Posted:
#151
Quote Originally Posted by Diegopimp:
Your writing is excellent, sir. Even better when you win!.
Thank you!Your writing is excellent, sir. Even better when you win!.
And thanks to the rest...
WISCONSIN vs. FLORIDA - The more things change, the more they stay the same.....
Posted:
#152
Quote Originally Posted by PhillyBrown:
I laid off the game, as I said before I leaned to Florida but I had to agree with the your points on the Seniors just laying it all on the line.
I laid off the game, as I said before I leaned to Florida but I had to agree with the your points on the Seniors just laying it all on the line.
It looked hairy for you at several points but once it went to OT I thought the Badgers were a lock, especially when Hayes hit those FTs (did you see how much he concentrated? Why not just do that every time?)
I'm delighted for you that you got a W in a close one. And anyone saying 'oh it wasn't a great pick, you got lucky,' you're a moron. These March Madness games have very tight lines and if you want to end up in profit you need to win those nailbiters. If the line is only 1 or 2 it's probably going to be close and you need to go with whichever side you think will just shade it. It wasn't actually Scal who got lucky it was the Gators who got lucky as they should have lost the game SU.
If trolls want to attack a poster because of a losing record, fine. But you can't attack him over a W no matter how close it is. ALL THAT MATTERS in this game is if you win the bet or lose the bet. You can't have it both ways where you troll a guy for a losing record and then troll him for winning because there was luck involved. There was likely (bad) luck involved in some of his losing picks. There's luck involved in all gambling, that's why even pocket Aces won't always win in poker. You have to make your own luck by consistently betting on certain situations that are profitable more often than not.
I hate seeing idiots attack a guy who makes the effort to post writeups and generally does a good job in his analysis (and tbh, Scal's writeup saved me from making a small bet on Florida). If you disagree then fine, post it beforehand and if you were right and he was wrong, and you want to say I told you so, fine whatever. But if he was right, just go away until you have something more substantial to contribute.
Not only won't they always win, but against just connectors that are unsuited (a very modest hand in general) pocket aces are only 80% to win. You will lose 20% of the time with the most dominant hand in poker on average vs. the most modest of calling hands.
That is why, when you see poker on TV and announcers and players SCREAMING about bad beats, these beats are not really bad at all.
Compared to sports gambling, they are nothing when you get brutally moosed (Siena's half court heave to end the game with a 1 pt loss vs. IONA being a perfect example). You'd have to play HUNDREDS of games to get moosed THAT bad with a spread of 2.
But in poker you will for every three hands you win with AA over unsuited connectors, you will lose 1. That is not outrageous or a moose in any way. It can be viewed as quite common in relation to sports mooses.
Posted:
#153
Scal, i have a subscription to sportsinsights and wisconsin was easily the publc play. favorites can be sharp too, like the Zags tonight. Florida was the play imo. They led soundly with 5 mins left until they took the foot off the gaspedal. They were the better and more athletic team and I don't think you can say otherwise. When Florida and Wiscy were both playing their games, Florida was winning. While Wiscy had more seniors, Florida guys had some experience too so it's too simplistic to call this experience vs talent.
this being said, I barely skimmed the thread, if people are bashing you they shouldn't be. You had good reasons for your bet and were cool enough to share them with us so thanks for that for the input on my thread and the awesome discussion otherwise.
Posted:
#154
The bet paid, that's what matters. The line was very close, the game was supposed to be very close, and it was. The capping was right, even if it had lost. It was a one-score finish either way. The experience and things Scal mentioned are the only reason it was close, because, as most seem to be saying, the talent edge went to the Gators.
Nice job, Scal. On to the next game!
Posted:
#156
Haven't read a thread here since probably Friday @11am... but I'm assuming majority of responses are half Scal support and half Scal trolls saying he needed a lucky three to force OT .. yada yada yada
Either way- Scal brings substance to this forum and there is never a writeup for a particular side (regardless of sport) that DOESNT atleast MAKE SENSE...
Guys we have idiots posting 5-10 plays a night every night... we have guys posting once or twice and never to be seen again... with zero reasoning why they made their pick!!! "UNC -7 LARGE ALL IN"
Yea good write up!! SCAL GIVES is something that's worth reading, something that gives us a reason to consider HIS side! ITS NOT LIKE scal posts a play or multiple plays every night: he is selective. You don't have to tail or like his plays, but how can you not respect it?
