JudasIscariotTheBird

#-o

I like that the announcer confuses dumb luck for grit and hard work, just like any other successful jackass irl.

I think that bet had to have been made before the season started to get a payout like that, right? I don't see a date on there but I doubt it. To get the exact scores of two playoff games on a parlay would be ridiculous odds. Yeah, I posted the betslip on the previous page. The guy was probably bonus whoring, where you go to different sites and take advantage of promos they offer. A common promo is the "lose your initial bet, get a free bet of equal value" which they pay you for in site dollars or whatever. I won't go into the nitty-gritty, but making longshot bets with those promos increases your EV significantly, which is probably prompted him to make a crazy longshot parlay like that.

This chart was amazingly unsurprising.

I dunno, but I do know this: https://twitter.com/SenquezPick/status/1487976372421238785

I visited some friends in Silverlake and kinda dug it. Coincidence that the two coolest helmet designs, by far, made the SB? I think not.

Even as a Packer fan, and despite the first week being straight garbage, I think the answer is clearly yes.

The SB numbers are insane, and I doubt anyone ever gets close to him, but he never really dominated the league for an extended stretch at all similarly to Jordan and Gretzky. There are a handful of other QBs that I think are at least as talented as Brady, and I can't say the same for Jordan and Gretz.

I mean come on, it really shouldn't take machine learning or any kind of statistical analysis to figure this out. It's pretty damn intuitive that having rules where one side might not be able to retort is unfair. The comparisons to having sudden death baseball innings is completely apt. The team on offense first has a large advantage.

1) You don't seem to know what statistical significance is. 2) You're omitting 11 games from your already small sample size that make the "gap" significantly greater. The "gap" is actually 11%. If you throw out the ties (which can't happen in the playoffs) the "gap" increases to 13%. 3) The team that wins the coin toss has been a -130 favorite. If you don't think that's "statistically significant" then you and I can make a bet from here on forward. I'll back the coin toss winner. I'll give you +110. What do you say? My point isn't that the coin toss winner doesn't have any advantage at all. My point is that no overtime system is going to create the perfect 50/50 split of outcomes people seem to want out of this. And college football overtime, the system many people are pointing to as, at minimum, a terrific starting point for an NFL system, has a win rate by the coin toss winner that's pretty damn close to the same as the NFL overtime system. And that's because the team that goes on offense 2nd has the advantage of knowing what's needed to win/tie. A lot like baseball teams batting last have an advantage. But again, you are cherry-picking for your argument. That "similar gap" (which is still only 8%) only exists for DECISIVE overtime college periods. The team that wins the initial coin toss in college games only goes on to win the game 50.94% of the time. College rules are much more fair, and it isn't even close. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frai.2020.00061/full

Lol So it's your position that a 6.6% difference in who wins an NFL overtime game with a sample size of 65 games or whatever it is is entirely due to the coin toss? That's your take? 1) You don't seem to know what statistical significance is. 2) You're omitting 11 games from your already small sample size that make the "gap" significantly greater. The "gap" is actually 11%. If you throw out the ties (which can't happen in the playoffs) the "gap" increases to 13%. 3) The team that wins the coin toss has been a -130 favorite. If you don't think that's "statistically significant" then you and I can make a bet from here on forward. I'll back the coin toss winner. I'll give you +110. What do you say?

Lol

There has never been a more "back and forth" game in NFL history. YOu could just as well say the Chiefs collapsed by letting the Bills score a TD in a minute. Or that the Bills "collapsed" by letting Hill score a 70 yard TD with less than 2 minutes remaining. But more to the point, I don't give a FLYING horsefeathers HOW they got to overtime. Make overtime not be a luck-sack let down. Obviously, you can't have different rules depending on how it gets to OT. Just saying that "just win the game" is more than a playground argument considering the Bills knew the likely consequences of allowing a FG in 13 seconds and losing the coin toss. If 49ers/Packers went to OT then "just win the game" would be more playground-ish. Semantics, I know. I disagree on both points. You could obviously have different OT rules depending on how you got to OT. Maybe if the score is less than 20 total, you leave the rules as is, and if it's over 20 you use college rules, and over 70, you get your punters to play checkers against each other. I don't think that's a good way to set it up, but it could be done.

The start of overtime is so lopsided of a starting point, it would be a huge improvement just to know who was going to start with the ball ahead of time. (Which makes the earlier suggestions of deciding everything on the first toss like the XFL good.) For instance, if the Bills knew the Chiefs were going to have possession, they probably would have gone for 2 after their last TD. But my favorite set up would be college rules starting on the 50.

...this confuses me. Which type of game was Chiefs-Bills? Bills clearly collapsed allowing a score in 13 seconds. There has never been a more "back and forth" game in NFL history. YOu could just as well say the Chiefs collapsed by letting the Bills score a TD in a minute. Or that the Bills "collapsed" by letting Hill score a 70 yard TD with less than 2 minutes remaining. But more to the point, I don't give a FLYING horsefeathers HOW they got to overtime. Make overtime not be a luck-sack let down.

If this was a Bills board maybe you'd have a point. The rule objectively sucks and should be changed. "Win instead of deal with overtime" is some infintile playground argument non-sense. I mean, the Bills legit had no business even being in overtime though, so this situation it makes sense somewhat. But in a game that's truly back and forth where it doesn't involve 1 team completely collapsing to get the game to OT, then "just win the game" doesn't mean as much. ...this confuses me. Which type of game was Chiefs-Bills?

Why don't we just say whomever wins the coin toss in OT wins the game? Maximum lameness, maximum random. SHOuldA WoN iT In REGulaTiOn, AmIRITe?!

If this was a Bills board maybe you'd have a point. The rule objectively sucks and should be changed. "Win instead of deal with overtime" is some infintile playground argument non-sense.

No, you're right. It's all but impossible. Once the ball hits the grond, no fair catches allowed. But you can just kneel it as soon as you pick it up. The idea would be to squib it so they have to field it at the 10 or 15, and then spend time getting to the 25 or 30 or whatever instead of just being able to teleport to the 25 on a touchback. Would it have cost the Chiefs the yards/time to not get the FG? Who knows. I don't think it's quite as big of a deal that people are making it out to be.

https://twitter.com/Steve_o_3000/status/1485450682455019525

Well that was something.