NotHereToPlayGames

Found this - https://www.topendsports.com/sport/betting-tools/spread-calculator.htm This answers most of my curiousity. A local team has been VASTLY OVER-RATED and (admittedly) it has become FUN ENTERTAINMENT to watch them NOT live up to that over-rated hype! Sure, it's nice that they've been WINNING, but they have NOT been winning by the double-digit margins of the "betting lines". On a "standard VIG" [ie, -110] (no clue what that is, kind of doesn't matter for sake of example), we can "back-date" FIVE wins by this team but FOUR of those wins DID NOT BEAT THE SPREAD. Game 1 >>> spread of -18.5 (ie, if they don't win by 19 points or more, then they lose in terms of the bet) Game 2 >>> spread of -16.5 Game 3 >>> spread of -8.5 Game 4 >>> spread of -14.5 Game 5 >>> spread of -12.5 The team won all five of these games, but did NOT cover the spread of games 1, 2, 4, and 5. My FUN ENTERTAINMENT was "gentleman's bets" with a coworker. For "bragging rights". My "working theory" to my coworker was that our local team would NOT cover DOUBLE-DIGIT SPREADS. So we were technically "betting, but no money, just bragging rights", on only games 1, 2, 4, and 5. I *won* but she now mocks me for there being no "money" on the line. So if the VIG is always -110 "standard", the spread calculator link posted above would have paid out in this manner if $100 was bet on game 1, the winnings then bet on game 2, the winnings then bet on game 4, then the winnings bet on game 5. Game 1 >>> $100 bet, payout would have been $190.91 Game 2 >>> $190.91 bet, payout would have been $364.56 Game 4 >>> $364.56 bet, payout would have been $695.98 Game 5 >>> $695.98 bet, payout would have been $1,328.69

Yep! I remind my brother of that ALL THE TIME. He's big into lottery tickets, swears up and down he wins more than he loses but I can't get him to SPREADSHEET IT for PROOF. Because I keep telling him "that's how the game is played". Make you FEEL LIKE you are winning so that you keep buying.

Generally speaking, you should never get a Cloudflare captcha on any MODERN web browser that UPDATES ITSELF every few weeks. The problem is for those that prefer to NOT run these auto-updates. All it takes is a browser that is THREE OR FOUR versions "old" to TRIGGER the Cloudflare captchas. I've never witnessed anything but a checkbox that checks itself, zero user interaction, when at work (where the IT dept forces me to reboot my laptop 25 times in any given 30 day month all in the guise of "updates" for this or that).

Yeah, I actually have come to hate hate HATE sports! I *literally* NEVER watch anymore (but scroll scores via web browser instead). It was different when I was a kid, but nowadays, every commercial break is sponsored by a GAMBLING COMPANY with tiny fine print at the bottom for those with "gambling addictions". Then there are things like https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/sports/list-players-coaches-sports-betting-gambling-allegations/6408736/ And this https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/15/sport/sports-betting-gambling-professional-athletes-dg You can't even watch "news" programs that are supposed to cover "sports" without them also covering GAMBLING and be SPONSORED by GAMBLING COMPANIES. I'm waiting for these to become ILLEGAL ADVERTISING (like cigarette commercials, not technically "illegal", but so HEAVILY regulated that no manufacturer bothers to "advertise").

But I feel like the TIME that was spent to demonstrate this PROOF is time WASTED. Because my name doesn't begin with a "D" so answers, despite 100% accurate and true, will never be "liked". Yeah, that was a rib-jab.

Q.E.D.

Additionally, and predictably, if you set Supermium to use New Moon's default User Agent, then Supermium is sent the tracking link version of the search results. Again, all server-side. The browsers are rendering what they are sent by the server.

I'd be more interested in a screencap from here -- https://mate.tools/vpn-detection-test Here is mine:

This thread is technically about Supermium (which is not being sent tracking links BY THE SERVER), your question is more about New Moon (which is being sent tracking links BY THE SERVER). Again, this is all SERVER-SIDE. The browser doing the rendering is rendering exactly what is being sent to that browser BY THE SERVER. And New Moon is being SINGLED OUT. Chrome/Chromium/Supermium/Catsxp/r3dfox - all of these are not being sent tracking links BY THE SERVER. It's all in the USER AGENT (in this case). New Moon without a useragent override (note: you have to hover over a search result link to see the tracking URL, it is not always shown in the address bar): New Moon with a useragent override:

I'm not seeing what you describe. Are you allowing any sort of "prerendering" or "AI-powered protection" or "safe browsing protection"? ALL are disabled on my config.

Showing screencap's of the "about" dialog is about as useful to the discussion as showing a picture of my dog! At any rate, I cannot even do any Google searches now, all I get is the D#MN F'IN CLOUDFLARE CAPTCHA B#LL F'IN SH#T (in most-recent New Moon, didn't even bother in anything else). If the previous post is correct about spoofing UA (I am unable to verify), then the next step should be to go the other route, spoof New Moon's UA on Google and check results. Because this is SERVER-SIDE. Chrome/Chromium/Supermium/r3dfox is being sent DIFFERENT HTML CODE then New Moon. They are all simply rendering what the server is sending them. And New Moon is being "singled out". (I did not check other Roytam browsers, only New Moon.)

ie, it's not Mozilla versus Google thing. I didn't try, but something tells me that Google will serve the *tracking links* versions to Chrome, Chromium, Supermium, and r3dfox *IF* you set the user agent to match that of New Moon. Have not tried... Will try this afternoon if nobody else can first...

On my end - vanilla Chrome, vanilla Chromium, vanilla Supermium, and vanilla r3dfox all show the true link withouthout tracking. New Moon (vanilla, most recent) was the only browser that has the tracking links.

Strictly a curiosity question. I'm not a gambler and I don't bet. But... Something has piqued my curiosity. This question pertains to "beating the spread" and just how that "works". A nearby NCAA basketball team has done "much better than average" this season, especially pre-conference play. So they keep landing in national news much more than often on account of that "success". But here is my "observation", they keep getting before-game "spreads" in DOUBLE DIGITS. But RARE are their double-digit WINS. Which leads to my curiousity... I can't help but be curious on how "betting" AGAINST them would have benefited anyone that may have bet them to LOSE. Because unless I'm mistaken, if the "spread" is DOUBLE DIGITS but they only win by SINGLE digits, then they technically LOST and betting for that LOSS is a *WIN*. So how much would a person have "won" if, purely as an example, say $100 was bet that they would NOT beat the spread in FIVE consecutive games and regardless of them WINNING those FIVE games, they DID NOT BEAT THE SPREAD, so they didn't "win" in that sense.

Major bummer! I've never actually used yt-dlp, but there is certainly a VERY large following. I guess that shows the popularity of yt-dlp, the ONLY reason Google would "unleash" would be if TENS OF THOUSANDS of videos are being downloaded using this method. Google really wouldn't "care" if we were talking a few here, a few there. Or they're looking at it from how many PER DAY are "abusing the system", so to speak.