Vegas '07 W.S. Odds

[C.C.]

of course the odds makers are right. the odds are that way so they win.

 

Cubs odds are always like that because they get a ton of action. Vegas needs to cover itself so they give them bad odds in the off chance that the cubs actually win.

I'm assuming that by bad odds you meant good odds because otherwise this sentence doesn't really make any sense, unless I'm just not getting what you're saying.

 

If, as you say, Vegas is covering itself in the off chance the Cubs actually win because so many people bet money on them, then they would want to give the Cubs better than their actual odds (lower number:1), so that if they did win the payout would be smaller. Bad odds or worse than actual odds (higher number:1) would increase the amount the casinos would have to payout.

 

you couldnt just infer that?

Bad odds are bad odds. I've never heard good odds referred to as bad odds before. You're a little late, though. He explained it already. He was coming at it from the bettors point of view. I get it now. :oops:

 

What am I to infer from your post, IMB? Hmm, I wonder. Certainly nothing of a personal nature.

 

Oh, and thanks for your response to the evidence on Rusch that you requested and that I PM'd you. You're right, the evidence is undeniably clear and my statements about Rusch are irrefutably supported by them. It was big of you to take the time to respond as graciously as you did.

Ohh Ohh, whats the Rusch argument, I want to get in on that!

 

He said that Rusch was good 75% of the time he was a cub. I asked him to go ahead and explain himself. He wasn't secure enough in his facts, so he just pm'd me. The pm was basically word for word his post from an earlier thread that I had already responded to, so I didnt feel the need to go through it again, especially since it was just in pm form.

 

Oh, this was months ago, so this whole thing is pretty childish and expected. Way to go cubswin, you reached new low. Your ridiculous Rusch argument has nothing to do with you expressing your pathetic desire to feel superior to someone (nilo) who was harmlessly stating something that only a complete mongoloid couldnt figure out on his own.

Ain't amateur psychology grand.

 

For the 2nd time, I misunderstood nilodnayr. He explained it. I got it. In the post in which I supposedly desired to feel superior to someone else, I wrote,"unless I'm just not getting what you're saying". Yep, pretty superior sounding to me.

 

I PM'd you the Rusch evidence so as to not hijack a thread anymore than had already happened and you know it. I suggest we do the same in this thread.

 

Mods, does it get anymore needlessly personal than this? What is this guy's problem?

 

Ignore it.