dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
SISU will just end up having to rent the land from HS2
For the new stadium.
For the new stadium.
New £30m stadium in pipeline (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter AFCCOVENTRY
- Start date
Sky Blue Jay
New Member
Casino royal 007 got away ill get him next time 
Can't say really all ill say is the security men got the wrong guy
Can't say really all ill say is the security men got the wrong guy
Warwickhunt
Well-Known Member
what a crock of shit this is! i wish the bleeding council/ACL WOULD GET OFF THE POT and force the issue by doing a lockout perhaps that will get them around he table, we cannot just turn up at Nuneaton and play our remaining games it has to be ratified by the league. I am getting to a stage where i wish they would put me out of my misery
Disorganised1
New Member
My advice would be find a new team to support, looks like Coventry are history.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Exactly my point. They still owe the money. They will still have to pay the rent they owe.
sky blue john
Well-Known Member
I just think how much longer can these jokers carry on !!!
They may have taken on the best manager we have had for 20 years at the fith time of asking. But then to lose this manager because they can not give assurances on finance. But in the same breath tell the world they will build a 30 million pound stadium.
Surely if they have this sort of money then keeping Robins would have been easy !!!
I know its comic relief time but this sort of comedy is priceless !!!!
They may have taken on the best manager we have had for 20 years at the fith time of asking. But then to lose this manager because they can not give assurances on finance. But in the same breath tell the world they will build a 30 million pound stadium.
Surely if they have this sort of money then keeping Robins would have been easy !!!
I know its comic relief time but this sort of comedy is priceless !!!!
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
I think it's moving teams a certain distance, may as well have made it illegal to move from Highfield Road to The Ricoh.
Would have saved a lot of problems if it had been made illegal to move from Highfield Road to The Ricoh.
mattylad
Member
that could be the best comment on this page
Card counting is used in blackjack to turn the slight house edge into a slight player edge meaning over a long enough period of time you will make profit playing Black Jack. As it sounds you count the cards coming out so you know weather the deck is in the dealers favour or your own, then you can bet more or less accordingly and for the more skilled even make different play decisions.
The simpler forms simply have a running total where you take one away everytime you see a 10.J,Q,K or an Ace and add one every time you see a low card. The higher the number currently is the bigger percentage of 10,J,Q,K,A are in the deck and the more likely you are too win. There are more difficult forms of card counting where you count more than just have you seen a low or a high card. Pretty much anyone can learn to card count its not difficult, it's very simple maths especially the easier forms of it.
It's not in anyway cheating, but casinos dont like playing games where they arn't favourite.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Half the problem with Black Jack is other players, if have just one person who doesn't have a clue what they're doing it can cost the table loads.
Always best to think of it as a team game, all against the house.
That isn't true, the bad player will hurt you and help you in equal measure. You'll just remember the times when the person hits on 17 and gets the 10 that was going to give you 21. How you play can't increase or decrease the chance of other people winning.
Edit - of course if you are card counting and the other people at the table follow your betting that would increase their chance of winning (not the hand but being up overall financially) but if the other people at the table have figured out you are card counting I guess you are getting chucked out.
Last edited:
Look at it this way, the dealer is going to bust if he draws a 10 and everyone at the table will win, do you think the top card of the deck or the second card in the deck has a greater chance of being a ten? the answer is of course they are both the same chance, so while it feels like the other person costs you the game if they hit unnecessarily and take the 10 that would have bust the dealer, on another occasion the dealer would have gotten the 5 they needed and the second card would have been the 10 so the bad player made you all win instead. Everyone remembers when they feel they have been screwed over so it becomes common knowledge that bad players hurt you in blackjack. people playing basic strategy sit their and tut and groan at the casual people playing for fun yet it statistically it doesn't hurt or help you.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Seems to hurt more often than not with bad players(you could be right and down to perception, only remember the bad time), however a good player who is playing last can help out a great deal by "taking one for the team".
All in all though it's just a game of chance, and no matter how "good" a player you may think you are, and how you "play it by the book", it's all about the luck of the cards.
Just knowing when to quit, ahead or behind, seen a few in there waiting for midnight so they can get another grand out of the cash machine after they've lost the previous days grand on it.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Your statistics are wrong on that one though, the most annoying thing is people calling when the dealer has a 6 particulary.
6 packs used, which gives you 168 "10" cards out of 312(I think), so statistically far more likely to have a combination to bust the dealer than not.
Sometimes they do get the 10 and 5 or whatever, which is a fair cop, but more often than not they will go bust if have a six and left to it.
The taking one for the team isn't true either, but yes if you are a casual player or someone that plays perfect basic strategy blackjack is a game where you will lose money if you play long enough, so the only reason to play is for fun if you think losing £50 or whatever is worth the evenings entertainment you had and if you are up stopping is the way to go because you will eventually lose your winnings.
If you card count the odds can be in your favour though and then the more you play you will make money eventually as long as the rules of that game of blackjack allow you to get the odds in your favour by counting. you need to know the house edge where you are playing and how much it's possible to swing it with the counting system you use and then you need not to get caught and presumably it's quite easy to spot especially if you are a regular.
As far as im concerned unless you are an awesome poker player going to the casino should be done very very occasionally with a group of friends with money you are happy to lose for the nights entertainment.
