On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 09:41:04 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2023-10-02 08:32, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 17:38:37 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-09-28 08:43, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 10:24:32 +1300, geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 27/09/2023 5:40 am, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-09-26 08:35, News wrote:
>>>>>>> Liberty's trackside venue vig cratered
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.travelweekly.com/North-America-Travel/Insights/Latest-Formula-1-Las-Vegas-Grand-Prix
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what happens when everyone becomes aware that the title will be
>>>>>> long decided by the time they get to Vegas.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest that most spectators couldn't give a toss about 'the title'.
>>>>> They are going in order to watch top racing cars.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Verstappen won the title at Suzuka last year. Attendance at the
>>>> following USA GP was 440,000 the highest of any race that year. The
>>>> race after that, Mexico had 395,902, the 4th highest of the year
>>>> surpassed only by the USA, Australia and GB. Brazil had 236,00, a bit
>>>> below Spain but a bit above France. Only Abu Dhabi was significantly
>>>> lower at 160,00 but I'd guess that is down to location.
>>>>
>>>> As usual, Alan is spouting nonsense
>>>
>>> The situation wasn't the same as it is this year.
>>
>> The title last year was decided in race 18, this year it was decided
>> in race 16. The USA race last year was one race after the title was
>> decided, this year it's two races after the title was decided. Do you
>> seriously want to make that out something in those differences as a
>> significant factor in attendance?
>
>But last year, the level of dominance was not as great.

The points difference is irrelevant, both last season and this season,
anyone who knew anything about F1 knew by about the sixth race that
barring extraordinary events such as injury, Verstappen was going to
be WDC, before the season was over.

>At the end of
>the season, Verstappen finished 146 points ahead of Leclerc. This
>season, Verstappen is ALREADY 177 points ahead of second place Perez.
>
>Furthermore, being ONE race after a closer title was decided means that
>more people will have made their plans, based on maybe the title NOT
>having been decided.

So why did so many turn up at Mexico, two races after title was
decided, same gap as USA race this year?

>This year, the title is an obvious forgone conclusion.

You think it wasn't last year?

>
>Then factor in that Las Vegas is about gambling.

Both last year and this year, there was never any great gambling
opportunity related to WDC title other than for complete idiots. Those
wishing to gamble with a chance of winning something had plenty of
other options open to them.

On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 11:12:14 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2023-10-02 08:34, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Oct 2023 00:19:58 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 10:24:32 +1300, geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 27/09/2023 5:40 am, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-09-26 08:35, News wrote:
>>>>>>> Liberty's trackside venue vig cratered
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.travelweekly.com/North-America-Travel/Insights/Latest-Formula-1-Las-Vegas-Grand-Prix
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what happens when everyone becomes aware that the title will be
>>>>>> long decided by the time they get to Vegas.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest that most spectators couldn't give a toss about 'the title'.
>>>>> They are going in order to watch top racing cars.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Verstappen won the title at Suzuka last year. Attendance at the
>>>> following USA GP was 440,000 the highest of any race that year. The
>>>> race after that, Mexico had 395,902, the 4th highest of the year
>>>> surpassed only by the USA, Australia and GB. Brazil had 236,00, a bit
>>>> below Spain but a bit above France. Only Abu Dhabi was significantly
>>>> lower at 160,00 but I'd guess that is down to location.
>>>
>>> You're invoking /post hoc ergo propter hoc/.
>>
>> It's actually Alan who is falling for that fallacy. I'm showing that
>> history shows that there is no reason to believe that Y following X
>> means it was caused by X.
>
>In what way did I "fall" for that, Martin?
>
>Please: be expansive.

