Recent content by finesse

Not math and and I'm limited. Let's not forget, I was a blue collar worker with a high school education with an empirical knowledge of carpentry and bridge (hence, probabilities) and merely opinions backed by some small sense of curiosity for everything else. Any value you give my opinion is at...

Card play is 95% probabilities and you can make the case it should be a 100% but sometimes you just get a stone cold read at the table on what is really going on.

Probably less than that. There's 8 chances and probably well less than 100 teams to consider. Call it 96 and it's basically 12 to 1 that they get a top eight. That adds some windage for injuries and such.

Oh, I used to play bridge with and against a number of world champions including Bermuda Bowl winners. I had some fair success but pursuing it very far to the point it would pay for itself was way too much of a commitment in terms of time and money for a blue collar worker with three kids.

It's a ridiculous consideration. It would still be ridiculous if it was the start of next season and we knew the rosters for everybody. You have 8 chances against the field and nothing but estimated talent and fit to go on. Somebody would have to give me some serious odds to touch it.

I already edited and clarified I think. He seems blissfully ignorant of probabilities and when I pointed it out, doubled up on it. Frankly, I overreacted and should have just let it go or at least approached it differently.

I'm being difficult because you're asking absolutely idiotic questions offensive to anyone who has the remotest understanding of probabilities. As a fervent participant, sometimes in world class competition, of a game that primarily involves such, offends me. It's worse when you think you fixed...

Which has arbitrarily been determined to be five years. That's not actually a long enough period to establish a real consistency. A trend, yes but you don't have to go back very far to see that consistency is relatively recent except for Duke.

That's still a totally unreasonable bet. I wouldn't bet on any specific team to be a 1 or 2 seed on the first day of the season next year even if all the rosters were complete. It would be a sucker bet then and damned sure would be now. Are you really that math challenged?

I wouldn't bet on any team in the country to be a 1 or 2 seed next year. What kind of sucker bet is that?

I almost never watch television. This is certainly not worth making an exception. I'll read and listen to music like I usually do and post on here as my mind wanders.

Adderall stock just went up.

It would help if you'd define consistency. Purdue and Arizona have had some embarrassing flameouts and bad seasons in the last ten years. Connecticut has had two championships but several years they didn't make the tournament and several others they lost in the first or second round. Duke has...

That's awfully hypocritical of you.

That's true that the advantages weren't the same. It's true Hubert didn't start off under probation with recruiting restrictions. He also didn't have the direct pipeline to the talent in New York and surrounds that Dean did and has a lot more competition for talent. At that time UCLA and...