If you card count the odds can be in your favour though and then the more you play you will make money eventually as long as the rules of that game of blackjack allow you to get the odds in your favour by counting. you need to know the house edge where you are playing and how much it's possible to swing it with the counting system you use and then you need not to get caught and presumably it's quite easy to spot especially if you are a regular.
As far as im concerned unless you are an awesome poker player going to the casino should be done very very occasionally with a group of friends with money you are happy to lose for the nights entertainment.
The dealer is likely to bust when he has a 6, he however will be equally likely to bust with the second card of the deck compared to the first card of the deck. Sometimes the bad player will stop him busting but they are just as likely to make him bust.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
That is very true, in this case the bad player is generally only harming themselves by choosing to take a card and go bust.
Here you go, from wizzard of odds probably the best gambling information and strategy site.
Every time I go to the Blackjack games there is a grumpy simple individual, who wants to stone some poor soul for "messing up the shoe.” Is there any truth to this?
— Jim from Las Vegas
In ten years of running this site I steadfastly denied the myth that bad players cause other players to lose in blackjack. However, you are the lucky 1000th person to ask, so I took the trouble to prove it by random simulation. The rules I put in are the standard liberal Vegas Strip rules as follows.
6 decks
Dealer stands on soft 17
Double on any first two cards allowed
Double after split allowed
Late surrender allowed
Player may re-split to four hands, including aces
Cut card used
First, I had both players follow correct total-dependent basic strategy. Over almost 1.6 billion rounds, the loss of the first player to act was 0.289%, and the second player to act of 0.288%.
Second, I had the first player follow the same correct strategy, and the second player follow the same correct strategy except:
Always hit 12 to 16
Always double 9 to 11
Split any pair
Never surrender
Never soft double
In a simulation of 1.05 billion hands the loss of the first player was 0.282%, and the second player was 11.260%. So the house edge of the basic strategy playing first player was almost the same, regardless of whether the second player played correctly or wildly incorrectly. I hope this puts and end the third baseman myth, but I doubt it. As I have said many times, the more ridiculous a belief is, the more tenaciously it tends to be held.
Every time I go to the Blackjack games there is a grumpy simple individual, who wants to stone some poor soul for "messing up the shoe.” Is there any truth to this?
— Jim from Las Vegas
In ten years of running this site I steadfastly denied the myth that bad players cause other players to lose in blackjack. However, you are the lucky 1000th person to ask, so I took the trouble to prove it by random simulation. The rules I put in are the standard liberal Vegas Strip rules as follows.
6 decks
Dealer stands on soft 17
Double on any first two cards allowed
Double after split allowed
Late surrender allowed
Player may re-split to four hands, including aces
Cut card used
First, I had both players follow correct total-dependent basic strategy. Over almost 1.6 billion rounds, the loss of the first player to act was 0.289%, and the second player to act of 0.288%.
Second, I had the first player follow the same correct strategy, and the second player follow the same correct strategy except:
Always hit 12 to 16
Always double 9 to 11
Split any pair
Never surrender
Never soft double
In a simulation of 1.05 billion hands the loss of the first player was 0.282%, and the second player was 11.260%. So the house edge of the basic strategy playing first player was almost the same, regardless of whether the second player played correctly or wildly incorrectly. I hope this puts and end the third baseman myth, but I doubt it. As I have said many times, the more ridiculous a belief is, the more tenaciously it tends to be held.
Sky Blue Jay
New Member
Betting is all down to luck I've seen guys but stupid amounts of money on the table and lose in a second but then on the other hand I've seen guys win loads of money. It's all down to luck 50/50
J
Jack Griffin
Guest
Can you open a betting techniques thread in a betting forum please.
This isn't the place.. end of.
This isn't the place.. end of.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
well said jack.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Is there is anything more annoying than "end of" on any internet forum, anywhere?
Possibly "this" ^^ and "loose" instead of "lose".
Jack maybe a "looser".
Bluegloucester
New Member
Yes. "Of" instead of "have"
coffee and chocolate. i have to deliver to both factories
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
I kinda don't want to give this thread too much attention as the suggestion by Tim is such as joke
TheParsonsHose
Member
If there ability to design and manage a football stadium is as good as their ability to manage a football club then its going to be amazing!! :facepalm:
:facepalm:
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I think it can be trumped by; "I think SISU are in the right on the rent issue, as they want to invest matchday income in the team"
SkyBlueSwiss
New Member
My understanding is that the rental agreement was for 25 years. If this is correct, then SISU/CCFC not only owe the back-rent, but will continue to owe the rent for quite a few years yet, so building their own stadium (yeah, really?) would add dramatically to the existing cost, not lower the total cost.
And if they do want to build a new stadium south of coventry, what better place that the common at Finham next to the library? Is the terminus of the No.4 bus still at the common in Finham? If so, then it would be the perfect place for SISU to build their new stadium.
And if they do want to build a new stadium south of coventry, what better place that the common at Finham next to the library? Is the terminus of the No.4 bus still at the common in Finham? If so, then it would be the perfect place for SISU to build their new stadium.
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
only library i know in finham has a green you would struggle to put a 6 a side pitch on ............ plus the finham residents assoc would never allow ball games on the green !