All I can say is, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink!
Regardless of your record Scal, always love seeing you post a play! And 97% of the time I tail that play!
Either way- Scal brings substance to this forum and there is never a writeup for a particular side (regardless of sport) that DOESNT atleast MAKE SENSE...
Guys we have idiots posting 5-10 plays a night every night... we have guys posting once or twice and never to be seen again... with zero reasoning why they made their pick!!! "UNC -7 LARGE ALL IN"
Yea good write up!! SCAL GIVES is something that's worth reading, something that gives us a reason to consider HIS side! ITS NOT LIKE scal posts a play or multiple plays every night: he is selective. You don't have to tail or like his plays, but how can you not respect it?
All I can say is, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink!
Regardless of your record Scal, always love seeing you post a play! And 97% of the time I tail that play!
Posted:
#157
Scal, first few points.
One, your post is insanely ignorant. You're getting on me for writing a long piece on why you're wrong? GROW UP. You know what makes a good bet? When multiple factors that are correlated with a team winning/losing all line up on the same side. If you can write a novel on why one team should cover, that means it's a good bet. The less you can think of generally the weaker the play. Philosophically, that's common sense.
Second, I have zero respect for you. I told you that you made a horrible pick. I didn't say you make every horrible pick. But your ego is bruised. According to you, you must never make a bad pick? Did you watch that game? Like at all? Or are you that delusional. And I'm a Wisconsin fan. If you can't ever admit you make mistakes betting, then you're really arrogant. You just don't like the way I aggressively called you out. I responded to your post for the sake of people who follow your picks. People put money on your games. I don't want you telling people to back a side on a game that you're clearly way off on. I had way more info on this game. I see Wiscy play every game, and I've seen the Gators. You took the line of thinking of an amateur in that oh Wiscy has been good in the tourney lately so I'll back them here. That's basically your line of thinking and it was awful. If you back Scal, you got luckier than hell.
3. Scal, Wiscy was HARDLY a dog. They were +1.5 at my book (betonline a solid US) book, most of the week. Don't give me that crap. The only way they "cover" is if they lose by 1. It's pretty hard to lose a game by exactly 1 point. It happens in the tourney more yes, but come on. There's obv tons of fouling that goes on inside of 30 seconds that pushes 4 point leads to 8 points and so on. This game was essentially a pickem and you had to expect them to win if you're wagering money. Not hope to lose by only 1 point come on.
4. Talent doesn't matter in capping a near pick em game? Scal, tell me you aren't this stupid. It was a NEAR PICK EM. Yes, you're right talent is adjusted for the line in general. That's why you get 7 point favs, 10 point favs, 15 point favs, etc. But this was a 1.5 point line. You got them at 2 congrats. Very little room for error. The point I'm making is one team clearly had more talent and they were less than a one possession fav vs the other team. Not to mention Wiscy had no good wins this year up until Nova who was overseeded. When you have a near pickem line and one team has more talent, it's common sense you back the team with better players and more athleticism.
5. You tell me how I ignored the first half. HEY DUMBA$$, what happened in the Purdue game? Purdue was up 34-26 in the first half vs Kansas. Who cares? Uconn was down 7-0 today. Who cares? What matters is where you are most of the second half. The first half tons of weird crap happens teams have to get into a flow. Florida controlled this game when it mattered.
6. Maybe the dumbest thing you've said. Hayes should not have a made the second free throw. Let me give you a lesson in game theory. THERE WERE FOUR SECONDS LEFT. NO MATTER WHAT, FLORIDA IS TAKING A THREE AT THE END THERE. IT'S HIGHLY UNLIKELY A TWO POINT SHOT IS GETTING OFF IN THAT SPOT GOING FULL COURT WITH FOUR SECONDS. HENCE, IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU'RE UP ONE OR TWO POINTS IN THAT SPOT - A THREE STILL BEATS YOU. BY MISSING THE FREE THROW, YOU RUN OFF AN EXTRA HALF SECOND AND THROW FLORIDA OFF ANY SET THEY TRY TO RUN AND THEY'RE TAKING AT BEST A RUNNING CONTESTED NEAR HALF COURT THREE. THEIR FASTEST PLAYER WENT FULL SPEED AND COULDN'T GET INSIDE THE THREE POINT LINE FAST ENOUGH. DID YOU NOT SEE THAT PLAY? WERE YOU BLIND? So why make the basket? It does nothing? It helps Florida. I typed this in bold because it illustrates how dumb your thinking is.
