Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Is teaching basic probability theory too much to ask?
I doubt most of the teachers in this country can even spell probability.
How many lessons would it take to teach the law of large numbers? an eternity?
Probably.
What about games of ruin? how difficult is it to teach in a class room?
I’m not joking when I say that Ofsted or some other off-the-wall independent group of dickwads could probably say that by teaching them about gambling, they’re simultaneously encouraging them.
Teachers are so fixated on teaching what’s in the syllabus that they don’t teach the children about real life. What the hell do children know about tax or NI contributions or the NHS or politics or mortgages or loans or whatever else when they finish GCSEs or A-Levels and leave the education system? That’s what more than 60% of them do now, so how do they know how everything works?
Is it beyond the scope of teachers in this country?
Based on the ever-decreasing standards of education in this country, and the dumbing-down of exam papers, I’d say there’s a 95% chance of the answer being in the affirmative.
It’s not beyond their scope, but most of the teachers I know are already working at least 60 hours a week and frequently more (including during school holidays) just to keep up with the ever-shifting demands of the DoE. Even then, many would see this as a very worthwhile addition to the curriculum.
The real problem is attitudes elsewhere. Just look at what happened in early December when GamCare proposed teaching the basics of betting in schools.
This:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed … arity.htmlwas followed shortly afterwards by this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic … hools.html
and no Tory education minister is ever likely to come out fighting against "Mad" Melanie.
Unlikely to be Belmont following the announcement that the BC is back with NBC and the Classic will be shown in prime time (appx 8.30pm east coast).
Santa Anita (because it’s west coast) and Louisville (floodlights) now look like the only credible venues. Also makes it more likely that one or other will become the permanent, or semi-permanent – ie. 4/5yrs – location at some point.An important point in this case is that it seems they *have* got it in writing that Fallon will partner Native Khan if requested. An element of getting that agreement is that you want to be sure he won’t be riding against you, so in the circumstances they are entirely within their rights to sue.
Eight minutes late so could be a major stewards’ if by some miracle these do the business….
Zarkandar 100w
Secret Dancer 200w
Kilcrea Kim 100w
Kempes 100w
Dante’s Storm 100w
Indian Daudie 100w
Film Festival 300wLoosen My Load 100w
Mobaasher 100 e/w
Albertas Run 100w
Grands Crus 300w banker
Tatanen 200w
Far More Serious 100wCaptain Americo 100w
Oscars Well 200w
Aiteenthirtythree 100w
Big Zeb 100w
Bothy (banker) 100 e/w
Paintball 200w
Divine Rhapsody 100wVery generous, many thanks for organising this.
1.30 Magen’s Star 100 e/w
2.05 Captain Chris 100 win
2.40 The Rainbow Hunter 100 e/w (banker)
3.20 Menorah 200 win
4.00 Maljimar 100 win
4.40 Quevega 100 win
5.15 Swing Bill 100 winJose,
It’s not that long since they were asking for Levy on virtual racing too – indeed, I suspect there are still people at BHA HQ who not only believe that this is right and fair, but more worryingly, cannot comprehend why anyone would think otherwise. The fact that the horses don’t exist, and so don’t have virtual owners or virtual nosebags, is apparently neither here no there.Unfortunately, he’s completely wrong. Horse racing is a sport and I’m surprised that ATR’s premier presenter holds these views snd I’m looking forward to hear his arguments on a forum people read.
I think your missing the point of the article, Max. Of course racing is a sport and a great one to a tiny minority who don’t bet on it, but take away the betting and for the vast majority its a complete irrelevance, easily passed over, for all of the reasons that Sean has mentioned in his blog. Humans don’t identify with animals in the way they identify with other humans to any great extent, never have, never will.
It matters more when there’s money on it.
Not entirely true, although it adds to your point rather than diminishes it. People certainly did identify with horses a great deal more than they do now as little as a century ago, when even an inner-city dweller would have come across them daily. It’s not a complete coincidence that those were the days when Parliament rose on Derby day and half of London walked the 30-odd miles to Epsom and back to watch it.
Few people have close contact with horses now from one year to the next, so another route is required to catch their interest. Given that there are still about 7,000 betting shops on Britain’s high streets, I’d say it’s a pretty obvious one.
I had a copy a few years ago, it ran to about 3 pages of A4.
At first sight, it appears horribly complex, but I passed it on to an acquaintance who happens to be a Maths professor and his verdict was that in essence it is surprisingly simple.
The basic return comes from multiplying the odds of first and second, but then there are – or were, as it may have changed since then – several minor adjustments to take account of "extreme" results, such as an odds-on chance beating a 66-1, or two horses from adjacent stalls finishing first and second in a big field.
Returns also come from a curve rather than a straight line, so the ones in the big fat middle are closer to what you might expect than those on the margins.
Overall, and much to my disappointment, he concluded that there was little in the formula that could be construed as naked gerrymandering. The worst that could be said was that some adjustments – the one for the draw in particular – were over-enthusiastic arse-covering, not least because a well-known draw advantage will usually be factored into the SPs anyway.
He does not *have* to win by five lengths to get paid. If he wins by a short-head you get paid as normal.
I thought the Ladbrokes rep might have done a bit more to get that across, but when McCririck is in rant mode, it’s quite difficult to make yourself heard, never mind understood.
Not an offer on a par with some of the ones from other bookies this week, but hardly worthy of knee-jerk abuse either.I hesitate to interrupt the Lester Lovefest, but if he was to merit a knighthood, should he not have been a little more careful with his OBE? ie. not getting jailed for tax evasion on a quite spectacular scale.
It is not a case of a few quid here and there. His whole life was dedicated to paying absolutely nil whenever possible. In other words, while most of us pay our way, he chose to steal millions of pounds from the people of Britain. Why should Britain then reward him with a knighthood?
I believe two weeks annual leave is pretty standard in the US. It’s one reason why so many American tourists are retired – it’s only when they’ve finally stopped working that they have enough time to make a trip to Europe worthwhile.
It’s a shame that the Bruce Millington Q&A is closed. I would have been intrigued to know how today’s Post managed to miss this story entirely.
I had to allow myself a wry smile when they mentioned "beating the PA" with the Moore / Conduit story – bearing in mind they are increasingly using the PA more and more for their news and even race reports.
Anyone using the PA for factual information like race results, SP’s, dividends might as well try using wikipedia – they have roughly the same accuracy level.
I’m told they have actually cut all ties with the PA over the last week or so.
