General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 538 comments are related to the topic:
100k+
100k+
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 538
|
By:
How do you "value" health then aye robot?
Is the private sector profits all you "value"? |
|
By:
DFCIRONMAN
You are making a very basic error of logic. I made a statement about the meaning of a word, not about the value of healthcare. Your response is absurd. |
|
By:
Investing in hospitals means investing in the well-being of the community. His response is not absurd, it is an understandable reaction to someone seeing investment purely as financial, which clearly it is not.
|
|
By:
His response is not only absurd, it also goes to further illustrate my point. Spending on hospitals is obviously a good thing, but "spending" is the word, not "investment". The word "investment" is used by politicians to make it harder to object to spending because "spending" is seen as bad, whereas "investment" is seen as good. DFC has got his knickers in a twist because he's confused emotive language with objective reality. Spending is not bad in itself, it just depends what you're spending on. We ought to be able to comfortably use the word "spending" when that's what we mean.
Gamblers use euphemisms like "investment" to make Gambling sound good, when it's usually not. Returning to the core point: When you invest you use capital to make a return, but that doesn't mean that every use of capital in pursuit of a return is an investment. A dog has four legs but not every four legged animal is a dog. Particular forms of activity on the stock market may or may not be investments, some cases are unclear. Buying into a share issue obviously is investment, speculating on currencies obviously isn't, buying shares on the secondary market may be arguable. Gambling is quiet close to speculating, very far from investing. |
|
By:
To be fair to DFC his post was made late at night and may have been slightly influenced by alcohol. None the less, this part is particularly absurd:
Seems to me that you are a "dinosaur"..................... who is a cross between ATTILA THE HUN and HITLER! |
|
By:
can we get back on thread please.
|
|
By:
aye robotInvestment generally refers to using capital to make a profit.
================================================================================= Yes ...i was "under the influence of alcohol" ....and I apologise for comparing you to ATTILA THE HUN and HITLER.........I don't apologise for you being a dinosaur though   If you build a hospital .....there is absolutely no doubt it is a LONG-TERM ASSET that is being obtained. Therefore, it is not REVENUE EXPENDITURE. The same also applies to EQUIPMENT purchased by HOSPITALS.........Such expenditure is on ASSETS which should last a few years ........the "value" of their use is not a cost that should be written off as soon as bought! I agree that GAMBLING is not anything like "investing" in ASSETS that last a few years! I find your view on "spending" re-hospitals as being "absurd" in view of the nature of assets being obtained that will last a few years......................... |
|
By:
aye robot - BTW I respect you quite a lot on the subject matter of your posts generally ...however, I believe you are well "wrong" re-above disparaging way you write off hospital expenditure as being JUST "SPENDING"!
|
|
By:
DFC, this is getting quite off topic so I'm not going to dwell on it much more, but there is nothing disparaging about the use of the word "spending" - that's exactly my point. My use of the word is not pejorative, it's simply the most accurate term.
All spending has a return of some kind, even if that return is just looking good or enjoying a pint. Spending on hospitals undoubtedly has many beneficial returns. However, unless those returns are financial your spending is not really an investment- otherwise how is any spending different from investment? If I buy a nice pair of shoes I may enjoy a return for many years but they will never be an investment. Hospital buildings may be assets but ultimately they are still costs, they do not generate income - they simply use resources. Stating this doesn't mean I am anti hospitals, of course I'm not. The point is simply that the word "investment" is much misused. |
|
By:
I completley agree with the points made by aye robot but I do think that as no investment is ever guaranteed, an investment inot a gambling method/system could be just as likely or moreso to bring a return than a traditional investment into a business etc.
If there's thought and methodology behind putting money into something that could provide returns, to me it's an invetment but ultimately it will always be a gamble to some degree. |
|
By:
NHS organisations that also provide private treatment
The DH guidance applies to all organisations in England that provide or arrange NHS secondary and specialist healthcare. This type of care is normally provided in hospital. If your NHS organisation chooses to provide private healthcare, you may receive your private treatment, for example: * in a separate wing of an NHS hospital * at a private clinic run after NHS hours * in a private room Your NHS and private treatment can be supervised by one clinical team, although you will receive the treatments separately. However, you shouldn’t need the same test twice, for example, to diagnose or monitor your condition. In this case, the test will probably be part of your NHS care. Specialist NHS equipment, such as scanners, may be used for private patients, as long as this does not affect the care of NHS patients. ======================================================= As "hospitals " do obtain REVENUE from sources like the above........do you still regard them as just like a pair of shoes? |
|
By:
The NHS And Private Care
The NHS is actually one of the UK's largest providers of private medical care. Many Trust hospitals have private patients unit, which offer private rooms with ensuite facilities and excellent service. There are, in fact, more NHS Trust private units than any of the private hospital groups. The NHS's private patient units are often smaller than those in private hospitals ( typically they only have ten beds). However, treatment at NHS Trust hospitals' private patients unit are quite often excluded by many of the largest insurance schemes, although there are exceptions. |
|
By:
Are you under the impression that the NHS makes a profit? Or even tries to?
