Originally posted by Cyanide99
No way is Rawle Tech making it to the Pro Finals.
No way is Rawle Tech making it to the Pro Finals.
BigD123
offline
offline
Originally posted by wombat killer
Originally posted by Cyanide99
No way is Rawle Tech making it to the Pro Finals.
You're one game closer to losing to the Gods in the conference finals, congrats!
Just kidding, just kidding.
Kind of.
Maybe thats just what I hope happens.
Good luck against Tongan
Originally posted by Cyanide99
No way is Rawle Tech making it to the Pro Finals.
You're one game closer to losing to the Gods in the conference finals, congrats!
Just kidding, just kidding.
Kind of.
Maybe thats just what I hope happens.
Good luck against Tongan
joemalaka
offline
offline
Originally posted by joemalaka
Originally posted by kevins4484
well, you are an asshole.
What trash talking. Master!
So what do you think the score of Brisbane vs. Carabao will be? Do you think Carabao can put a good gameplan against Brisbane? I personally think so.
I guess 20-17 with Brisbane winning in a tight one, and Carabao putting together a good D against Brisbane.
Pretty good prediction on my part.
Originally posted by kevins4484
well, you are an asshole.
What trash talking. Master!
So what do you think the score of Brisbane vs. Carabao will be? Do you think Carabao can put a good gameplan against Brisbane? I personally think so.
I guess 20-17 with Brisbane winning in a tight one, and Carabao putting together a good D against Brisbane.
Pretty good prediction on my part.
vorenus73
offline
offline
Originally posted by atm490
Originally posted by Ballbright
There are those of you who think I'm an asshole, and that's fine; but I doubt anyone here (save a few idiots on the Bandit's team, yes Daman I'm referring to you) doubts the effacy of the formula I created, and its predictive powers.
"Effacy" is not a word. So I do doubt your formula's "effacy".
That being said, at this point, I have no reason to agree with or doubt your formula's "effectiveness" or perhaps "efficacy". Can you reveal the formula? Otherwise, we can only assume that these are random numbers...
1. Mathematicians aren't known for strong spelling skills. The fact that he can't spell efficacy gives me more confidence in his mathematical abilities.
2. YOU can assume these are random numbers if you want... which would also mean assuming some guy wasted an hour or two of his life "making up" false percentages to ignite discussion on an MMORPG message board... but I believe that yes, even though the formula is not revealed *gasp*, these are not random numbers.
Originally posted by Ballbright
There are those of you who think I'm an asshole, and that's fine; but I doubt anyone here (save a few idiots on the Bandit's team, yes Daman I'm referring to you) doubts the effacy of the formula I created, and its predictive powers.
"Effacy" is not a word. So I do doubt your formula's "effacy".
That being said, at this point, I have no reason to agree with or doubt your formula's "effectiveness" or perhaps "efficacy". Can you reveal the formula? Otherwise, we can only assume that these are random numbers...
1. Mathematicians aren't known for strong spelling skills. The fact that he can't spell efficacy gives me more confidence in his mathematical abilities.
2. YOU can assume these are random numbers if you want... which would also mean assuming some guy wasted an hour or two of his life "making up" false percentages to ignite discussion on an MMORPG message board... but I believe that yes, even though the formula is not revealed *gasp*, these are not random numbers.
killertoad
offline
offline
Originally posted by Cyanide99
No way is Rawle Tech making it to the Pro Finals.
Maybe not..but we're still in it. Unlike some other team I heard of...
No way is Rawle Tech making it to the Pro Finals.
Maybe not..but we're still in it. Unlike some other team I heard of...
Revolution
offline
offline
"Emerald City-- 12-4 overall; 3-4 vs. playoff teams; 0 quality wins. Average score differential vs. playoff teams was -.25 points"
0 quality wins? I hope you are meaning in the playoffs. PS, EVERY win in the playoffs is a quality win, and we made it to the 2nd round last year. We had one quality win.
Oh, and yeah, emerald city is GREATLY underestimated. We were hit hard with a good team, and only got beat by 6. We were ahead until the 4th. The part that really counted...
Nevertheless, our year has not come yet, but with the team we have, we will do more than get recognition next year. We will be the buzz of Alpha, and we will earn EVERYONE'S respect.
