| Author: |
[Systems & Strategies] Topic: MLB system releases... |
|
BattyBatty |
 View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Prospect
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 7
Location: |
#2126 Posted: 10/10/2009 6:42:56 PM
Thank you! I was booted off this thread earlier in the year because I questioned the methods of this thread. I was insulted and made to feel that my valid questions were ungrateful and petty.
It would be great if some of your valid questions were addressed in a succinct explanation, instead of the vague answers and links that some on this thread direct your way.
I agree with your assessment that there is something to the Sabermetric study of baseball, but until the validity of this thread's methods can be replicated (or even explained), I too will dismiss it as hogwash.
Your cake analogy is perfect as well, kudos.
|
|
quote |
|
MeMyselfandEye |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Rookie
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 691
Location: |
#2127 Posted: 10/11/2009 12:36:06 AM
We could debate many things...but the fact remains SN won 70% of his plays as posted. Most of them Dogs and Runlines. That is fact.
I was sincere in my posting, which was a friggin ROAD MAP, to how this works. I am not sure why you choose to enter an arena, demand to know what is going on, get upset when you do not get want you want..then proceed to post as you do. Much like a child would do.
Tallguy has a career as a creative writer...maybe not so much as a baseball handicpper. BOTH of you have now posted a total of 7 times each.......so you now both have the attention you wanted. Please post something that contributes to this thread...
|
|
quote |
|
kreatture |
RSI  |
Veteran
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2312
Location: Nova Scotia |
#2128 Posted: 10/11/2009 2:42:22 AM
But then again, I love sports and understand every stat imaginable. I get what RBI, R, S, D, T, HR, R, SB, BB, K and all the other abbreviated stats stand for. I also understand baseball and know all the teams, players, stadiums, etc. And I am capable of reading and understanding trends and sorting out which ones are applicable to this season's analysis. Maybe the problem isn't in lack of ability to understand the mathematical formula so much, but it is the inability to decipher the individual baseball stat abbreviations, and a lack of knowledge on baseball itself..? I know I probably couldn't jump right onto Wall Street and figure out everything I need to know by reading a few pages of information..
A number of people successfully joined into the discussion of ideas and performed their own calculations, based on the information throughout this thread. The fact that over +400 Units were gained in MLB 2009 gives this thread enough merit to stand on it's own, no matter what anyone has to say about it.
The cake analogy was funny, I had a nice little "HaHa" when I read it, simply due to the creativity of it. However, it was way off-base and out of line. When you really step back and look at it, it just breeds ignorance, case-in-point by the following post immediately after.
I am going to go all the way back to Page 1 of this thread, and re-work my way through it. Since my understanding of baseball is greater than my understanding of crying and complaining, I'm sure I won't have any trouble with it. If for some reason I do tho, I'll post my thoughts..
But it won't be for a few days.. since tomorrow is another slice of heaven day, for it's NFL Sunday! 
Cheers 
|
|
quote |
|
MontanaMax |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes | |
Prospect
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 473
Location: Pennsylvania |
#2129 Posted: 10/11/2009 9:56:30 AM 
Quality Kreature............
Look both ways before you cross the street
Oh yeah.................
And try it with out anyone holding your hand
There is no problem with not understanding something politely and seeking clarification from the community
That's all..........
So Julia Childs
If you can bake a better cake
We're all for it.......
All the info is documented for the research and methods needed
This was new to me too - I never bitched about it
The only ingredient missing is common sense on how to apply it to the picks and wager amounts
That's up to us..........
They don't teach that in cooking class
|
|
quote |
|
tallguyindc |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
Prospect
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 419
Location: |
#2130 Posted: 10/11/2009 1:34:02 PM But then again, I love sports and understand every stat imaginable. I get what RBI, R, S, D, T, HR, R, SB, BB, K and all the other abbreviated stats stand for. I also understand baseball and know all the teams, players, stadiums, etc. And I am capable of reading and understanding trends and sorting out which ones are applicable to this season's analysis. Maybe the problem isn't in lack of ability to understand the mathematical formula so much, but it is the inability to decipher the individual baseball stat abbreviations, and a lack of knowledge on baseball itself..?
I get it. There is a formula posted somewhere. I can find it and read it. It has a lot of fancy math like logarithms, base-n numbers, exponentials, etc. I have no problem with that, but it all falls apart because I've never actually watched a baseball game and I have no idea what an RBI is. I think that a strike has something to do with labor strife and that a ball is just what they use to play with. Why exactly is their a stat for "outs" but no stat for "ins"?
To put it mildly, you're wrong. I've been studying baseball and sabermetrics for years. I'm sure there are stats I've never heard of (TFFBRS - Triples Following Foul Balls to the Right Side????) but I have a pretty firm grip on the basic stats and new stats are just recalculations of the old basic ones.
All the info is documented for the research and methods needed
This is becoming really comical. Every time that somebody says that nothing is documented, somebody else comes in and says "No...No...It really is" and leaves it at that. If it is really documented, provide a link to the documentation. Somewhere, somebody must have explained the process in detail. Right????
|
|
quote |
|
|
|
snyder9 |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Prospect
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 71
Location: |
#2131 Posted: 10/11/2009 2:22:14 PM
Please, do try again. |
|
quote |
|
tallguyindc |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
Prospect
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 419
Location: |
#2132 Posted: 10/11/2009 6:21:35 PM I'm sorry to hear you disapprove. The bottom line is I'm not here to entertain you.
I came here initially to get more information on a new system that sounded intriguing. Now that I see that there is no system, I guess I'm staying to expose what I view as a fraud.
I hope I'm wrong and that there really is a system, but I can think of no logical reason why the system's promoters would choose to obfuscate instead of explain if this was legitimate. |
|
quote |
|
tallguyindc |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
Prospect
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 419
Location: |
#2133 Posted: 10/11/2009 6:21:44 PM I'm sorry to hear you disapprove. The bottom line is I'm not here to entertain you.
I came here initially to get more information on a new system that sounded intriguing. Now that I see that there is no system, I guess I'm staying to expose what I view as a fraud.
I hope I'm wrong and that there really is a system, but I can think of no logical reason why the system's promoters would choose to obfuscate instead of explain if this was legitimate. |
|
quote |
|
tallguyindc |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
Prospect
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 419
Location: |
#2134 Posted: 10/11/2009 6:21:53 PM I'm sorry to hear you disapprove. The bottom line is I'm not here to entertain you.
I came here initially to get more information on a new system that sounded intriguing. Now that I see that there is no system, I guess I'm staying to expose what I view as a fraud.
I hope I'm wrong and that there really is a system, but I can think of no logical reason why the system's promoters would choose to obfuscate instead of explain if this was legitimate. |
|
quote |
|
tallguyindc |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
Prospect
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 419
Location: |
#2135 Posted: 10/11/2009 6:22:49 PM Sorry about the multiple postings. Technical difficulty... |
|
quote |
|
Leprechaun |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
Prospect
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 316
Location: United States |
#2136 Posted: 10/11/2009 6:57:18 PM
Tallguy...you started off with the right intentions...attempting to read through the thread and understanding. You even asked some great questions. You just ran out of patience before you could get through it and you shut down. You asked a question...the answer was "read the thread" and some assorted links. You didn't do either of those and then ask the same question again. When you got the same reply, "read the thread", you say the answer is not there and demand summary of the thread. You get your summary but you get angry that you don't understand even though you were already told that reading the thread would give you understanding. Hmmmmm. This has happened about 20 times in this thread. Memyselfandeye is trying to help you and I applaud his efforts. You are NOT listening! Sounds to me like you don't want to read the whole thread. I hate to break it to you, but that's the only way you're going to understand what is going on here.
Listen to what Kreature said (one of the great contributors to this forum and this thread)...you can't turn up on Wall Street and expect to understand everything after reading a few hundred pages of material. To follow your own analogy...even Emeril Lagasse didn't learn how to bake a cake from merely following a recipe. Kreature tried to explain that to you...this thread contains something much more organic than a plug and play formula. It's about using formulas and applying them in a situational manner. In order to do that...there are some things you have to understand about the game. It seems from your posts that this part isn't the problem for you.
You want a protocol. Memyselfandeye gave it to you in post #2124. If you truly want to understand this thread, print out that post, read it 5 or 6 times and then go back through this thread from the beginning. You can do us all a favor...don't post in the thread again until you have read the ENTIRE thread. Read it twice if you have too. Then reread post #2124 AGAIN and you will see it was right there in front of you the entire time. Nobody is hiding anything from you and we are not being cryptic by saying the information you seek is in this thread. The reason you keep getting that answer is because it IS contained in the thread. Nobody is trying to make a fool of you. If you read the whole thread, I think you'll find that there were many contributors that started out a little confused as well...but they did not let their patience get the better of them.
Since you seem like a logical person, you can't possibly think this entire thread is BS. The wins are clearly documented and it was not done by magic. Because you are frustrated and don't understand it completely yet is not a reason to come here and bash it...nor is it a reason to be angry. Your posts tell me that you lack understanding but not intelligence. It is not the "perfect" cake as you put it. What you don't see is there is no cake...only ingredients. If you want to make a cake, take these ingredients and add your personal touch. This thread is not for everyone. This approach is not for everyone. If you understand baseruns, then you already have one of the most important ingredients. If you understand sabermetrics then you have another piece of ammunition. The next step is finding a way to use that knowledge. There is no perfect way. That is the essence of this thread. Use baseruns...apply sabermetrics, apply situational analysis, apply unit management (the hardest part in my opinion). That's the message. Understanding these concepts takes time...the links you are directed to are invaluable in order to gain understanding. That is why you keep being sent to them. Many people don't seem to understand the information in this thread or why those links are posted. To understand the threads contents does not require a Ph. D. in mathematics,but it does require you to actually do some reading!! Take some time to read and learn and you'll be well on your way. If you don't want to take the time, then fine, just say nothing and observe because you really are embarrasing yourself. If you read the entire thread, you'll understand why. |
|
quote |
|
kreatture |
RSI |
Veteran
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2312
Location: Nova Scotia |
#2137 Posted: 10/11/2009 6:57:52 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by tallguyindc:
To put it mildly, you're wrong. I've been studying baseball and sabermetrics for years. I'm sure there are stats I've never heard of (TFFBRS - Triples Following Foul Balls to the Right Side????) but I have a pretty firm grip on the basic stats and new stats are just recalculations of the old basic ones. Ahh.. well it seems we have found your problem!! You are unaware of the new rule changes and new stat categories! No wonder none of this makes sense to you!  Don't worry, my friend, I have found the easy solution for you.. and in the spirit of the Halloween season, I will even grant your request in link form, here you go! www.sabermetricformulas.net Cheers |
|
quote |
|
kreatture |
RSI |
Veteran
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2312
Location: Nova Scotia |
#2138 Posted: 10/11/2009 7:29:30 PM
Great post Leprechaun, spot on
When I said maybe it was due to a lack of understanding baseball, I meant possibly a lack of baseball handicapping knowledge.
I've been studying baseball and sabermetrics for years
Just because you have studied something for years, doesn't necessarily mean you understand it, or are good at it..
Everyone has tried to be nice and provide you with what you asked.. the 4 points of this whole thing have been posted throughout this thread, please go to the websites referenced and actually try to take the try to comprehend their contents.. if you truly understand sabermetrics, you should have no problem understanding everything just in time for MLB 2010..
I'm bored of this now..
Cheers
|
|
quote |
|
sports_Network |
RSI  |
Veteran
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2030
Location: Nevada |
#2139 Posted: 10/12/2009 11:11:29 AM Base_Runs/Runs_Created experiment is concluded; rated, reliable,consistent ratio of 70% ... Unit Judgement:+428... / exit ยจ[solution]
SN
 09' |
|
quote |
|
elithepunk |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: Pinnacle Sports | |
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 3552
Location: Quebec |
#2140 Posted: 10/12/2009 12:31:02 PM
|
|
quote |
|
mistercash |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Prospect
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 77
Location: South Carolina |
#2141 Posted: 10/15/2009 1:52:18 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by sports_Network:
mlb playoff thread will begin Tuesday 13th 2009
sN
i can't find this thread. has it been posted ? |
|
quote |
|
tallguyindc |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
Prospect
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 419
Location: |
#2142 Posted: 10/15/2009 6:19:45 PM OK, I appear to have launched an emotional response. Perhaps, I was tad trite.
You guys even convinced me that I was a touch dismissive and that I should go back and reanalyze the past posts. I was suspicious, but as I said before I believe in sabermetrics and I think it can be profitable in sports wagering. Hell, it has been profitable in sports wagering. I'm already successful with it. I use an approach different from the one that you guys use but I'm always open to new things.
Anyway, I did go back and reread the posts. I don't think you like what I'm going to say. As a matter of fact, I can pretty much predict the reaction. I'm a loser. I'm embarrassing myself. You aren't really here to help me. You don't have to respond to bottom feeders like me, etc. etc. What you won't hear is a direct answer to the legitimate points that I make.
I'm being respectful and logical and directly responding to the issue. You could try doing the same.
This "system" is a complete and total fraud. There might be some success in the formula he uses. There might not be. Through over 2000 posts, its never directly documented. Every attempt that anybody makes to ask direct questions is obfuscated.
He does post games. He posts 100s of games. Perhaps 1000s. But his true results are never documented. He never posts the units that he bets. Only the units that he "won" after the fact. This allows him to routinely be up +14 units after 6-4 days but only down -2 units after 4-6 days. With the ability to determine bet size after the games are played, its no wonder he is up quite a few units on the year.
When people ask him to explain his unit betting strategy, he directs them to post #508, which can be summed up as "Unit management is really important. Be sure you do it..." When people ask him a second time, he says he already did it. When they point out that #508 doesn't actually say anything useful, he starts to call them names. He also tells them to do their own work and that he isn't really here to help them, etc. He tells them he'll send them the units privately. What exactly is the point of having a public forum?????
Why is he here?
He is here to document his method, of course. Yet the process of "documentation" seems to always leave out the most important details.
I haven't seen him try to sell anything...yet. But I suspect the real reason is to eventually sell his picks and say look I earned a zillion dollars in 2009.
I've invested way too much time in this already. But having gone this far, I would like to warn anyone that might possibly stumble across this post. I have no doubt what the next posts will say: A bunch of personal insults of me, claims that I haven't tried hard enough, etc. He might even include a threat to ban me from the forum, because what good is negativity like mine.
What they won't include is any attempt to document an actual unit management strategy....
You can be profitable with sabermetrics sports wagering but you won't win anywhere near 70% of your bets. Anybody telling you otherwise is a con man operating a shell game.
I had high hopes for this thread but I'm sorely disappointed...
|
|
quote |
|
Insane07 |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1446
Location: Canada |
#2143 Posted: 10/16/2009 12:26:54 AM
|
|
quote |
|
MeMyselfandEye |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Rookie
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 691
Location: |
#2144 Posted: 10/16/2009 12:34:48 AM
If you can get past step #1 - which is using the Base_Runs formula to recreate a 9 inning baseball game - the LAA at NYY game- which is tomorrow evening.and post your results...before I do at 4:00 PM on Friday..then I will understand that you actually know what you are talking about and respect your post.
It is strictly math only following the form set out in this thread...and results vary a bit depending on bullpen pitcher to bullpen pitcher..but you should have a clear lean on tomorrow nights game..forget about step #2, #3, and #4.
I'll post the result of the Base_Runs tomorrow around 4:00 PM and hope to compare.
|
|
quote |
|
tallguyindc |
View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | |
Prospect
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 419
Location: |
#2145 Posted: 10/16/2009 5:45:16 AM OK....Perhaps I was hasty again. I ran the calculations. First of all, I still have a little problem with "following the form set out in this thread". There are multiple versions of the BaseRuns formula and I didn't exactly hear a clear and ringing endorsement of anyone of them.
I'm using the basic version from the Wikipedia page, primarily because it makes things easier since Baseball-reference.com doesn't show pitcher vs hitter SB and CS. I suppose this is a fairly nitpicky point. The other version listed only has minor changes. However, it was still frustrating to read "go to Wikipedia" without clarifying that right off the bat.
Anyway, my understanding is that I'm supposed to use the lifetime numbers of the pitchers vs. all of the hitters currently on the other team. I did this and for Sabathia I got
A= 82
B = 85.58
C=147
D = 6
Outs = 159
BaseRuns = 36.1722
BaseRuns/27Outs = 6.14
Assuming Sabathia pitches 6 innings, Chamberlain, Coke and Rivera each pitch 1, I get the Angels at 4.66
Assuming Lackey pitches 6 and Oliver, Bulger and Fuentes each pitch 1, I get the Yankees at 3.96.
Considering Matchbook currently has the Angels at +166 and the BaseRuns formula is giving the Angels more runs, I presume this means there is a strong lean on the Angels.
Actually, it appears to be even more tilted to the Angels because Coke and Bulger appear to have unusually good and bad numbers vs the other team and there is no guarantee either will play.
I'm curious if you got the same numbers. Believe it or not, I've never had a real problem with the basic concept of using baseruns. My problem was that he said he clearly stated the ideas at the beginning when I don't think he did.
I also think that all of the posters that complained about units had a really good point. You don't get credit for booking a Texas win at a higher unit total than a Seattle loss unless you clearly stated beforehand that you were betting more on Texas than you were on Seattle.
It really looks like revisionist history when he tried to take credit for betting unequal amounts postgame when his pregame posts made no attempt to differentiate between the two. Say whatever you want, but people should assume that when somebody does that, they are full of it. When they respond to legitimate queries with lies (I explained it earlier...) and personal insults, they look even more guilty.
You can argue that he doesn't want credit and he has no need to explain himself. In a general sense this is true, but when you create a thread, keep it going all year and post nearly everyday to create "documentation", you do need to explain yourself.
Enough of my soapbox, I'm curious if you got the same numbers..... |
|
quote |
|
ruffcutter2006 |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Veteran
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 3627
Location: United States |
#2146 Posted: 10/16/2009 12:29:46 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by tallguyindc: OK, I appear to have launched an emotional response. Perhaps, I was tad trite.
You guys even convinced me that I was a touch dismissive and that I should go back and reanalyze the past posts. I was suspicious, but as I said before I believe in sabermetrics and I think it can be profitable in sports wagering. Hell, it has been profitable in sports wagering. I'm already successful with it. I use an approach different from the one that you guys use but I'm always open to new things.
Anyway, I did go back and reread the posts. I don't think you like what I'm going to say. As a matter of fact, I can pretty much predict the reaction. I'm a loser. I'm embarrassing myself. You aren't really here to help me. You don't have to respond to bottom feeders like me, etc. etc. What you won't hear is a direct answer to the legitimate points that I make.
I'm being respectful and logical and directly responding to the issue. You could try doing the same.
This "system" is a complete and total fraud. There might be some success in the formula he uses. There might not be. Through over 2000 posts, its never directly documented. Every attempt that anybody makes to ask direct questions is obfuscated.
He does post games. He posts 100s of games. Perhaps 1000s. But his true results are never documented. He never posts the units that he bets. Only the units that he "won" after the fact. This allows him to routinely be up +14 units after 6-4 days but only down -2 units after 4-6 days. With the ability to determine bet size after the games are played, its no wonder he is up quite a few units on the year.
When people ask him to explain his unit betting strategy, he directs them to post #508, which can be summed up as "Unit management is really important. Be sure you do it..." When people ask him a second time, he says he already did it. When they point out that #508 doesn't actually say anything useful, he starts to call them names. He also tells them to do their own work and that he isn't really here to help them, etc. He tells them he'll send them the units privately. What exactly is the point of having a public forum?????
Why is he here?
He is here to document his method, of course. Yet the process of "documentation" seems to always leave out the most important details.
I haven't seen him try to sell anything...yet. But I suspect the real reason is to eventually sell his picks and say look I earned a zillion dollars in 2009.
I've invested way too much time in this already. But having gone this far, I would like to warn anyone that might possibly stumble across this post. I have no doubt what the next posts will say: A bunch of personal insults of me, claims that I haven't tried hard enough, etc. He might even include a threat to ban me from the forum, because what good is negativity like mine.
What they won't include is any attempt to document an actual unit management strategy....
You can be profitable with sabermetrics sports wagering but you won't win anywhere near 70% of your bets. Anybody telling you otherwise is a con man operating a shell game.
I had high hopes for this thread but I'm sorely disappointed...
What he said....
|
|
quote |
|
kreatture |
RSI |
Veteran
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2312
Location: Nova Scotia |
#2147 Posted: 10/16/2009 3:47:29 PM QUOTE Originally Posted by tallguyindc: OK....Perhaps I was hasty again. I ran the calculations. First of all, I still have a little problem with "following the form set out in this thread". There are multiple versions of the BaseRuns formula and I didn't exactly hear a clear and ringing endorsement of anyone of them.
I'm using the basic version from the Wikipedia page, primarily because it makes things easier since Baseball-reference.com doesn't show pitcher vs hitter SB and CS. I suppose this is a fairly nitpicky point. The other version listed only has minor changes. However, it was still frustrating to read "go to Wikipedia" without clarifying that right off the bat.
Anyway, my understanding is that I'm supposed to use the lifetime numbers of the pitchers vs. all of the hitters currently on the other team. I did this and for Sabathia I got
A= 82
B = 85.58
C=147
D = 6
Outs = 159
BaseRuns = 36.1722
BaseRuns/27Outs = 6.14
Assuming Sabathia pitches 6 innings, Chamberlain, Coke and Rivera each pitch 1, I get the Angels at 4.66
Assuming Lackey pitches 6 and Oliver, Bulger and Fuentes each pitch 1, I get the Yankees at 3.96.
Considering Matchbook currently has the Angels at +166 and the BaseRuns formula is giving the Angels more runs, I presume this means there is a strong lean on the Angels.
Actually, it appears to be even more tilted to the Angels because Coke and Bulger appear to have unusually good and bad numbers vs the other team and there is no guarantee either will play.
I'm curious if you got the same numbers. Believe it or not, I've never had a real problem with the basic concept of using baseruns. My problem was that he said he clearly stated the ideas at the beginning when I don't think he did.
I also think that all of the posters that complained about units had a really good point. You don't get credit for booking a Texas win at a higher unit total than a Seattle loss unless you clearly stated beforehand that you were betting more on Texas than you were on Seattle.
It really looks like revisionist history when he tried to take credit for betting unequal amounts postgame when his pregame posts made no attempt to differentiate between the two. Say whatever you want, but people should assume that when somebody does that, they are full of it. When they respond to legitimate queries with lies (I explained it earlier...) and personal insults, they look even more guilty.
You can argue that he doesn't want credit and he has no need to explain himself. In a general sense this is true, but when you create a thread, keep it going all year and post nearly everyday to create "documentation", you do need to explain yourself.
Enough of my soapbox, I'm curious if you got the same numbers.....
I was also on the Angels for tonight, but I did grab the +1.5 insurance yesterday, just in case.
|
|
quote |
|
GMSI |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Prospect
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 170
Location: |
#2148 Posted: 2/16/2010 4:00:07 AM mlb around the corner....!
GMSI |
|
quote |
|
BottomUpCeo |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Prospect
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 13
Location: |
#2149 Posted: 2/18/2010 4:05:00 PM GMSI,
I'm new to covers and sports betting all together. I stumbled acrossed this thread about an hr ago and i have been tryna figure this thing out i was wondering if you had any insight or can explain it a lil more n detail |
|
quote |
|
nolemonasses |
View Space | Friends | Playbook | |
Veteran
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1944
Location: Pakistan |
#2150 Posted: 2/18/2010 8:12:14 PM |
|
quote |