17th February 2012, 12:36 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 282
|
|
Illustration:
Quote:
Question:
A:Why would a judge send a "problem gambler" to prison if that judge has shares with the same TAB the gambler was betting at ?
OR
B:Why WON'T the judge send a "problem gambler" to prison if that judge has shares with the same TAB the gambler was betting at?
B: Because the judge then has to give it all back to pay for the gambler he put in prison!
Solution:
Remove the equation of shares in a TAB.
Pay the taxes to the gov, the TAB take, and give the rest to the winning gambler/s.
Problem solved.
All this malarkey about psychology has it's place for those with delusions, yes that is correct. Remove the delusion by "smashing" it, that means allowing a gambler's self imposed crisis to go on to the point where there is no money to buy bread = hunger = reality.
Gotta eat!
But mathematically speaking, if the pool has a 3-way split ( gov,TAB/Shares then the winning punter gets the crumbs, who really has CAUSED the problem in the first place?
The Judge! cos he is a share holder, he is just as guilty as those who are in party of that "share holders department", he has no real claim to that money cos he has put in no effort to have it in the fist place.
Plus the extra people employed to get the transfer of funds to the judge/shareholder.
The effort/energy came from all those that make up the final event, the winner of the race. What real biziness has a share holder got to with it while they can't even be at the races because they are at their work sending people to prison? None/Zilch.
|
This illustration is not personal, it's to show a principle, if I had the actual figures it be simple to prove mathematically this is probably correct.
|