0 quality wins? I hope you are meaning in the playoffs. PS, EVERY win in the playoffs is a quality win, and we made it to the 2nd round last year. We had one quality win.
Oh, and yeah, emerald city is GREATLY underestimated. We were hit hard with a good team, and only got beat by 6. We were ahead until the 4th. The part that really counted...
Nevertheless, our year has not come yet, but with the team we have, we will do more than get recognition next year. We will be the buzz of Alpha, and we will earn EVERYONE'S respect.
sears3820
offline
offline
Originally posted by joemalaka
Pretty good prediction on my part.
Don't hurt your shoulder patting yourself on the back.
Pretty good prediction on my part.
Don't hurt your shoulder patting yourself on the back.
Thorrig
offline
offline
Originally posted by Revolution
"Emerald City-- 12-4 overall; 3-4 vs. playoff teams; 0 quality wins. Average score differential vs. playoff teams was -.25 points"
0 quality wins? I hope you are meaning in the playoffs. PS, EVERY win in the playoffs is a quality win, and we made it to the 2nd round last year. We had one quality win.
Oh, and yeah, emerald city is GREATLY underestimated. We were hit hard with a good team, and only got beat by 6. We were ahead until the 4th. The part that really counted...
Nevertheless, our year has not come yet, but with the team we have, we will do more than get recognition next year. We will be the buzz of Alpha, and we will earn EVERYONE'S respect.
Ballbright is only looking at this season's performance - not last. Also, a "quality" win is by more than 7 points against a team that's won at least two-thirds of their games.
"Emerald City-- 12-4 overall; 3-4 vs. playoff teams; 0 quality wins. Average score differential vs. playoff teams was -.25 points"
0 quality wins? I hope you are meaning in the playoffs. PS, EVERY win in the playoffs is a quality win, and we made it to the 2nd round last year. We had one quality win.
Oh, and yeah, emerald city is GREATLY underestimated. We were hit hard with a good team, and only got beat by 6. We were ahead until the 4th. The part that really counted...
Nevertheless, our year has not come yet, but with the team we have, we will do more than get recognition next year. We will be the buzz of Alpha, and we will earn EVERYONE'S respect.
Ballbright is only looking at this season's performance - not last. Also, a "quality" win is by more than 7 points against a team that's won at least two-thirds of their games.
JuniorMcSpiffy
offline
offline
Originally posted by killertoad
The guy went 6 - 2 in his predictions. You can't knock that.
And the two he missed were his 2 lowest confidence ratings.
The guy went 6 - 2 in his predictions. You can't knock that.
And the two he missed were his 2 lowest confidence ratings.
billyvassi
offline
offline
Well he picked the higher seed in every single game. Naturally you're gonna have a high % of correct predictions.
Last edited May 29, 2008 18:03:47
JuniorMcSpiffy
offline
offline
Originally posted by billyvassi
Well he picked the higher seed in every single game. Naturally you're gonna have a high % of correct predictions.
I gotta say.... I think Ballbright is an ass, but credit where credit is due. His formula didn't pick the two upsets, but they were the only two where the confidence score was under 80%, and they were both WELL below. I'm gonna give him at least partial credit on those two.
Well he picked the higher seed in every single game. Naturally you're gonna have a high % of correct predictions.
I gotta say.... I think Ballbright is an ass, but credit where credit is due. His formula didn't pick the two upsets, but they were the only two where the confidence score was under 80%, and they were both WELL below. I'm gonna give him at least partial credit on those two.
Last edited May 29, 2008 18:08:07
billyvassi
offline
offline
Oh I wasn't saying he just went thru and picked the higher seed. Just saying that since his formula predicted the higher seeds win, it's a good % chance it'll be right.
It'll be interesting to see in the later rounds.
It'll be interesting to see in the later rounds.
atm490
offline
offline
Originally posted by killertoad
The guy went 6 - 2 in his predictions. You can't knock that.
Edited / deleted because people said what I was saying before I could post.
The guy went 6 - 2 in his predictions. You can't knock that.
Edited / deleted because people said what I was saying before I could post.
Last edited May 29, 2008 18:11:20
JuniorMcSpiffy
offline
offline
All I know is, I don't care if his formula picks Fiji as the underdog against Canberra. Just have the confidence rating in that being around 40%.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
