<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The General:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by theswami:
If you think sporting events are "fixed" why would you wager on them? What would make you believe that you could beat the books if they "fix" games?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That argument is often, but just because one believes Some games are fixed does not mean all games are.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK General, what are your thoughs on this
in order to win, you must either 1) know what games are fixed, 2) know what games are fixed and for which team/player, or 3) know that there are few games that are fixed (so your edge can outweigh the times you lose b/c the fix is in).
it would seem to me that if a player is not an "insider" and he believes that games are often fixed, he must have a great edge in order to beat the books. it would seem odd to me that a player would continue wagering if he thought MANY of the games were fixed AND he did NOT have a huge edge. the only way it makes sense is if the player wagers for intagible reasons; entertainment, no other way to earn a living, addiction, etc.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by theswami:
If you think sporting events are "fixed" why would you wager on them? What would make you believe that you could beat the books if they "fix" games?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That argument is often, but just because one believes Some games are fixed does not mean all games are.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
OK General, what are your thoughs on this
in order to win, you must either 1) know what games are fixed, 2) know what games are fixed and for which team/player, or 3) know that there are few games that are fixed (so your edge can outweigh the times you lose b/c the fix is in).
it would seem to me that if a player is not an "insider" and he believes that games are often fixed, he must have a great edge in order to beat the books. it would seem odd to me that a player would continue wagering if he thought MANY of the games were fixed AND he did NOT have a huge edge. the only way it makes sense is if the player wagers for intagible reasons; entertainment, no other way to earn a living, addiction, etc.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In My Opinion Miami Can Beat The Jags By basically whatever score they want to But We will see, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is a rediculous statement for the NFL. Parity in the NFL is not simply a result of superior teams shaving.
This is a rediculous statement for the NFL. Parity in the NFL is not simply a result of superior teams shaving.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The General:
Why do people gamble at all when we know 90%+ will lose?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
entertainment, addiction, earning a living (where it won't be revealed that the player is not really earning a living until the long-term when he realizes that he is really a loser and part of the 90+%), a "shot" at extra cash, and i'm sure a few other reasons that i haven't listed here.
Why do people gamble at all when we know 90%+ will lose?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
entertainment, addiction, earning a living (where it won't be revealed that the player is not really earning a living until the long-term when he realizes that he is really a loser and part of the 90+%), a "shot" at extra cash, and i'm sure a few other reasons that i haven't listed here.
Key word...
addiction
When drug addicts need a fix, do they mind buying a sample that is not nearly as good as the usual? No, they will take what they can get.
In sports, the addict may figure games are fixed but doesn't care. The player knows when the ball is in play, there is a chance of winning. As with the drug addict, there is a chance you will get screwed in the deal, but both the drug addict & the gambler are willing to sacrifice and take the chance in hopes they get a high.
addiction
When drug addicts need a fix, do they mind buying a sample that is not nearly as good as the usual? No, they will take what they can get.
In sports, the addict may figure games are fixed but doesn't care. The player knows when the ball is in play, there is a chance of winning. As with the drug addict, there is a chance you will get screwed in the deal, but both the drug addict & the gambler are willing to sacrifice and take the chance in hopes they get a high.
History, over 50 years of it and I exclude the 1919 World Series here, shows us clearly that ALL SPORTS have been and can be fixed. In this day of exponentially increasing $ amounts being wagered universally on sporting events, it would be ignorant to assume that that all games are squeeky clean.
That being said however one has to realize that writing a script for last night's show would have required a Shakesperean effort to say the least with a highly trained, well paid, and competent cast and crew to pull it off. And when was the last time you ever saw Monday Night Football being somehow equated with a thespian production anyway.
By the way I just love those little intro skits they do nowadays just before the Bocephus song comes on, you know at the beginning of the show. Last night I happened to miss it because of the bases game. Was it any good last night? What was last night's theme? ;
Surely I jest I think.
That being said however one has to realize that writing a script for last night's show would have required a Shakesperean effort to say the least with a highly trained, well paid, and competent cast and crew to pull it off. And when was the last time you ever saw Monday Night Football being somehow equated with a thespian production anyway.
By the way I just love those little intro skits they do nowadays just before the Bocephus song comes on, you know at the beginning of the show. Last night I happened to miss it because of the bases game. Was it any good last night? What was last night's theme? ;
Surely I jest I think.
Rule 12, Section 3, Article 2 of the 2003 Official Playing Rules of the National Football League (page 86) defines the unsportsmanlike conduct/leaping penalty as follows: "Clearly running forward and leaping in an obvious attempt to block a field goal, or try-kick after touchdown and landing on players, unless the leaping player was originally lined up within one yard of the line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped."
no, he might have grazed the leg of one of the defensive linemen, which is why that call was such a freakin' joke. From the replay it looked like he jumped forward maybe a foot, came back down behind a lineman, I didn't even see him touch anyone from the replay angle. looked like any other field goal attempt to me. Completely absurd to make that call.
He seemed to me to come down slightly, as Oren says, and grazingly on one of his OWN teammate's leg - that call was one of the worst calls I have ever witnessed in all of my years watching football. To call something that absolutely ridiculous in a situation like that goes beyond stupid - but to say the game was fixed, I have to say baloney. You've got a 21 point lead with 4 minutes to go, then 14 with 3:35 left and you allow them to get the onsides kick - no ref did that. It was an incredible series of bad defensive plays, great offensive plays and some stupid blunders by the refs to have this outcome happen. And to have the winning FG bounce off the uprights - that must have been part of the 'script' too??
The only thing I'm thankful for, and I will never forget it, is that I didn't have any money on this game - it was SUCH a bad beat, I would be wandering around in public for days muttering to myself and kicking old ladies' dogs (maybe even the old bags themselves).
