Jesus, who voted 80%?
Yeah, almost at the dogging stage, Lurtz, but I'm fairly confident that my success rate will increase from here on, I certainly feel wiser and on my next punt I swear I'll be fully prepared to walk if it looks even slightly unfavorable.
But I don't think I'll be punting again until I go down to Manchester in April, I can't fucking afford it with the amount I've blown on shit punts recently. That's the thing, if I'd had one decent punt in the last month to satisfy me, then I don't think I'd have felt the need to book so many more. It's the fact that the punts have been so shit that each time I've been compelled to arrange another one straight away to make up for it. I'm addicted in a sense, I suppose. Like the gambler who keeps losing but keeps throwing more money in the machine thinking he'll win it all back.
Hard to quantify in any meaningful sense. Question is, are these punts disappointing because the WG is obviously not 'as advertised'? Or what about when they're broadly 'as advertised' but the experience just isn't very thrilling or downright poor or inept?
This isn't really relevant to the question. Regardless of the reasons of why some punts are better than others, of all your punts, how many would you have rather stayed at home and had a wank instead?
I work on the basis that one in three OUGHT to be good, one ought to be OK and by the law of averages, one will be crap. I think these odds do slide up and down quite a bit depending on where you are in the country. In London, my share of crap punts in the past has definitely not been as high as one in three. Maybe one in five, or better. But out of town, it slides back up the other way.
I think that's a sensible rate to expect, KN, and if my rate was about that I'd be happy. What do you think the reason is for London being better than the rest of the country?