884 replies to this topic

[HollywoodAFD]

Tactical Bear, on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 12:39 PM, said:

I can get under 10.5 at +130 (50 to win 65). I'll make that bet with you, if you'd like, but if I'm going to get down, I'm doing it at thebest price available.

Straight up... $50.. I take the over 8 games.

[Tactical Bear]

HollywoodAFD, on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 1:31 PM, said:

I'll take $50 on that if you wish.

Tactical Bear, on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 1:39 PM, said:

I can get under 10.5 at +130 (50 to win 65). I'll make that bet with you, if you'd like, but if I'm going to get down, I'm doing it at thebest price available.

HollywoodAFD, on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 2:07 PM, said:

Straight up... $50.. I take the over 8 games.

I think you are confused. Why would I bet 50 straight up with you when I can get BETTER odds at a BETTER number? Maybe you don't understand how gambling works? I dunno. No, I'm not taking under 8.0 straight up. One of us is stupid, and I just got my IQ test from 8th grade to prove my intelligence is only slightly below average.

[HollywoodAFD]

Tactical Bear, on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 11:30 AM, said:

Cowboys will be lucky to win 9 games this year. 8-8 and scrapping for the last playoff spot in the NFC sounds about right.

Maybe you should sit this one out sport-o

[Jackie Childs]

Tactical Bear, on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 8:30 AM, said:

Cowboys will be lucky to win 9 games this year. 8-8 and scrapping for the last playoff spot in the NFC sounds about right.

That's the most uninformed statement I've ever read on these forums. And trust me... there are a LOT.Dallas is 4/7 to win the East and you seriously think they wont win more than half of their games?Wow....

[CBass1724]

Tactical Bear, on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 12:30 PM, said:

Cowboys will be lucky to win 9 games this year. 8-8 and scrapping for the last playoff spot in the NFC sounds about right.

I hope you are God and I hope you are right.You can be Miss Cleo instead, but just please be right.

[Tactical Bear]

Jackie Childs, on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 2:45 PM, said:

That's the most uninformed statement I've ever read on these forums. And trust me... there are a LOT.Dallas is 4/7 to win the East and you seriously think they wont win more than half of their games?Wow....

So what is informing YOUR statement? Their divisional odds? That could just as easily be a function the relative strength of the rest of the NFC East. Or perhaps the line is inflated because of all the Cowboy fans out there willing to bang away no matter WHAT number the books toss out there. But the facts are these: Dallas has been unusually lucky with respect to their team health the last few years, were shockingly, unsustainably lucky on 3rd downs last year. When a team performs one way on first and second down, and then significantly better on third down, it is more likely a result of luck than anything else. For these reason and more, Football Outsiders-- guys who've been able to outpick the books w/r/t Team Wins over/unders the last few years -- have the Cowboys pegged as between an 8 and 9 win team. Unlike you -- and your weird "uninformed" statement -- I actually read as much as I could about this exact issue. I'd wager I'm more informed about team total wins than anybody on this entire board. That being said, let's do a little money-where-my-mouth-is thing. Does anybody here want to take DALLAS OVER 10.5 WINS -120? I'll give you a discount. I just bought a piece at +130, but I'll take it +120 here. I'm unwilling to drop a huge bomb with you guys, since I'll likely have to pay you by money-order or cashier's check when I lose, but I'll sell up to 60 bucks (50 dollars on my end) at that price, here. First come, first serve. 24 hours for anybody here. You think Dallas is an 12 win team? I think they're a 9-win team at best. Let's gamble.

[donk4life]

How were they "unsustainably lucky" on third down?

[Tactical Bear]

donk4life, on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 4:59 PM, said:

How were they "unsustainably lucky" on third down?

If, on third down, a team far exceeds its performance on first and second down, third down performance tends to regress the following year (or week, or play, whatever). Dallas has been shockingly good on third downs the last few years. Maybe they have some special team makeup that makes them a significantly better team on 3rd down than on 1st and 2nd, but I think variance is a much more likely explanation.Speaking of variance, Dallas had -- by such a large margin I can barely comprehend it -- the least consistent offense from week-to-week last year. Add to this their unlikely-to-continue good fortune with respect to injuries, and I (as a parrot for Football Prospectus) see them due to regress. They're more likely to win 8 games than 12, I say. (shrug) I came in here to pick a fight because I hate the Cowboys (mostly because I'll never get over the attention heaped upon Emmit Smith while Barry Sanders did what he did here in Detroit), but I'm also significantly more prepared for this debate than any of you. My offer still stands.And away.

[HollywoodAFD]

donk4life, on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 3:59 PM, said:

How were they "unsustainably lucky" on third down?

