Coyle talks Claeys extension, volleyball - Mn Daily

Donate To GopherHole
GopherWeatherGuy said:
How does that article prove I was wrong? It said Hills was day to day and should be ready to play against Minnesota.

Do you want to argue that Maryland was better without Hills? Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

You were arguing that Maryland was favored because people expected Hills to start. That was 100% wrong.

It was always day-to-day, and Vegas takes those things into their calculation when setting a line (it's kind of what they do). Additionally, even when Vegas KNEW Hills was out, the Gophers were still underdogs by every single major sports book (from anywhere from +2.5 to +3.5). The line definitely moved when Hills was just day-to-day, but regardless of Hills' health, Maryland was still favored.

Again, your hypothesis was wrong and dumb.

I was never arguing that Maryland wasn't better with Hills. It's just an absolute moot point. They simply would have been favored by even more if he had played. They were the favorites regardless of his health.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
You were arguing that Maryland was favored because people expected Hills to start. That was 100% wrong.

It was always day-to-day, and Vegas takes those things into their calculation when setting a line (it's kind of what they do). Additionally, even when Vegas KNEW Hills was out, the Gophers were still underdogs by every single major sports book (from anywhere from +2.5 to +3.5). The line definitely moved when Hills was just day-to-day, but regardless of Hills' health, Maryland was still favored.

Again, your hypothesis was wrong and dumb.

I was never arguing that Maryland wasn't better with Hills. It's just an absolute moot point. They simply would have been favored by even more if he had played. They were the favorites regardless of his health.
Click to expand...

All I did was ask the question on whether people knew Hills would play or not. I didn't know for sure until the game started. The only reason why I responded is because people were surprised that Maryland was favored and there were a number of reasons why they were. The only hypothesis I gave is that Maryland was significantly better with Hills, which is true. You're arguing with me over nothing.
 

The prognostic ability of Vegas regarding a game where both starting QBs are out and the backups are unknown quantities is close to nil. One would have to be nuts to bet serious money on a game like that.

In any case, the fact we were dogs and still won...shouldn't be a feather in our cap. At that point in the season the team had been playing sub-par overall. This was close to that time there was a convergence of penalties, third down problems on defense, and offensive struggles. Suspended players, the Iowa debacle. Oof.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
All I did was ask the question on whether people knew Hills would play or not. I didn't know for sure until the game started. The only reason why I responded is because people were surprised that Maryland was favored and there were a number of reasons why they were. The only hypothesis I gave is that Maryland was significantly better with Hills, which is true. You're arguing with me over nothing.
Click to expand...

No. You chimed in when someone said that the Gophers were underdogs against Maryland arguing that was because Hills was surprisingly out. That was completely incorrect.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
No. You chimed in when someone said that the Gophers were underdogs against Maryland arguing that was because Hills was surprisingly out. That was completely incorrect.
Click to expand...

No, I asked a question. Re-read what I wrote.
 


Pompous Elitist said:
The prognostic ability of Vegas regarding a game where both starting QBs are out and the backups are unknown quantities is close to nil. One would have to be nuts to bet serious money on a game like that.

In any case, the fact we were dogs and still won...shouldn't be a feather in our cap. At that point in the season the team had been playing sub-par overall. This was close to that time there was a convergence of penalties, third down problems on defense, and offensive struggles. Suspended players, the Iowa debacle. Oof.
Click to expand...

You're like a conspiracy theorist in the way you think. I never said it was a feather in the cap. I only said that Hills health was not the reason why Maryland was favored (they were favored regardless).

As for this little bit: "The prognostic ability of Vegas regarding a game where both starting QBs are out and backups are unknown qualities is close to nil" (STATEMENT A). "One would have to be nuts to bet serious money on a game like that." (STATEMENT B).

Even you can see how this is absurd right? I lived and worked at a sports book in Vegas for a few years right after college. The games where Vegas has a poor prognostic ability are exactly the games you want to bet. No one has ever said "wow, the line on that game looks just about right, I should throw some money on it". The, literal, EXACT thing you look for when sports betting is a game where you think Vegas did not do a good job prognosticating. That statement was idiotic, it could only have been written by you.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
You're like a conspiracy theorist in the way you think. I never said it was a feather in the cap. I only said that Hills health was not the reason why Maryland was favored (they were favored regardless).