7. Koenig isn't Wiscy's best player? Are you out of your mind? You'd rather have Happ or Hayes taking the final shot of the game?
I mean my god you're an imbecile.
One, your post is insanely ignorant. You're getting on me for writing a long piece on why you're wrong? GROW UP. You know what makes a good bet? When multiple factors that are correlated with a team winning/losing all line up on the same side. If you can write a novel on why one team should cover, that means it's a good bet. The less you can think of generally the weaker the play. Philosophically, that's common sense.
Second, I have zero respect for you. I told you that you made a horrible pick. I didn't say you make every horrible pick. But your ego is bruised. According to you, you must never make a bad pick? Did you watch that game? Like at all? Or are you that delusional. And I'm a Wisconsin fan. If you can't ever admit you make mistakes betting, then you're really arrogant. You just don't like the way I aggressively called you out. I responded to your post for the sake of people who follow your picks. People put money on your games. I don't want you telling people to back a side on a game that you're clearly way off on. I had way more info on this game. I see Wiscy play every game, and I've seen the Gators. You took the line of thinking of an amateur in that oh Wiscy has been good in the tourney lately so I'll back them here. That's basically your line of thinking and it was awful. If you back Scal, you got luckier than hell.
3. Scal, Wiscy was HARDLY a dog. They were +1.5 at my book (betonline a solid US) book, most of the week. Don't give me that crap. The only way they "cover" is if they lose by 1. It's pretty hard to lose a game by exactly 1 point. It happens in the tourney more yes, but come on. There's obv tons of fouling that goes on inside of 30 seconds that pushes 4 point leads to 8 points and so on. This game was essentially a pickem and you had to expect them to win if you're wagering money. Not hope to lose by only 1 point come on.
4. Talent doesn't matter in capping a near pick em game? Scal, tell me you aren't this stupid. It was a NEAR PICK EM. Yes, you're right talent is adjusted for the line in general. That's why you get 7 point favs, 10 point favs, 15 point favs, etc. But this was a 1.5 point line. You got them at 2 congrats. Very little room for error. The point I'm making is one team clearly had more talent and they were less than a one possession fav vs the other team. Not to mention Wiscy had no good wins this year up until Nova who was overseeded. When you have a near pickem line and one team has more talent, it's common sense you back the team with better players and more athleticism.
5. You tell me how I ignored the first half. HEY DUMBA$$, what happened in the Purdue game? Purdue was up 34-26 in the first half vs Kansas. Who cares? Uconn was down 7-0 today. Who cares? What matters is where you are most of the second half. The first half tons of weird crap happens teams have to get into a flow. Florida controlled this game when it mattered.
6. Maybe the dumbest thing you've said. Hayes should not have a made the second free throw. Let me give you a lesson in game theory. THERE WERE FOUR SECONDS LEFT. NO MATTER WHAT, FLORIDA IS TAKING A THREE AT THE END THERE. IT'S HIGHLY UNLIKELY A TWO POINT SHOT IS GETTING OFF IN THAT SPOT GOING FULL COURT WITH FOUR SECONDS. HENCE, IT DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU'RE UP ONE OR TWO POINTS IN THAT SPOT - A THREE STILL BEATS YOU. BY MISSING THE FREE THROW, YOU RUN OFF AN EXTRA HALF SECOND AND THROW FLORIDA OFF ANY SET THEY TRY TO RUN AND THEY'RE TAKING AT BEST A RUNNING CONTESTED NEAR HALF COURT THREE. THEIR FASTEST PLAYER WENT FULL SPEED AND COULDN'T GET INSIDE THE THREE POINT LINE FAST ENOUGH. DID YOU NOT SEE THAT PLAY? WERE YOU BLIND? So why make the basket? It does nothing? It helps Florida. I typed this in bold because it illustrates how dumb your thinking is.