We spend money on hospitals to care for the sick, not to make a profit. Insofar as there are profit making enterprises running within the NHS you could describe spending on those as "investment" but overall expenditure on the NHS is not investment and nor should it be. If you buy an MRI scanner and use it in the NHS then that's not an investment even if you partially offset the cost by renting it out privately. The fact that some of the money is spent on assets doesn't make it investment either because those assets are by their very nature depreciating, even hospital buildings fall into this category. One might be tempted to say that this is an argument about semantics, ultimately we can make the word "investment" mean anything we like - but this is just dodging the issue. Accurate use of words is not expansive, it's reductionist. The question is not "can word X be made to mean Y?" but "of all the words available, which best describes Y?" Spending on the NHS is more accurately described as "spending" than "investing." In the same way gambling (in all it's forms) is most accurately described in it's native terminology. |
|
By:
You have now altered what you posted previously .......to "Spending on the NHS is more accurately described as "spending" than "investing."".................
Previously you stated - "For example governments often talk about "investing in hospitals" - this is nonsense, hospitals don't make a profit, we spend on hospitals." Words are important ....and your original post is not "accurate" ...... Anyway .....we clearly disagree re the use of word "investment"...............so best just to leave it at that ...GL with your BOTS |
|
By:
Those two statements are entirely compatible DFC. One is more strongly worded than the other but they are not contradictory.
If it's any comfort to you my bots are doing cr@p at the moment- which is why I'm on here working on them as fighting over nonsense rather than out there doing something better. |
|
By:
No comfort to me at all ....GL anyway , as usually enjoy reading your posts........
|
|
By:
What do you do DFC (gambling wise)?
|
|
By:
HORSES ......still "learning" re LAYING ....but BACKS generally "fine". Unfortunately due to too many HITS on LAYS ....learning can be costly ...treading water a bit . Eventually I might get regular profits though ....
FOOTBALL - mainly CS LAYS ......but although doing well re profits , from small bank....I don't really have an "edge" ....just reasonable "guesser"... |
|
By:
our tax money should "in theory", in the 21st century, guarantee:
1st... assure us that security from any kind of threat is being taken care of 2nd... assure us that we don't need to spend our lives accumulating money reserves for what is an almost sure thing... we will die of some kind of disease, sooner or later now after saying this we have two choices, either we spend our extra money travelling, buying houses, clothes, cars, etc,etc... or we save our money in order to delay our most probable destiny the problem of the health care, being so expensive and because of that being considered a "spending" as more to do with the way governments bend to the powers of the big pharmaceutical companies and other health care related companies than anything else ... now my question is ... what sort of incentive, profit wise, would i have to make an instant cure to a disease??? if that gives me a one time profit?? If i can control a disease and ensure that it becomes chronic, that assures profits on the long run along with inflation and everything else?? thats the problem of making health care a business |
|
By:
Coming back to the investing discussion. ( The ethics of drug companies are not really relevant to this type of forum, though very interesting and provocative such a debate can be).
If you sre gambling purely for fun, you're obviously not investing anything of import in any meaningful sense. If, however, you are gambling with the serious intent of making money, then you are investing your time and resources, in exactly the same manner as you would invest these two items in any other money making venture. And, as such, you shouild always evaluate your returns from gambling to those achievable in any and all alternative money making ventures which may be readily available to you, given your particular personal circumstances. The best and only way to do this is to quantify how much dedicated capital and time you need to make a certain amount of money gambling , and compare such figures to those realistically achievable alternatively elsewhere. If you're achieving the returns quoted by Aye Robot, Contrarian, Bayes et al, then stop right there. You will never better them. If you're only achieving more normal returns, then such comparative analysis must and should be continuously carried out. Or else, how would you know if you couldn't be doing something better with your time and money.? |
|
By:
Btw to all you traders out there.
I've been inspired by your tales of success and, in my modest way, am now trying to emulate them. Will let you know when I reach the magic 20,000 % pa ROC ? First signs are extremely encouraging. But struggling to get over the 10,000% pa mark. Must do better. |
|
By:
sorry FAFH and everyone else for going way off topic
but here it is an example of what im saying in practical terms TED TALKS: "TEDxBoston - Frank Reynolds - Changing the Face of Neuroscience" on youtube...one man with a personal problem that makes more than millions of dollars spent in whatever kind of research link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtPwGZ4y428 |
|
By:
btw if you like new things and new points of views, you have tons of hours in the TEd Talks conferences to see in you tube [;)]
|
|
By:
ok here it is one more video a bit more related to gambling from the Ted Talks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLmzxmRcUTo [;)] |
|
By:
On the investment/hospitals discussion (and the wider ramifications of those arguments) I'm firmly with DFC. I admire many of your posts Aye Robot - but I'm afraid you are just plain wrong on this one.