You claimed that the poor take up in tickets for USA was due to the
preceding event of the title being decided two races earlier. Do I
need to be any more expansive?
>
>:-)

On 2023-10-02 12:30, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 11:12:14 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-10-02 08:34, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Sun, 01 Oct 2023 00:19:58 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 10:24:32 +1300, geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 27/09/2023 5:40 am, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2023-09-26 08:35, News wrote:
>>>>>>>> Liberty's trackside venue vig cratered
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.travelweekly.com/North-America-Travel/Insights/Latest-Formula-1-Las-Vegas-Grand-Prix
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's what happens when everyone becomes aware that the title will be
>>>>>>> long decided by the time they get to Vegas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suggest that most spectators couldn't give a toss about 'the title'.
>>>>>> They are going in order to watch top racing cars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Verstappen won the title at Suzuka last year. Attendance at the
>>>>> following USA GP was 440,000 the highest of any race that year. The
>>>>> race after that, Mexico had 395,902, the 4th highest of the year
>>>>> surpassed only by the USA, Australia and GB. Brazil had 236,00, a bit
>>>>> below Spain but a bit above France. Only Abu Dhabi was significantly
>>>>> lower at 160,00 but I'd guess that is down to location.
>>>>
>>>> You're invoking /post hoc ergo propter hoc/.
>>>
>>> It's actually Alan who is falling for that fallacy. I'm showing that
>>> history shows that there is no reason to believe that Y following X
>>> means it was caused by X.
>>
>> In what way did I "fall" for that, Martin?
>>
>> Please: be expansive.
>
> You claimed that the poor take up in tickets for USA was due to the
> preceding event of the title being decided two races earlier. Do I
> need to be any more expansive?

Please.

On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:35:31 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2023-10-02 12:30, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 11:12:14 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-10-02 08:34, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 01 Oct 2023 00:19:58 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 10:24:32 +1300, geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 27/09/2023 5:40 am, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-26 08:35, News wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Liberty's trackside venue vig cratered
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.travelweekly.com/North-America-Travel/Insights/Latest-Formula-1-Las-Vegas-Grand-Prix
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's what happens when everyone becomes aware that the title will be
>>>>>>>> long decided by the time they get to Vegas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suggest that most spectators couldn't give a toss about 'the title'.
>>>>>>> They are going in order to watch top racing cars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Verstappen won the title at Suzuka last year. Attendance at the
>>>>>> following USA GP was 440,000 the highest of any race that year. The
>>>>>> race after that, Mexico had 395,902, the 4th highest of the year
>>>>>> surpassed only by the USA, Australia and GB. Brazil had 236,00, a bit
>>>>>> below Spain but a bit above France. Only Abu Dhabi was significantly
>>>>>> lower at 160,00 but I'd guess that is down to location.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're invoking /post hoc ergo propter hoc/.
>>>>
>>>> It's actually Alan who is falling for that fallacy. I'm showing that
>>>> history shows that there is no reason to believe that Y following X
>>>> means it was caused by X.
>>>
>>> In what way did I "fall" for that, Martin?
>>>
>>> Please: be expansive.
>>
>> You claimed that the poor take up in tickets for USA was due to the
>> preceding event of the title being decided two races earlier. Do I
>> need to be any more expansive?
>
>Please.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy:

(X,Y)=>(X=>Y)

where X is WDC title decided and Y is fall in ticket prices

I trust that helps. If not, then I suggest:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Logic-Dummies-Mark-Zegarelli/dp/0471799416/ref=sr_1_1

On 2023-10-02 13:24, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:35:31 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-10-02 12:30, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 11:12:14 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-10-02 08:34, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 01 Oct 2023 00:19:58 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 10:24:32 +1300, geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 27/09/2023 5:40 am, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-26 08:35, News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Liberty's trackside venue vig cratered
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.travelweekly.com/North-America-Travel/Insights/Latest-Formula-1-Las-Vegas-Grand-Prix
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's what happens when everyone becomes aware that the title will be
>>>>>>>>> long decided by the time they get to Vegas.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suggest that most spectators couldn't give a toss about 'the title'.
>>>>>>>> They are going in order to watch top racing cars.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Verstappen won the title at Suzuka last year. Attendance at the
>>>>>>> following USA GP was 440,000 the highest of any race that year. The
>>>>>>> race after that, Mexico had 395,902, the 4th highest of the year
>>>>>>> surpassed only by the USA, Australia and GB. Brazil had 236,00, a bit
>>>>>>> below Spain but a bit above France. Only Abu Dhabi was significantly
>>>>>>> lower at 160,00 but I'd guess that is down to location.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're invoking /post hoc ergo propter hoc/.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's actually Alan who is falling for that fallacy. I'm showing that
>>>>> history shows that there is no reason to believe that Y following X
>>>>> means it was caused by X.
>>>>
>>>> In what way did I "fall" for that, Martin?
>>>>
>>>> Please: be expansive.
>>>
>>> You claimed that the poor take up in tickets for USA was due to the
>>> preceding event of the title being decided two races earlier. Do I
>>> need to be any more expansive?
>>
>> Please.
>
>
> Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy:
>
> (X,Y)=>(X=>Y)
>
> where X is WDC title decided and Y is fall in ticket prices
>
> I trust that helps. If not, then I suggest:
>
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Logic-Dummies-Mark-Zegarelli/dp/0471799416/ref=sr_1_1