7. Koenig isn't Wiscy's best player? Are you out of your mind? You'd rather have Happ or Hayes taking the final shot of the game?
I mean my god you're an imbecile.
Posted:
#161
8. I'm a Wiscy fan. My friends and family are Wiscy fans. We know
Wisconsin pretty well. Nobody I know who watches CB a lot would have
bet Wisconsin in this game. If anything, they take Florida. I get to
watch every game Wisconsin plays this year. How much have you watched
them you arrogant turd? Even people with biases toward Wiscy didn't
like them that much. You didn't have adequate info about this game.
All there is to it.
9. Florida took Koenig out of the game because they know he's the only guy who can do great damage. Happ and Hayes can score, but they are trash at the line. And honestly, I know you had no awareness of how bad Wiscy's free throw shooting was amongst their bigs. Their 3 key big guys all shoot 50% from the line. Florida pressured Koenig. They made him tired and he wasn't a huge factor. That's what happens when you have limited talent. You say talent doesn't matter? Are you kidding? When you have 3-4 great scorers you can't key in on one guy like Florida did.
10. You bet on Wiscy because of experience? Clearly, Showalter hit that 3 because of experience right? Give me a break. You had no logistics for this pick. It was based 100% on one psychological factor. I'm still dumbfounded by the fact that you think talent doesn't matter in a 1-2 point line. That maybe the dumbest thing I've ever seen posted. BTW dude, you're 8-13 this tourney? You've clearly been wrong multiple times. Yet, someone calls you out and you act like a brat. That's pretty ridiculous.
11. Not a huge fan of KenPom, but Florida was ranked like 10 spots higher overall. They were higher rated defensively and while ranked worse offensively played in conference with a few good defensive teams. Wiscy was ranked near the bottom in offense in a conference teams that were pretty bad on D this year top to bottom. The bottom line is you don't back an inferior team on a neutral floor getting 2 points only. There is a huge diff between getting 4 and getting 2. When a team is down by 4-5 or even more on average with 3-4 min left like was to be expected in this game, on average they will end up winning by 3 or more. That's basic math. There's a thing called fouling if you haven't heard of it. You can be down by one point with 15 seconds left with the ball and miss a shot an easily not cover 2. If you've ever watched a BB game before you should know this.
12. You basically admitted you knew Wisconsin never leads in games. But you're fine with them only getting 2 points in a game they'll be trailing most of the way. LOLOLOLOL. Do you have any concept of math? You know your expected value is negative when a team is only getting 2 points and is probably gonna be behind most of the game right? I don't think you're smart enough to understand this honestly.
You play this game 100 times and Florida wins more than 50. There was no value in Wiscy +2.
I'll get a bunch of trolls telling me about I'm a loser who writes this much. Look, Scal is a tool. It's one thing to defend your bets. It's another thing to never admit you're wrong. I make bets where I look back and see my mistakes. This one guy, on the Lang site who is a real bettor and has some credibility - Anthony Redd - he said something in a video I respect. He said when he loses he tries to understand to the best of his ability why he lost that game. In other words, he tries to learn from his mistakes. He doesn't just lose and make excuses like Scal who basically believes any bet that he loses on was still the right play and just didn't get there. That's like Brandon Lang betting. Knowing when you're wrong is the mature approach to take as a bettor. The thing to remember here is I never said Florida was an amazing bet. I did bet them on the ML because of these tourney games. I didn't love it, but I knew they were better. My main argument was that taking Wiscy here was definitely bad. Bet Florida or stay away.
I won't waste my time going on and on about this with Scal forever. I hope though that whoever comments is objective because I know there is a huge mob of supporters that back whatever he says. Just because Scal posts crap on here all the time and a guy comes out of the woodwork to rip him doesn't mean the guy you have no info about is wrong. Look at my argument. Compare it to his. Mine incorporates many factors and has a mathematical basis. He basically bet on Wisconsin because they're a name brand college bb team with recent success in the tourney. He doesn't know the team well.
