How do lines and odds work in sports betting?
Plus and Minus numbers (1 or 2 digit numebrs) on the spread are how you adjust the final score to the game to make it closer to 50/50.
Yesterday everyone expected the Orlando magic to beat the Philadelphia 76ers. So no one would bet $100 to win $100 on the 76ers because it was not a 50/50 proposition, so there are several options to bet on the game.
If you find the line on a website/newspaper/sportsbook, the options would be money line or spread.
The money line options are below, that means you are just betting on the winner of the game. Since the game is not actually a 50/50 proposition, the payouts are not equal.
Orlando -240 (this means you bet $240 to win $100 if Orlando wins the game.
Philadelphia +200 (this means you bet $100 to win $200 if Philadelphia wins the game.)
Some people don’t like to “lay” 270 to win 100, so the other option for betting on a game is the spread. This is when the bookmaker adjusts the score to make it closer to 50/50, so the payouts can be closer to 50/50.
You could have bet on:
Orlando -5.5 -110. that means you bet $110 dollars, and win $100 if Orlando wins by 5.5 points or ore.
or
Philadelphia +5.5 -110. that means you bet $110 and you win $100 if Philadelphia loses by 5.5 or less (or wins)
The final score of the game was Orlando 124, Philadelphia 115, so according to the spread, the final score was either 118.5-115 or 124-120.5. So Orlando -5.5 won, and Philadelphia +5.5 lost.
Why are there Laws of War? Why do they follow rules when they’re battling to the death
-
Eventually the war will be over. If you are still alive but you committed war crimes, you may be punished.
-
Some things are so horrible that neither side wants them used, because then both sides will lose. Example: nukes.
-
Some things are so horrible that they will convince neutral countries to join the struggle against you.
-
You want the enemy to treat your prisoners and civilians decently, so you do the same — knowing that if you stop the decency, they may stop too.
– Concise_Pirate
Why is marijuana “impossible” to overdose on?
Bluntly put, the median lethal dose (LD50) of THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) is so high and the methods of intake so dilute that you would have to do absolutely impossible feats to have it occur. While there are a couple of different and conflicting sources, one estimate placed it at 40,000 times as much as the dose needed to get high. This is contrasted with alcohol, where five to ten times the amounted needed to get you drunk can kill you. To extrapolate, With pot brownies you’d die of sugar poisoning long before the THC got you. With smoking, you’d have to smoke something like 1,500 pounds of weed in a period of 15 minutes.
To actually manage a THC overdose you’d have to spend a lot of effort to first purify a sizable quantity of THC and then ingest it rapidly. This would never happen accidentally.
– WorkingMouse
Why is the Kondratieff Cycle(families losing wealth within 3 generations) so accurate?
First generation earns it, second generation grows up being taught to appreciate it while being encouraged to take their own risks to try and create their own fortunes, and then the third generation grows up squandering both without being taught either lesson.
Why do colleges accept students who excel in sports while having bad academic merits?
Money. College football and basketball generate a lot of money and donations from alumni. Especially if you have really wealthy alumni like T. Boone Pickens. He paid for a lot of new athletic buildings. There are lots of former college players with degrees that can barely read or write but were able to run fast with a ball. Several colleges have been busted for enrolling their athletes in phantom classes where they never had to show up and still earned A’s. My best friend’s cousin played football at a college in Texas and wouldn’t have to turn in assignments or take exams in most classes.
– AT_thruhiker2016
What Do Chefs Do Aside From Cooking?
Let me eliminate all the cooking (of which I, and most chefs, do very little) and all the things concerning direct supervision of cooking.
In the morning I do a stock muster and make sure we have everything we need to make it through the day. I read my team’s notes and the front of the house notes and try to understand what I need to order to have it here in a timeframe that allows me to never run out and nothing to come too early and spoil.
I attempt to make my dishes cheaper without sacrificing quality. I do this once every few weeks, call purveyors and see what I can do, etc.
I then go though my bills, pay them, call around for all other things bureaucratic, make shift plans and read my work emails. If someone called in sick, I send WhatsApp or SMS messages around and see if I can get them replaced.
By now it’s noon, I talk to the prep cooks, do bossy things, like reprimand, acknowledge, praise, and ask for feedback and concerns. Sometimes I have to spend some time in private with one of the prep cooks if something comes up.
I then meet with the Maitre d’ and the Sommelier to make sure we have everything squared, get their feedback on my guys and gals, my food, and through them customer feedback. I give the Sommelier my wine needs list, she goes fill them, and I talk with the Maitre d’ about covers and expected fill on the place. I also relay my guys’ concerns with his people, and pass on praise.
I spend 30 minutes doing Internet research on Yelp, etc. to see what people wrote about us.
By now, my Sous is in, and we grab tools and fix equipment. Things break, we have to get them working before the kitchen goes hot.
My cooks file in, I do the same things I did with the prep shift, ask about needs, etc. I also have someone cook all the new stuff and specials to feed to the waiters when they come in in an hour.
Lots of cooking ensues here.
