Hurricane

Still rocking the Wallabies dp I see ahha.

That's fine. Given the number of players, days and nights will start off relatively long - probably 48 hours.

Hey mate - would you be interested in playing in the latest mafia game? I'm a couple of players short of the amount I need and at least you're on regularly even if you don't have the foggiest about the theme.

Your avatar shall be:

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/592475149812666368/sZSi0dsU_400x400.png

Any particular reason for deleting that post, I thought everything you said was spot on

I'll be the tall bloke in the big red ski coat ftr

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport/cricket/unthinkable-tragedy-has-played-out-this-way-before/story-e6frg7rx-1227137580199

Just saw this posted on Twitter. Thought you might be interested to know.

FYI. There's an article on stuff about Wellington's hosting of T20 games over the weekend. Peter Clinton says they got 2,500 spectators over 3 days (and 5 games) at the Westpac. He acknowledges that a single game at the Basin would have scored more spectators than that. QED.

EDIT: Would normally have posted this on CW for general consumption, of course.

EDIT2: Article is here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/63489390/Wellington-satisfied-with-T20-crowd-numbers

sorry bud have been away except for the odd phone scroll. Will do in the morning

that post better get some goddam likes

legend mate, thank you

come play epicmafia?

Putting this here because it has no place in an SR subforum

"I am not gettting pumped about Latham btw a) I didn't see his innings b) he didn't look likely against India."

I was impressed by him in the first session tbh. Not Jack Hobbs reincarnate, but a damn sight more useful than Rutherford or Fulton. Struck me as a very mature knock in testing conditions before lunch. Saw nothing afterwards.

I didn't troll the GOT thread. I was giving my genuine opinion.

You should run another CW creative writing compo. I have a hankering to write something short and silly.

I can certainly understand if you think test cricket is more challenging due to other reasons but the variance reason just ticked me off as it as a not-so-pet peeve of mine. Just tell me if I need to rephrase something as I just woke up.

Cheers.

It merely means that the former requires a longer sample size to determine 'true' results in the former as opposed to the latter and has nothing to do with what is more challenging/requires more ability. Contrast something like day trading in derivatives which has a high % of variance to something like non-strenuous manual labour. The latter is almost a pure 'skill' activity and has much lower variance yet the former which has a very high variance and you lose almost as many days as you profit will almost unanimously be accepted to require more mental ability despite there being more 'luck' in the former

A major argument being made for test cricket either directly or indirectly in the thread was that it requires more ability because T20 has more upset potential/one game of T20 involves considerably more luck than 1 test etc. which is just bad logic due to aforementioned reasons. - Contd.

Yo Hurricane, Just checked back on the variance thread and I don't want to debate with Jassy so basically what I meant is:

It's a misconception that activities which involve high variance i.e. activities which involve a higher % of luck in the immediate short term i.e. where it's hard to predict results for one game directly based on ability - require a lower amount of ability than activities where the luck/skill ratio is tilted more towards skill in the immediate short term and results are more predictable on ability. - Contd.

Nah man, basketball. Ice Hockey was a damp squib.

Been following the new season? Hurricane's started really well.