mid-table

I agree with those two posts. We wouldn't want people actually trying to find out information, or having opinions. Didn't realise you had been appointed official griefmeister in charge.

This press conference isn't really being that informative.

What are they meant to do?

Unpopular opinion alert; I wish people would stop going on about the "spirit of Glasgow". Whilst not denying it, it's kind of missing the point.

I'd never read a thread on independence until now, and to be honest I'm glad I hadn't. The childishness on here is staggering, it actually influences my thoughts on how I'll vote having now seen how immature some people, who I'd previously thought as being quite sensible, are. This is about the only thing I agree with.

It's not so much a dig at you, more that I just cannot comprehend your logic most of the time. You get such poor value by putting on multi-team accumulators at restrictive odds and big over-rounds. If the goal is to beat the bookie then you will have a greatly reduced chance of doing that with that type of bet.

Sorry, but Bayern were backed in from about 6/4 to Evens before the game, this was heavily discussed on the BT Sport preview show on the Friday night. That's how I knew about it. Pre-match, all the money was for Bayern. 3-0 was not a ridiculous leap of faith.

I never indicated there was any problem with it. It just made me laugh. In the same way that I once put 20p on Celtic to beat Gretna at 1/10, and posted the betting slip on here.

To be fair, Dortmund were without their entire first choice defence, and Bayern were backed all week long. Still good bets, but 3-0 Bayern wasn't the hugest shock ever.

I had to quote this post now, so that it appears at the top of another page of 30 posts. I couldn't bear to not see it every time I load this topic. It has everything I like to see on a thread; 1/100 shots Bets on Norway under 19s A 9 fold accumulator that returns £4.57 And best of all, it doesn't contain a screenshot of the bet, instead it contains a photo of a computer screen with the bet on it. God bless Pie & Bovril.

Free advert. And I would love to know the real story without any of the spin (pardon the pun), I simply don't believe that she decided to have one 20p bet for a bit of fun. Leprechauns Luck has 10 winlines, I'll bet she was actually playing £2 per spin (10 winlines at 20p each), in fact in order to qualify for 100% of the jackpot I think you have to be staking £2 per spin. Even if she won off her first spin, I fail to believe she played with the intention of having one spin for 20p (which is garbage anyway, see above) and that's it. Edit; If I worked in the William Hill press office I would probably punt out the same story, but it's, erm, what's the word, stretching the truth slightly.

Yes. Unequivocally, absolutely yes. The games being referred to on FOBTs are B2 and B3 games under the Gambling Act 2005. They are random. You are confusing them with old school fruit machines, which are generally category C or D machines. These are only pseudorandom. I covered all of this off earlier in the topic. I agree with the vast majority of what the post directly above says.

That may be, but I would much rather that people weren't set up to fail and didn't have to go through the crap to get to that stage.

They are more like a pool betting company. Wont the Coral millionaire a few weeks ago. Seem legit but not conventional.

It is a dating site, but a bit looser than some others. I'm no expert, but I would say that the hierarchy is probably match being the most relationshipy, then places like guardian soulmates, then places like PoF, then places like adultfriendfinder (if that's still even going).

Plenty of Fish. Mainly used by blokes to proposition girls who think they are going to meet their soulmate.

No kids, not ugly, don't use the word 'banter' in their profile. Edit; just read that back and I don't consider that someone who has kids means they are a lower standard, it's just not my preference.

Probably the only sensible post in this thread. I'm 34 and it's a fucking nightmare. Everyone's either already paired off, or the single people in their early 20s look at me like I'm their dad. I don't even look particularly old. Even dating sites are so much hard work to get anything out of if you have any sort of standards. I'm not talking about shagging websites like PoF, I mean proper dating websites.

And this is why I am in favour of restricting the stakes rather than an all-out ban. The majority of people who do not display compulsive traits (the most recent research now suggests 13% of players display compulsive traits, as referenced in the responses to the government triennial review), and are able to play the machines recreationally are betting much lower stakes. They would not necessarily be effected by a change to the maximum stake, however it would protect the people who, although not exclusively, are more often than not gambling higher stakes. Part of the problem is that most people in the know are aware that the problem gamblers are spending most of the time on the machines, and are by and large staking the most money per spin, but the evidence of this is all owned by the bookmakers, who are obviously reluctant to share it.

I don't know about 'expected', but yes, relatively intelligent people who know what they are doing would do that. But the bookies want people who don't do that, take bad prices (what I mean by that is if I'm offering 4/1 and the bookie next door offers 6/1, the people who bet with me are the mugs who will lose money over time) and put on bets without any thought put into them (see the first few posts of the current midweek thread in the gambling forum).

I've never bet on a tv show, not even a Big Brother eviction which used to be a huge betting market. I rarely bet in shops these days. I would say a decent sized bet is £500 upwards. EPOS systems naturally make it easier and instantaneous for bookmakers to manage their liabilities. And much like the stock exchange, it's not people who dictate prices now, it's computer programs. Blue4578 could talk a lot more about this specific issue than I can, he has spent whole days of travelling across England picking up winnings from various bookmakers.

£50 is maybe a bit of an extreme example, although it's not unknown to have a £50 bet refused or offered at significantly worse odds than advertised, but the general point he makes is absolutely correct. Bookmakers used to be willing to take decent sized bets, occasionally they would lose but they knew that they would come out on top in the long run. Nowadays, they are so risk averse they don't want to take any bets that give them any chance at all of losing money on an event. Why take risks on sports when you know you have guaranteed income from the four machines in your shop? And if people aren't betting their money on sports, that gives them more money to put into the machines.

Ladbrokes Barnhill is definitely closest, 1.0 miles from centre of Ferry, Douglas Ladbrokes is 2.1 miles from centre of Ferry. Before William Hill there was a bookmakers in Broughty Ferry, it was a green fronted building (still is) at the north of Ambrose Street. Can't remember what chain, it might have been an independent. I remember waiting outside it when my dad put our Grand National bets on when I was about 7 years old.

Dundee has always been a Ladbrokes city, and their presence has increased, but it's far from a monopoly. In 2001 there were 10 Ladbrokes, 4 Hills, 1 Coral, 1 Stanley and 6 Barretts, plus a couple of independents. These days off the top of my head there are 15 Ladbrokes, 7 Hills, 3 Corals, 1 Betfred, plus a couple of independents.

Yeah, we're going to invest £30,000 in this new shop so that we can pinch a couple of minimum wage cashiers from that bookies down the road.