Vegas & The Aftermath - Diary

[david3103]

Cheese Is Most Stolen Food Item, Says Report

who'd have though it?

Really? If we can get that validated by gatters (I think he'll reject it) that'd be an amazing stat.

Is most of it stolen in Chesire, or is it a nationwide Kraft?

I've franchised out most of the work this year but I'll get my cheese bullshit correspondent onto it

good to see channing make good use of his betting bullshit franchise earlier when he called bullshit on your boots story

Sauce was the original SkyNews link.

Found it here too http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8847407/Middle-class-shoplifters-steal-cheese-and-meat.html

Razor blades are tagged in most stores these days, batteries aren't but they aren't as tasty on toast.

[celtic]

Cheese Is Most Stolen Food Item, Says Report

who'd have though it?

Really? If we can get that validated by gatters (I think he'll reject it) that'd be an amazing stat.

Is most of it stolen in Chesire, or is it a nationwide Kraft?

I've franchised out most of the work this year but I'll get my cheese bullshit correspondent onto it

good to see channing make good use of his betting bullshit franchise earlier when he called bullshit on your boots story

Sauce was the original SkyNews link.

Found it here too http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8847407/Middle-class-shoplifters-steal-cheese-and-meat.html

Razor blades are tagged in most stores these days, batteries aren't but they aren't as tasty on toast.

Sigh, this amazing fact was reported elsewhere, weeks ago, and no one picked up on it, even gatso ignored it.

[tikay]

Cheese Is Most Stolen Food Item, Says Report

who'd have though it?

Really? If we can get that validated by gatters (I think he'll reject it) that'd be an amazing stat.

Is most of it stolen in Chesire, or is it a nationwide Kraft?

I've franchised out most of the work this year but I'll get my cheese bullshit correspondent onto it

good to see channing make good use of his betting bullshit franchise earlier when he called bullshit on your boots story

Sauce was the original SkyNews link.

Found it here too http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8847407/Middle-class-shoplifters-steal-cheese-and-meat.html

Razor blades are tagged in most stores these days, batteries aren't but they aren't as tasty on toast.

Sigh, this amazing fact was reported elsewhere, weeks ago, and no one picked up on it, even gatso ignored it.

Apparently success in the world of calling bullshit has gone to gatters head, & he now delegates such matters to his subordinates. These days, his Customer Service is on a par with those nice people at Ryanair, but no matter, he's successful, & that's what really matters.

[bobby1]

The entry level Phantom costs about £250,000, but if you want a few bells & whistles, it comes to nearer £300,000.

just like bloody Ryanair!

Exactly. The best things in life often cost a little more......

I could write some lovely stories about Ryanair, & my hero Michael O'Leary, but I fancy the readership would not muchly agree, & it might just kick off. Shame, really, he's a quite remarkable man, & it is a really incredibly successful business, whether you & I like his business methods or not.

Anyway, it is 2012 now, & Michael, & Ryanair have adopted a new Client-friendly approach.

Click to see full-size image.

That's the biggest landing strip I have ever seen!

[doubleup]

Whilst I have your attention, I note that i-Poker have decided to focus more attention on recreational players (lol, at last, the bigger Rooms are waking up to reality, how on EARTH did it take them so long to realise the basic facts of poker life!) by moving to a "weighted contribution rake system".

Thoughts on that, please? Note, by the way, that "recreational players", who comprise around 98% of the Online Poker Market (could be slightly more), don't really care that much about rake, as they don't play enough to earn much.

Ipoker did have a contributed system, they have just moved to a more accurate system.  Stars have also moved to weighted.  I wonder if part of the motivation for this could be the explosion of local licensing in Europe and the requirement to know exactly how much rake can be attributed to each player (and country) for tax purposes.

[MereNovice]

Lolz, nobody right yet. It's a stray apostrophe that makes it a completely different word. It's easy now...

Its and it's

To good Laxie, to good.

Sigh at not knowing difference between "too" and "to", tsk tsk.

I'm losing track of who is doing the levelling here, but, as it's not been flagged up....

Jeez,  you so embarrass me, just as you did when you tuirned up for brekkie with LilDave & I

In this case, yes, a deliberate poke in the eye for one of the army of grammatical pedants who studiously & enthusiastically read this oasis of culturedness, as opposed to the culturednessless stuff next door.

I'm sure that the correct use of the "first person singular" has been explained to you by people with better grammatical knowledge and, certainly, more patience than myself on many occasions. However, I will rise to the bait because I would hate for you to commit a terrible "faux pas" the next time you are chatting to Annabel and her entourage.

You confuse the use of the "subject" and the "object". The following two sentences are both grammatically correct:

1. Prince Philip and I like to wager small sums of money on the horses occasionally.

2. Bookmakers are grateful to Prince Philip and me.

This is what is known as "The Queen's English".

You would not say "Please be nice to I" (unless you have recently converted to Rastafarianism) so don't say "Please be nice to Annabel and I".

I'm sure that you'll get the hang of it with a little practice.

If you require further clarification, I'll be available later but I need to check if Nick Hewer can improve on yesterday's Countdown debut first.

[david3103]

The whole Cheap Flights issued exposed...

[mulhuzz]

Ipoker did have a contributed system, they have just moved to a more accurate system.  Stars have also moved to weighted.  I wonder if part of the motivation for this could be the explosion of local licensing in Europe and the requirement to know exactly how much rake can be attributed to each player (and country) for tax purposes.