Hmmmmmm...yes. I knew all that.

Now tell me:

Do you think there is no causal relationship at all between certainty of
the outcome and interest in attending a sporting event?

Yes or no.

On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 13:28:39 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2023-10-02 13:24, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:35:31 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-10-02 12:30, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 11:12:14 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-10-02 08:34, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 01 Oct 2023 00:19:58 +0300, Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 10:24:32 +1300, geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 27/09/2023 5:40 am, Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-26 08:35, News wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Liberty's trackside venue vig cratered
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.travelweekly.com/North-America-Travel/Insights/Latest-Formula-1-Las-Vegas-Grand-Prix
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's what happens when everyone becomes aware that the title will be
>>>>>>>>>> long decided by the time they get to Vegas.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suggest that most spectators couldn't give a toss about 'the title'.
>>>>>>>>> They are going in order to watch top racing cars.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Verstappen won the title at Suzuka last year. Attendance at the
>>>>>>>> following USA GP was 440,000 the highest of any race that year. The
>>>>>>>> race after that, Mexico had 395,902, the 4th highest of the year
>>>>>>>> surpassed only by the USA, Australia and GB. Brazil had 236,00, a bit
>>>>>>>> below Spain but a bit above France. Only Abu Dhabi was significantly
>>>>>>>> lower at 160,00 but I'd guess that is down to location.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're invoking /post hoc ergo propter hoc/.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's actually Alan who is falling for that fallacy. I'm showing that
>>>>>> history shows that there is no reason to believe that Y following X
>>>>>> means it was caused by X.
>>>>>
>>>>> In what way did I "fall" for that, Martin?
>>>>>
>>>>> Please: be expansive.
>>>>
>>>> You claimed that the poor take up in tickets for USA was due to the
>>>> preceding event of the title being decided two races earlier. Do I
>>>> need to be any more expansive?
>>>
>>> Please.
>>
>>
>> Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy:
>>
>> (X,Y)=>(X=>Y)
>>
>> where X is WDC title decided and Y is fall in ticket prices
>>
>> I trust that helps. If not, then I suggest:
>>
>> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Logic-Dummies-Mark-Zegarelli/dp/0471799416/ref=sr_1_1
>
>Hmmmmmm...yes. I knew all that.
>
>Now tell me:
>
>Do you think there is no causal relationship at all between certainty of
>the outcome and interest in attending a sporting event?
>
>Yes or no.

Only if the outcome and the event are dierctly related. People don't
go to individual grand prix events to see a WDC being lost or won,
they go to see that specific race for the excitement of that race.
According to your logic, people would stop going to football league
matches once the league has been won. That doesn't happen either.

In article <uf56ae$3u65k$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
> And the crowd in Vegas is a crowd that wants to gamble and they want to
> gamble on the WINNER.
>

You appear to be under some sort of misunderstanding here.

F1 is not in Las Vegas so that punters can gamble on the result.

--
Alan LeHun

On 2023-10-02 15:03, Alan LeHun wrote:
> In article <uf56ae$3u65k$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>> And the crowd in Vegas is a crowd that wants to gamble and they want to
>> gamble on the WINNER.
>>
>
> You appear to be under some sort of misunderstanding here.
>
> F1 is not in Las Vegas so that punters can gamble on the result.

Why F1 is in Las Vegas has nothing to do with the sort of people who
want to VISIT Las Vegas.

