Re(4): Erik & Ladutxe 11-30-18 Tonight Posted on December 1, 2018 at 09:11:08 PM by hudepohl
In the strictest sense of the word(s), bridge-jumper, was meant to refer to someone who embezzled his employer's money on Friday to bet on a "sure" show bet during the weekend, he would then pocket the 5 percent profit and return the money on Monday before anyone at the company was any wiser. The problem, of course, was if the horse failed to show then there was no money to return and all would soon be lost, that is job, reputation, freedom (lack of incarceration) etc. So in order to forestall this fate, our erstwhile bettor would exit this plane of existence by taking the plunge (so to speak). Two things were necessary to put this chain of events into motion. The first was access to the employer's money on a Friday afternoon. The second was a belief that a certain outcome in a race was a foregone conclusion which then ironically leads to the only true foregone conclusion, death.
You, Craig, I would have to believe are far too analytical to fall into the trap of the "sure" thing but I worry about others. And sure enough, right after my post, Mike chimes in to declare Erik and Ladutxe as the surest of the "sure" things, no matter what, even sans Ladutxe. Fortunately he professed no desire to follow these sentiments (opinions) with a large wager, even though he would have won last night. Every successful step on that slippery slope leads to greater confidence and larger risk taking until... You, Craig, are trying to ascertain the correct percentage and profitability of an outcome approaching certainty not find certainty. The application of your tiebreaker code to the problem is interesting. What does it tell you when a team wins 15-0, they will win 99.9% of the time? What about 15-1, 15-2, 15-3, etc. How about a chart for us mathematically challenged homo sapiens? PS Dreaming about Straymar levels of rebate is a pipe dream for me (on many levels LOL). Did you see where your home state legalized it?
By the way, bridge jumping, has kind of expanded to encompass many different occurrences, at least to me. I'll leave you with this one to ponder (if you dare).