The only thing I'm thankful for, and I will never forget it, is that I didn't have any money on this game - it was SUCH a bad beat, I would be wandering around in public for days muttering to myself and kicking old ladies' dogs (maybe even the old bags themselves).
The NFL upheld the penalty on leaping Simeon Rice, a call that gave the Indianapolis Colts a second chance at a field goal that beat the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in overtime.
Rice was penalized Monday night for unsportsmanlike conduct after jumping in an attempt to block Mike Vangerjagt's unsuccessful 40-yard field goal. Vanderjagt received another chance and made a 29-yarder that caromed off the right upright.
The Colts won 38-35 in overtime after rallying from a three-touchdown deficit in the last four minutes of regulation.
The league confirmed Tuesday what referee Johnnie Grier said after the game: The rules ban running forward, leaping and falling on a player, as Rice did.
Rule 12, section three, article two calls for an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on a player "clearly running forward and leaping in an obvious attempt to block a field goal or try-kick after touchdown and landing on players unless the leaping player was originally lined up within one yard of the line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped."
www.sfgate.com
Rice was penalized Monday night for unsportsmanlike conduct after jumping in an attempt to block Mike Vangerjagt's unsuccessful 40-yard field goal. Vanderjagt received another chance and made a 29-yarder that caromed off the right upright.
The Colts won 38-35 in overtime after rallying from a three-touchdown deficit in the last four minutes of regulation.
The league confirmed Tuesday what referee Johnnie Grier said after the game: The rules ban running forward, leaping and falling on a player, as Rice did.
Rule 12, section three, article two calls for an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on a player "clearly running forward and leaping in an obvious attempt to block a field goal or try-kick after touchdown and landing on players unless the leaping player was originally lined up within one yard of the line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped."
www.sfgate.com
i can shamefuly say that not only did i lose the last leg of a 3 team parlay (bucs moneyline) but i also lost a one month old 32 inch sony trinitron when i took a baseball to the screen. im not very proud of myself, but in my 12 years of gambling i have never seen anything like it. this may sound crazy but i actually felt violated. i have had the sickest feeling all day..what a disaster!!!!
Welcome to the Rx.com downthestretch. I thought it was a weak call as well. As I did the roughing the kicker on Indy.
No one call can be blamed for the outcome.
There is simply no excuse for TB allowing themselves to be put in a position of having Indy trying a game winning FG anyhow.
No one call can be blamed for the outcome.
There is simply no excuse for TB allowing themselves to be put in a position of having Indy trying a game winning FG anyhow.
yeah he had no business coming from over a yard out. but he didnt fall on a player he barely made contact this made no impact at all on the height of his jump or how high he was able to get.
they gave the bucs a loss on an infraction that had absolutely nothing to do with anything. and thats what makes it so sick.
the leauge defending the play is nothing new. they always want to give you the impression they run a tight ship. they defended the brady thing in the playoffs, you should know "our guys are never wrong"
they gave the bucs a loss on an infraction that had absolutely nothing to do with anything. and thats what makes it so sick.
the leauge defending the play is nothing new. they always want to give you the impression they run a tight ship. they defended the brady thing in the playoffs, you should know "our guys are never wrong"
after revised instant replay was introduced, the leauge quickly realized how effective it was. they probably said "great, now we can run an NFL where all the conjecture in games is completely eliminated. we can give the fans and our audience a product where the teams decide the game 110% of the time"
so now when a mistake gets made they can have the "no sir. the officiating is always correct. the player clearly made a mistake. its the team who lost." type attidtude
becuase before revised instant replay, every single game had at least 1 thing you can argue. now the bad calls seem a lot more infrequent, or at least now they are infrequent enough where they can always be denied.
so now when a mistake gets made they can have the "no sir. the officiating is always correct. the player clearly made a mistake. its the team who lost." type attidtude
becuase before revised instant replay, every single game had at least 1 thing you can argue. now the bad calls seem a lot more infrequent, or at least now they are infrequent enough where they can always be denied.
It's doubly strange the NFL would defend that call because there have been a number of times where they've admitted they've blown a call or a game - remember that Green Bay game last year where they admitted the officials blew those penalty calls?
The intent of the rule is two-fold: to prevent the 'leaping' player from gaining an advantage by using someone as a springboard to get higher (rather than simply using Percodan), and to prevent injuries when the leaper comes down on someone, perhaps with the football cleats opening a nice hole in someone. But this call simply stunk to high heaven.
DTS: sorry to hear about that TV, but I'll give you a word from my LONG-AGO past experiences with this kind of thing: if you MUST break something, I found that busting the shit out of a remote control works best. I actually would buy those cheapo universal remotes when I did break some, and would never use the expensive remote that came with the TV - so never, ever have the expensive remote at hand when you're watching a big-money game. Seriously: the original remotes can cost you $75-$125 to replace, a cheap FRENCH RCA remote that'll work on your TV would run mabye $9.99, no more than $15 - plus, you get to break a French product.
The intent of the rule is two-fold: to prevent the 'leaping' player from gaining an advantage by using someone as a springboard to get higher (rather than simply using Percodan), and to prevent injuries when the leaper comes down on someone, perhaps with the football cleats opening a nice hole in someone. But this call simply stunk to high heaven.
DTS: sorry to hear about that TV, but I'll give you a word from my LONG-AGO past experiences with this kind of thing: if you MUST break something, I found that busting the shit out of a remote control works best. I actually would buy those cheapo universal remotes when I did break some, and would never use the expensive remote that came with the TV - so never, ever have the expensive remote at hand when you're watching a big-money game. Seriously: the original remotes can cost you $75-$125 to replace, a cheap FRENCH RCA remote that'll work on your TV would run mabye $9.99, no more than $15 - plus, you get to break a French product.
