Is Merriman on way out in San Diego this year or next? Would Wade look at him?

[Hostile]

If you think a wining season and nothing in the play offs saves his job, I'll sell you Manhattan for 24 dollars.

Why don't you read what I wrote in post #7 and post #19 in this thread and then get back to me on what you think I think.

If you need assistance raise your hand.

 

[DallasEast]

Yeah, Vegas looks at it in a different manner. Statistically speaking my way is mathematically correct. Theirs is to induce betting.

His 3% points to 1 out of 32. Implying our odds are on par w/ everyone else. The Vegas odds are 12-1, or 8.3%. Hostiles odds reflect an underestimation of the Cowboys chances this year

Ooookay, Hos. I'm gonna let you take this one.

 

[Hostile]

This is only true if all things are equal. . . . and they are not.

The Patriots don't = the Jets etc.

IMO/FWIW.

I'm not talking talent. I'm talking strictly math.

 

[Hostile]

His 3% points to 1 out of 32. Implying our odds are on par w/ everyone else. The Vegas odds are 12-1, or 8.3%. Hostiles odds reflect an underestimation of the Cowboys chances this year

That's because Vegas is looking to induce betting. I am not.

Do I think all 32 teams have an equal shot? No, and I'm not saying they do. Better teams obviously have a better shot. Right now, with all teams at 0-0 mathematically they are dead equal and have just over a 3% chance. You cannot fortell injuries and stupid bounces of the ball or fate at this point.

Betting odds are fine, but I am talking strictly factual mathematics.

 

[DallasDomination]

So the fact that I know someone who used to work out at the same gym as him in college and says he is a thug plays no part?

It might play a part in your opinion. But even then you have never met the guy or even talked to Him. So you are placing judgment on someone based on someone elses biased opinion. It's not like a gym is the best place to judge a person to begin with.

 

[theogt]

I'm not talking talent. I'm talking strictly math.

Originally you were referring to what was "likely" and if simply dividing 1 by 32 is "strictly math" then it is very much at odds with what is "likely."

 

[Hostile]

It might play a part in your opinion. But even then you have never met the guy or even talked to Him. So you are placing judgment on someone based on someone elses biased opinion. It's not like a gym is the best place to judge a person to begin with.

Ah, I should just assume you are right and the person I know who has met him is full of crap, despite all the negative stories that have happened around this guy since he shared that info wit us so long ago.

Got it.

 

[Hostile]

Originally you were referring to what was "likely" and if simply dividing 1 by 32 is "strictly math" then it is very much at odds with what is "likely."

No, I said he has a 3% chance of winning the Super Bowl. Since then I have merely been trying to explain the math used to extract that 3%. "Likely" has nothing to do with anything.

 

[theogt]

No, I said he has a 3% chance of winning the Super Bowl. Since then I have merely been trying to explain the math used to extract that 3%. "Likely" has nothing to do with anything.

You said that you doubt we win the Super Bowl, presumably because it is unlikely. The fact that only 3% of the teams in the league (i.e., one team) wins the Super Bowl has nothing to do with the likelihood of any particular team winning or not.

If you were saying that you "doubt" we win and it had nothing to do with our likely chances of winning, then you should clearly see where anyone would be confused with your statement.

 

[Hostile]

You said that you doubt we win the Super Bowl, presumably because it is unlikely. The fact that only 3% of the teams in the league (i.e., one team) wins the Super Bowl has nothing to do with the likelihood of any particular team winning or not.

If you were saying that you "doubt" we win and it had nothing to do with our likely chances of winning, then you should clearly see where anyone would be confused with your statement.

Please point out for me where I said I doubt we win the Super Bowl. I haven't even been discussing it really, except to say I think Wade has to do it to keep his job.

Note for future reference. When you put "likely" in quotes it means I said that. I didn't.

However, I will say right now that 3% odds does mean unlikely based strictly on math. Again, I am not saying the math is equal because the teams are not equal. Once the games start being played the math changes. Right now, all 32 teams have a just over 3% chance of being the Super Bowl champion.

The actual % is .03125 for the record. .03125 * 32 = 1.00000.

I was, and still am, talking strictly mathematical chances. If you can't figure out the math blame your math teachers.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Why don't you read what I wrote in post #7 and post #19 in this thread and then get back to me on what you think I think.

If you need assistance raise your hand.

Wasn't it Charles who knew what you thought?

Gosh, you mean there are two of them now?

 

[Hostile]

Wasn't it Charles who knew what you thought?

Gosh, you mean there are two of them now?

Yep, qcard/Charles. The guy who couldn't take back calling someone a racist so he asked to be banned instead. Still one of the more ignorant moments on this forum, but he did share that info with us early on and I still appreciate it.

