NCAA BB Game of the Century - Louisville +2 vs. Kentucky

[bills217]

Sygamel,

My apologies to you and everyone else who followed me. I lost right along with you.

That said, I stick by everything I said in my original post. U of L wins this game 60-70% of the time. No one wins when they make 9 of their first 37 field goals. It happens.

If you had told me David Padgett would play 88 seconds in the first half due to foul trouble, and the all-time U of L 3-point leader, Taquan Dean, would go 5/16, I would've happily taken Kentucky. But that's college basketball for you.

From the tone of your NFL posts, I take it I'd be suffering if I were following your NFL picks. Grade me on the quality of information I gave in my post, not the result.

Better luck next time,

bills217

P.S. I highly recommend Memphis -4 in the NBA tonight. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Write-up in my picks thread.

[ QUOTE ]
If you had told me David Padgett would play 88 seconds in the first half due to foul trouble, and the all-time U of L 3-point leader, Taquan Dean, would go 5/16, I would've happily taken Kentucky. But that's college basketball for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

A great team has good enough depth and talent to withstand and counteract foul trouble/injuries/bad shooting etc. which are all part of the game.

[ QUOTE ]
From the tone of your NFL posts, I take it I'd be suffering if I were following your NFL picks. Grade me on the quality of information I gave in my post, not the result.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you ever read me call any play of mine a "game of the week", "game of the year", "game of the decade" etc. and be as off about a game, I'd voluntarily quit handicapping. Your hubris is what roped people in, that's what you need to understand here.

[CCx]

Syg,

We all get picks wrong, even those that we are so incredibly sure about. You may not post 'game of the year' on any of your picks which is all well and good, but you do put more than one, and sometimes several units on some of your picks. This would indicate that you have a strong, or very strong opinion on said pick. It also costs you a lot of money when you're wrong.

I don't know if the OP is a homer (due to the word 'our' referencing L'Ville in the original post), but he did provide a few nuggets of good information in his case against Kentucky. I'm sure a Kentucky fan could have come by and made a post equal in length the other way if they so desired.

If you took the game and lost based solely on the original post, that's your own fault. If you took the game and lost because of your own capping, well, that's your fault too. If you didn't take the game at all, then you're falling into the 'lowlife cock' group of people on this board who throw negative comments at others when their picks do not pan out whether they followed or not. Comments like "time to find a new hobby bills217" do fit into this category.

Just my .02

[ QUOTE ]
Syg,

We all get picks wrong, even those that we are so incredibly sure about. You may not post 'game of the year' on any of your picks which is all well and good, but you do put more than one, and sometimes several units on some of your picks. This would indicate that you have a strong, or very strong opinion on said pick. It also costs you a lot of money when you're wrong.

I don't know if the OP is a homer (due to the word 'our' referencing L'Ville in the original post), but he did provide a few nuggets of good information in his case against Kentucky. I'm sure a Kentucky fan could have come by and made a post equal in length the other way if they so desired.

If you took the game and lost based solely on the original post, that's your own fault. If you took the game and lost because of your own capping, well, that's your fault too. If you didn't take the game at all, then you're falling into the 'lowlife cock' group of people on this board who throw negative comments at others when their picks do not pan out whether they followed or not. Comments like "time to find a new hobby bills217" do fit into this category.

Just my .02

[/ QUOTE ]

Really, what I'm saying here is "Padgett goes out after 88 seconds" is not an excuse. If the team is good enough to cover +2 and is the game of the century or whatever, they better darn have enough depth to withstand events like this or your handicapping isn't complete enough to ever warrant "games of the century".

I've been wrong plenty this year but failing to take into account pretty foreseeable and somewhat likely events bodes very poorly for a handicapper's future.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if the OP is a homer (due to the word 'our' referencing L'Ville in the original post), but he did provide a few nuggets of good information in his case against Kentucky.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not exactly sure which part you are talking about, but if I did say "our" it was in reference to Kentucky. I am a Kentucky fan, although it might be hard to tell from the OP...very happy to see them beat U of L and play like they did today, but I'm not going to pass up a huge edge if I think I have one.

My biggest play of the year was South Carolina -12 vs. Kentucky in CFB, my next biggest was Kentucky +22.5 vs. Louisville in CFB, won both easily. I take my edges where I think I can get them, period.

I disagree with people who say you shouldn't bet in games involving your own team...I know more and have better information on Kentucky football/basketball than anything else in sports, why should I not take advantage of that? If you can't be honest with yourself about your favorite sports team...then what can you be honest w/ yourself about?

Just wanted to clarify that...I appreciate your support. Hopefully I'll do better in the future, Lord knows I'll never call it the "Game of the Century" again, lol.

Edited to add: I believe I posted both of those CFB picks in this forum, not sure if they can still be accessed or not.

Ccx just wanted to add I don't at all equate 5 unit plays with games of the century etc. At absolute best, they are top games of the week and I've stated at least once that no one should go off the deep end on those plays. I regret if people have played them at higher levels than they deserve. They have a high probability of success but I never express the sort of certitude and hubris that bills217 did on this thread.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Your hubris is what roped people in, that's what you need to understand here.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK I see. I apologize for that...the title of the thread was done somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and also reflects that around here (Kentucky) every UK-U of L game is like the game to end all games. I was very careful not to call it a lock because I see how ppl get flamed around here when they do that, lol, and I understand why, but still...when Scalf did his "electronic security device" picks or someone else does something like that, it's all in good fun, that was my intent. Maybe next time I'll title it the "Game of All Eternity" just for you. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

That said, it was a really strong play for me...I'd rate it in my top ten for this year, though not the very top.

[ QUOTE ]
A great team has good enough depth and talent to withstand and counteract foul trouble/injuries/bad shooting etc. which are all part of the game.


[/ QUOTE ]

This may be true in other sports, or even NCAA BB 10 years ago, but not currently. The talent pool in college is so thin that even the best teams only have a few really good players, even fewer good bigs...you take Redick off Duke, Rondo off UK, Gibson off Texas (see today's game), etc., and those teams are really going to struggle.

And I don't know very many teams that can counteract 9/37 shooting through 25 minutes, although some of the credit obviously goes to Kentucky for that.

[ QUOTE ]
A great team has good enough depth and talent to withstand and counteract foul trouble/injuries/bad shooting etc. which are all part of the game.


[/ QUOTE ]

This may be true in other sports, or even NCAA BB 10 years ago, but not currently. The talent pool in college is so thin that even the best teams only have a few really good players, even fewer good bigs...you take Redick off Duke, Rondo off UK, Gibson off Texas (see today's game), etc., and those teams are really going to struggle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Therefore your bet was weak because a good player getting into early foul trouble certainly isn't outside the realm of possibility, no?

The point is....you really need to think about these things ahead of time before you're so certain a wager is anywhere near "lock" status; otherwise you're likely to get creamed in the long-run.

Edit: and that would be true even if you won the bet. If there's a somewhat likely scenario you failed to account for in your original analysis, it is way off.

[ QUOTE ]
My apologies to you and everyone else who followed me. I lost right along with you.

[/ QUOTE ]
All is cool on my end. I am sure you lost more on this then I did, and I'm sorry you did. A+ for effort put into your post. Better luck on the next one.

not too impressive for the game of the century