sleeeeeeeeep

Weak.

I will talk to you about it later.

i agree Jax is very good and definitely built like the Steelers to beat the Steelers. we are hurting against the run with Aaron Smith out. the thing i like is that we are dogs (+3). i love it. this team/organization thrives on this type of stuff.

look for 8 in the box and rejuvinated run D. we are gonna make Garrard beat us. without a doubt coming to pgh in the playoffs is something he has never experienced.

and you obv hope jax wins so you have a chance to have NE go down

Thanks, this info is very helpful. The way I've been playing is kind of swingy, people limp call sooooo often that when they get hot and hit a few flops (or when I keep missing) I can lose a bit pretty quickly. I pretty much bet or raise until I can no longer put the villain on any hands in his range than I can beat (then sometimes I just make up a hand I can beat and bet again).

I C-bet probably 90% of the time, maybe a little higher on the flop. There isn't a stat on PT for this is there? I'm just guessing. You are right about playing OOP a lot. I'm actually winning the 2nd most from my SB. First is the cutoff, I'm losing money from the button somehow. The reason for OOP is whenever I pick up something pretty playable (QJss+) and there are people with stats of like 45/7 (this happens a lot) I bump it up preflop and then lead the flop hard pretty much 100% of the time.

I think once people float me more often and reraise me more often my aggression will wane. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not, but against better players I'm going to be much more concerned with bloating the pot OOP with average hands.

Oh, one last question. What exactly does aggression factor mean? I think it means the amount you raise as opposed to checking or calling? So with my flop aggression factor at 10.88 does that mean I'm close to 11x as likely to bet than check or call?

Geez. I offered 10:1 against something that's happened 3 times in 100 years of professional football, and I have to sit and watch this week after week.

Agree. I think wayyyyyyy too many people are jumping on the Jaguars bandwagon. Sure, they're a solid team and they're built to win in the playoffs with smash mouth football and tough D. A couple problems are injuries with John Henderson (or is Stroud? Either way, both dudes are super scary looking) and one of their good LBs. Plus the league is a little different now, The Colts and Pats dominate without that smash mouth game, and you have to beat them. Granted I think the best way to beat them is to keep the ball out of their hands with long slow drives.

I think the Steelers are very capable of winning this game. I think Najeh is super underrated and they aren't losing anything at RB. I'd also probably rather have Ben than Garrard in a big playoff game, even though I love Garrard.

This would be a sick game to go to as a Steelers fan. In your place as an underdog with the entire NFL media picking Jax as the team no one wants to see.

Oh shut up.

if you offer my a buyout I just might be silly enough to take it. Unless you feel like GAMBOL.

It's still a little less than 50-50 at best that they pull it off. AT BEST.

Someone look up on a sports book web site the odds of them winning it all.

lol 2 to 5. no not 5 to 2. you have to lay 5 to win 2.

Wow. Talk about bandwagons. It's almost like the rest of the NFL doesn't exist. The Patriots played like ... 6 winning teams ??? this year, right?


steelers
browns
cowboys
giants


who else?

you know lines don't have anything to do with the odds of a team winning.

They probably just don't want to take anymore bets on New England.

not nec "not anything" but I know ...

they don't care who they take the bets on

1 9/9 @ NYJ W 38-14 <-- Losing team
2 9/16 vs. SD W 38-14 <-- Playoff team
3 9/23 vs. Buf W 38-7 <-- Losing team
4 10/1 @ Cin W 34-13 <-- Losing team
5 10/7 vs. Cle W 34-17 <-- Winning team
6 10/14 @ Dal W 48-27 <-- Playoff team
7 10/21 @ Mia W 49-28 <-- Losing team
8 10/28 vs. Was W 52-7 <-- Playoff team
9 11/4 @ Ind W 24-20 <-- Playoff team
10 Bye Week
11 11/18 @ Buf W 56-10 <-- Losing team
12 11/25 vs. Phi W 31-28 <-- .500 team
13 12/3 @ Bal W 27-24 <-- Losing team
14 12/9 vs. Pit W 34-13 <-- Playoff team
15 12/16 vs. NYJ W 20-10 <-- Losing team
16 12/23 vs. Mia W 28-7 <-- Losing team
17 12/29 @ NYG W 38-35 <-- Playoff team

so seven

eight if you include the Eagles


to keep it in perspective though - the 72 dolphins didn't face a winning team all season.

