On 11/06/2011 09:00, Gavino wrote:
"Will wrote in message
...
OK I'm conceeding that it is highly likely that I will be totally wrong
about my indications for a hot and dry June

Kudos for admitting failure.
But the real lesson is that anyone who predicts the weather several weeks
ahead is never 'right' or 'wrong', merely 'lucky' or 'unlucky'.

If someone wins the football pools, no-one would think to praise him for
being a great forecaster.
Why should (long-range) weather forecasting be any different?




I think you denigrate Mr Hand and football pools punters. Mr Hand is a
scientist so should know about short and medium term situations in the
atmosphere. Seasoned football pool punters are experts in probability.

Joe Egginton
Wolverhampton
175m asl

On Jun 11, 11:32*am, Joe Egginton wrote:
On 11/06/2011 09:00, Gavino wrote:

"Will *wrote in message
...
OK I'm conceeding that it is highly likely that I will be totally wrong
about my indications for a hot and dry June

Kudos for admitting failure.
But the real lesson is that anyone who predicts the weather several weeks
ahead is never 'right' or 'wrong', merely 'lucky' or 'unlucky'.

If someone wins the football pools, no-one would think to praise him for
being a great forecaster.
Why should (long-range) weather forecasting be any different?

I think *you denigrate Mr Hand and football pools punters. Mr Hand is a
scientist so should know about short and medium term situations in the
atmosphere. Seasoned football pool punters are experts in probability.

Joe Egginton
Wolverhampton
175m asl

Come on Joe. Gavino didn't denigrate anyone. He pointed out a pretty
harsh lesson, instead. "Mr Hand" even goes against the medium-term
forecasts of his employers. How do you reconcile that? I'm an "expert
in probability" I suppose, as I've done the football pools in the past
and bet on the horses when I was young. I never won anything more than
a few quid and wasted a lot more. Punters are as expert in probability
as the players, or nags, they punt on! The real probability is that
they will lose, whatever system, or bet they place........yet they do
it again the next week and the next, and the next. That's what punters
(i.e. mugs and losers) do. What they are, are experts in calculation.
I've seen older miners who left school at 14, drank much of their
lives away when they weren't at the coal face or asleep, calculate a 4-
horse yankee where 3 horses won, all at variable odds, *in their
heads* much faster than you could do on a calculator**.It was money
for booze that the wife didn't know about and couldn't find out about,
unless they slipped up, so they made sure they could do mental maths
- an old betting slip in the pocket, or a calculation on a beermat
could spell grounding for a week!

Back to the point. Will's summer forecast may yet prove to be correct,
however, his June forecast almost certainly will be hopeless now. The
block has had a plunger applied to it and he didn't see that coming,
even though the models were clearly showing a change early in the
month and have been for a week. He even tried to use a single gfs run
to say that his forecast was on track and that was somthing others
usually do and is naughty. His long-term forecasting record, over the
last 5 forecasts (winter 2009-winter 2010 inc.) since I've watched
more closely, has been as good as anyone else's, granted; but everyone
else's has been pretty hopeless too. Will's no different to others,
because seasonal forecasting, unfortunately and very frustratingly, is
not yet possible with accuracy for the UK.

It's fun to see the forecasts and fun to see the outcomes, but if you
see a seasonal forecast from anyone, just smile knowingly, is the best
way.............and keep a little record of the forecasting success
over time! *))

**Try this: a 4 horse yankee is an accumulator, 4 trebles, and 8
doubles. 13 bets. At £1 per bet, that's a £13 stake (a fair percentage
of a week's wages in 1977). 3 horses come up at 11/4, 5/1 and 1/2.
That's a treble, 11/4 x 5/1 x 1/2; a double at 11/4 x 5/1; a double at
5/1 x 1/2 and a third double at 1/2 x 11/4. The 4th horse comes in
second and you know you've actually missed out on enough for a bloody
family holiday - that's why gamblers can't stop! Anyway, getting over
your disappointment, you've got 5 minutes to sink your pint and get to
the bookies before they close. Could you calculate your winnings so
you can argue the toss with the bookie when he tries to fiddle you,
because you look like a stupid miner who shouldn't have a brain?

I was in my third year at university, back home in my local and I saw
exactly this happen - at those odds. Then and to this day, I can't get
anywhere near mental brilliance of that old man who told me what his
exact winnings would be, then came back in to show me the calculation
on his betting slip. He was perfect to the penny, including his £4
return of stake. I'm doing the calculation now and I think it's about
£43 winnings plus £4 stake back. Imagine if the last horse had won at
the odds of 6-1 that he had!!!

PS He didn't even buy a bloody round for our domino 4 and just got
himself another pint. Tight git.

In article 9aec7f67-fc48-469b-a490-
, says...

Punters are as expert in probability
as the players, or nags, they punt on! The real probability is that
they will lose, whatever system, or bet they place........yet they do
it again the next week and the next, and the next. That's what punters
(i.e. mugs and losers) do.


For some professional (racing) gamblers, it's their only source of
income. Some of them live in very big houses. Poker, which is even more
pure in its application of probability, has a very large number of
successful, and professional, punters. Almost all successful gamblers
have a superb understanding of probability.

You really do love to degenerate people with a very large and very wide
sweeping (and badly applied) brush, don't you?



--
Alan LeHun

On Jun 11, 2:52*pm, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article 9aec7f67-fc48-469b-a490-
, says...

