On matchbook for the last three elections, one could profit simply by taking the Democratic candidate after the Republican primary, then 'selling' back after the Democratic one (and vice-versa, based on whoever went first).
With a divided electorate, no doubt it would work again this year, however it may be different without matchbook. 
So the strategy here is to post as many rolling laughing guys as possible to make your post seem funny, while avoiding the question.
WHAT SHOULD THE LINE BE? DO YOU ACTUALLY GAMBLE?
Jeesh.
I try not to "school" people. That is not my goal. So lets give him a break and not rub it in - agreed?
Better tell DJbrow this above too. He suggests a strategy of buying and selling - that sounds a lot like the stock market.
I try not to "school" people. That is not my goal. So lets give him a break and not rub it in - agreed?
You have nothing to "rub in" bozo.
You have beclowned yourself and are now reduced to trying to change the subject.
You know, there are all kinds of "pro gamblers" operating who bet on their favorite teams!
So the strategy here is to post as many rolling laughing guys as possible to make your post seem funny, while avoiding the question.
WHAT SHOULD THE LINE BE? DO YOU ACTUALLY GAMBLE?
Jeesh.
Mind you, the author of "You will not see a -200 again that has this much value. " is asking me if I gamble.
Really.
But let's go with the stock analogy. And remember, vanzack (really a 20 something kid) is pretending to be a professional stock trader.
Here is what his "pro" did:
1. Bought stock in a company which suffered a massive loss the previous year (2010 elections)
2. Bought a stock where the actual product is unknown (Romney was not the nomineee, his VP is unknown)
3. Bought stock in a company who's affiliates publicly distance themselves from said company (various senate, house, and gubanatorial candidates have distanced themselves from Obama publicly)
4. Bought stock in a company where those affiliated anonomyously talk to jounalists and bad mouth the leadership
5. Bought a stock enterning into a known period of volatility. The campaing begins in earnest with a lot of scruntiny, "scandals" media coverage, etc. These events will cause steady swings in said stock for the next 4 months (swings driven by those less informed than even vanzack, which speaks volumes about the prudence of the investment)
In sum, if you believe Vanzack is a "pro" at anything, I feel sorry for you.
Now vanzack, head back to whatever forum your little college fanboys hang out in and believe your tales of profit, all your "cash" (I bet you have like a mansion and a yacht!) and such.
You're clearly not doing yourself any favors here.
So the strategy here is to post as many rolling laughing guys as possible to make your post seem funny, while avoiding the question.
WHAT SHOULD THE LINE BE? DO YOU ACTUALLY GAMBLE?
Jeesh.
-135/140 ish...not looking to get involved in this fight, just stating an opinion
But let's go with the stock analogy. And remember, vanzack (really a 20 something kid) is pretending to be a professional stock trader.
Here is what his "pro" did:
1. Bought stock in a company which suffered a massive loss the previous year (2010 elections)
2. Bought a stock where the actual product is unknown (Romney was not the nomineee, his VP is unknown)
3. Bought stock in a company who's affiliates publicly distance themselves from said company (various senate, house, and gubanatorial candidates have distanced themselves from Obama publicly)
4. Bought stock in a company where those affiliated anonomyously talk to jounalists and bad mouth the leadership
5. Bought a stock enterning into a known period of volatility. The campaing begins in earnest with a lot of scruntiny, "scandals" media coverage, etc. These events will cause steady swings in said stock for the next 4 months (swings driven by those less informed than even vanzack, which speaks volumes about the prudence of the investment)
So the strategy here is to post as many rolling laughing guys as possible to make your post seem funny, while avoiding the question.
WHAT SHOULD THE LINE BE? DO YOU ACTUALLY GAMBLE?
Jeesh.
Why do you avoid this question? Do you realize that posting multiple laughing emoticons doesn't automatically make something funny?
But let's go with the stock analogy. And remember, vanzack (really a 20 something kid) is pretending to be a professional stock trader.
Here is what his "pro" did:
1. Bought stock in a company which suffered a massive loss the previous year (2010 elections)
2. Bought a stock where the actual product is unknown (Romney was not the nomineee, his VP is unknown)
3. Bought stock in a company who's affiliates publicly distance themselves from said company (various senate, house, and gubanatorial candidates have distanced themselves from Obama publicly)
4. Bought stock in a company where those affiliated anonomyously talk to jounalists and bad mouth the leadership
5. Bought a stock enterning into a known period of volatility. The campaing begins in earnest with a lot of scruntiny, "scandals" media coverage, etc. These events will cause steady swings in said stock for the next 4 months (swings driven by those less informed than even vanzack, which speaks volumes about the prudence of the investment)
In sum, if you believe Vanzack is a "pro" at anything, I feel sorry for you.
Now vanzack, head back to whatever forum your little college fanboys hang out in and believe your tales of profit, all your "cash" (I bet you have like a mansion and a yacht!) and such.
You're clearly not doing yourself any favors here.
Im a 20's something kid who started posting at covers when I was 13!! OKAY!!!!!
Once again - it doesnt matter what I am. You love to think you know anything about me - but that isnt the point here.
Its great you disagree with me. Obviously - lots of people do. But lots of people also agree with me (all idiots of course) that were keeping the line where it was and is.
Since none of us have crystal balls - value is mostly subjective. If you give me 100-1 on each number on a roulette wheel, that value is calculated and cant be debated. But on something that has many variables - and is in the future - value is subjective.
So while you and others might disagree with a calculation of value - which is a valid debate - the ridiculously moronic debate about whether value is stupid because a price went up or down before the market closes is absurd. Markets change with new information. Just because you are a buyer at -200 doesnt mean you arent a seller at -140 3 months later (Im not, but I could be at any time).
If I decided to sell, that would mean that informational factors have changed - it DOES NOT NECESSARILY imply that the original -200 bet didnt have value. Lets take an example of this principle:
The real line on the SB is NE -3 over NYG. Before the game, a book is putting out a line of NE-10, when everyone else is on -3. You take NYG +10 because you have bet value. Now - at HT - the Giants are losing by 30, so the HT line you can the Giants +35. Just because the line is now +35 doesnt negate the fact that your original wager at +10 before the game had value. It did because at that point in time, the wager had value. It doesnt now - but that doesnt change the original point in time when you bet the value. GET IT?
Now - care to debate the concept of value - or are you willing to retract your statements earlier?
Dufus36 clinging to his belief that obama will do better against Romney than against McCain. I thought swiss cheese had holes in it, genius?
Dufus36 clinging to his belief that obama will do better against Romney than against McCain. I thought swiss cheese had holes in it, genius?Wow.
What else can I say.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
