Brock... CIncy or Pitt and what number ?

Brock Landers · 09-06-12, 08:46 PM

Brock Landers · 09-06-12, 09:24 PM

where are all those shit talkers at?!?!?

How fuckin' stupid is my bet now?????

chilidog · 09-06-12, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Brock Landers

where are all those shit talkers at?!?!?

How fuckin' stupid is my bet now?????

The bet had a 48.9% chance of winning, so it was still a stupid bet. You simply got lucky, sir. There is a reason why you are down $200,000.

tmgissy · 09-06-12, 10:23 PM

Good call tonight Brock, missed the pitt 6 tonight but the under saved me in the end!!! Keep it up!

Bostongambler · 09-06-12, 10:26 PM

Nice call sunshine

DrStale · 09-06-12, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by chilidog

The bet had a 48.9% chance of winning, so it was still a stupid bet. You simply got lucky, sir. There is a reason why you are down $200,000.

Math is for nerds. Free Money!!!!

chilidog · 09-06-12, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by DrStale

Math is for winners. Free Money!!!!

Fixed it.

benibrowns · 09-06-12, 10:31 PM

Pitt Will never win with sunsiri...He's a bum!!

Brock Landers · 09-06-12, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by chilidog

The bet had a 48.9% chance of winning, so it was still a stupid bet. You simply got lucky, sir. There is a reason why you are down $200,000.

explain where you got your number 48.9% from guy....

Yep, it was luck

DrStale · 09-06-12, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by chilidog

Fixed it.

Brock > Math. It's science.

SteelRain · 09-06-12, 10:34 PM

brock you should have took the spread, i mean it was so obvious.

Brock Landers · 09-06-12, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by SteelRain

brock you should have took the spread, i mean it was so obvious.

i would have not risked as much...i wanted to win 1500, and i did, so it was totally irrelevant

DrStale · 09-06-12, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Brock Landers

explain where you got your number 48.9% from guy....

Yep, it was luck

I saw the ML anywhere from -190 to -230. You managed to get an even worse line than that. Good work.

Brock Landers · 09-06-12, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by DrStale

I saw the ML anywhere from -190 to -230. You managed to get an even worse line than that. Good work.

like it mattered

Inkwell77 · 09-06-12, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by chilidog

The bet had a 48.9% chance of winning, so it was still a stupid bet. You simply got lucky, sir. There is a reason why you are down $200,000.

uh... what?
A -235 price does not have a 48.9% chance of winning. I'll admit he got a terrible price but even closing a -205 (+185) still has a no-vig chance of 65.7%

DrStale · 09-06-12, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Brock Landers

like it mattered

This is exactly why you are a terrible sports bettor and will always lose in the long run.

Brock Landers · 09-06-12, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by DrStale

This is exactly why you are a terrible sports bettor and will always lose in the long run.

talk to my balance pal...may have a better chance than talking to the hand

drfunkmaster · 09-06-12, 10:54 PM

thetrinity · 09-06-12, 11:18 PM

i hope i die and come back as landers illegitimate son.

chili where did you come up with the 48.9%?

Balco10 · 09-07-12, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Brock Landers

Points please

This is all play money. What did you actually wager? You cant bullshit a bullshiter and your full of shit unless you have a CC of 50K or more and, or above the 250k tax bracket.

Frank-King · 09-07-12, 12:13 AM

Brock on fire, haters gonna hate

isotopes · 09-07-12, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by chilidog

The bet had a 48.9% chance of winning, so it was still a stupid bet. You simply got lucky, sir. There is a reason why you are down $200,000.

What are you talking about? How can you say that the bet had a 48.9% chance of winning. If you watched the game the bet had 100% chance of winning and after Pitt got embarrassed at home against a DII school last week, regardless of who they were missing, this was so easy to call that people on here psyched themselves out.

I don't care how you calculate your bets or what dumb formula you use, but cinci had a new QB, new RB, 5 other new starters on offense, there was no data in the world that could make an accurate prediction like that.

Brock Landers · 09-07-12, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Balco10

This is all play money. What did you actually wager? You cant bullshit a bullshiter and your full of shit unless you have a CC of 50K or more and, or above the 250k tax bracket.

Now screen shots from Heritage aren't proof enough

un fuckin' real

chargers4222 · 09-07-12, 02:42 PM

good pick brock who you likin tonight?

Brock Landers · 09-07-12, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by chargers4222

good pick brock who you likin tonight?

small play on Utah st +7 1/2

chilidog · 09-07-12, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by isotopes

What are you talking about? How can you say that the bet had a 48.9% chance of winning. If you watched the game the bet had 100% chance of winning and after Pitt got embarrassed at home against a DII school last week, regardless of who they were missing, this was so easy to call that people on here psyched themselves out.

I don't care how you calculate your bets or what dumb formula you use, but cinci had a new QB, new RB, 5 other new starters on offense, there was no data in the world that could make an accurate prediction like that.

I'll put my model up against your knowledge any day of the week. So, if the game had a 100% chance of winning, did you put everything you had on it?