Profile | Entries | Thread Author | Posts | Activity |
---|---|---|---|---|
Quote Originally Posted by Rocco2231: So without really knowing anyone, you can come out with that statement? lol
No. I know him pretty well. I saw the same thing over and over through my gambling period. He's a loser. I guarantee it. His logic is all flawed. He overvalues the importance of a star player. He takes the things announcers say for fourth graders at face value. He underestimates the importance of unpredictability. I am pretty sure that he loses money gambling. Its probably a LOT of money.
|
tallguyindc | 205 |
|
|
He was making the number 24, which the announcers attributed to Revis' number. The Seahawks just scored their 24th point. It seemed to me like that was the reference. How did the announcers know what he meant with the number?
|
NEWPORT | 8 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by line_tamer: Exactly! When Lynch landed at the end of the first down run there was 1:03 on the clock. When Wilson threw the pick there was 22 seconds on the clock. The OP insists that momentum is a myth but the pats were reeling and hawks had confidence. when carrol starts running wide outs in the game bill had the rights to sub under substitution rule and ref sits on the ball to allow him to sub and way too much time ran off the clock and Wilson panicked. Sad because I like Wilson but carrol needs to break out his checkbook and refund his salary.
Momentum is a myth. The Hawks had confidence and the Pats were reeling. How far did that get them? How far did it get the Pats when the situation was the exact reverse 1 minute prior? You skipped my earlier post but the message is still the same. The idea that just because one team had a good event happen recently, they are more likely to have another good event happen is simply not true. I know it goes against everything you've been taught about sports but momentum simply does not exist. I am hardly the only one to notice this fact. Google "momentum myth" and you'll see many studies on this topic. As far as "panicking" and running too much time off the clock, I just don't see it. I mean obviously he threw a bad pass but to chalk it up to emotional issues or panic seems extremely speculative. |
tallguyindc | 205 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by line_tamer: What evidence are you talking about columbo? Here's a better question. What evidence do you have that momentum exists? Ever notice how often it seems to shift? Perhaps thats because it never existed in the first place. I did a lot of research into this back when I was gambling. Momentum is a myth. After adjusting for the relative talents of the teams, you are no more or less likely to have a good play after a good play or a bad play after a good one. Its like flipping coins. Sometimes you get a bunch of heads in a row. Sometimes you get a bunch of tails in a row. Sometimes you get HTHT. Go ahead and look at the numbers yourself. You'll be a better gambler if you do. advancedfootballanalytics.com and pro-football-reference.com both graph probability distributions. Notice how many times the line shifts direction. Thats because momentum is a myth. |
tallguyindc | 205 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by budwiser: So even you are admitting play action pass was better. And Carroll admitted he made a mistake Yeah. I'm not trying to be Pete Carroll's agent. In every situation, there is probably something a little better than what was called. In my opinion though, a run would have been worse. I really see this more as a pass/run issue. As far as admitting he made a mistake, take all athlete/coach interviews with a huge grain of salt. I don't think any of them ever say anything of substance. I think he thought to himself, I could try to explain the logic of the whole thing or I could just give them what they want and go away. I would have done the same thing. I'm sure he didn't feel like getting into a debate over football strategy with the reporter at that particular moment.
|
tallguyindc | 205 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by line_tamer:
Quote Originally Posted by tallguyindc: This is why you are a losing gambler.
[/Quote I had the pats. I should have been a loser except for pete's inept call. He blew it and you know he did. I'm not talking about this one game. I'm talking about life. I know you lose a lot of money gambling. I used to be a winning gambler. I won by taking advantage of people like you and your really twisted logic. I don't gamble anymore but that has more to do with the regulatory environment than anything else. If you are going to keep watching sports (and definitely if you are going to bet on it) , try to open your mind and not just believe all the garbage Collinsworth and Michaels tell you. If they were right, you'd be making a lot of money. You're not. So what does that tell you?
|
tallguyindc | 205 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by line_tamer: Yes IDIOT that is what I am implying. Line up with the same players that got you from the 5 to the 1 and run the same play. If bill does not call a time out then you are now in the lead. Seattle had the momentum and they FUGGED UP.NOW GET OVER IT IDIOT. I'm sorry. I know I'm picking on you. But you just said that you thought that one play working had a significant impact on the next play working when all the evidence says thats not true. Its just such a stupid rookie mistake. I really do picture you wandering around looking for the "hot" slot machine.
