A Lot of what Bookies do to cover their odds isn't directly related to the event itself, but more to balance out their risk on what people are betting on.
For example, If they took a bet on Team A vs Team B, and Team A was obviously much stronger, most people would want to bet on A, with very few betting on B.
Based on that, they will adjust the contest either by giving the game a spread (For example, You only win the bet if Team A wins by at least 10 points) or giving higher odds to one team. (For example, Bet $1 and get back $5 if team B wins)
These will both fluctuate before a game, as more people place their bets. The Bookie's goal isn't to correctly predict the game, but to end up in a situation where their risk is minimized, with roughly the same amount of money at to be paid out regardless of which team wins.
Lots of people are reading this as MS copying Google. What they are doing is learning from Google's USERS.
Watching what results users find relevant, and bumping that up the list of results makes perfect sense. I am assuming they are doing this will all search engines, not just google.
You are absolutely right there. Automated testing does have it's place... But that place is doublechecking a repetitive test case in solid, stable functionality that would be boring to run over and over again.
Automated testing rarely finds new defects, but is great at making sure old defects don't pop pack up. Human eyes are best at exploratory testing, and finding new problems. As a QA Analyst, I'd say that about 75% of the defects I discover are things I was NOT specifically looking for... They are things that I come across incidentally, and say "Hmm... That's strange" and go off script to investigate.
Slashdot Mirror
Bravo
I gotta quit reading comments while drinking Coffee, that was hilarious!
You didn't get the Manual? Heck, you can download it on PDF now!
Plastic Surgeons. Think of it as advertising via Product Placement.
Just skip it all and go to Of course, then you end up with .1, .2, +1
A Lot of what Bookies do to cover their odds isn't directly related to the event itself, but more to balance out their risk on what people are betting on. For example, If they took a bet on Team A vs Team B, and Team A was obviously much stronger, most people would want to bet on A, with very few betting on B. Based on that, they will adjust the contest either by giving the game a spread (For example, You only win the bet if Team A wins by at least 10 points) or giving higher odds to one team. (For example, Bet $1 and get back $5 if team B wins) These will both fluctuate before a game, as more people place their bets. The Bookie's goal isn't to correctly predict the game, but to end up in a situation where their risk is minimized, with roughly the same amount of money at to be paid out regardless of which team wins.
Lots of people are reading this as MS copying Google. What they are doing is learning from Google's USERS. Watching what results users find relevant, and bumping that up the list of results makes perfect sense. I am assuming they are doing this will all search engines, not just google.
You are absolutely right there. Automated testing does have it's place... But that place is doublechecking a repetitive test case in solid, stable functionality that would be boring to run over and over again. Automated testing rarely finds new defects, but is great at making sure old defects don't pop pack up. Human eyes are best at exploratory testing, and finding new problems. As a QA Analyst, I'd say that about 75% of the defects I discover are things I was NOT specifically looking for... They are things that I come across incidentally, and say "Hmm... That's strange" and go off script to investigate.
Based on your description of the location, I'm thinking Somewhere around Lexington NC. You forgot to list the advantage of incredibly good BBQ. :)
I send e-mail so I don't have to talk to people. It's the same reason I text.
Not sure why this comment was marked Funny. It's absolutely true for me... And I bet a lot of others here.
MSFT has designed yet another piece of software you'd have to be a complete idiot to use.
So, you are saying they designed it for the average user?