On 3/10/2023 9:24 am, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:35:31 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-10-02 12:30, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 11:12:14 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
<snipped>
>>>> Please: be expansive.
>>>
>>> You claimed that the poor take up in tickets for USA was due to the
>>> preceding event of the title being decided two races earlier. Do I
>>> need to be any more expansive?
>>
>> Please.
>
>
> Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy:
>
> (X,Y)=>(X=>Y)
>
> where X is WDC title decided and Y is fall in ticket prices
>
> I trust that helps. If not, then I suggest:
>
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Logic-Dummies-Mark-Zegarelli/dp/0471799416/ref=sr_1_1

Please don't encourage the trolls.

This one claims it's expertise is due to driving Formula Ford but as you see it will engage
extensively on any subject as long as someone is replying (and it will even prompt replies).

This is the troll abusing the 'educators /need/ to educate' thing.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

On 2023-10-02 15:14, ~misfit~ wrote:
> On 3/10/2023 9:24 am, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:35:31 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-10-02 12:30, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 11:12:14 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> <snipped>
>>>>> Please: be expansive.
>>>>
>>>> You claimed that the poor take up in tickets for USA was due to the
>>>> preceding event of the title being decided two races earlier. Do I
>>>> need to be any more expansive?
>>>
>>> Please.
>>
>>
>> Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy:
>>
>>      (X,Y)=>(X=>Y)
>>
>> where X is WDC title decided and Y is fall in ticket prices
>>
>> I trust that helps. If not, then I suggest:
>>
>> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Logic-Dummies-Mark-Zegarelli/dp/0471799416/ref=sr_1_1
>
> Please don't encourage the trolls.
>
> This one claims it's expertise is due to driving Formula Ford but as you
> see it will engage extensively on any subject as long as someone is
> replying (and it will even prompt replies).
>
> This is the troll abusing the 'educators /need/ to educate' thing.

LOL!

And your expertise is human psychology?

Folks, this is obvious:

With lots of time to see that they would be watching a race won by
Verstappen AFTER he's won the WDC...

....in a town where he people who are likely to want to go there, are
predisposed to want to gamble on outcomes...

....of COURSE demand is going to fall in the face of those facts.

It's not hard.

In article <uffepb$34r5o$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
> > F1 is not in Las Vegas so that punters can gamble on the result.
>
> Why F1 is in Las Vegas has nothing to do with the sort of people who
> want to VISIT Las Vegas.
>

Is that a question or a statement?

If it is a statement, it is correct.

If it is a question then F1 is there to attract people who otherwise
would not normally want to visit Las Vegas.

Like U2, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, et al. They are there to draw in the
people that gambling alone can't. Once there, they may wish to see what
other attractions Las Vegas has to offer. (There is only one, really)

--
Alan LeHun

On 2023-10-02 16:03, Alan LeHun wrote:
> In article <uffepb$34r5o$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>> F1 is not in Las Vegas so that punters can gamble on the result.
>>
>> Why F1 is in Las Vegas has nothing to do with the sort of people who
>> want to VISIT Las Vegas.
>>
>
> Is that a question or a statement?

A statement of course.

>
> If it is a statement, it is correct.

Exactly.

>
> If it is a question then F1 is there to attract people who otherwise
> would not normally want to visit Las Vegas.
>
> Like U2, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, et al. They are there to draw in the
> people that gambling alone can't. Once there, they may wish to see what
> other attractions Las Vegas has to offer. (There is only one, really)

Alan LeHun <try@reply.to> wrote:
> In article <uffepb$34r5o$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>> F1 is not in Las Vegas so that punters can gamble on the result.
>>
>> Why F1 is in Las Vegas has nothing to do with the sort of people who
>> want to VISIT Las Vegas.
>>
>
> Is that a question or a statement?
>
> If it is a statement, it is correct.
>
> If it is a question then F1 is there to attract people who otherwise
> would not normally want to visit Las Vegas.
>
> Like U2, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, et al. They are there to draw in the
> people that gambling alone can't. Once there, they may wish to see what
> other attractions Las Vegas has to offer. (There is only one, really)

Wonderful hotels, superb entertainment (including Cirque du Soleil) and
some of the best restaurants
In America. I’ve always had a great time in Vegas without gambling a cent.