I could talk for months about rake and rake contribution and allocation, but I'll start with saying that since rake contributed is usually not equal to rake allocated, the very fact that allocated rake exists at all means that local licensing is but a very small part of the reasons why people are moving towards a weighted contributed system.  Tax regimes are so diverse across regulated markets (even in the supposedly harmonised EU system) that it doesn't matter where the tax (read 'rake') would be allocated, because sites will simply elect to pay tax in one jurisdiction and this is fine for Europe as a whole --> there is no obligation for sites to track 'per player' but rather only 'total', if local tax authorities wanted this information from a specific player or group of players, then it would fall to the player(s) in question to take reasonable steps to provide that information. However, since you can more easily tracking 'earnings' by Money Out - Money In to the system, then this is unlikely to be of any great concern to a player or tax authority. Note also that whilst winning players 'pay' the most rake, they certainly finance not a single cent of it!  The implication being that say there are 10000 of you and 10000 of me in a system or network, and you are always a winning player and I'm always a losing player, nobody needs to know who 'paid' the rake, because they certainly know the amount of total rake and the instant implication is that I've (all 10000 of me) have financed all of it, and you none of it.

edit: so tax isn't the reason - what is? well, succinctly put, weighted contribution is fairer for everyone generally than dealt rake and it rewards the players who contributed more to the system. Indeed, although this would be the subject of a far longer post, I'd argue that the nut position would be where affiliates are paid on WC or similar (Essence) and players are paid solely on dealt rake or contributed rake. There is still a flaw with WC rake in that it still doesn't perfectly describe the value of all player types, but it's much closer than dealt or contributed rake, so it's a step in the right direction. Trying to appropriately value losing players (and thus, depositors) without hindering winning players too much is the essential question for the industry to answer moving forward. Winning players be warned though: for many years we've been overvalued and now the industry must correct that imbalance (the implication being that losing players are undervalued) if the industry is to have any longevity at all.

edit: in before [ ] succint

[DaveShoelace]

Ipoker did have a contributed system, they have just moved to a more accurate system.  Stars have also moved to weighted.  I wonder if part of the motivation for this could be the explosion of local licensing in Europe and the requirement to know exactly how much rake can be attributed to each player (and country) for tax purposes.

I could talk for months about rake and rake contribution and allocation, but I'll start with saying that since rake contributed is usually not equal to rake allocated, the very fact that allocated rake exists at all means that local licensing is but a very small part of the reasons why people are moving towards a weighted contributed system.  Tax regimes are so diverse across regulated markets (even in the supposedly harmonised EU system) that it doesn't matter where the tax (read 'rake') would be allocated, because sites will simply elect to pay tax in one jurisdiction and this is fine for Europe as a whole --> there is no obligation for sites to track 'per player' but rather only 'total', if local tax authorities wanted this information from a specific player or group of players, then it would fall to the player(s) in question to take reasonable steps to provide that information. However, since you can more easily tracking 'earnings' by Money Out - Money In to the system, then this is unlikely to be of any great concern to a player or tax authority. Note also that whilst winning players 'pay' the most rake, they certainly finance not a single cent of it!  The implication being that say there are 10000 of you and 10000 of me in a system or network, and you are always a winning player and I'm always a losing player, nobody needs to know who 'paid' the rake, because they certainly know the amount of total rake and the instant implication is that I've (all 10000 of me) have financed all of it, and you none of it.

edit: so tax isn't the reason - what is? well, succinctly put, weighted contribution is fairer for everyone generally than dealt rake and it rewards the players who contributed more to the system. Indeed, although this would be the subject of a far longer post, I'd argue that the nut position would be where affiliates are paid on WC or similar (Essence) and players are paid solely on dealt rake or contributed rake. There is still a flaw with WC rake in that it still doesn't perfectly describe the value of all player types, but it's much closer than dealt or contributed rake, so it's a step in the right direction. Trying to appropriately value losing players (and thus, depositors) without hindering winning players too much is the essential question for the industry to answer moving forward. Winning players be warned though: for many years we've been overvalued and now the industry must correct that imbalance (the implication being that losing players are undervalued) if the industry is to have any longevity at all.

edit: in before [ ] succint

Thinly veiled 'I'm a winning player' post imo

[mulhuzz]

Thinly veiled 'I'm a winning player' post imo

i've been overvalued for far less time than I was undervalued, believe me

[doubleup]

Tax regimes are so diverse across regulated markets (even in the supposedly harmonised EU system) that it doesn't matter where the tax (read 'rake') would be allocated, because sites will simply elect to pay tax in one jurisdiction

This is incorrect

[RED-DOG]

Tax regimes are so diverse across regulated markets (even in the supposedly harmonised EU system) that it doesn't matter where the tax (read 'rake') would be allocated, because sites will simply elect to pay tax in one jurisdiction

This is incorrect

This is a short statement.

[jakally]

Tax regimes are so diverse across regulated markets (even in the supposedly harmonised EU system) that it doesn't matter where the tax (read 'rake') would be allocated, because sites will simply elect to pay tax in one jurisdiction

This is incorrect

This is a short statement.

This

[outragous76]

Tax regimes are so diverse across regulated markets (even in the supposedly harmonised EU system) that it doesn't matter where the tax (read 'rake') would be allocated, because sites will simply elect to pay tax in one jurisdiction

This is incorrect

This is a short statement.

This

T

[RED-DOG]

Tax regimes are so diverse across regulated markets (even in the supposedly harmonised EU system) that it doesn't matter where the tax (read 'rake') would be allocated, because sites will simply elect to pay tax in one jurisdiction

This is incorrect

This is a short statement.

This

T

/