FYI, last time I commented on a Scal post was the Arkansas Missouri football game where he backed a bad team laying 9 points on the road in a CFF game. Fundamental betting mistake. I told everyone that was a bad spot and was right about that too. It's not easy to find games where you should put $ on one side, but it is easy to find games where you should clearly not risk $ on a certain team and when I see bad spot being touted I occasionally post on it because people are risking $ on your bets. Otherwise, I wouldn't care. In this case, I knew a lot about Wisconsin.
9. Florida took Koenig out of the game because they know he's the only guy who can do great damage. Happ and Hayes can score, but they are trash at the line. And honestly, I know you had no awareness of how bad Wiscy's free throw shooting was amongst their bigs. Their 3 key big guys all shoot 50% from the line. Florida pressured Koenig. They made him tired and he wasn't a huge factor. That's what happens when you have limited talent. You say talent doesn't matter? Are you kidding? When you have 3-4 great scorers you can't key in on one guy like Florida did.
10. You bet on Wiscy because of experience? Clearly, Showalter hit that 3 because of experience right? Give me a break. You had no logistics for this pick. It was based 100% on one psychological factor. I'm still dumbfounded by the fact that you think talent doesn't matter in a 1-2 point line. That maybe the dumbest thing I've ever seen posted. BTW dude, you're 8-13 this tourney? You've clearly been wrong multiple times. Yet, someone calls you out and you act like a brat. That's pretty ridiculous.
11. Not a huge fan of KenPom, but Florida was ranked like 10 spots higher overall. They were higher rated defensively and while ranked worse offensively played in conference with a few good defensive teams. Wiscy was ranked near the bottom in offense in a conference teams that were pretty bad on D this year top to bottom. The bottom line is you don't back an inferior team on a neutral floor getting 2 points only. There is a huge diff between getting 4 and getting 2. When a team is down by 4-5 or even more on average with 3-4 min left like was to be expected in this game, on average they will end up winning by 3 or more. That's basic math. There's a thing called fouling if you haven't heard of it. You can be down by one point with 15 seconds left with the ball and miss a shot an easily not cover 2. If you've ever watched a BB game before you should know this.
12. You basically admitted you knew Wisconsin never leads in games. But you're fine with them only getting 2 points in a game they'll be trailing most of the way. LOLOLOLOL. Do you have any concept of math? You know your expected value is negative when a team is only getting 2 points and is probably gonna be behind most of the game right? I don't think you're smart enough to understand this honestly.
You play this game 100 times and Florida wins more than 50. There was no value in Wiscy +2.
I'll get a bunch of trolls telling me about I'm a loser who writes this much. Look, Scal is a tool. It's one thing to defend your bets. It's another thing to never admit you're wrong. I make bets where I look back and see my mistakes. This one guy, on the Lang site who is a real bettor and has some credibility - Anthony Redd - he said something in a video I respect. He said when he loses he tries to understand to the best of his ability why he lost that game. In other words, he tries to learn from his mistakes. He doesn't just lose and make excuses like Scal who basically believes any bet that he loses on was still the right play and just didn't get there. That's like Brandon Lang betting. Knowing when you're wrong is the mature approach to take as a bettor. The thing to remember here is I never said Florida was an amazing bet. I did bet them on the ML because of these tourney games. I didn't love it, but I knew they were better. My main argument was that taking Wiscy here was definitely bad. Bet Florida or stay away.
I won't waste my time going on and on about this with Scal forever. I hope though that whoever comments is objective because I know there is a huge mob of supporters that back whatever he says. Just because Scal posts crap on here all the time and a guy comes out of the woodwork to rip him doesn't mean the guy you have no info about is wrong. Look at my argument. Compare it to his. Mine incorporates many factors and has a mathematical basis. He basically bet on Wisconsin because they're a name brand college bb team with recent success in the tourney. He doesn't know the team well.
FYI, last time I commented on a Scal post was the Arkansas Missouri football game where he backed a bad team laying 9 points on the road in a CFF game. Fundamental betting mistake. I told everyone that was a bad spot and was right about that too. It's not easy to find games where you should put $ on one side, but it is easy to find games where you should clearly not risk $ on a certain team and when I see bad spot being touted I occasionally post on it because people are risking $ on your bets. Otherwise, I wouldn't care. In this case, I knew a lot about Wisconsin.
