[SEAHAWKHARRY]

Same

[jackpot269]

Thanks opti hopefully it will be soon!! i dont think Buzzy will gives us a ticket either !! Or BC my guy from the 1990's

[jackpot269]

Its up and running now good luck all!!!!!!

[stevenash]

The SBR tech’s here are good here, they are, but one major issue I have is there seems to be a lack of urgency on there part.

But they do fix the problems but the impression I get is “we’ll fix the problem on our time”

[pavyracer]

How much money was saved by not betting in the book last night? A lot of square plays lost last night like Bucks and Dubs.

[KVB]

...A lot of square plays lost last night like Bucks and Dubs.

What's a "square play"?

Did "square plays" lose last night?

[stevenash]

What's a "square play"?

Did "square plays" lose last night?

I'd rather be a square and get paid than be a sharp and lose.

It's all about the Benji's.

"Money, it's a gas"

[KVB]

I'd rather be a square and get paid than be a sharp and lose.

It's all about the Benji's.

"Money, it's a gas"

This is wrong.

That's like saying the best bet for a particular game is the one that won that particular night.

The winning play is not always the winning bet.

Your thinking will not result in more Benji's, it will result in a loss over time.

Remember, some bettors will win the battle, but they will certainly lose the war. I have demonstrated this real time.

But that wasn't the original point here.

It was about "squares" and "sharps" and the wild guesses that posters have on who is where, or even who is what.

Some love to guess, I don't know why, but they love to wildly guess, and can never be right because of how they are guessing.

[stevenash]

^

I was being sarcastic.

*All good*

[KVB]

Yeah it was really more about a sharp, a square, where are they betting, who lost, who won.

At a fundamental level this is all bullshit. The reality is that there are not just two type of bettors. Maybe you can define a "sharp" or "sharp play" and everyone else is an off speed pitch. I could see that in an argument.

But I constantly see posters claiming the "squares all lost" "public is on" etc and it's often outright wrong, or so much of what acutally happened is left out.

It's amazing how much of it is wrong though. The thought process of someone who understands the participants, like me, is far less interesting than the ones of those who so confidently "know" something that they clearly don't.

See this in the stock world too, see a lot of awkard misinformation, even on TV. I was in that business and there are some fundamentals the TV news gets wrong, quite often too, in what looks like an effort to fill a void or explanation, or entertainment.

Ever try to make a list of all the things you don't know? There's such a fundamental psychological need to have an answer, even if created.