NFL undefeated season prop

[Post-Oak]

I haven't researched it much, but I love the no at -160 also.

The max is $320 to win $200.

I doubt those odds will be available for long.

[Thremp]

No, you're a fool.

If you can't back up your words with actions, take it to SE.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll take the Under on Brady plays combined 4.5 Qs last 2 games if they have clinched #1 seed.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, let's make the bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, sounds good.

[ QUOTE ]


2.... you are only talking about the last two weeks, and 4.5 is way higher than he would set the bar. Let's put it at 3.5Qs.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL WTF?! Either accept the bet like you initially agreed on my terms, or no deal.

You said, and I quote:
[ QUOTE ]
If they are undefeated, Brady ...gonna play until the game is over - meaning for 2-3 quarters

[/ QUOTE ]

I offered 4.5Q O/U for last 2 games, so either accept my line or revise your statement that Brady is gonna play, on average, 2-3 quarters each game the last 2 weeks if undefeated and #1 seed locked up.

If you think 4-6 Qs is the range, then Over 4.5 quarters/67.5 mins is a huge huge bargain, like 3-1 in your favor, right?
Esp since I engage in such square thinking.

[Thremp]

Naj,

Its pretty clear he backing down on his original assertion. He wants to change the character of his original statement through careful clauses and other BS lingo where we already both offered a bet that is extremely +EV for him if he actually believes that starters will play 2-3 Qs when HFA is clinched and they are undefeated. Alas, he's just a clown.

[Post-Oak]

The bet you are offering does not match what I said. It doesn't even match what you said.


Here is what I said:

[ QUOTE ]

A 13-0 team with an easy shot at 16-0 is not gonna bench all of their players for the entire game.


[/ QUOTE ]


Your response:

[ QUOTE ]

A team with a locked up #1 seed will rest all their key players for 3-4 quarters.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've shown that this is not true. If you still stand by this statement, then let's bet on it. Let's construct the bet to match what we both said.

I will accept your bet if you don't require it to be Weeks 16 and 17. The two games covered should be the first two games after NE has clinched HFA. If that is Weeks 16 and 17, then so be it. If it is Weeks 15 and 16, then that should not be a problem for you based upon the claims you have made here.

Furthermore, based upon what we both have said, the over/under should clearly be set at 3.5 quarters. This wager will meet the criteria of matching the differing viewpoints we have expressed.

I am not gonna play these little baby games with you and Thremp though where you try to bait me into a bet which doesn't represent what is being claimed on either side.

1. NE will have to be undefeated
2. NE will have to have clinched HFA
3. The O/U on quarters Brady plays will be 3.5
4. the bet will last for the 2 games after NE has clinched HFA, whichever two games those are
5. if NE loses that first game, the bet is a push
6. any quarter Brady plays even one series in counts as a quarter played

Once again, the quote of mine you selected was clearly referring to the last THREE games of the season, and even after offering a bet concerning the last TWO games, you jacked up the O/U to be way in your favor.

Here's is what you said, directly responding to my comment specifically concerning a 13-0 team:

[ QUOTE ]

A team with a locked up #1 seed will rest all their key players for 3-4 quarters.


[/ QUOTE ]

So how exactly did you come up with an O/U of 4.5 for the last two games??? Shouldn't you be offering an O/U of 2.5 for Weeks 15 and 16? Notice that I am willing to offer an O/U, only because it is already clear how very wrong you were.

[Thremp]

Post Oak,

So now you want any quarter that he plays in counting... and you're moving your line to 1.75 from the previous 2.5

Interesting how I offered 2 and you feel you must drop the line to ~1 (with your ridiculous contingency) to have an edge.

Hrm... I wonder if thats in line with what you said at all earlier.

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
Naj,

Its pretty clear he backing down on his original assertion. He wants to change the character of his original statement through careful clauses and other BS lingo where we already both offered a bet that is extremely +EV for him if he actually believes that starters will play 2-3 Qs when HFA is clinched and they are undefeated. Alas, he's just a clown.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bets you guys are offering have no relation to the claims made on either side. I suspect that this is because I schooled you so thoroughly in our debate (by showing how the 13-0 Colts and Broncos both handled game 14 when HFA was already clinched). You now must realize (on some level) how very wrong you were, and are trying to hide behind offering a wager with unfair, unrepresentative terms.

Didn't I already specifically say that Brady would sit if the game was already a blowout? Why should I lose if Brady happens to get injured in the first quarter of Week 15?

Why would you fear these terms?

Oh, yeah - because I already showed you how the only two teams who ever met our criteria handled it the way I said they would, and exactly opposite how you and Naj incorrectly surmised!

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
Post Oak,

So now you want any quarter that he plays in counting... and you're moving your line to 1.75 from the previous 2.5

Interesting how I offered 2 and you feel you must drop the line to ~1 (with your ridiculous contingency) to have an edge.

Hrm... I wonder if thats in line with what you said at all earlier.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was talking to Naj, not you.

This is what Naj had said:

[ QUOTE ]

A team with a locked up #1 seed will rest all their key players for 3-4 quarters.


[/ QUOTE ]

This would equate to an O/U of 2.5 being an automatic win for the under. So why in the world would he offer an O/U of 4.5???

If he wants to negotiate on how we determine how many quarters are played, then I am fine with that. There are 3 reasons I added the "any series" stipulation:

1. although his claims would lead to an O/U of 2.5, I agreed to allow 3.5
2. there is no mention of Brady injuries, which works against me
3. there is no mention of blowout games, which works against me

Unlike you and Naj, my offers actually match what has been claimed by both sides. Your offers are totally unrepresentative of what either side has said.

[Thremp]

PO,

You're a complete joke. You've misrepresented your position in an effort to save face and its completely apparent. You try to back these devil advocate positions (much like your "analysis" of the std deviation of season wins in baseball) and then when challenged on them immediately backpedal off of what you had claimed and throw an entire mirage of random clauses and minutiae to distract from that fact you are unwilling to back your analysis with dollars. IIRC ImBen challenged on the inherent volatility of young players as per the Devil Rays organization and you cited something about Wong's text (which assumes perfect information). Here we have a similar case where you said that in the following games we could see starters for 2-3Q per game. I was offering o2 for you which would be a 25% assuming the distribution is even (it obviously is not and the edge if you ever believed the [censored] you spew would be very large). At this point you realized the error of your ways and then included some drivel about injuries, blowout games, making any quarter in which the starting QB plays count for a full quarter played (Since obv one snap = full quarter in total bets).

I could care less what Naj said. I am correct in this matter and you are incorrect. My wager is open for you to take up. Hopefully your reading comp skills have improved.

[domer2]

Utah you seriously laid -1600 on that New England prop?

By my estimates, that prop is worth $23 when factoring in the correct line and comparing it to a risk-free investment of 5%. Hardly seems worth it, considering the team looks unbeatable at this point.