Posted:
#163
I think anyone who says Florida was lucky to win didn't watch the game. Florida shut Wiscy down, they controlled the pace of the game, they kept Wiscy from getting into a rhythm offensively, they created turnovers and built momentum for themselves. They literally let Wiscy back into the game. This had no busy being a close game. They played super conservatively, sat their best player, etc. Florida was the play
Posted:
#164
Fluffer you did the classic thing. You stopped talking about the game You turned things personal. And you're still whining about a losing bet and claiming that some incidents are more important than others
Guess what?
Every point counts as much as every other. At the end of the game each one contributes to the final score equally
In a superb back and forth game Scal identified that having two points in your pocket could well be the difference. And he was RIGHT. End of
Posted:
#165
WMI, I'm just responding to Scal. I'm "over" the game. Another arrogant post. Does anyone not know I'm from Wisconsin? I only mentioned that 87 times. I have a pretty unbiased view here.
Lot of losers on this forum. You can't have intelligent debates with anyone here and it's sad. I was trying to do you all a favor. I rarely respond to anything Scal says. I was just dumbfounded he backed Wisconsin and tried to stop people from making a bet that was a LONG TERM LOSING PLAY. End of story.
Don't argue with Scal? He's 9-13 - and should be 8-14. It's scary how people back everything he says. He's made tons of plays and I comment on one and people think I'm nuts for going against him.
The real reason everyone is arguing with me is because they don't like my tone in my response and I sound like a douche when I make my points. If you don''t offer logical rebuttals to what I say, please refrain from responding. Name calling is pretty immature and does nothing to make you look smarter. Just a bunch of angry degens on this forum though. There are some good people here, but I see a lot more angry people.
Lot of losers on this forum. You can't have intelligent debates with anyone here and it's sad. I was trying to do you all a favor. I rarely respond to anything Scal says. I was just dumbfounded he backed Wisconsin and tried to stop people from making a bet that was a LONG TERM LOSING PLAY. End of story.
Don't argue with Scal? He's 9-13 - and should be 8-14. It's scary how people back everything he says. He's made tons of plays and I comment on one and people think I'm nuts for going against him.
The real reason everyone is arguing with me is because they don't like my tone in my response and I sound like a douche when I make my points. If you don''t offer logical rebuttals to what I say, please refrain from responding. Name calling is pretty immature and does nothing to make you look smarter. Just a bunch of angry degens on this forum though. There are some good people here, but I see a lot more angry people.
Posted:
#166
Fluffy i'm worried the covers bashers will chase you away. The culture here promotes losers that's why most winners leave this forum. Only by the thoughtful people staying can a culture change be affected here and the name-callers drowned out. Hope you keep it up. Your tone is decisive but your reasoning is spot on and imo that matters most to us amateurs
Posted:
#167
how is it that throughout this entire banter not one person has talked about when the game turned with 4.5 minutes left in the first half? Wisky had the ball up 7 and Nigel drives to hoop and gets called for offensive foul which put him at 2 and coach rested him final 4 mins of half and LET FLORIDA back into game. The call was clearly questionable and completely changed the momentum. Hayes did whatever he wanted against anybody in the paint. Couldn't be guarded. He hit most of his jumpers and had to sit out. Wisconsin controlled ENTIRE FIRST HALF then that bull crap call happend. Lots arguing for Florida , but it was clearly not the right side. And don't get me started on that Allen kid who only averages 12 or 14 entire season and COULD NOT MISS A SINGLE SHOT down the stretch. Goes off for 35. Paaaaa lease. Wellllll beyond his means. Then his coach rests him up double digits for over 5 or 7 minutes as he had no fouls ? How dumb was that clown. Paging Billy Donovan. Florida needs u back.
Posted:
#168
Quote Originally Posted by fluffybucker69:
WMI, I'm just responding to Scal. I'm "over" the game. Another arrogant post. Does anyone not know I'm from Wisconsin? I only mentioned that 87 times. I have a pretty unbiased view here.
Lot of losers on this forum. You can't have intelligent debates with anyone here and it's sad. I was trying to do you all a favor. I rarely respond to anything Scal says. I was just dumbfounded he backed Wisconsin and tried to stop people from making a bet that was a LONG TERM LOSING PLAY. End of story.