I don't think he understands the game.I've never heard anyone who does use that term.But hey... he could be right.They are 2-1 favorites to win the NFC and 5 to 1 favorites to win the Super Bowl.But what does Las Vegas know about gambling odds and football? Pffffttt... stupid Vegas. I heard they are almost bankrupt and about to close the entire city down because they are wrong so often.

[Tactical Bear]

HollywoodAFD, on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 6:40 PM, said:

I don't think he understands the game.I've never heard anyone who does use that term.But hey... he could be right.They are 2-1 favorites to win the NFC and 5 to 1 favorites to win the Super Bowl.But what does Las Vegas know about gambling odds and football? Pffffttt... stupid Vegas. I heard they are almost bankrupt and about to close the entire city down because they are wrong so often.

I've never heard anyone who uses the phrase "does use that term," but, hey, it could be right. Your rhetoric is completely wasted on a guy who spends 3 hours a day betting on sports. I have the utmost respect for Vegas's linesmakers. Read my "Contrarianism 201" thread in Sports-General. In it, you'll find my biggest piece of advice I give to aspiring sports gamblers is "The Books know more than you," and I live by the maxim "align yourself with the books." That being said, futures are set and react differently than lines on individual games. They're very sensitive to public opinion, and the money that comes in. Popular teams -- teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Cowboys, etc. -- tend to get hit really hard when they're good, so the books will make absolutely certain they give no value on the Cowboys, here.Hence: the very short price on Cowboys futures. Like I said, though, if you're willing to offer me the price the books are offering on that Cowboys total, go ahead. I'm putting my money where my mouth is, here.EDIT- Haha, I didn't even think of this. If the sports books are so good at making money, do you really think the 2-1 price being offered on the Cowboys to win the NFC is accurate? Or do you think they have a significantly less than 1/3 chance of winning the NFC? If the books are good at their job because they offer people VERY BAD PRICES on the bets they make. Hence, 2-1 is a terrible price.

[donk4life]

Tactical Bear, on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 4:11 PM, said:

(shrug) I came in here to pick a fight because I hate the Cowboys (mostly because I'll never get over the attention heaped upon Emmit Smith while Barry Sanders did what he did here in Detroit), but I'm also significantly more prepared for this debate than any of you.

Because Emmit Smith actually had a decent line and a decent team to back him up. It was Barry's choice to stay with a crappy organization. It was Barry's choice to retire extremely early. Barry could have racked up twice the numbers he did, but he doesn't have one for the thumb, so it really doesn't matter.

[Tactical Bear]

donk4life, on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 7:05 PM, said:

Because Emmit Smith actually had a decent line and a decent team to back him up. It was Barry's choice to stay with a crappy organization. It was Barry's choice to retire extremely early. Barry could have racked up twice the numbers he did, but he doesn't have one for the thumb, so it really doesn't matter.

Yeah, this is exactly the kind of irrelevant crap I'm talking about. Questioner: "Who was a better back? Barry Sanders or Emmit Smith?"Cowboys Fan: "Emmit Smith played for a better team, but that is Barry Sanders's fault. Who has more rings? Huh?" (starts poking me in the chest) "Huh? Huh? That's what I thought! I can suck my own dick if I stretch enough beforehand!"Questioner: "I am not sure which part of that statement I find most disturbing..."Cowboys Fan: "Disturb THIS!" (begins fellating self) "Thee? Theeee?!"

[SBriand]

I love shimmeringbearmanpigwang

[donk4life]

Tactical Bear, on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 6:11 PM, said:

Yeah, this is exactly the kind of irrelevant crap I'm talking about. Questioner: "Who was a better back? Barry Sanders or Emmit Smith?"Cowboys Fan: "Emmit Smith played for a better team, but that is Barry Sanders's fault. Who has more rings? Huh?" (starts poking me in the chest) "Huh? Huh? That's what I thought! I can suck my own dick if I stretch enough beforehand!"Questioner: "I am not sure which part of that statement I find most disturbing..."Cowboys Fan: "Disturb THIS!" (begins fellating self) "Thee? Theeee?!"

Lol how in any way is three superbowl rings irrelevant?And you're making me look like a crazed Cowboy fan who isn't open to anyone else's opinion. I think you need to look at yourself, you're obviously this "expert" on sports, you should know full well that numbers mean shit in this sport, and any sport for that matter, it's only about winning. Who will remember Brady and Moss' incredible numbers last year? Patriots fans, that's it. And it's the same with Barry Sanders, only Lions fans will appreciate what he did. No one else cares, because he never brought a superbowl title to Detroit. And now fans like you will bitch at other fans and teams because they have a ring, but not the numbers of one of your players.. Whoop dee shit.. Take it up with the owners of your team.Explain to me how it isn't Barry's fault for staying with the Lions?