It is entirely possible to make an investment that is not targeted at making money. In the case of hospitals there are two specific reasons why an investment might be made. Firstly, is to reduce costs. In this case whilst the investment may not result in a positive P&L, the business case may well stack up because it provides a positive NPV - the case being made on doing the same (or more) for less cost. Secondly, academics have long worked on ways of valuing good health. A healthy nation has all sorts of impacts on things like GDP per capita, lower payments in certain types of benefit, and so on. In this area it is possible to make a case for investment in health. As a simple example, if you look at malaria; the per capita GDP for those countries without malaria is five times those of countries with it. A similar case exists for countries with high incidence of HIV. Relatively small investments (and yes I mean investments) can have a very profitable return in terms of GDP per capita. On the point of speculation vs investment, ROI etc. It might be helpful to explore the concept of ROR - Return on Risk. |
|
By:
At that rate, Frog, it won't be long before we see you giving interviews like this modest guy.
He says: “I doubt there's many people earning more than me on Betfair – it's substantial by any terms.” When there's racing in the UK, Australia and the US he'll be up at 2am working the Australian market. The UK business is usually between 2pm and 5pm, and then the US comes online at 9pm until 1pm. I've also been providing a lot of the liquidity for X Factor - people would be horrified about how much of that market was me. He deposited £1,000 and his first-ever bet (position) was placed with £5. He says he's never had to put more money in, and currently has £250,000 in his account. he himself suggests £40,000 a month wouldn't be unreasonable for some top Betfair traders. http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2010/12/06/ channel_man_turns_over_quarter_billion_on_betfair/ |
|
By:
thanks for the link Ghetto Joe. Usually have time for Warren Buffet but dont get what hes saying there. might google his views on gambling
|
|
By:
Unhealthy eating leads to an increased GDP per capita. As a simple example, if you look at obesity; the per capita GDP for those countries with a high level of obesity is x times higher than those of countries with a low level of obesity.
Beefy, whilst your assertion, that the provision of good health services is likely to have a positive impact on a nation's economy, is much more reasonable than my assertion above, your misuse of statistics to support your assertion is equally ludicrous. There are many factors that contribute to a nation's GDP per capita. The quality of the health services provided may well be one of those factors. Despite this, the statistic that you quoted, linking GDP to the prevalence of malaria and HIV, does not represent credible evidence in support of your assertion, despite your implication otherwise. |
|
By:
Is this a gambling forum or not ?
Anyway show me a healthy gambler . A seedy, stressed out lot if ever there was. |
|
By:
jt45
I agree with you that there are many factors that contribute to a nation's GDP per capita. However, I think your claim of my misusing statistics as being ludicrous is a trifle strong. I draw your attention to Jeffrey Sachs & Pia Malaney's paper published in Nature (Feb 2002) The economic and social burden of malaria "Where malaria prospers most, human societies have prospered least. The global distribution of per-capita gross domestic product shows a striking correlation between malaria and poverty, and malaria-endemic countries also have lower rates of economic growth. There are multiple channels by which malaria impedes development, including effects on fertility, population growth, saving and investment, worker productivity, absenteeism, premature mortality and medical costs." Sadly I can't find a free link to it. My point here is (and I used it to rebut Aye Robot's assertion that it is not possible to invest in health, only spend), whilst I'm not suggesting that malaria is the only cause of low per capaita GDP in those countries where it is endemic, there are very strong correlations between the two. I used this as an example of how it is possible to make an "investment" in health for a return in a nation's overall wealth. The Americans did it in the southern states, as did the Romans in southern Italy. |
|
By:
brendanuk1
When: 07 Dec 10 11:40 thanks for the link Ghetto Joe. Usually have time for Warren Buffet but dont get what hes saying there. might google his views on gambling Buffet says: “Gambling involves creating risk that doesn't need to be created,” replied Buffett. “If you want to go out and gamble on a where little ball is going to fall on a wheel that's revolving, that's a created risk. You can watch a football game without betting on it, but you can't live in a house on the Florida coast without having a risk that your entire investment can disappear. But I hope that you're right and that the house wins in both cases.” Which explains the difference between insurance and gambling. One is used to hedge risk, and the other creates risk out of thin air. This is also how I separate trading from gambling. If you place a bet, risk is being created for you (and the opposing player if he is a position taker). If you then trade out of that position, you are no longer creating risk, you are transferring it. In the documentary Warren Buffet: the world's greatest moneymaker, Evan Davis asks Buffet I'ts a gamble isn't it? And Buffet is noticably uncomfortable with that comparison. He states the process he goes through when selecting investments, as if that cannot be equally applied to a 'gambling decision'. My view is that he doesn't like it simply because it would be extremely bad for business if the investments he makes would start to be referred to as gambling. The word often has negative connotations, and is linked to recklessness. Most of the things we do in life 'don't need to be created'. We don't need to drink Coca-Cola, we don't need to run around after a football, we don't need to play guitar. Creating risk is not necessarily a bad thing, as it can be a form of entertainment. In any case creating risk (in a small way) in order to learn how to deal with larger risks, is something that could be beneficial for everyone involved. |