After the rush phase I go back and do more administrative work. I’m incorporating what I heard that day, schedule maternity leaves, vacations, do all the parole and court stuff I have to do for some of my cooks, write emails to suppliers and manufacturers. I show the Maitre d’ my new idea for a plate, see if there’s a reason the front of the house wouldn’t want to have those dishes on those plates (they’re the boss there, I can only suggest), and I pull cooks off the line to talk to them if I have to.
I start cleaning when the kitchen goes cold, cooks help (usually the FNG and someone who screwed up that day), Sous goes home.
I do my cover reports for the day, have a drink with the other middle managers in the joint, and go home myself.
– Jonas Mikka Luster
Why is dead weight (unconscious person) so heavy when the person’s weight doesn’t change?
When a person is alive and with-it, they “participate” in being held by making sure weight is distributed to your core. Getting a floppy body to have its weight distributed to your core muscles is hard and this makes balancing difficult and causes you to engage relatively weak muscles.
– bguy74
Why do horses need to be put down when they break a leg while most other animals don’t?
Horse bones are incredibly dense and fairly difficult to break, but when they do break they do not heal well, easily, or quickly and are very prone to infection. Most would die a slow painful death from infection, even with antibiotics and other medical care. Those that survive would most likely not have full use of the leg, and have a leg prone to break again.
Why does texture affect taste so much? Why can’t I put my steak into a blender and enjoy it as much?
Taste is a lot of things more than just what your tongue tells you.
Take for example those blind taste tests were fancy wine doesn’t taste as good when you don’t know it’s fancy. Your brain uses last experiences as a short cut. Your brain expects fancy wine to be tasty so it is.
Your brain doesn’t like being confused. Ever drank one thing expecting it to be something different? It’s a disgusting experience because your brain had its expectations violated.
If something has the texture of steak your brain expects to to be steak and you’ll get the full experience that way. If you had steak shakes all the time you’d probably grow to like it. However, I bet you tend to only have smoothies and such in that form, and thus your brain expects that type of fruity drink for smoothy textures.
How Do You Differentiate Good Acting From Bad Acting?
If anyone tells you there are objective standards, they’re full of shit. This is a matter of personal taste. There are trends. There are many people who loved Hoffman’s acting. But if you don’t, you’re not wrong. At worst, you’re eccentric.
(An interesting question—and one you didn’t ask so I won’t answer it, here—is why are there trends? Even if Hoffman isn’t objectively a great actor, why do so many people love him? For that matter, why do so many people love the Beatles, Shakespeare, and Leonardo Da Vinci? Maybe someone will ask a question about why there are general trends in taste…)
I’m a director who has been working with actors for almost 30 years, and I’m the son of a film historian. I’ll give you my definition of good acting. But I really want to stress (for the last time, then I’ll quit) is that if I say Pacino is great and you disagree, my experience does not make me right and you wrong. It just means we have different tastes.
For me, an actor is good if …
1. he makes me believe he’s actually going through whatever his character is going through. I’m talking somewhat about physical stuff (“He really is getting shot!” “He really isjumping off a moving train!”) but mostly about psychological stuff. (“He really is scared!” “He really is in love!”) If an actor seems to be “faking it,” he’s not doing his job (as I define it).
2. he has to surprise me. This is the most nebulous requirement, but it’s important. Except for really small parts that aren’t supposed to call attention to themselves (e.g. a bank teller who just cashes the hero’s checks), it’s not enough for actors to just seem real. Seeming real is a requirement, but a second requirement is that I can’t predict their every reaction before they have it.
Think of how a woman might react if her boyfriend breaks up with her. There are many, many truthful ways—ways which would seem like a human being reacting and not like a space alien behaving in some bizarre, unbelievable way.
She might break down and cry; she might laugh hysterically; she might throw water in his face; she might go completely numb, having no expression at all…
An actor’s job is to know the breadth of human possibility and the depths of their own possibilities. They must pull from this well and surprise us. Otherwise, they become boring and predictable.
There are many ways and actor can surprise. Gary Oldman and Johnny Depp surprise us by being truthful while playing multiple, very different roles. Jack Nicholson surprises by being … surprising. Even though he’s not a chameleon like Oldman or Depp, you never know what he’s going to do next. But whatever her does, it’s grounded in psychological reality. It never seems fake.
Christopher Walken, Glenn Close, Al Pacino, and many others have a surprising danger in them. They’re a little scary to be around, because you feel they might jump you or blow up at you at any time. They are ticking time bombs.
And, of course, many comedic actors (e.g. Julia Louis-Dreyfus) surprise us in all sorts of quirky, zany ways. Or watch Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant in “Bringing Up Baby.” Absolutely surprising and absolutely truthful!
Another great example of surprising acting that never seems fake is Diane Keaton’s work in “Annie Hall.”
3. he is vulnerable. Great actors share the parts of themselves that most people keep hidden. They are always naked. (Some are literally naked, but I’m talking about emotional nakedness.) Bad actors are guarded. They don’t want to share the parts of themselves that are ugly, mean, petty, jealous, etc.