--
Sir Tim

On 2023-10-02 16:20, Sir Tim wrote:
> Alan LeHun <try@reply.to> wrote:
>> In article <uffepb$34r5o$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>>> F1 is not in Las Vegas so that punters can gamble on the result.
>>>
>>> Why F1 is in Las Vegas has nothing to do with the sort of people who
>>> want to VISIT Las Vegas.
>>>
>>
>> Is that a question or a statement?
>>
>> If it is a statement, it is correct.
>>
>> If it is a question then F1 is there to attract people who otherwise
>> would not normally want to visit Las Vegas.
>>
>> Like U2, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, et al. They are there to draw in the
>> people that gambling alone can't. Once there, they may wish to see what
>> other attractions Las Vegas has to offer. (There is only one, really)
>
> Wonderful hotels, superb entertainment (including Cirque du Soleil) and
> some of the best restaurants
> In America. I’ve always had a great time in Vegas without gambling a cent.
>

You, sir, are in the minority.

<https://www.statista.com/statistics/411768/share-of-visitors-who-gambled-in-las-vegas-us/>

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 12:12:17 PM UTC-6, Alan wrote:

> Please: be expansive.
please go fuck yourself

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 2:28:43 PM UTC-6, Alan wrote:

> I knew all that.

you know fuck all
you trolling piece of shit
>
> Now tell me:

fuck off dick hole

> Yes or no.

yes you are moron

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:14:22 PM UTC-6, ~misfit~ wrote:

> Please don't encourage the trolls.

x2, the guy is fucking trolling idiot

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:21:54 PM UTC-6, Alan wrote:

> Folks, this is obvious:

its obvious you are a fucking stupid cunt

> It's not hard.

you fucking idiot

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 5:12:00 PM UTC-6, Alan wrote:

> A statement of course.

of course you are a dumb cunt

> Exactly.

blow yourself

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 5:23:24 PM UTC-6, Alan wrote:

> You, sir, are in the minority.

your sexuality is in the minority

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:21:54 PM UTC+1, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-10-02 15:14, ~misfit~ wrote:
> > On 3/10/2023 9:24 am, Martin Harran wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:35:31 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2023-10-02 12:30, Martin Harran wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 11:12:14 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> > <snipped>
> >>>>> Please: be expansive.
> >>>>
> >>>> You claimed that the poor take up in tickets for USA was due to the
> >>>> preceding event of the title being decided two races earlier. Do I
> >>>> need to be any more expansive?
> >>>
> >>> Please.
> >>
> >>
> >> Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy:
> >>
> >> (X,Y)=>(X=>Y)
> >>
> >> where X is WDC title decided and Y is fall in ticket prices
> >>
> >> I trust that helps. If not, then I suggest:
> >>
> >> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Logic-Dummies-Mark-Zegarelli/dp/0471799416/ref=sr_1_1
> >
> > Please don't encourage the trolls.
> >
> > This one claims it's expertise is due to driving Formula Ford but as you
> > see it will engage extensively on any subject as long as someone is
> > replying (and it will even prompt replies).
> >
> > This is the troll abusing the 'educators /need/ to educate' thing.
> LOL!
>
> And your expertise is human psychology?
>
> Folks, this is obvious:
>
> With lots of time to see that they would be watching a race won by
> Verstappen AFTER he's won the WDC...

You seem to have a rather restrictive idea of what constitutes an “outcome” for gambling and the ingenuity of gambling companies in attracting punters to them. Here is a sample of just a few bets available on the Qatar race right now on William Hill:

Race Winner
Sprint Race Winner
Sprint Shootout Winner
Winning Driver - Free Practice 1
Fastest Qualifier
Podium Finish
Drivers Championship Without Max Verstappen
Constructors Championship Without Red Bull

Many more including oddball combined bets like:

Lando Norris, Lance Stroll & Esteban Ocon All Points Finish
Oscar Piastri Podium Finish, Fernando Alonso Top 6 Finish & Pierre Gasly Points Finish
Again, many more.

https://sports.williamhill.com/betting/en-gb/motor-racing

>
> ...in a town where he people who are likely to want to go there, are
> predisposed to want to gamble on outcomes...
>
> ...of COURSE demand is going to fall in the face of those facts.
>
> It's not hard.

