Dude look in the mirror. You're going to come into someone's thread and try and call THEM the troll and say THEY are the one who thinks they are never wrong?
Let's recap
He posts his bet on UNC and you drop in just to throw shade and let him and everybody else know they made a bad bet going against the USC starter. What do you call this if not trolling? You also stated that a better bet would be to just take UNC to win the series instead, making it clear that your position was based on the game 1 USC starter Edwards.
Then I chimed in to state the obvious-- that the first thing anyone with a 5th grade education is going to do when capping baseball is evaluate the pitching matchup. So yes, he had already done this and had formed an opinion that was different from yours. That's ok though, we won't always agree, this is actually normal human behavior.
As it turns out the UNC lineup was effective against Edwards, they won the early innings, and the USC starter didn't last long. Later in the game the UNC bullpen allowed some walks and then the back breaking grand slam, costing them the game and costing us money.
Here's the best part though. You actually came back to try and dunk on me telling me you "warned me". So you tell us that Edwards will handle UNC, that prediction is proven wrong on the field, but you still come back to talk crap and pat yourself on the back for being right? And you want to come around telling other people they are actually the ones who think they're always right?
Again, you might want to look in the mirror coach.
1
@River_fish
Dude look in the mirror. You're going to come into someone's thread and try and call THEM the troll and say THEY are the one who thinks they are never wrong?
Let's recap
He posts his bet on UNC and you drop in just to throw shade and let him and everybody else know they made a bad bet going against the USC starter. What do you call this if not trolling? You also stated that a better bet would be to just take UNC to win the series instead, making it clear that your position was based on the game 1 USC starter Edwards.
Then I chimed in to state the obvious-- that the first thing anyone with a 5th grade education is going to do when capping baseball is evaluate the pitching matchup. So yes, he had already done this and had formed an opinion that was different from yours. That's ok though, we won't always agree, this is actually normal human behavior.
As it turns out the UNC lineup was effective against Edwards, they won the early innings, and the USC starter didn't last long. Later in the game the UNC bullpen allowed some walks and then the back breaking grand slam, costing them the game and costing us money.
Here's the best part though. You actually came back to try and dunk on me telling me you "warned me". So you tell us that Edwards will handle UNC, that prediction is proven wrong on the field, but you still come back to talk crap and pat yourself on the back for being right? And you want to come around telling other people they are actually the ones who think they're always right?
Again, you might want to look in the mirror coach.
@mrnotoriousman I can see Siniakova/Townsend easily getting through this match surrendering one, maybe two breaks but they should be able to generate at least 3-5 breaks on return which should allow them to cover the 4.5 imo.
6-2 7-5
Broken once, converted 4 breaks
1
Quote Originally Posted by bringit:
@mrnotoriousman I can see Siniakova/Townsend easily getting through this match surrendering one, maybe two breaks but they should be able to generate at least 3-5 breaks on return which should allow them to cover the 4.5 imo.
Quote Originally Posted by bringit: @mrnotoriousman I can see Siniakova/Townsend easily getting through this match surrendering one, maybe two breaks but they should be able to generate at least 3-5 breaks on return which should allow them to cover the 4.5 imo. 6-2 7-5 Broken once, converted 4 breaks
0
Quote Originally Posted by bringit:
Quote Originally Posted by bringit: @mrnotoriousman I can see Siniakova/Townsend easily getting through this match surrendering one, maybe two breaks but they should be able to generate at least 3-5 breaks on return which should allow them to cover the 4.5 imo. 6-2 7-5 Broken once, converted 4 breaks
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Had me nervous there for a second with that 7th inning homer!
Hot Forum Topics