There are so many examples of actors being naked on stage and screen. My favorite is Rosalind Russell in the movie “Picnic.” Rent it some time if you haven’t seen it. She plays a middle-aged schoolteacher who is in danger of growing old an dying alone. There’s a heartbreaking scene in which she begs a man to marry her. She goes down on her knees in front of him. She gives up every scrap of dignity inside her and lets the scared, hurting parts of herself burst out.
These are the same scared, hurt parts that are inside all of us—the parts we work hard to hide. Hiding them (by holding them in) takes a toll on us, and one of the greatest gifts actors can give is to sacrifice their dignity for us for us. They expose themselves so we don’t have to. They are like Christ dying for our sins.
This ties in with everything I wrote above: when actors are exposed and raw, it’s always surprising. And if it doesn’t seem real, there’s no point in it. In fact, this sort of emotional nakedness is very hard to fake. If you ever get a sense that an actor is showing you a secret part of himself, he probably is.
Examples (in my opinion) are Julianne Moore and Bryan Cranston. Also, rent “The Browning Version” sometime. The early one (not the remake). Watch Michael Redgrave. He turns himself inside out and wrings out all his pain.
4. he knows how to listen. It’s fascinating to watch actors when they’re not speaking. Some are too caught up in ego or technicalities (e.g. trying to remember their next line) to totally focus on whoever it is they’re acting with. Others seem to register everything they hear. You can see whatever is being said to them physically affecting them, as if the words are slapping them across the face. Watch Claire Danes. She’s an amazing listener.
5. he has a well-honed “instrument.” By which I mean he knows how to use his voice and body to serve whatever role he’s playing. This doesn’t necessarily mean he’s slim and has a six-pack. James Gandolfini used his body well. It means he knows how to move and talk in expressive ways. His voice and body aren’t fighting him or holding tension that’s inappropriate to his role.
One negative example: Kristen Stewart. It’s almost painful to watch her. She looks like she’d rather be anywhere else besides in front of a camera. She is (or seems) very self-conscious.
To me, Hoffman was great because he embodied all of these traits. He was vocally and physically gifted. He wasn’t in great shape, but he used the shape he had in expressive ways. If you watch him closely when he’s not speaking, you’ll see he always listened to his co-stars closely. What they say affected him deeply, and his reactions grew organically our of whatever they had previously said or done to him.
He was profoundly vulnerable. Always. This was his most distinctive trait. You always knew what you were getting from him was raw and honest. It was this rawness—as well as intelligence and a sly sense of humor—that made his work surprising and fresh. And I never once saw anything from him that seemed fake.
I don’t hate Tom Cruise the way some people do. To me, he’s believable most of the time. He’s just not very interesting. He rarely surprises me, and he doesn’t seem to dig deep into a anything raw or vulnerable inside him. He seems guarded. The must vulnerable I’ve seen him is in “Eyes Wide Shut,” in which he did some good work. But it wasn’t brilliant. And it’s not his norm.
Keep in mind that many people (who aren’t themselves actors, directors, or obsessive film buffs) aren’t very clear on what an actors contributes to a film. Which is fine. It’s not necessary for most audiences members to understand who does what during production.
Lots of people think an actor is great if they like his character. But that’s often a function of good writing more that good acting. Or they think he’s good if he pulls off some impressive effect, such as gaining or losing a lot of weight or pretending to be handicapped. Those are impressive stunts, but they aren’t the core of what actors do. If you forced me to rank Dustin Hoffman in “Rain Man” vs. Dustin Hoffman in “Kramer vs. Kramer,” I’d say he did more exciting work in the latter. In “Rain Man” he was able to hid behind some stunts. In “Kramer vs. Kramer,” he just had to be truthful.
Some people think acting is good if they like the movie. Keanu Reeves, in my mind, is a horrible actor—mostly because he’s wooden and fake. It often seems as if he’s reading from cue cards rather than saying words that are his. But some people like him because they think the Matrix films are cool. They confuse the movies with the actor. If some other actor had been in those films, those same people would have liked him. It’s not really the actor (or not entirely the actor) they’re liking. But since he plays the protagonist, they focus on him.
Finally, many people confuse an actor’s life with his work. Tom Cruise is a good example. He’s a high-profile Scientologist, and many people dislike that religion. They dislike his acting at least in part because they find him unsavory as a person. To some extent, this may be a sign of bad acting on his part. At least, he’s not a good-enough actor to make people forget about his private life while they’re watching him in movies. To some extent, it wouldn’t matter how skilled he was.
Currently, many people are having strong reactions to work by Woody Allen and Mia Farrow that have nothing to do with what they’re doing on screen. I’m not even remotely saying such people are wrong, stupid, or crazy. I’m just saying that people’s reactions to actors are often complicated and not 100% influenced by their performances.
– Marcus Geduld, Artstic Director, Folding Chair Classical Theatre, NYC
The post 10 Answers To Questions You Always Wondered About appeared first on Caveman Circus.