 

[Temo]

Please point out for me where I said I doubt we win the Super Bowl. I haven't even been discussing it really, except to say I think wade has to do it to keep his job.

Note for future reference. When you put "likely" in quotes it means I said that. I didn't.

However, I will say right now that 3% odds does mean unlikely based strictly on math. Again, I am not saying the math is equal because the teams are not equal. Once the games start being played the math changes. Right now, all 43 teams have a just over 3% chance of being the Super Bowl champion.

The actual % is .03125 for the record. .03125 * 32 = 1.00000.

I was, and still am, talking strictly mathematical chances. If you can't figure out the math blame your math teachers.

I think all TheoGT is saying is that "strictly mathematically speaking", you can assign different odds to different teams winning. All it means is that your 3% assumes equal chances and Vegas is assigning chances. That doesn't make either method "more mathematical", just different.

Your method could be correct (for all we know, the Cowboys could be an average team... they have to play the games for us to know for sure how good they are), but it doesn't make it more mathematical than assign odds.

 

[Hostile]

I think all TheoGT is saying is that "strictly mathematically speaking", you can assign different odds to different teams winning. All it means is that your 3% assumes equal chances and Vegas is assigning chances. That doesn't make either method "more mathematical", just different.

Your method could be correct (for all we know, the Cowboys could be an average team... they have to play the games for us to know for sure how good they are), but it doesn't make it more mathematical than assign odds.

Okay whatever makes you happy. If it's ever on a math test and we are all taking the test, don't copy my answer.

What I said honestly isn't that hard.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Yep, qcard/Charles. The guy who couldn't take back calling someone a racist so he asked to be banned instead. Still one of the more ignorant moments on this forum, but he did share that info with us early on and I still appreciate it.

Gosh, why can't we just have someone here who says that they hate all of us.

I miss that.

 

[theogt]

Please point out for me where I said I doubt we win the Super Bowl. I haven't even been discussing it really, except to say I think wade has to do it to keep his job.

In your original post, you said that you doubt Wade will be back. Then you expounded on this statement by saying that you think Wade would be back only if we win a Super Bowl. Hence, you doubt we will win a Super Bowl.

Note for future reference. When you put "likely" in quotes it means I said that. I didn't.

Note for future reference, this isn't the case at all. Simply putting a term in quotation marks does not necessarily indicate that you are quoting someone. When referring to a term itself, without using it in the sentence, it is proper to use quotation marks.

For example, it is proper to say, "You did not use the term 'likely' in your original post."

However, I will say right now that 3% odds does mean unlikely based strictly on math. Again, I am not saying the math is equal because the teams are not equal. Once the games start being played the math changes. Right now, all 43 teams have a just over 3% chance of being the Super Bowl champion.

The actual % is .03125 for the record. .03125 * 32 = 1.00000.

I was, and still am, talking strictly mathematical chances. If you can't figure out the math blame your math teachers.

And, again, if you use words like "odds" and "chances," people will think you're referencing what is likely.

 

[Hostile]

Gosh, why can't we just have someone here who says that they hate all of us.

I miss that.

One of the greatest posts ever. I wonder what happened to that guy. Danged if his username isn't escaping me right now.

 

[Hostile]

In your original post, you said that you doubt Wade will be back. Then you expounded on this statement by saying that you think Wade would be back only if we win a Super Bowl. Hence, you doubt we will win a Super Bowl.

Note for future reference, this isn't the case at all. Simply putting a term in quotation marks does not necessarily indicate that you are quoting someone. When referring to a term, without actually using it in the sentence, it is proper to use quotation marks.

And, again, if you use words like "odds" and "chances," people will think you're referencing what is likely.

Whatever blows your skirt up. You're wasting my time with this. Ramble on if you wish or get to some salient point eventually.

My comment on Wade stands. He is in a contract year and has not been offered an extension. To me that says one isn't likely. I think that changes only if he wins a Super Bowl. Maybe Jerry has a lesser litmus test. Odds are I don't know.

My opinion on his future stands as posted.

 

[theogt]

You're wasting my time with this.

I'm not the one twisting your arm into making these silly arguments.

I understand your opinion on Wade and whether he'll be back. But you have to accept that others think the reasoning behind your opinion is a little -- off.

Personally, I think the odds are he won't be back, because the odds are we won't make it to the Super Bowl and I think that's what it will likely take for him to keep his job. But I'm not going to say that the "odds" are 1/16 that we'll make it to the Super Bowl.

 

[Sarge]

I'm not talking talent. I'm talking strictly math.

But talking strictly math is meaningless with regard to this subject - or am I missing something?