|
tallguyindc | 205 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by threwSBaway: so because you're a '' seahawks '' fan that makes it ok and you're right? Awesome thanks man. It was the right call.
f#ckwit The fact that I'm a Seahawks fan doesn't really have anything to do with it. I'm not sure why I mentioned it. I guess just to emphasize that I was as unhappy with the results as anyone else.
|
tallguyindc | 205 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by budwiser: So tall guy if you were Carroll you'd call the same play in the same situation. Be honest Perhaps not the exact same pass. Somebody said play action would be good there. I think I agree. Thats a little bit nitpicky though. I definitely would have passed.
|
tallguyindc | 205 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by line_tamer: Yes IDIOT that is what I am implying. Line up with the same players that got you from the 5 to the 1 and run the same play. If bill does not call a time out then you are now in the lead. Seattle had the momentum and they FUGGED UP.NOW GET OVER IT IDIOT. This is why you are a losing gambler.
|
tallguyindc | 205 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by line_tamer: My strategy in that situation is simple. Take advantage of my good fortune and miraculous catch by my receiver and take the lead in the super bowl with less than a minute to play. Then use the ensuing 8 minute television timeout to figure out how to stop brady from tying the game. I am not an apologizing loser under this scenario.
I get the feeling that you are the kind of poker player that slowplays AA, sees the flop come out 822, calls the BB's all in and then whines that you had him beat when he turns over 72o. Nobody is saying that you shouldn't take the lead. What we are saying is that quicksnapping it doesn't dramatically change the play's probability of success. Whether its 40,50,60,70%, I think you would see that any given prob, you are worse off giving Brady an extra 20 seconds on success even if it means costing yourself that 20 seconds on failure. After all the time helps far more when you need 40 yards than when you need 1. No offense, but you really aren't very smart...Are you?
|
tallguyindc | 205 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by budwiser: Nobody's saying that. It's about the context. The entire game is on the line, you give the ball to your best player, period. You live and die by your best guys, not gimmick plays. The Patriots were dead meat, and I think everybody knew it, and they went the other direction. As Dennis Green would say Cliche!!! I hear this argument all the time in baseball. In other words, never throw a change up with the game on the line. But if the batter is expecting a fastball, perhaps your fastball isn't your best play. Perhaps, the change up is the best play for that very reason. If your rule is to only do certain things in certain situations, you are predictable and being predictable is the best way to lose. BTW, "gimmick" plays have a much better overall success rate than straight up the middle runs. I'd argue gimmick plays are your best plays but thats another discussion. |
tallguyindc | 205 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by line_tamer: Pete did him a favor by subbing which allowed bill the opportunity to sub likewise. This is where 30 seconds were burned up. You line up with the same personnel that just got you 4 yards and all you need is one and I am 99.99999999% sure it would result in a TO or a TD This call would have been a good call in the 4th preseason game with your players trying to earn a practice squad position. Oh...I totally think that you were one of the people I used to make a lot of money off of in the old days. "99.99999999% sure" Yep. You are an idiot. Thats 100% sure. There really isn't that much difference between 1st and goal from the 5 and 2nd and goal from the 1 in a defensive playcalling perspective. Belichick was happy leaving the people he had in there. At this stage in the game, the timeouts were useful for clock purposes not subbing. Did you really mean to imply that the fact that the last play was a success (moderate success as a 4 yard run) would have correlated with the next play, much less correlated to such a degree that Belichick would have panicked into burning a very useful timeout for a defensive realignment from what he just called for the same Seattle players?