*Punters are as expert in probability
as the players, or nags, they punt on! The real probability is that
they will lose, whatever system, or bet they place........yet they do
it again the next week and the next, and the next. That's what punters
(i.e. mugs and losers) do.

For some professional (racing) gamblers, it's their only source of
income. Some of them live in very big houses. Poker, which is even more
pure in its application of probability, has a very large number of
successful, and professional, punters. Almost all successful gamblers
have a superb understanding of probability.

You really do love to degenerate people with a very large and very wide
sweeping (and badly applied) brush, don't you?

--
Alan LeHun

Alan, please! Fancy saying this; "For some professional (racing)
gamblers, it's their only source of income. Some of them live in very
big houses. and then accusing me of having a badly applied brush! My
"brush" is from experience and knowledge. What I've said is true. Pure
gambling against bookies, who create books heavily in their favour,
will cause ruin to you in the long run. It's like any addiction.
You'll lose in the end and you'll lose more than you ever wanted to
stake.

If you feel that poker is similar to horse-racing in the way that
punters approach odds, you'd be mistaken. There are some very
sucessful poker players, but every tournament will throw up a winner
and they will win massively(read Gavino's link; it really is
interesting). Everyone else loses, unless there is a guaranteed fee.
However, the players at that level really do understand the odds of
winning with, say ace-king in the hole at stud, based on the other
cards dealt and it is that knowledge that allows them to know when
best *not* to gamble. They are also often brilliant card counters and
intuitive psychologists which gives them an edge - and there is no
bookie to set the game odds, or table with a 0, or even a 00 too, to
make sure the house wins, despite hefty, occasional, lucky payouts.
Casinos and bookies actually want those! There are some very sucessful
lottery players too who live in big houses, but don't attribute
knowledge of probability to them. 14 million to one are odds from
another planet! There are also far more "professional gamblers" who
are addicts and can't escape. I've seen them Alan and I've known them
and that's the reality. The people who win big are the bookies, casino
owners and whoever runs the national lottery these days!

The sucessful gamblers on horses, who "live in big houses" however
have almost all (I think "all" would probably be accurate) used inside
information in their betting. No-one makes long-term money out of
gambling on horses without having connections, or extreme luck (like
winning the tote accumulator - in the end someone does it, but don't
attribute a knowledge of probability to that). If someone has, point
to them, but be careful who you are pointing at! *))

Research it please, before having a go at me. It's a really
fascinating subject, but don't gamble yourself. You'd just be Jack
Punter and you'll lose. The lack of success of long-range forecasters
suggests that the forecasters are gambling on an outcome. They all
know that *if* they are successful, just once in a while, kudos (and
business for people like PWS and Piers Corbyn) will follow. All the
followers will forget the hopeless forecasts in-between and focus on
the most recent and the most successful. Why do you think the rags
keep going back to them, but never return to analyse the forecast?
(Clue - the forecast actually means more than the outcome to all of
them; the forecast sells newspapers; if it's correct, the newspaper
has backed a winner - if it is wrong....who remembers?). That's why it
is important to keep a mental record and i know it doesn't go down
well with some, as they feel exposed.

If you ever feel that long range forecasting (the point of this
discussion) has demonstrable accuracy, I'd all love to hear about it.

"Alan LeHun" wrote in message
...
Apologies to group. fu's set to email.
HUGE snip......
Alan LeHun

I don't see any need for apology, Alan? The thread did go off topic a while
back and an opinion on betting expressed and you are just responding with
your own opinion.
I found your views an interesting read....I did take the time to read
EVERYONE'S view irrespective of length.

I do see your point of view...I think I know where you're coming from. I
enjoy a punt myself but know full well that the odds are *always* against me
but it's the fun of beating them just once...maybe...that makes it fun. I
bet only what I know I can afford to lose and NEVER more...


Joe
Dublin

--
Alan LeHun

Joe
Dublin
28m AMSL

In article , says...


I found your views an interesting read....I did take the time to read
EVERYONE'S view irrespective of length.

Its just common courtesy, isn't it. Someone once said that "Killfiling
can be a way of burying your head in the sand". I would suggest that
just not reading a post would have much the same effect.


I do see your point of view...I think I know where you're coming from. I
enjoy a punt myself but know full well that the odds are *always* against me
but it's the fun of beating them just once...maybe...that makes it fun. I
bet only what I know I can afford to lose and NEVER more...


Unfortunately, you are an addicted mug and loser, well on the path to
ruin.


--
Alan LeHun

On 12/06/11 18:49, Alan LeHun wrote:


Someone once said that "Killfiling
can be a way of burying your head in the sand".

I prefer to think of it as a way of filtering noise from signal.

"Alan LeHun" wrote in message
...

In article , says...

Its just common courtesy, isn't it. Someone once said that "Killfiling
can be a way of burying your head in the sand". I would suggest that
just not reading a post would have much the same effect.


I do see your point of view...I think I know where you're coming from. I
enjoy a punt myself but know full well that the odds are *always* against
me
but it's the fun of beating them just once...maybe...that makes it fun. I
bet only what I know I can afford to lose and NEVER more...


Unfortunately, you are an addicted mug and loser, well on the path to
ruin.

--
Alan LeHun

Haha......maybe I wouldn't bet on that, Alan!! ;-)

Joe
Dublin
28m AMSL