As for this little bit: "The prognostic ability of Vegas regarding a game where both starting QBs are out and backups are unknown qualities is close to nil" (STATEMENT A). "One would have to be nuts to bet serious money on a game like that." (STATEMENT B).

Even you can see how this is absurd right? I lived and worked at a sports book in Vegas for a few years right after college. The games where Vegas has a poor prognostic ability are exactly the games you want to bet. No one has ever said "wow, the line on that game looks just about right, I should throw some money on it". The, literal, EXACT thing you look for when sports betting is a game where you think Vegas did not do a good job prognosticating. That statement was idiotic, it could only have been written by you.
Click to expand...

LOL, Bob. You've really gone off the deep end the last few weeks. Why so angry? Caught in another lie? Still think Green was the starter?

The line is absolutely meaningless. So winning as the underdog is meaningless.

If you're betting on a game where the QBs are fresh and you think vegas did a poor job you are, in fact, an idiot. But by all means, do so. You worked at a sport book and all. Worked the phones?
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
You're like a conspiracy theorist in the way you think. I never said it was a feather in the cap. I only said that Hills health was not the reason why Maryland was favored (they were favored regardless).

As for this little bit: "The prognostic ability of Vegas regarding a game where both starting QBs are out and backups are unknown qualities is close to nil" (STATEMENT A). "One would have to be nuts to bet serious money on a game like that." (STATEMENT B).

Even you can see how this is absurd right? I lived and worked at a sports book in Vegas for a few years right after college. The games where Vegas has a poor prognostic ability are exactly the games you want to bet. No one has ever said "wow, the line on that game looks just about right, I should throw some money on it". The, literal, EXACT thing you look for when sports betting is a game where you think Vegas did not do a good job prognosticating. That statement was idiotic, it could only have been written by you.
Click to expand...

They have to rewrite and distort what you say. Probably will answer with more b.s after this. They got nothing besides "fire Claeys as soon as possible" and somehow think that by doing everything they can, name calling and degrading, first and foremost, they'll get people to start sending e-mails and booing the Gophers at every turn until T.C. is out.

Yeah, silly as that sounds it's what they got.

Too bad. They generally have had something to add. Now they're just trolling.

Not gonna stop either is it? :eek:
 

Pompous Elitist said:
LOL, Bob. You've really gone off the deep end the last few weeks. Why so angry? Caught in another lie? Still think Green was the starter?

The line is absolutely meaningless. So winning as the underdog is meaningless.

If you're betting on a game where the QBs are fresh and you think vegas did a poor job you are, in fact, an idiot. But by all means, do so. You worked at a sport book and all. Worked the phones?
Click to expand...

I never said Green was the starter. Never. I said they split time and they split time. I can link what I said to you, but you're a moron and won't read it, again.

Winning as an underdog is meaningless to you (and me for the most part), but that was the subject of the debate. You jumped into a debate, gave your two cents, got proven wrong, then said "the debate is meaningless". Ok. That's fine, but again, you can't follow logic.

If you think Vegas did a poor job. . . that . . . is . . when . . . you . . . bet. Now, you can make an argument that sports betting is idiotic. That's fine. However, the argument that you're an idiot to bet on games where Vegas can't accurately predict a line is LITERALLY the dumbest comment anyone has ever made on sports betting.

What you're saying is the equivalent of saying, "it's dumb to play on the roulette rule, it's broken and lands on 11 way too often". It's idiotic.

Sports books don't really have people who answer phones. I started out pretty low though, I was 21 and had no experience. I started as a "writer" and eventually become a "runner". But no, I never had any input in setting the line. I was young and I liked sports and betting, so it was just a fun part time job during the day. But everyone who walked into a sports book (and pretty much anyone with a fully functioning brain) understands that when you're betting a sport, the last thing you want is Vegas to accurately project the line. That it makes WAY more difficult. It's common sense but it eludes you.
 



