There seems to be a tradition in this game. Run three times and then punt. Avoid scoring if possible.
From 2006 through 2021 every game went under. For 16 years straight the game went under. Last year was finally an over. The score was 20-17 with a total line of 32. Not a high scoring game but the linemakers posted a low enough number to get an over. One over and 16 unders for the last 17 years.
This year the line is 27.5. Will the game be over or under? I'll go with OVER.
That's the lowest postseason total on the board by far. Next lowest is IA/TN at about 36.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberbabble
I'm tempted to take your advice because the OVER is -105 at a book where I need action.
Ah, what the hell. It's the last game. I'll fess up. I'm teasing the Over.
Forum math wizards can explain why. Or not.
Is there a forum math wizard present that agree's with Evenbob Dietz that an 8-4 record is not two games above .500?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
Mickey, I don't address your nonsense because I prefer you have it out there as many times as possible. It makes my point about "AP" arrogance better than anything I could have come up with.
There's not a sportswriter in this country who refers to 8-4 as two games over .500. Now either every sportswriter in this country is wrong, or you are. In case you were wondering, 20-10 is 10 games over .500. And 60-40 is 20 games over .500.
Now I realize in Montana that you lead a sheltered life and may use the vernacular of an Ethiopian tribe or something. But your use of language here is dead wrong. You're trying to make the point that if this team had lost two games, then they would be .500. That's not the way language works here. The language is about presently, how many more games has a team won than lost. You think you are correct and a million sportswriters, and 300 million readers, are wrong and need to see and do things as mickey crimm, "AP," does them. Sorry, dude. You're not that special.
I find it indicative of your (and most "AP") overall arrogance. You think you have ownership of some alternate reality that trumps all overs. It's either a joke on your part or indicative of mental issues. I don't care which. Keep posting about it. Start your own thread about it.
Better yet, if you want a website to argue your point, I'll pay for it.
I'm well aware of the math deficiencies of sports writers.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
20-10 is 5 games above .500. Had they lost 5 more games they would have been 15-15 thus, .500. And 60-40 is 10 games above .500. Had they lost 10 more games they would be 30-30, thus, .500.
What you and your ignorant sports writers don't get is that both these statements are true:
"An 82-80 team is 1 game above .500. If they had lost 1 more game they would be .500." This is the current standing. It is not implied or considered that more games are to be played.
"An 82-80 team needs to win 2 more games to be at .500." (This statement implies more games to be played.
Okay, the season is now over. One team is 82-80. How many games above .500 were they?
That's the way the math works on earth. Perhaps the math is different on your native planet, Mars.
There are thousands of AP's in the world. You've had interactions with just a few of them. Yet you have all AP's lumped together as being arrogant/ignorant bastards. You are smart enough to know better but hey, gonna get some digs in against your betters.
LOL! You'll pay for it? You can't even pay the property taxes on a tar paper shack.
Evenbob Dietz.
I have no words. Maybe a television show, "Mickey Knows Best," would work.Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm20-10 is 5 games above .500. Had they lost 5 more games they would have been 15-15 thus, .500. And 60-40 is 10 games above .500. Had they lost 10 more games they would be 30-30, thus, .500.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
What you and your ignorant sports writers don't get is that both these statements are true.
An 82-80 team is 1 game above .500
An 82-80 team would have to lose 2 games to be at .500.
That's the way the math works on earth. Perhaps the math is different on Mars where you live.
There are thousands of AP's in the world. You've had interactions with just a few of them. Yet you have all AP's lumped together as being arrogant/ignorant bastards. You are smart enough to know better but hey, gonna get some digs in against your betters.
LOL! You'll pay for it? You can't even pay the property taxes on a two-room tar paper shack.
Evenbob Dietz.
We could film the first episode in two weeks.
Sorry, mickey. Language is language. If you choose to use your own definitions as opposed to what 300 million others do, more power to you. Your definition requires hypothetical framing, it's "If this had happened, then this." The way this phrase currently works in this language is it refers to the records as of now. Ten more wins than losses is 10 games over .500.
I feel absolutely ridiculous explaining this to you. I mean, why bother?
But keep truckin', baby.
Do you want me to fire up a "Mickey Crimm explains 'Games Over .500' for Non-APs site?" I'm more than happy to do so. The college season is done. I can probably roll it out in three or four weeks. We can get you on camera explaining why you're right.
Apply your explanation for an 81-80 team. How many games above .500 are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
How many more games would they have had to lose to be at .500?
This discussion began in the context of betting results.
Without considering any vig, a .500 record is considered "even".
If you bet one unit one on each of 162 games, won 82 and lost 80, how many units are you ahead...aka above even...aka over .500?
Well, painful as it is to admit, coach cut directly to the proper argument while I was mentally wandering in the land of AP conceits. I hand over the reins -- coach will do a much better job at this than I would.