Don't argue with Scal? He's 9-13 - and should be 8-14. It's scary how people back everything he says. He's made tons of plays and I comment on one and people think I'm nuts for going against him.
The real reason everyone is arguing with me is because they don't like my tone in my response and I sound like a douche when I make my points. If you don''t offer logical rebuttals to what I say, please refrain from responding. Name calling is pretty immature and does nothing to make you look smarter. Just a bunch of angry degens on this forum though. There are some good people here, but I see a lot more angry people.
WMI, I'm just responding to Scal. I'm "over" the game. Another arrogant post. Does anyone not know I'm from Wisconsin? I only mentioned that 87 times. I have a pretty unbiased view here.
Lot of losers on this forum. You can't have intelligent debates with anyone here and it's sad. I was trying to do you all a favor. I rarely respond to anything Scal says. I was just dumbfounded he backed Wisconsin and tried to stop people from making a bet that was a LONG TERM LOSING PLAY. End of story.
Don't argue with Scal? He's 9-13 - and should be 8-14. It's scary how people back everything he says. He's made tons of plays and I comment on one and people think I'm nuts for going against him.
The real reason everyone is arguing with me is because they don't like my tone in my response and I sound like a douche when I make my points. If you don''t offer logical rebuttals to what I say, please refrain from responding. Name calling is pretty immature and does nothing to make you look smarter. Just a bunch of angry degens on this forum though. There are some good people here, but I see a lot more angry people.
It's ironic because scal does the same thing and they eat it up.....
Posted:
#170
Scal, I think you committed in a sense a bad error, which is capping a game based on another game. Just because Wiscy has gotten past the sweet 16 they should again? Giving points to the team that dethroned the national champions seemed golden and that's why it was a very public play. Wisconsin was never the team to back even if you knew it would be close. Both Allen and Koenig are reliable in clutch moments, but Florida's free throw shooting is decisively better. It's like you have to calculate that you need Wiscy to perform a couple points better than the spread to account for free throw shooting down the stretch. I think Fluffer's write-up offers more substance throughout which thankfully led me to put extra on Fla ML whereas yours takes a while to get into analysis. Capping can't be as easy as looking into past tourney results and counting experience
Posted:
#171
Quote Originally Posted by concavecapital:
how is it that throughout this entire banter not one person has talked about when the game turned with 4.5 minutes left in the first half? Wisky had the ball up 7 and Nigel drives to hoop and gets called for offensive foul which put him at 2 and coach rested him final 4 mins of half and LET FLORIDA back into game. The call was clearly questionable and completely changed the momentum. Hayes did whatever he wanted against anybody in the paint. Couldn't be guarded. He hit most of his jumpers and had to sit out. Wisconsin controlled ENTIRE FIRST HALF then that bull crap call happend. Lots arguing for Florida , but it was clearly not the right side. And don't get me started on that Allen kid who only averages 12 or 14 entire season and COULD NOT MISS A SINGLE SHOT down the stretch. Goes off for 35. Paaaaa lease. Wellllll beyond his means. Then his coach rests him up double digits for over 5 or 7 minutes as he had no fouls ? How dumb was that clown. Paging Billy Donovan. Florida needs u back.
how is it that throughout this entire banter not one person has talked about when the game turned with 4.5 minutes left in the first half? Wisky had the ball up 7 and Nigel drives to hoop and gets called for offensive foul which put him at 2 and coach rested him final 4 mins of half and LET FLORIDA back into game. The call was clearly questionable and completely changed the momentum. Hayes did whatever he wanted against anybody in the paint. Couldn't be guarded. He hit most of his jumpers and had to sit out. Wisconsin controlled ENTIRE FIRST HALF then that bull crap call happend. Lots arguing for Florida , but it was clearly not the right side. And don't get me started on that Allen kid who only averages 12 or 14 entire season and COULD NOT MISS A SINGLE SHOT down the stretch. Goes off for 35. Paaaaa lease. Wellllll beyond his means. Then his coach rests him up double digits for over 5 or 7 minutes as he had no fouls ? How dumb was that clown. Paging Billy Donovan. Florida needs u back.
