essence of intelligent gambling

[George Rice]

Cris, if you think about it, David's statement about betting into the wind is "correct". Not correct no matter what, but correct probably over 99% of the time.

True, you might be a hustler looking to get Paul in a contest at 3:1 where you figure to have the best of it at those odds. But what are the chances of that? People make all sorts of claims and assumptions about their abilities. There are untold numbers of people who would offer to play at those odds who had almost no chance of winning, nor any understanding of gambling concepts, scrabble or even adequate word knowledge. His statement illustrates the same point (or one of the points) in Paul's orinigal post.

Besides, your assumption that you are "the only one in this conversation who knows both sides of the equation" is flawed. You don't know if Paul has improved his game or whether David, if fact, does know who you are and knows about Paul's improved game. Not that any of this is likely, but neither is it likely that you're actually a wolf in sheep's clothing--far more likely the opposite.

Don't neglect the fact that you have over 2000 posts and David may have a pretty good idea about your abilities and thought processes from reading these posts.

Finally, it really dosen't matter if you are the rare hustler. The amount someone is willing to bet against you probably isn't enough to warrant your efforts. And a large bet would arouse suspicions and you might be found out (certainly David wouldn't wager a lot without looking into it).

But that's my point of view after reading some of the posts. If David made his statement without considering the small likelihood that you were a hustler, or didn't consider it irrlevant for the above reasons or others, then he was guilty of "betting into the wind." But I doubt it.

And if I'm wrong, excuse me for "'breaking wind' into the wind." [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]