 is not €1200
    - I don't lay horses every day so your 9 a day estimate is way out
    - I'm no expert but am 100% confident neither yourself
    Colonel Sanders or RichieLawlor have the ability, intellect or knowledge of racing, punting or value to do what I've done.

    - your buddy reckons 750 is a large number, my number of bets is far in excess of that, to do what I've done says something that the three of ye won't like.
    - Maths boy would like to put it down as luck or a fluke, it can't be value as he reckons I have no clue about that.

    Because one race had an odd result I have no knowledge. There's a good sample size for you eh.

    How do you know what's value or not, the bookies have every Gold Cup favourite priced spot on do they.

    Wow you're really scraping the barrell with the subtraction jibe.

    It's an average of 1000 divided by roughly the amount of days you said you started, hope this helps.

    The fact you think there have been 1000 wrongly priced favourites in that time yet the GC favs are priced spot on is laughable by the way.

    What have you done, turned 190 into 1500, exactly how amazing do you think is is. Also I have no proof you have done this.


  • #244
    Overthelast
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,451 ✭✭✭Overthelast


    Colonel Sanders wrote: »
    Smiley face

    This could become the craze that sweeps the nation


    Doubt it. We don't have the numbers here.


  • #245
    Overthelast
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,451 ✭✭✭Overthelast


    mark renton wrote: »
    Would be useful for mobile cause I cant find the feckers...

    Btw I think the OP could have been more simply explained if it was from a bookies perspective rather than a punters, as a bookie will only have the number of bets for consideration.


    Perspective was suggested, viewed, replied to & ultimately rejected or ignored with a degree of contempt a few pages back.

    Best of luck with that one.


  • #246
    mark renton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,696 ✭✭✭mark renton


    Overthelast wrote: »


    Perspective was suggested, viewed, replied to & ultimately rejected or ignored with a degree of contempt a few pages back.

    Best of luck with that one.
    Sorry, any post other than op with more than eight lines is too much of an effort.

    Put simply, bookies make money in a 50-50 coinflip by offering both outcomes at 5/6 or similar odds against. If a punter were to back 50-50 chances at anything over evens like 6/5 then the punter would eventually win.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    Colonel Sanders
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,669 ✭✭✭Colonel Sanders


    Overthelast wrote: »
    Perspective was suggested, viewed, replied to & ultimately rejected or ignored with a degree of contempt a few pages back.

    Alternatives to what the OP deemed a "fundamental" were rejected as the OP stated he could not accept something as "fundamental" that did not stand up to rigour.

    Others may well (in fact the OP wished them well if they wanted to), but the OP finds such a stance irrational


  • #248
    hucklebuck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,173 ✭✭✭hucklebuck


    RoverJames wrote: »

    Are you serious? Do you not understand how bookmakers make a profit? Your post above suggests you have no idea. I'm actually surprised at your post, as clueless as I reckoned you were I didn't have you down as being lacking in knowledge to that degree.

    Yes I am serious, do you even know what you are on about?

    If you are saying 15% was the probability of either or both winning you are bang wrong. If you are saying 15% as in the bookie had an over round of 115% I would be surprised if it was that low, its normally around 130%, I will check it out when I get home.

    Rich coming from a guy who doesnt have a rashers about maths and has to follow other posters to have winners.

    Maybe less snide posting and more proof that you understand maths and value seeing as 600 posts by someone who know their stuff hasn't sunk in.


  • #249
    hucklebuck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,173 ✭✭✭hucklebuck


    RoverJames wrote: »

    Please do answer how I have turned €190 into €1500 since August by laying short priced horses (1000+) on Betfair if I don't have a clue :)

    Prove you arent talking out of you hole, it would be very easy to view your settled bets and copy and paste them into this thread, old boy ;)


  • #250
    ste2010
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭ste2010


    I read this thread and half way through i started puking my ring in sheer overwhelmant!!


  • #251
    mark renton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,696 ✭✭✭mark renton


    ste2010 wrote: »
    overwhelmant!!
    Thats not even a word pal.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement