What Vegas and the National Media is not talking about

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-30-2022, 02:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: My argument is not irrelevant at all.

Say you see a kid make a full court basketball shot.  You tell him that was just luck because you know that a kid is going to make less than one percent of those type shots.  But the kid says "That was just a perfect shot on my part.  Doesn't matter that I miss the shot 99.9% of the time.  You can't consider all those other misses. There was no luck involved in the shot I just made."

Is the kid right?

Of course he's right. The time he made it, he threw it on the exact trajectory necessary for it to go it. 

There was no magic luck fairy to sprinkle luck dust on him before the shot.



NFL history doesn't matter in regards to the Bengals play that converted 3rd and 27. It was the result of the right defense and two professional athletes making a play. The exact circumstances necessary to convert where there. No magic luck fairy in sight. 

[fredtoast]

(08-30-2022, 02:45 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I gave you my answer. It doesn't matter because you will attribute them all to luck regardless of what happens. 

How the hell does my opinion of your answer make it impossible for you to answer?  Where do you even come up with something like this?

The fact is that you know the truth but you won't admit it.  The Bengals would be lucky to convert even one of ten 3rd-and-25 situations.  NFL history proves that I am correct.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-30-2022, 02:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes it does.

I asked for a percentage.

What was your answer?

What percentage of your future cases will you win?

This shouldn't be a tough question for you since you're experienced in this area. 

No need for specifics, just give me a number. 

[fredtoast]

So far not one person who felt they were big and tough enough to call me a troll is willing to answer a simple question.

Maybe a mod should lock this thread to save them from further embarrassment.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-30-2022, 02:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They are both extremely rare.

Everyone agrees that rarity alone is enough to prove luck in a kid making a half court shot.

Well, first it was a full court shot, don't know why you're changing it.

Anyways, yes, we all agree because kids are weak and probably can't even hit a free throw with any regularity let alone a full court shot. It's not just the rarity, it's the unspoken understanding that kids are not professional athletes.

(08-30-2022, 02:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But then they all spin around and claim "rarity does not prove luck" whne it comes to converting a 3rd-and-25.

Because now we're talking about professional athletes completing a play that they have already demonstrated that they can make and have made it numerous times just never on a 3rd-and-27.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-30-2022, 02:47 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Or the peyote...

I see Fred as more of a magic mushrooms guy. 

[*PhilHos*]

(08-30-2022, 02:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How the hell does my opinion of your answer make it impossible for you to answer?  Where do you even come up with something like this?

The fact is that you know the truth but you won't admit it.  The Bengals would be lucky to convert even one of ten 3rd-and-25 situations.  NFL history proves that I am correct.

Except they've already demonstrated they can convert it and they didn't need luck to do so. So, by your logic even if they only convert 1 time, it wouldn't be due to luck because they've already done it.

[fredtoast]

(08-30-2022, 02:52 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: What percentage of your future cases will you win?

This shouldn't be a tough question for you since you're experienced in this area. 

No need for specifics, just give me a number. 

About 50/50 on jury trials.

You are correct that it was pretty easy for me to answer that question based on my years of experience.

Wonder why I am the only one capable of something so simple?

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-30-2022, 02:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So far not one person who felt they were big and tough enough to call me a troll is willing to answer a simple question.

Maybe a mod should lock this thread to save them from further embarrassment.

Nono. You're not getting out of this that easy.  

[fredtoast]

(08-30-2022, 02:54 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Except they've already demonstrated they can convert it and they didn't need luck to do so. So, by your logic even if they only convert 1 time, it wouldn't be due to luck because they've already done it.

Sorry Phil, but I do not see your answer.

What percentage do you claim they will convert (assuming no luck involved)?

[fredtoast]

(08-30-2022, 02:55 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Nono. You're not getting out of this that easy.  

You guys are the ones embarrassing yourselves by refusing to answer a simple question.

I can do this all day.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(08-30-2022, 02:54 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I see Fred as more of a magic mushrooms guy. 

I could see that lol

[*PhilHos*]

(08-30-2022, 02:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So far not one person who felt they were big and tough enough to call me a troll is willing to answer a simple question.

Maybe a mod should lock this thread to save them from further embarrassment.

Correction: no one has answered me in the only way I'll accept therefore I'm gong to cry like a baby.

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-30-2022, 02:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: About 50/50 on jury trials.

You are correct that it was pretty easy for me to answer that question based on my years of experience.

Wonder why I am the only one capable of something so simple?

But how much of it will be luck? 

The only fair answer to the question is, it's not very likely to happen unless you have the perfect storm, which the Bengals happened to have on that single play. 

[*PhilHos*]

(08-30-2022, 02:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry Phil, but I do not see your answer.

What percentage do you claim they will convert (assuming no luck involved)?

I'll answer that when you can point to my video I linked and show exactly where the luck was.

Remember, I asked first. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(08-30-2022, 02:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You guys are the ones embarrassing yourselves by refusing to answer a simple question.

I can do this all day.

Properly motivated, so can i. 

I'm relatively certain i've answered the question adequately. 

[*Synric*]

(08-30-2022, 02:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: About 50/50 on jury trials.

You are correct that it was pretty easy for me to answer that question based on my years of experience.

Wonder why I am the only one capable of something so simple?

That is not what you are arguing. 

You are saying something like if you have 101 theft cases and 100 are convicted guilty the 101st automatically is guilty but by some random cosmic event he was found not guilty and it's pure luck.


This is incorrect every case is situational just like Football is situational. Is it rare to conver a 3rd in 25+ sure but the play was not a fluke or luck the situation allowed the Bengals to capitalize on an opportunity. 

[fredtoast]

(08-30-2022, 02:59 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I'll answer that when you can point to my video I linked and show exactly where the luck was.

Remember, I asked first. 

But you have already admitted that it would be impossible for you to point out the "luck" of an obviously lucky event.  Why would you demand that I do something that you admit you can't.

Why do you keep returning to this same argument that I have already addressed a dozen times.

[fredtoast]

(08-30-2022, 03:04 PM)Synric Wrote: You are saying something like if you have 101 theft cases and 100 are convicted guilty the 101st automatically is guilty but by some random cosmic event he was found not guilty and it's pure luck.

But this is absolutely correct.

If in the entire criminal justice system 99% of trials ended in conviction then I would agree that there is some luck involved in an acquittal.  I would have no problem with that.

If you claim that the 99% result is due to the "situation" then there is luck involved in being in that 1% of "situations".

[*PhilHos*]

(08-30-2022, 03:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But you have already admitted that it would be impossible for you to point out the "luck" of an obviously lucky event.  Why would you demand that I do something that you admit you can't.

No, I haven't. I've said you wouldn't need to on a kid that made a full court shot because, as I just recently explained, we all understand kids are not professional athletes and so kids aren't gong to be making full court shots with any regularity. 

However, when it comes to football played by professional athletes, it's quite simple to see when luck is involved, because you will see a defender fall down, or run into his own teammate, or a ball be tipped up into the air going directly to someone that was not the intended target and go, gee, that was kinda lucky.

(08-30-2022, 03:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why do you keep returning to this same argument that I have already addressed a dozen times.

Because you keep trotting out the same argument that I have already refuted a dozen times because ignoring it is the only option you have left (well, except for actually acknowledging you were wrong and i am right).