"Evenbob Dietz Knows Best" would be a better show. He can show the whole world that he debunked Billy Walters' sports betting system. Hopefully it would garner enough attention that the whole professional sports betting world, including Walters, can listen to Evenbob Dietz saying Walters is full of shit. He's claiming to a small number of people that Walter's strategy is a fraud. He should take his claims to a much bigger audience than VCT. Professional sports bettors everywhere need to hear it and give their own opinions on the topic. Fuck listening to the opinion of just one sports bettor. Let's hear them all."
There is no .500 with an uneven amount of games. An 81-80 team is 1/2 a game behind an 82-80 team. Had the 82-80 team lost just one more game they would be at .500.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyApply your explanation for an 81-80 team. How many games above .500 are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
How many more games would they have had to lose to be at .500?
This discussion began in the context of betting results.
Without considering any vig, a .500 record is considered "even".
If you bet one unit one on each of 162 games, won 82 and lost 80, how many units are you ahead...aka above even...aka over .500?
A 6-6 team is at .500
An 8-4 team has won 2 more games than the 6-6 team so is 2 games above .500.
That's because you are math deficient.Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
In his book, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking wrote in the forward that he was told by other astrophysicists that if he put just one equation in the book it would cut sales in half. He was speaking to the lack of math skills by the masses. The over 80 million people that visited American casinos last year didn't do so because they are math proficient. So much for your "300 million others."
Now go back to telling Galileo he was wrong, flat earther.
I leave mickey to his own petard. I can't believe anyone would be so blindly arrogant, but what the hell, mickey wins at slots, poker, and sports. I'm just a simple college football handicapper. You know, a one trick pony. A monochromatic soul. A one-handed maestro with four fingers missing.
Post on, Mr. Crimm. Post on.
And when that team plays and wins their next game, how many games over .500 are they at 7-6?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
There is no .500 with an odd amount of games. They would be 1/2 game behind an 8-6 team. If the 8-6 team had lost one more game they would be at .500.Quote:
Originally Posted by coach bellyAnd when that team plays and wins their next game, how many games over .500 are they at 7-6?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
This is the 3rd time you've lied about what I bet. I don't bet sports. I'll wager 10K to your or my favorite charity that I never said I bet sports in that 2017 GWAE interview. Gentlemen's agreement. If you don't pay Druff will ban you. Why do you have to make shit up? Are you really that desperate?Quote:
Originally Posted by redietz
But you did get slots and poker right. But you left out video poker, video keno, and video blackjack. Their strategies are based in the same "Combinations & Permutations" probabilities. To bad you don't know that kind of math. It applies to everything gambling.
Instead of saying I'm playing all these different games you should say I'm playing gambling math. That way you have everything covered.
Do you know what my favorite game is? It's the game I'm currently making the most money at.
The question was how many games over .500 is a 7-6 record?Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
"Games over .500" is expressed as the number of wins minus the number of losses.
Comparisons of multiple teams' records, half games, and changes in previous results don't apply.
This discussion began in the context of a gambler's betting record, not a team's record, but the term is applied to both scenarios using the same method.
A gambler's 6-6 betting record is considered "even" (.500).
How many units would the player be "up" (over .500) if his record is 7-6?
It's the same number as 7-6 team's number of games over .500.
Probably best to take the average, quantum-relative case of the absolute, quantum, and, relative, cases, namely,
({(x - y) + [x - √(x*y)] + 0.5*(x - y)} / 3)
---> {[5x - 2√(x*y) - 3y] / 6} from the perspective of x wins, and, y losses, or,
--> -{[5y - 2√(y*x) - 3x] / 6} from the perspective of y losses, and, x wins.
For example, about 1.36 games over even if x = 8, and, y = 6, and, about 1.31 games under even if y = 6, and, x = 8.
Interestingly, the coefficients form the numeral, 5236, with √5236 at about 72.3602 ---> {72 + [0.0001 + √(0.09) + 0.06 + 0.0001]} ---> 7/2 in 1961. Moreover, my user-numeral at the gematria forums, (7152 - 5236) = 1916 ---> 1961. Oh, 15 = (6 + 9), but without the 1's. And, 5236 = (4*11*119) ---> 411_119, or 911_114.
Call it, Garnabby's Numeral, of the number of games over/under even. Ha. Oh, well.
And, just think. In another post,
MisterV
MisterV is offline
Diamond
MisterV's Avatar
Join Date
Aug 2017
Location
Stumptown
Posts
5,362 ----------------------> 5236
I wonder what it will be, but, in advance this time.
1Hit1der
1Hit1der is online now
Silver
Join Date
Nov 2023
Posts
42
I guess it was kind of interesting. Had to have 27.5 to win the bet. Probably most people pushed with 28.
I will retire now with a perfect record for my posted picks.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wo...2b19e68a&ei=34
I was a wiener.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberbabble
I put in a starter bet when you mentioned it, but then the line moved up to 28, so I never added.