@liron@DavidDeutschOxf@FitzClaridge If GPT-4 wrote a best seller, it would be because of the creativity of people who made GPT-4 and provided the promt/prompts.
@seeley_nigel@premsportsplays@seancalvert1 Yeah it's very annoying. Also happened to me when backing Sock at 66/1 for the Paris Masters in 2017 because Federer withdrew 😭 (thanks @seancalvert1, I believe you tipped it?). With Tsitsipas, I got back £193.75 from a £5 ew bet (£10 total), which I believe is a 30% reduction.
@seeley_nigel@premsportsplays@seancalvert1 The suggested bookie was Betvictor - their terms below.
"Should a player withdraw and not hit one ball in the specified tournament then all bets placed will be made void and any outright market which is affected by the withdrawal will be subject to a Tattersalls rule 4."
@quenio @ExplainsDeutsch @DavidDeutschOxf@DeutschExplains The answer is no, you cannot. "Hard to vary" is a theory about what makes an explanation good, and like any theory it is a fallible conjecture open to criticism. Validation in the sense you desire is not possible, which is what Deutsch is highlighting above.
@nishikoripicks Qualies (all rounds) are even worse than 1st/2nd rounds. Finals also worse than the middle rounds. Sweet spot seems to be third, fourth, quarters, semis. Notably, this is true across all tours other than Grand Slams, where 3rd round is worse than 1st/2nd. (OnCourt data)
@mansfield_pablo@arjunkhemani "From each as they choose"
Everyone chooses how they spend their money, time, etc.
"To each as they are chosen"
Everyone receives from others what others choose to give them.
@AdamHGrimes Good example of the two pullback entry types too. First, the failure test of the original high created after the 3 pushes. Second, the outside bar breaking below the lows of the consolidation. As you have said, one can build their entire trading framework soley around pullbacks.
@AriDavidPaul Thanks Ari. If you haven't read already, I'd really recommend David Deutsch's two books, Fabric of Reality and Beginning of Infinity. Covers many topics, most of which I feel you'd enjoy, and several of which have direct or indirect implications for how one understands morality.
My argument against recursive self improvement is that "improve" is not a verb like "cook". It isn't something you can just do. All intentional efforts at improvement eventually get stuck and the only way to move past them is to stop trying to improve.