Most of us here understand the problem with shot taking. It has come up many times over the years.
But this is not about shot taking. Unless it was at CRIS, assuming they hung the opening line. This is about the stupidity of books that follow blindly.
If I say 'I bet you the sky is red', and you can clearly see it is blue, I have a problem. But wait. Not to despair. According to the rules the offshore books have so conveniently created for themselves, I have a way out. 'Err, I meant to say blue.' Case closed. Nothing you can do about it.
That is the widely accepted standard, allowing for human error, and I'm not here to dispute it.
But if 100 fools repeat after me 'I bet you the sky is red', and you bet it is blue with every one of them, they can't say 'See the other guy over there? He meant to say blue.'
Now you have every right to point out that you don't give a f*ck what the other guy said, and that a book can't hide behind somebody else's opinion or error. And you would be right. Why? Because it may be another human error to rely on somebody's opinion without checking it, but that (widespread) tendency is a far different mistake than a misplaced decimal point. If we can't hold people accountable for their actions, because they can argue that somebody else gave them the idea, we may as well get rid of the entire justice system. Please do invite me to the jury when a lawyer in the US is stupid enough to try to make such a case.
Shot taking is measured against the rest of the market, in every case I've seen. It is not measured against what the line in theory should have been. If the entire market offers one price, there is no shot taking. In such a case the player would be wise to assume the books know something that he has overlooked.
But this is not about shot taking. Unless it was at CRIS, assuming they hung the opening line. This is about the stupidity of books that follow blindly.
If I say 'I bet you the sky is red', and you can clearly see it is blue, I have a problem. But wait. Not to despair. According to the rules the offshore books have so conveniently created for themselves, I have a way out. 'Err, I meant to say blue.' Case closed. Nothing you can do about it.
That is the widely accepted standard, allowing for human error, and I'm not here to dispute it.
But if 100 fools repeat after me 'I bet you the sky is red', and you bet it is blue with every one of them, they can't say 'See the other guy over there? He meant to say blue.'
Now you have every right to point out that you don't give a f*ck what the other guy said, and that a book can't hide behind somebody else's opinion or error. And you would be right. Why? Because it may be another human error to rely on somebody's opinion without checking it, but that (widespread) tendency is a far different mistake than a misplaced decimal point. If we can't hold people accountable for their actions, because they can argue that somebody else gave them the idea, we may as well get rid of the entire justice system. Please do invite me to the jury when a lawyer in the US is stupid enough to try to make such a case.
Shot taking is measured against the rest of the market, in every case I've seen. It is not measured against what the line in theory should have been. If the entire market offers one price, there is no shot taking. In such a case the player would be wise to assume the books know something that he has overlooked.
