...
.....
.......
Please paste a sample text containing at least 50 words, then click the button below to let the algorithm analyze it.
https://www.writingtoiq.com/
--->Originally Posted by kewlJ
Jbjb, I don't know what is more pathetic? Rob desperately seeking my attention on several forums, or someone like you encouraging and cheering him on. I expect a little more from you. You have nothing else in your life than to cheer on the village idiot?Originally Posted by jbjb
Yes, I am an Eagles fan. That doesn't mean I bet on them today. It doesn't mean I bet on them most days. It doesn't mean I thought they would win today or were going to the Superbowl. It means I root for them, as I did today. So happens I made 1 wager this weekend, SF +3 and it won. Being a fan, I watch and am familiar with the team I root for. The Eagles weren't a legit playoff team. They played 6 teams that were in the playoff this year and went 0-6. They had 9 wins, 8 against teams with losing record. Of the 13 other teams in the playoffs, I am not sure they could have beaten anyone (maybe Pittsburgh). The Eagles playing a last place schedule, simply beat up on a lot of losing teams the second half of the season. I recognized that even before the season began, which is why my big bet involving the Eagles this year was over 6.5 wins. But that doesn't mean I think or thought they were a good team, a legit playoff team or anywhere close to a super bowl contender. It means I recognized they were playing a last place schedule and would win enough games against other bad teams to easily cover 7 wins. And they did.
Jbjb, please stop with this kind of attempted baiting. I just don't care about the person that posts as Rob Singer anymore. He is irrelevant. I would say the single most irrelevant person on the gambling forums and that includes Tasha/Nathan. And frankly Rob is a complete idiot as far as gambling and advantage play. I can't think of a bigger idiot. He proves that almost every time he even opens his mouth about anything gambling related. Just this week, he called redietz 150-1 wager on Cincinnati to win the college football championship a losing and bad bet. He doesn't seem to be able to comprehend that bet was a huge winning bet as soon as Cincinnati made the college playoffs. Huge winning bet. The bet was never about them winning the championship. Does anybody really think Redietz was picking Cincinatti over a team like Alabama or Georgia? Only Rob. It was about making the playoff where you could hedge and guarantee a big win, which is exactly what Redietz did. I wouldn't have made that bet, but I don't study and know every team.
That is just one example of how Rob doesn't understand a thing about any kind of gambling and AP play, and really about anything he ever says.
So you guys can have your fun with Rob. I am over it.
https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...l=1#post137582
ESTIMATED IQ: 93 (average)
How accurate is the algorithm?
As accurate as one would expect such an algorithm to be. As "proof" I have run the algorithm on a few examples, and you can see that the results aren't surprising (nor should they be).
- Stephen Hawking, using his last paper as the sample, achieves an IQ of 151.
- Alexander Hamilton, using Federalist paper number 6 as the written sample, achieves an IQ of 166.
- Testing different CNN reporters using their articles, I got IQs ranging from 102 to 127.
- Testing different 5G-coronavirus conspiracy theorists using posts from one of their Facebook groups, I got IQs ranging from 75 to 89.
--->Originally Posted by Rob.Singer
NOT ENOUGH DATA OR NOT ENOUGH VARIANCE TO ESTIMATE IQ
--->Originally Posted by GarnabbyYes, but, "Hey, get with the program ... the VCT secret codeword-RIP calendar ---> We're Gettin' Closer to the Grave Each Day," addressed which calendar to use here. The RIP calendar is the the Julian calendar.Originally Posted by tableplay
As far as frequency of usages goes, the Julian calendar was around for about 1,600 years, versus the Gregorian calendar for about 400 years. There are other ways to look at frequency of usage. So, perhaps, it's fitting to thus continue to recognize it with some small award. Regardless, how else to recognize a new (old) award, but, with an old (New) Year's Day?
The numerals, too, work out. January 13, 2022, Gregorian, was the last day of the Julian year, on December 31, 2021. 13 <---> 31. It would be nice were each day a Friday, or, the same day in general, but, the shift in days from one calendar to the other isn't two weeks. Here is a link to who observes the old New Year's Day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_New_Year
Now the current Julian year is 2774, and, the Gregorian one is 2022. Numerologically speaking, sort of balances out the 222-bit, with (2772 + 2) in 2022, and, 2772 in (2022 - 2). Lots of other considerations, such as 2774 = 73*(1 + 37) ---> 731_137; and 2772 = (73 - 10)*4*11 ---> 731_411, or, (4*10^1 + 7 + 30)(-1 + 37) ---> 411_731_137. 2772 = 2*1386 = 4*693, which has to do with Tesla's 369. Anyway, 2 inverts to 7 as ᘔ; the same way that 6 inverts to 9. Lots of strange very-basic patterns of the periodic table of chemical elements to do with 27, and 69. I won't get into the math that thus separates these digits, but, suffice it to say, it's one of the great discovers yet to be made.
I guess that the only reason that people don't try for an even more-exact calendar is that no one knows what the future holds, say, what overall style of calendar will suit, then. Maybe, a sixteen month calendar for the people in the year 3000.
Other things to do.
https://vegascasinotalk.com/forum/sh...l=1#post137575
ESTIMATED IQ: 123 (HIGH INTELLIGENCE)
DISCLAIMER: The algorithm assumes that when writing the text, the author put thought behind every sentence he wrote. Furthermore, it assumes that the author didn't purposefully attempt to dumb himself down and is sufficiently fluent in English as to not be restricted in his choice of words. Ideally, you should paste in a paper, article or another document that you have written and are proud of. Note that the algorithm is meant to be equivalent to an IQ test for adults, so if you are under 18 the result will likely be significantly lower than your true IQ score.
Reply With Quote