7 winnings teams. Colts, Chargers, and Deadskins too.

Edit: Wow I'm slow.

how is that possible?


I am just glad they don't get to get together and clink champagne glasses. Soooo obnoxious.

no idea, I heard it on ESPN I think though.

Best .500 team ever!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.phins.com/72phins/sched.html

http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/standings.nsf/Seasons/1972

In the regular season, their only opponent with a winning record was in game 1 against KC. Overall, regular season, they played 1 winning team, 9 losing teams (many twice) and 3 - .500 teams.

All 3 playoff games were against good winning teams obviously.

I don't think you can count the first game as a "winning team" though Acid - they haven't won anything yet! If anything, this is a neutral team with no record. Unless they are referring to end of season ranking instead of when played ranking.

Reading comprehension FTL, the Giants were also a winning team.

Whenever you look at a teams vs winning teams or losing teams, it's always the record of the team at its most current point. Like, if you're in week 8, you'd take the 1st 8 games of the year. If it's 20 years after, you look at the whole season. It's not the team's record at the time when they actually play that matters.


I also love how someone signs up just to point out the minor mistake here. Well played

and another guy joins the forum just to call Acid a nit.

tehehehehe

Yeah, he's obviously never been in strat and seen the hands I posted!

lol i'm glad cause i almost bit on that as well.

exactly what I thought they were referring to - so with that said, the 1st game can't be counted as playing a winning team since no teams have played. This would be a neutral game at best.

You misunderstand.

Yes he does.

Acid said that the only opponent with a winning record was Game 1 against KC - he also said that its based on record to date of game. So how can a team who is 0-0 be a winning team???

I am speaking about in that particular season - in his other example of it being 20 years after, yes - KC & NYG were the only teams with a winning records.

We know that KC went 8-6 that year. Therefore, they are an 8 win team and Miami beat them, which counts as beating an 8 win team, even if KC hadn't won or lost a game yet when they actually played.

Because we know they go onto win 8 games out of 14. If the season stopped after week 1, the Dolphins would be credited with beating a winless KC team. Since they played 13 more games, they are credited with beating an 8-6 KC team.

Do you see how this works now?

Just ask yourself this question: How many games did KC win in 1972? The answer is 8.

Just like if I asked you in week 3 of the 2007 season: "How many games did NE win in 2007?" Well, you'd answer 3 at that point, but right now, you can answer 16.

yes, I've seen how it worked from the start...but we've also been discussing two separate ways of determining a winning team that was brought up by you. One is the record of the team when the two teams played (what I am referring to) and then the record of the team at the end of the season (what you are referring to).

Yes, and he's right, you're wrong.

If I play a HU match against CTS, and I happen to beat him, I wasn't playing a losing player. (assume he has the same skillset he has now, but this is his first poker match ever)

I never said that they were a losing team - and you wouldn't have played a losing player. 0-0 doesn't make you a winning or losing team/player.

Ok, then I certainly wasn't playing a .500/break even player.

So, change Zach's example to the fact that he plays CTS when he's 0-1. Zach beats him. He goes to 0-2 and then wins eleventy brazillion HU matches in a row. Zach didn't beat a losing player, he beat a very good winning player.

It might seem counter intuitive, but that's how it's done. It's not a matter of "my view" vs "your view." You look at the most complete resume available and that's how you judge the team.

It's like in college football, at the end of the year, they rank Strength of Schedule by overall win% of your opponents. If you played 12 teams, they look at the complete seasons of those 12 teams and tally results even though you obviously played one team who was 0-0 at the time and another who was either 1-0 or 0-1, but on your Strength of Schedule, those two teams will be listed as 7-5 and 2-10.

correct, and I never said that either - I said 0-0 would be neutral at best. Neutral doesn't mean .500 (to me anyways)

.500 defines neutral or break even, in the absensce of other statistcs.

A 6-6 football team is not a winning team. They are not a losing team. They are a break-even team by record alone.

I'm not saying that I don't contemplate sex with women...I just have a poor rationalization issue where I don't contemplate it with the ones I respect. =P

HHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA


that is all.

To Zach and I handing your buddy his ass?

gonna have to do a LOT worse than this to "hand me my ass"

This is the best that I can do having never met you and being 3000 miles away

all good man, I'm always up for healthy discussions/debates about my donkeyness on multiple subjects. (as apparently already proven many times on this forum alone)

Who's on first?

that's easy, Kevin Youkilis