CWS 2022
- Thread starter ELTEXAN
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 28,777
- Reaction score
- 43,502
- Bookie:
- $ 27,500.00
- Location
- Fence Rider Extraordinaire
Today's Schedule
Elimination Games
Game 9: No. 5 Texas A&M vs. Notre Dame, 2 p.m. (ET), ESPN
Game 10: No. 14 Auburn vs. Arkansas, 7 p.m. (ET), ESPN
Elimination Games
Game 9: No. 5 Texas A&M vs. Notre Dame, 2 p.m. (ET), ESPN
Game 10: No. 14 Auburn vs. Arkansas, 7 p.m. (ET), ESPN
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 28,777
- Reaction score
- 43,502
- Bookie:
- $ 27,500.00
- Location
- Fence Rider Extraordinaire
36 of the last 40 CWS Champions won their first game in Omaha.
That would leave Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Ole Miss, and Arkansas with the best odds of winning it all.
That would leave Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Ole Miss, and Arkansas with the best odds of winning it all.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 28,777
- Reaction score
- 43,502
- Bookie:
- $ 27,500.00
- Location
- Fence Rider Extraordinaire
Let's see how this works out.
UNO mathematician's unique formula predicts CWS title for Stanford
The formula computed roughly 100,000 different scenarios that were based on win-loss records, head-to-head matchups, national rankings and several other factorswww.ketv.com
- No. 3 Stanford (21.3% chance to win)
- No. 16 Notre Dame (16.3% chance to win)
- No. 5 Texas A&M (15.3% chance to win)
- No. 24 Auburn (12.4% chance to win)
- No. 13 Arkansas (10.7% chance to win)
- No. 19 Texas (9.3% chance to win)
- No. 22 Oklahoma (7.5% chance to win)
- NR Ole Miss (6.9% chance to win)
As my grandpappy used to say...... "That's why they put erasers on pencils."
The top team is eliminated and the bottom two teams have the best odds of winning it all since they won their first games and get a break being in their respective winners brackets.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Posts
- 14,712
- Reaction score
- 11,289
- Bookie:
- $ 6,000.00
This was something that was brewing all season.. had they not have things break the way they did vs ECU in that second game, he would have been fired then..
Guy is a good coach, and can recruit arms but there was a big disconnect.. I get it that once Witt went down, the hoss of the starters, it was going to be tough.
Bats got them out a lot of tough situations, but the pitching has been iffy. The bullpen is weak too. Pierce needs to hit on whomever he brings in as a replacement, because they are about to enter a conference that plays some serious ball too..
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 10,115
- Reaction score
- 7,033
- Bookie:
- $ 40,000.00
You’d have to recalculate after half those teams losing their second games.
The overall odds doesn’t hold over.
It’s like saying 100% of the champs are the ones that made it to the cws, and then not understand that that particular odds doesn’t hold over if a team loses their first game.
Right now, the teams with one loss will have similar much more odds despite which lost it’s first game.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 28,777
- Reaction score
- 43,502
- Bookie:
- $ 27,500.00
- Location
- Fence Rider Extraordinaire
Does everything always have to go over your empty head, ElDumbo?
The starting point is from the opening games.
Naturally there would be different odds for teams that started (2-0) as compared to teams that started (1-0) then (1-1) after their 2nd game and had to go through the losers bracket.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 10,115
- Reaction score
- 7,033
- Bookie:
- $ 40,000.00
God you’re dumb. Yes. It’s from the opening games, and then YOU extended that to the teams that already lost a game but happened to win the first one. YOU wrote that. YOU did.
God you’re stupid.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 28,777
- Reaction score
- 43,502
- Bookie:
- $ 27,500.00
- Location
- Fence Rider Extraordinaire
You're trying to add ElDumbo fuckery to it.
36 out of 40 CWS champions won their opening game.
i.e. Only 4 of the last 40 CWS Champions lost their opening game and started (0-1).
i.e. The odds of winning the CWS are heavily against a team that loses it's opening game.
It's that simple, stupid.
LMFAO!!
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 10,115
- Reaction score
- 7,033
- Bookie:
- $ 40,000.00
You are literally contradicting yourself. Lol.
You admit that the odds change after you lose a subsequent game, and you are the one that extended the opening odds to the subsequent one-loss teams in your original post .. Jesus. You can’t be this stupid.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 28,777
- Reaction score
- 43,502
- Bookie:
- $ 27,500.00
- Location
- Fence Rider Extraordinaire
No I'm not. What little grey matter you have has short circuited on something very simple, YET AGAIN.
v v v v... YOU!! ...v v v v
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 10,115
- Reaction score
- 7,033
- Bookie:
- $ 40,000.00
You lumped certain one loss teams in with the undefeated teams, and you made a distinction between the one loss teams on whether they lost their first or second game… and you used the obtuse 36 of 40 odds… that is patently false and completely the wrong way to use that stat.No I'm not. What little grey matter you have has short circuited on something very simple, YET AGAIN.
You ARE SERIOUSLY that dumb.
No one can help you. You ARE that stupid.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 28,777
- Reaction score
- 43,502
- Bookie:
- $ 27,500.00
- Location
- Fence Rider Extraordinaire
When ElDumbo goes clubbin'
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 28,777
- Reaction score
- 43,502
- Bookie:
- $ 27,500.00
- Location
- Fence Rider Extraordinaire
That's because those teams DID NOT lose their opening game.
The chances of a team winning the NC increase significantly by winning it's opener. A 36-4 margin.
tejas lost it's opener and are now eliminated. No natty for the donghorns.
Stanford lost it's opener and are now eliminated. No natty for the trees.
The odds are heavily against A&M and Auburn (who lost their openers) to win the natty.
It's really quite simple to comprehend, but then there's you.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 10,115
- Reaction score
- 7,033
- Bookie:
- $ 40,000.00
You. Dumb. Fuck.
The teams that have one loss RIGHT NOW have much closer odds to each other than the teams that “won their first games.”
And your post lumped SOME ONE LOSS teams RIGHT NOW with undefeated teams. That’s PATENTLY the wrong way to use the 36/40 odds history.
God. You can’t be helped.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 41,835
- Reaction score
- 50,536
- Bookie:
- $ 10,650.00
There’s a game on. Can one of y’all just be the bigger man and stop engaging with the other. You’re both weak minded idiots that lack situational awareness as far as I’m concerned. Nobody else cares
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 28,777
- Reaction score
- 43,502
- Bookie:
- $ 27,500.00
- Location
- Fence Rider Extraordinaire
Stop adding dumbfuckery to a simple stat.
36 of the last 40 National Champions won their opening game.
Gawd you're stupid.
LOL
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Posts
- 8,019
- Reaction score
- 9,480
- Bookie:
- $ 4,540.00
What are atm fans cheering? "balls in"?
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 28,777
- Reaction score
- 43,502
- Bookie:
- $ 27,500.00
- Location
- Fence Rider Extraordinaire
Just use the iggy feature. That'll fix your sore vagina.
Do you need instructions?