|
By:
Beefie (my apologies for misspelling your name in my previous post),
I don't doubt that the prevalence of malaria and other diseases can have a negative impact on a nation's economy. I believe that you misused the statistic that you quoted, linking GDP to malaria, as evidence to prove a link between health and GDP. Whilst ludicrous may have been slightly strong, I maintain that the statistic you used does not, without considerable additional qualification, support that assertion and therefore the use of it was misleading. In my opinion the statistic that you quoted may suggest that countries with a high GDP are likely to be better equipped to tackle malaria and other health issues than countries with a low GDP. It certainly doesn't prove that the presence of malaria necessarily leads to a substantially lower GDP. |
|
By:
thanks. His views on gambling dont sit with his other views on value etc for me. I had never thought of looking up his views on gambling before, but looked around and there is some other agenda imo. The 2 are if not identical then very similar to my way of thinking. Your explanation is a good rational as to why he says the things he does about gambling.
look at this http://www.casinowatch.org/commentary/buffett_on_gambling.html You're teaching your citizenry all the time by the actions you take as legislators and as administrators of a state like this. Essentially to teach you that the state is on the other side of the transaction from you--they're trying to get you to do something dumb--I just think the state ought to be doing things for its citizens, not do something to its citizens It ok for private companies to give bad deals to public but not the state. or this "I think it's cynical on the part of the state to raise money from people who basically can't afford it by promising them a dream that is not going to come true for any but the tiniest tiniest fraction of the people who participate" swap dream for American dream  Definately uneasy territory for him or maybe hes a just mug gambler  |
|
By:
Investor
You say that you differentiate trading from gambling simply because in the former your risk is ended ( transferred) before the final result and in the latter at the final result. Both, however, can result in either a profit or a loss. What's the actual difference then ? Just the timing of when the profit or loss occurs ? If so, what's the bottom line P/L difference? Nothing, except perhaps you can move on quicker to your next bet/trade. Which again you might lose or win. I think you might be kidding yourself a bit here. ? |
|
By:
Personally I think the governments should drop the 'price controls' on gambling.
If I wanted to set up a casino/bar/restaurant/hotel complex where the casino operates to a 0% margin, cross subsidizing the casino's operating costs with profits from the other segments, I simply wouldn't get a licence. Governments say they are protecting their citizens from getting ripped off, but they are also holding back the far better deals for the consumer that would lead to lower profit and lower tax income. A state controlled lottery is the biggest price fixing scam there is. People pay £1 to win on average less than 50p. If there was fair competition, someone would be able to pay out 99p for each £1 spent. So there is a large element of truth in the state 'doing something to it's citizens'. The My solution would be to legalize 'free gambling', without a fixed edge. Then market forces should create a more level playing field. Get rid of price controls and licenses altogether. It just stifles competition. |
|
By:
Would need very good regulation. The public would need to be protected from those that would be tempted rip them off as the cant compete by being fair open and transparent. I would play The Investors Lotto but you might have to pay 50% tax on profit. Its very interesting discussion though.
|
|
By:
jt45
You make a good point. Chicken and egg - is it the malaria contributing to low GDP, or the other way round. Although I didn't provide the evidence in the post (so your point is a fair one), there are a number of sources that indicate it's the latter, such as the eradication of malaria in the southern states. The point here being that when the Congress made funds available (stumped up an "investment") to combat the disease, the economies of the southern states improved dramatically. You may well argue of course that without the USA's high GDP per capita they wouldn't have been able to afford to combat the disease - and I couldn't argue with that. |
|
By:
The only role for a regulator I can see would be to stop fraudulent activity. For instance when casino edge is larger than what they say it is. Market forces should take care of the rest.
There is the problem of gambling addiction. In theory I would be for operators being free to decide how many FOBT's they want in their shop but I'm not totally convinced on that one. |
|
By:
A huge shoal of red herrings was last seen heading towards this thread. It is sad to report that its arrival suffocated the life out of all previous inhabitants.
|
|
By:
blast from the past
|