[donk4life]

SBriand, on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 6:16 PM, said:

I love shimmeringbearmanpigwang

Gee... I wonder what city you support for sports...

[HollywoodAFD]

Tactical Bear, on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 4:11 PM, said:

(shrug) I came in here to pick a fight because I hate the Cowboys (mostly because I'll never get over the attention heaped upon Emmit Smith while Barry Sanders did what he did here in Detroit), but I'm also significantly more prepared for this debate than any of you. My offer still stands.And away.

I thought that was the case... and that's cool.I love a good "your team sucks" battle.However... your original statement was that the Cowboys wouldn't win more than 8 games... you said nothing about odds.I asked if you wanted to bet $50 based on your statement... only then did you crawfish and want odds.My offer still stands... $50 straight up or was your claim simply driven by your hatred of the Cowboys and not by your knowledge of football?I hate the Yankees... but I would never go to a Yankees thread and claim that the Rangers were going to sweep them. Then if someone challenged my statement to only then request odds. I understand that although I despise the Yankees...they are an incredibly successful team.Now... back to badgering you.... you suck and whatever team you root for also sucks. (fun stuff)Seriously...who do you root for and if you say the Dolphins... you are banned from this thread... forever.

[SBriand]

donk4life, on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 7:24 PM, said:

Gee... I wonder what city you support for sports...

I like the cowboys way more than the Lions if that means anything...I am actually a Falcons fan, so leave me the hell alone, I have bigger problems. faggot

[Tactical Bear]

donk4life, on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 7:23 PM, said:

Lol how in any way is three superbowl rings irrelevant?And you're making me look like a crazed Cowboy fan who isn't open to anyone else's opinion. I think you need to look at yourself, you're obviously this "expert" on sports, you should know full well that numbers mean shit in this sport, and any sport for that matter, it's only about winning. Who will remember Brady and Moss' incredible numbers last year? Patriots fans, that's it. And it's the same with Barry Sanders, only Lions fans will appreciate what he did. No one else cares, because he never brought a superbowl title to Detroit.Explain to me how it isn't Barry's fault for staying with the Lions?

Super Bowl rings are irrelevant when the question is: "Who was the more talented running back?" Of course those Cowboys teams were better than the Lions were; nobody is disputing that, or ever has. But the question isn't "which team was better?" or "which tailback played for the better team?" or "which running back played in the most Super Bowls?" You can answer those questions until you are blue in the face, but it does NOTHING to resolve the "Which running back is better?" question. "Numbers mean shit" in sports, eh? How do you evaluate which teams are good? Watch 2 quarters or 3 innings and use your finely-tuned scout's eye to draw incredibly meaningful conclusions? You know what I think? Numbers are ALL that matter. Give me a set of data, and I can reach a much more accurate conclusion than you can from watching the game. You think Emmit Smith is better because he had the most heart? He WILLED them to the Superbowl? Give me a break. "All that matters is winning and losing." What do you think goes INTO winning and losing, if not individual performance, and the numbers that player produces? It's just important to use the RIGHT numbers, and draw the RIGHT conclusions.Everybody whose opinion I respect will remember that Patriots team from last year. They were the best NFL team of all time, and it might not even be close. That team was amazing, and no matter what happened in the playoffs, I don't know anybody who will forget them.

[Tactical Bear]

HollywoodAFD, on Wednesday, August 27th, 2008, 7:32 PM, said:

I thought that was the case... and that's cool.I love a good "your team sucks" battle.However... your original statement was that the Cowboys wouldn't win more than 8 games... you said nothing about odds.I asked if you wanted to bet $50 based on your statement... only then did you crawfish and want odds.My offer still stands... $50 straight up or was your claim simply driven by your hatred of the Cowboys and not by your knowledge of football?I hate the Yankees... but I would never go to a Yankees thread and claim that the Rangers were going to sweep them. Then if someone challenged my statement to only then request odds. I understand that although I despise the Yankees...they are an incredibly successful team.Now... back to badgering you.... you suck and whatever team you root for also sucks. (fun stuff)Seriously...who do you root for and if you say the Dolphins... you are banned from this thread... forever.

I no longer have any NFL rooting interest. I like the Lions, kinda, but I have a big wager on them to win fewer than 7 games. As far as the "going crawfish" thing goes, I am not going to make a stupid pride bet when I can get a better price at any of a bajillion online outlets. Just remember this when the season is over and the Cowboys are 8-8 or 9-7. Still hate the Cowboys though. Retarded fans.

[HollywoodAFD]

How dare you call Donk4 retarded....He's specialI think you are one of those people that bets with his heart more than his wallet. Your hatred of the Boys clouds the truth.And Donk is right... who made Barry stay?