Do you notice how you use Wiscy's coach sitting down Hayes as a reason that Wiscy was the better side but you use Fla's coach sitting Allen to not make that very point for Florida? Double standard
Posted:
#173
Quote Originally Posted by fluffybucker69:
WMI, I'm just responding to Scal. I'm "over" the game. Another arrogant post. Does anyone not know I'm from Wisconsin? I only mentioned that 87 times. I have a pretty unbiased view here.
Lot of losers on this forum. You can't have intelligent debates with anyone here and it's sad. I was trying to do you all a favor. I rarely respond to anything Scal says. I was just dumbfounded he backed Wisconsin and tried to stop people from making a bet that was a LONG TERM LOSING PLAY. End of story.
Don't argue with Scal? He's 9-13 - and should be 8-14. It's scary how people back everything he says. He's made tons of plays and I comment on one and people think I'm nuts for going against him.
The real reason everyone is arguing with me is because they don't like my tone in my response and I sound like a douche when I make my points. If you don''t offer logical rebuttals to what I say, please refrain from responding. Name calling is pretty immature and does nothing to make you look smarter. Just a bunch of angry degens on this forum though. There are some good people here, but I see a lot more angry people.
LOL! You like Scal, love to hear yourself talk. I see your calling people here losers and in the same thread you say name calling is immature?WMI, I'm just responding to Scal. I'm "over" the game. Another arrogant post. Does anyone not know I'm from Wisconsin? I only mentioned that 87 times. I have a pretty unbiased view here.
Lot of losers on this forum. You can't have intelligent debates with anyone here and it's sad. I was trying to do you all a favor. I rarely respond to anything Scal says. I was just dumbfounded he backed Wisconsin and tried to stop people from making a bet that was a LONG TERM LOSING PLAY. End of story.
Don't argue with Scal? He's 9-13 - and should be 8-14. It's scary how people back everything he says. He's made tons of plays and I comment on one and people think I'm nuts for going against him.
The real reason everyone is arguing with me is because they don't like my tone in my response and I sound like a douche when I make my points. If you don''t offer logical rebuttals to what I say, please refrain from responding. Name calling is pretty immature and does nothing to make you look smarter. Just a bunch of angry degens on this forum though. There are some good people here, but I see a lot more angry people.
You can't make this up. What a phucking idiot. You are not bright. I though won't need to type up a one thousand word response to tell you this.
Histrionic personality disorder. It's sad
Posted:
#174
Quote Originally Posted by ProudJagsfan:
Scal, i have a subscription to sportsinsights and wisconsin was easily the publc play. favorites can be sharp too, like the Zags tonight. Florida was the play imo. They led soundly with 5 mins left until they took the foot off the gaspedal. They were the better and more athletic team and I don't think you can say otherwise. When Florida and Wiscy were both playing their games, Florida was winning. While Wiscy had more seniors, Florida guys had some experience too so it's too simplistic to call this experience vs talent.
Scal, i have a subscription to sportsinsights and wisconsin was easily the publc play. favorites can be sharp too, like the Zags tonight. Florida was the play imo. They led soundly with 5 mins left until they took the foot off the gaspedal. They were the better and more athletic team and I don't think you can say otherwise. When Florida and Wiscy were both playing their games, Florida was winning. While Wiscy had more seniors, Florida guys had some experience too so it's too simplistic to call this experience vs talent.
this being said, I barely skimmed the thread, if people are bashing you they shouldn't be. You had good reasons for your bet and were cool enough to share them with us so thanks for that for the input on my thread and the awesome discussion otherwise.
Thanks. But now it's time to counter-punch.
So Wisky lead for 25 minutes of the game and Florida lead for 20 but Florida was the better team and lost only because they took their foot off the gas.
But Wisky didn't take their foot off the gas at the end of the first half they completely dominated. No. That was just 'tenacious Florida defense' and a concerted offensive effort on Florida's part.
Let's ignore all of Wisconsin's leads. Let's ignore they had the largest lead of the game. Let's ignore they were up 5 with 1:30 left in OT and were basically about a centimeter from winning because if Haye's last bucket goes in Wisky then likely goes up 3 or FLA has less time to run down court on a miss BUT WITH ALL THAT SAID:
"Their games" Florida was winning.
If this isn't confirmation bias in it's most purest form, I don't know what would be.
Hot Forum Topics
