Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:IT for bookies? (Score 2) 124

A Lot of what Bookies do to cover their odds isn't directly related to the event itself, but more to balance out their risk on what people are betting on. For example, If they took a bet on Team A vs Team B, and Team A was obviously much stronger, most people would want to bet on A, with very few betting on B. Based on that, they will adjust the contest either by giving the game a spread (For example, You only win the bet if Team A wins by at least 10 points) or giving higher odds to one team. (For example, Bet $1 and get back $5 if team B wins) These will both fluctuate before a game, as more people place their bets. The Bookie's goal isn't to correctly predict the game, but to end up in a situation where their risk is minimized, with roughly the same amount of money at to be paid out regardless of which team wins.

Comment Re:First things first (Score 1) 312

You are absolutely right there. Automated testing does have it's place... But that place is doublechecking a repetitive test case in solid, stable functionality that would be boring to run over and over again. Automated testing rarely finds new defects, but is great at making sure old defects don't pop pack up. Human eyes are best at exploratory testing, and finding new problems. As a QA Analyst, I'd say that about 75% of the defects I discover are things I was NOT specifically looking for... They are things that I come across incidentally, and say "Hmm... That's strange" and go off script to investigate.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real programs don't eat cache.