Bob_Loblaw said:
I never said Green was the starter. Never. I said they split time and they split time. I can link what I said to you, but you're a moron and won't read it, again.

Winning as an underdog is meaningless to you (and me for the most part), but that was the subject of the debate. You jumped into a debate, gave your two cents, got proven wrong, then said "the debate is meaningless". Ok. That's fine, but again, you can't follow logic.

If you think Vegas did a poor job. . . that . . . is . . when . . . you . . . bet. Now, you can make an argument that sports betting is idiotic. That's fine. However, the argument that you're an idiot to bet on games where Vegas can't accurately predict a line is LITERALLY the dumbest comment anyone has ever made on sports betting.

What you're saying is the equivalent of saying, "it's dumb to play on the roulette rule, it's broken and lands on 11 way too often". It's idiotic.

Sports books don't really have people who answer phones. I started out pretty low though, I was 21 and had no experience. I started as a "writer" and eventually become a "runner". But no, I never had any input in setting the line. I was young and I liked sports and betting, so it was just a fun part time job during the day. But everyone who walked into a sports book (and pretty much anyone with a fully functioning brain) understands that when you're betting a sport, the last thing you want is Vegas to accurately project the line. That it makes WAY more difficult. It's common sense but it eludes you.
Click to expand...

It's unbelievable. You're unbelievable. Clinically delusional at this point.
 

Iceland12 said:
They have to rewrite and distort what you say. Probably will answer with more b.s after this. They got nothing besides "fire Claeys as soon as possible" and somehow think that by doing everything they can, name calling and degrading, first and foremost, they'll get people to start sending e-mails and booing the Gophers at every turn until T.C. is out.

Yeah, silly as that sounds it's what they got.

Too bad. They generally have had something to add. Now they're just trolling.

Not gonna stop either is it? :eek:
Click to expand...

He is just a really dumb person. He can't follow logical arguments. I didn't expect him to have a counter to what I said because what he was said was so obviously wrong. He had no choice to change the subject again. He's just dumb.
 


Ok Bob, based on everything I've read here, I'll give you 20 bucks for your tips, and I'll take the other side of the bet. Your observational skills are...wanting, even when faced with overwhelming evidence.

If you aren't handicapping teams based on a lot of study and analysis and knowns, then your bankroll is not long for this world. Taking fliers and getting lucky over the long haul is unlikely to be successful. If I have to explain this to you it probably won't ever make sense. There is a reason Vegas makes a lot of money on people taking uneducated fliers.

But lets be real, unless one has the officials in their pocket, or a superb advanced stats model better than the other guys etc if you really want to make money at sports betting start a book.
 





Pompous Elitist said:
Ok Bob, based on everything I've read here, I'll give you 20 bucks for your tips, and I'll take the other side of the bet. Your observational skills are...wanting, even when faced with overwhelming evidence.

If you aren't handicapping teams based on a lot of study and analysis and knowns, then your bankroll is not long for this world. Taking fliers and getting lucky over the long haul is unlikely to be successful. If I have to explain this to you it probably won't ever make sense. There is a reason Vegas makes a lot of money on people taking uneducated fliers.

But lets be real, unless one has the officials in their pocket, or a superb advanced stats model better than the other guys etc if you really want to make money at sports betting start a book.
Click to expand...

I never gave you a tip. I just stated an absolute fact, you don't want to bet on a games where you think Vegas as accurately set the line. That isn't a tip, it's a fact. It's the equivalent of saying "you should invest in a stock that is going to increase in value". The tip would be pointing out which stock (or which game). I didn't do that. I just stated the absolute obvious. Well obvious to everyone. . . but you.

Vegas makes money on the sports book because they are really good at setting a line. That is the only reason they make money on the sports book.

It's not that complicated. They make money on the slots because the odds are in their favor (long enough timeline, they always win). They make money on blackjack the same way.