|
tallguyindc | 205 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack: Not a winning gambler today, that's for sure. The gambling landscape has changed drastically in the last 10 years. Some days I feel like I am just hanging on by fingernails to the bare minimum I need to be profitable. But for some reason I have been handicapping the NFL much better in the last 3 years, so not packing it in yet. GL Its really hard. Most people don't respect the fact that oddsmakers are actually pretty good at what they do. If a team is a 3 point favorite, its possible that they should be a 2.5 or a 3.5, but they probably shouldn't be a 6 or a 7. There is a lot of randomness involved. I had a fairly good system for beating live ingame odds, because they were created by the kind of people that thought Marshawn Lynch had an 82% chance of scoring on a run and not by trained professionals. I miss Matchbook. I made good money there. Maybe I'll move to Equitorial Guinea one day so I can bet legally
|
tallguyindc | 205 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by budwiser: it's like you're the chicago bulls the nba championship is on the line and you fake jordan to get the ball to pippen for the shot it just rattles people to all hell Its interesting that you mention that. I feel that NBA teams go to their star with the game on the line far too often. Defensive teams know that they can double team the star. Meanwhile another guy is wide open. The worst guy in the NBA is a better wide open shot than the best double covered yet they coach by cliche and think you need to go there with the game on the line. Many games are lost that way. Tangent for another thread.... I'm curious. Do you guys think that the Seahawks should just run Lynch every single time from the 2 yard line? Do you realize the advantage that gives the defense in preparation? |
tallguyindc | 205 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by line_tamer: Ok lets lose the "worst call ever" verbiage. It was a turrrible call. You have a beast that has been able to get you a yard pretty much all season. 30 precious seconds were wasted between 1rst down and 2nd down. If you line up in a hurry you most likely force belli to burn one but if he don't then you still have at least 30 seconds left, 2 more downs and a timeout. JUST TURRRIBLE. I don't see why Belichick would consider calling a timeout if you lined up in a hurry. It seems to me like you are doing him a favor by running the play quickly. I agree it would be better to go quickly if you knew the play was going to be unsuccessful. Perhaps you think its "conservative" to assume the play would be unsuccessful. But if it succeeded you made a really big error, by giving Brady 20 extra seconds. |
tallguyindc | 205 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack: The counter-argument is that if you run it on second and don't get in, you HAVE to throw it on 3rd. That puts you at a disadvantage. You have a 3 play series. The only way to run 3 plays with NE not knowing what you are going to do on at least one of those plays is to throw on second down. Exactly. Running would have had slightly higher probability of success on 2nd but would have lowered the probs for 3rd and 4th. Overall, I think passing was better but I admit it was a close call. I've yet to hear anything resembling a numerical argument for why it was the "worst call ever". That just strikes me as the worst kind of 20/20 hindsight possible. |
tallguyindc | 205 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack: I also am not sure what to make of Belichik not calling a timeout after the first down run by Seattle. I am surprised. In the end, it probably won the game for them, but I don't think it was the right thing to do. I also thought that NE might let them score on first down. Once again, they won the game because they didn't let them score - but with a minute left I think that is the right move. Yeah. You know not every move that ends up working in the end is the right move. Not every one that fails is the wrong move. I thought Belichick might let them in too. Its a close call on that one. If he was going to do it, he needed to do it on 1st down. There would be no reason whatsoever to have done it on a later down. Seattle called timeout before 1st so he had an opportunity to make the Moses call. |
tallguyindc | 205 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by line_tamer: So........... Running in for a touchdown to take a three point lead equates to a stupid decision, but throwing a pick from the 1 to end the game and assure yourself that tom cant drive the field to tie it up at the end was the right call? Darn I wish I was as smart as you. Because you are 100% positive that running the ball would have resulted in a touchdown...and you were also 100% positive that a throw would have resulted in an interception. I can just sense the smiles everybody else must have at the poker table when you sit down. We deal in odds and probabilities. Smart coaches and gamblers try to maximize their chance of winning. Its a bit of a close call but I believe Carroll made the right call. At the very least, it was far from being the worst call ever.
|
tallguyindc | 205 |
|
|
Quote Originally Posted by vanzack: To come to the defense of tallguyindc... I posted this in my thread... I don't have a problem with throwing the ball on the play everyone thinks is so dumb. It was second down, and the real problem is that Seattle burned 2 timeouts already - so they only had one left. You either run on 2nd and call a timeout, and then the Pats KNOW you have to throw on third down. Or you throw on 2nd where they don't know if you run or throw, and then run on third and fourth. You can argue the playcall itself - the slant - but I don't think you can criticize the call to pass too much. Its not maybe what I would have done - but it certainly isn't the dumbest playcall in the history of football like everyone is making it out to be. I knew you'd agree with me on this. I can tell you are one of the very few sports bettors that actually makes money. I used to post a lot on here and I remember agreeing with you often. I stopped betting when Matchbook closed to Americans. I had a particular live betting strategy that wouldn't have worked pregame. Anyway, I haven't been on this site in years. I had to comment about this though. It reminds me of Belichicks 4th and 2 situation. Another good call that was horribly misunderstood. |
tallguyindc | 205 |
|
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.