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:14:22 PM UTC+1, ~misfit~ wrote:
> On 3/10/2023 9:24 am, Martin Harran wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:35:31 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2023-10-02 12:30, Martin Harran wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 11:12:14 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
> <snipped>
> >>>> Please: be expansive.
> >>>
> >>> You claimed that the poor take up in tickets for USA was due to the
> >>> preceding event of the title being decided two races earlier. Do I
> >>> need to be any more expansive?
> >>
> >> Please.
> >
> >
> > Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy:
> >
> > (X,Y)=>(X=>Y)
> >
> > where X is WDC title decided and Y is fall in ticket prices
> >
> > I trust that helps. If not, then I suggest:
> >
> > https://www.amazon.co.uk/Logic-Dummies-Mark-Zegarelli/dp/0471799416/ref=sr_1_1
> Please don't encourage the trolls.
>
> This one claims it's expertise is due to driving Formula Ford but as you see it will engage
> extensively on any subject as long as someone is replying (and it will even prompt replies).
>
> This is the troll abusing the 'educators /need/ to educate' thing.

Does it never occur to you that by moaning about people feeding the trolls, you are simply adding to what you regard as feed?

On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 9:27:34 AM UTC-6, Martin Harran wrote:

> Does it never occur to you that by moaning about people feeding the trolls, you are simply adding to what you regard as feed?

you fucking troll
get a life

On 4/10/2023 4:27 am, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:14:22 PM UTC+1, ~misfit~ wrote:
>> On 3/10/2023 9:24 am, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:35:31 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-10-02 12:30, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 11:12:14 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>> <snipped>
>>>>>> Please: be expansive.
>>>>>
>>>>> You claimed that the poor take up in tickets for USA was due to the
>>>>> preceding event of the title being decided two races earlier. Do I
>>>>> need to be any more expansive?
>>>>
>>>> Please.
>>>
>>>
>>> Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy:
>>>
>>> (X,Y)=>(X=>Y)
>>>
>>> where X is WDC title decided and Y is fall in ticket prices
>>>
>>> I trust that helps. If not, then I suggest:
>>>
>>> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Logic-Dummies-Mark-Zegarelli/dp/0471799416/ref=sr_1_1
>> Please don't encourage the trolls.
>>
>> This one claims it's expertise is due to driving Formula Ford but as you see it will engage
>> extensively on any subject as long as someone is replying (and it will even prompt replies).
>>
>> This is the troll abusing the 'educators /need/ to educate' thing.
>
> Does it never occur to you that by moaning about people feeding the trolls, you are simply adding to what you regard as feed?

Of course, I'm not obtuse. I'd hoped that a gentle reminder would nudge you toward starving the
troll of the attention it craves. However I see now that it's not the only one who likes circular
arguments (circle jerks) in public.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville

This is not an email and hasn't been checked for viruses by any half-arsed self-promoting software.

On 3/10/2023 12:20 pm, Sir Tim wrote:
> Alan LeHun <try@reply.to> wrote:
>> In article <uffepb$34r5o$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>>> F1 is not in Las Vegas so that punters can gamble on the result.
>>>
>>> Why F1 is in Las Vegas has nothing to do with the sort of people who
>>> want to VISIT Las Vegas.
>>>
>>
>> Is that a question or a statement?
>>
>> If it is a statement, it is correct.
>>
>> If it is a question then F1 is there to attract people who otherwise
>> would not normally want to visit Las Vegas.
>>
>> Like U2, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, et al. They are there to draw in the
>> people that gambling alone can't. Once there, they may wish to see what
>> other attractions Las Vegas has to offer. (There is only one, really)
>
> Wonderful hotels, superb entertainment (including Cirque du Soleil) and
> some of the best restaurants
> In America. I’ve always had a great time in Vegas without gambling a cent.
>

Not even a quicky marriage or divorce ?

geoff