If you really want to get into a discussion about sports betting we can. I suspect you don't and you're just trying to somehow salvage an argument. Vegas sets their odds based on a number of factors (bringing in money, sometimes the books "bet", etc.). However, the "unknown" variables for Vegas are problematic. Where a person tries to get an edge is by saying "I know more about this unknown variable than Vegas" OR "we disagree on the reason for this known variable".

With your last line, I am not so sure you fully understand how sports betting works. It's ok though. The simple stuff is lost on you. Let's start with the simple stuff - - If you think Vegas has accurately set a line. . . BAD BET. If you think Vegas has not accurately set a line . . . BETTER BET.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
It's amazing, Bob has solved Vegas!
Click to expand...

Where did I say that?

I told you how sports betting works.

This is REALLY basic stuff. Like a 2nd grader could wrap their heads around it. I am just saying common sense, it's nice that you have resorted to nonsense again.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Correct about Seth Green? You're embarrassing yourself now. Calling me stupid will not change the facts of the situation.
Click to expand...

I've been correct about everything in our debates. You're a moron.

As far as Seth Green, you said "still think Seth Green is the starter?" Nope. I never said that. I don't even know what you're referring to. If you're talking about for the Gophers, I think our starter will be a JuCo or transfer player. If you're talking about his year in Texas, no, I said (and have said the entire time that they split time the entire way.

This was my exact quote about Seth Green's playing situation in Allen, TX:

"They split time all the way till the end."
 



Through the last three games of their playoff run:

Jonke had 77% of pass attempts, 73% of QB rush attempts, 84% of QB rushing yards (116 on 35 vs 22 on 13 rush).

Jonke started all 4 games of the playoffs. I don't have stats available for the first round game. I find it interesting Green's play time decreased as they entered the playoffs. Spread system. Both dual threat. One with no FBS offers.

Simple question, if you feel like they had a true platoon system...why did Oregon back off from Green? While its possible for a college backup to be a better prospect for the NFL than the starter (in rare cases) I'd argue the high school game has more in common with college as far as spread offenses than college does with the NFL.
 

Spoofin said:
Both of you should really look at who the (only) other poster supporting you on this thread is as that will tell you a lot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If you're against me...I'm doing well.
 

Sparlimb said:
Well that's true, we didn't really get blown out, although we looked REALLY BAD in the Iowa game. Just thinking back to 2 seasons ago (the one Kill got so sick in), we had a lot of the same close games that we actually pulled out. We didn't win the Wisconsin game that year, but beating Nebraska, beating Iowa, beating Northwestern, beating Michigan and giving Ohio St everything they could ask for in a game. That was a far more inspiring season to in my eyes. Anyway, let's end on a winning note here and move on to next year.
Click to expand...

Offense looked bad in Iowa game, D played well. Opposite happened at Penn St.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I've been correct about everything in our debates. You're a moron.

As far as Seth Green, you said "still think Seth Green is the starter?" Nope. I never said that. I don't even know what you're referring to. If you're talking about for the Gophers, I think our starter will be a JuCo or transfer player. If you're talking about his year in Texas, no, I said (and have said the entire time that they split time the entire way.

This was my exact quote about Seth Green's playing situation in Allen, TX:

"They split time all the way till the end."
Click to expand...

You implied Green was playing better than Jonke. It's all there in the Johannesson thread.

I'll ask you again, give me an example of a power 5 recruit that wasn't the starter on his high school team. Why did Oregon back off halfway through his senior season?
 

LesBolstad said:
How dumb. You do realize the MFSA is a public org? This is a huge deal and dude, no one says retarded anymore.
Click to expand...

Think he meant in relation to the U, they are a client so that is completely normal to entertain in a suite.
 


GopherWeatherGuy said:
How does that article prove I was wrong? It said Hills was day to day and should be ready to play against Minnesota.

Do you want to argue that Maryland was better without Hills? Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Wow...
 



PMWinSTP said:
He provided the facts, you danced.
Click to expand...

Nice try, as usual you have nothing.

Once again, all I did was ask a legitimate question, and followed it up with a fact. Now several of you have wasted 2 pages of trying to turn it into something more than that.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom