NBA Regular Season 2016-17

qwabercd

ButtersSuki wrote: »

I understand fully what value is.

I'm not afraid of your bet or your odds, I was exaggerating the amount to highlight the point.

I'm not going to take €100 from you for no reason -

What I will do is give €500 to a charity of my choice (it's a dog-related charity) if he wins - and I'll post the receipt here. Would you be willing to give €50 to that charity if he doesn't? How's that?

I won't take your money but I'll revoke the 500/1 I offered and give you 10/1 instead.

500/1 would certainly be value, regardless of whether it happens or not.

ButtersSuki

brady23 wrote: »

My description of value is completely accurate and in no way silly.

You're essentially calling me a fool and a gambling addict, neither of which I am by any means.

Your dog related charity drivel is just totally nonsensical tbh. If you were making any sense given your 500/1 offer, you would give 500 and I would give 1e but given how little sense you are making and how you insulted me why bother.

I won't comment anymore on this, it was an opinion, I laid out the reasons why I thought it was "value".
You made an offer of a bet in an attempt to make reinforce a poor understanding of what value is.
I made you a legit counter offer and you decided to insult me and make some strange dog related charity bet with no relevance to the discussion

You really must have a thin skin to interpret that as me insulting you. I did not call you either a fool or a gambling addict. Stating someone's behaviour is like or akin to someone else's and using by way of example a well-known saying yo highlight a point is also not doing that.

You laid out your reasons for staying it was value. I disagreed on the basis that the bet will (almost certainly) not come in. We disagreed. Big deal.

I could have just taken your €100 but as I said I'd rather not just take someone's money like that. Not sure why you think the dog-charity stuff was "drivel" or "nonsense" but to each their own.

For context, I'm hugely passionate about animal welfare and would rather they benefit than I pocket €100 for a bet I consider (note: "I" to eliminate any possibility of confusion or offence) a little unfair. I even reduced the "value" of the amount that I suggested you give them if you lost to make it fairer and more palatable. In hindsight I should have just taken the bet and given the money to the charity myself if I wanted to be a complete d*ck about it - but believe it or not and despite what you might think that's not my style.


Again, there was no offence intended in my replies - genuinely. I didn't decide to insult you as you put it; how could you possibly take that from what I said? I give you my word I wasn't trying to provoke a reaction or take the piss and tbh I'm baffled we to how you have drawn the conclusions you have from what I typed. It seems like you were looking to be offended, and have overanalysed and mis-interpret.

brady23

ButtersSuki wrote: »

brady23 wrote: »

My description of value is completely accurate and in no way silly.

You're essentially calling me a fool and a gambling addict, neither of which I am by any means.

Your dog related charity drivel is just totally nonsensical tbh. If you were making any sense given your 500/1 offer, you would give 500 and I would give 1e but given how little sense you are making and how you insulted me why bother.

I won't comment anymore on this, it was an opinion, I laid out the reasons why I thought it was "value".
You made an offer of a bet in an attempt to make reinforce a poor understanding of what value is.
I made you a legit counter offer and you decided to insult me and make some strange dog related charity bet with no relevance to the discussion

You really must have a thin skin to interpret that as me insulting you. I did not call you either a fool or a gambling addict. Stating someone's behaviour is like or akin to someone else's and using by way of example a well-known saying yo highlight a point is also not doing that.

You laid out your reasons for staying it was value. I disagreed on the basis that the bet will (almost certainly) not come in. We disagreed. Big deal.

I could have just taken your €100 but as I said I'd rather not just take someone's money like that. Not sure why you think the dog-charity stuff was "drivel" or "nonsense" but to each their own.

For context, I'm hugely passionate about animal welfare and would rather they benefit than I pocket €100 for a bet I consider (note: "I" to eliminate any possibility of confusion or offence) a little unfair. I even reduced the "value" of the amount that I suggested you give them if you lost to make it fairer and more palatable. In hindsight I should have just taken the bet and given the money to the charity myself if I wanted to be a complete d*ck about it - but believe it or not and despite what you might think that's not my style.


Again, there was no offence intended in my replies - genuinely. I didn't decide to insult you as you put it; how could you possibly take that from what I said? I give you my word I wasn't trying to provoke a reaction or take the piss and tbh I'm baffled we to how you have drawn the conclusions you have from what I typed. It seems like you were looking to be offended, and have overanalysed and mis-interpret.

Again your statement is wrong because you are saying that you reduced the "value" but you didn't in the way  you described.
You reduced the stake, you reduced the odds and you reduced the liability, the "value" remains unchanged if you don't reduce the odds, value only changes when odds change.
This is again another indication that you don't know what "value" means.

The dog charity is complete drivel as it simply highlights your short comings in understanding value.
As I suggested if you offered something to a charity where you honour the 500/1 odds then I'd be all for it but you didn't. 
BTW you can still take the bet and give the 100e to charity, my suggest is the most logical as it reduces, my risk, your liability but the odds offered remain the same.

I do think that you were attempting to direct some thinly veiled insults in my direction and I would only be "thin skinned" of I was insulted by them but given that you are continually demonstrating an inability to understand the basic premise of the discussion, I simply just find it humorous.

ButtersSuki

brady23 wrote: »

Again your statement is wrong because you are saying that you reduced the "value" but you didn't in the way you described.
You reduced the stake, you reduced the odds and you reduced the liability, the "value" remains unchanged if you don't reduce the odds, value only changes when odds change.
This is again another indication that you don't know what "value" means.

The dog charity is complete drivel as it simply highlights your short comings in understanding value.
As I suggested if you offered something to a charity where you honour the 500/1 odds then I'd be all for it but you didn't.
BTW you can still take the bet and give the 100e to charity, my suggest is the most logical as it reduces, my risk, your liability but the odds offered remain the same.

I do think that you were attempting to direct some thinly veiled insults in my direction and I would only be "thin skinned" of I was insulted by them but given that you are continually demonstrating an inability to understand the basic premise of the discussion, I simply just find it humorous.

I go out of my way to assure you I wasn't insulting or mocking you, gave you my word on it and try to find middle ground by saying (amongst other things) that we simply have different opinions - and your response is to continue to insult me* (after already doing so in previous responses)? Think that says more about you than me tbh.

I'm posting in the Basketball forum almost 7 years. Though I haven't been as active on it this season as in previous seasons, I have never have I seen a post been so misconstrued and an argument escalate so quickly (by one side). You are using a very literal interpretation of the word; ignoring the subtlety and nuance of the term and the language which I explained by way of highlighting the example that it is not value if it (the bet) doesn't come in as the person who laid the bet would have lost their initial stake and received no return on their "investment". That was all. I'm a bit taken aback by the reaction to that tbh.

To be clear, once again I am not and was not trying to hurl any sort of insult (thinly veiled or overt) at you. I give you my word on that as I have done previously but you can again decide not to believe that if you want. I have no reason to lie but if you want to assume the worst, then I can't really do much else. If you still believe that I have or was even trying to do so, then I genuinely apologise for any offence caused.

You said earlier you weren't discussing this anymore and yet you did. Well I'm going to draw a line under this now from my side.


*in bold

nerd69

Any actual basketball talk no?

brady23

The concept of value in this context is literal. Something is either value or not. Your interpretation and opinion on whether a certain bet (Giannis MVP) is completely up for debate.
I gave reasons for why I thought this was the case.
My point is you don't seem to understand what value means whether it is good or bad, or you aren't articulating yourself correctly, imo it just makes your argument nonsensical.
My point is you havent exactly shown that you understand how to go about determining value.

Additionally I struggle to see how I remotely insulted you but you can perceive my comments however you want. I don't think the bolded parts suggest I'm insulting you.

I will draw a line in it here. Back to basketball.

rushfan

nerd69 wrote:

Any actual basketball talk no?

I've heard they're shooting hoops at dawn. Should be interesting.

GoldFour4

Lads enough talk about what constitutes value and more talk about basketball. No more value talk.

Few games in the league last night. Westbrook with another triple double last night, 76ers pull off another victory - this time at the buzzer against the Knicks - could be on course for circa 25 wins TRUST THE PROCESS!!

mjavi

malistheman wrote: »

Lads enough talk about what constitutes value and more talk about basketball. No more value talk.

Few games in the league last night. Westbrook with another triple double last night, 76ers pull off another victory - this time at the buzzer against the Knicks - could be on course for circa 25 wins TRUST THE PROCESS!!

The Sixers celebrated like they won the Championship.

2smiggy

well what ever keeps them ahead of the Nets !!

brady23

Zaza looks like he's going to be starting in the All Star game.
The East LeBron and Giannis are obviously fair selections but I think I'd prefer Thomas and Lowry as the starting guards but looks like Irving and Wade, obvious cases for DeRozan, Walker and Wall, rest of the front court is pretty thin, Millsap not even Top-Up 10 in voting, I'd prefer Butler but it's a close race between Love and Embiid, obviously hope for Embiid.
The West looks like Curry and Harden, obviously ridiculous not having Westbrook but it's close so could still change. Durant and Zaza are way ahead with Kawhi in tow, Davis not miles behind.
Zaza thing is a little funny but you'd feel a bit bad for the guy scraping to make the bench missing out, not so bad for KAT etc but harsh on the likes of Gasol if he's in the coaches conversation.

ButtersSuki

brady23 wrote: »

Zaza looks like he's going to be starting in the All Star game.
The East LeBron and Giannis are obviously fair selections but I think I'd prefer Thomas and Lowry as the starting guards but looks like Irving and Wade, obvious cases for DeRozan, Walker and Wall, rest of the front court is pretty thin, Millsap not even Top-Up 10 in voting, I'd prefer Butler but it's a close race between Love and Embiid, obviously hope for Embiid.
The West looks like Curry and Harden, obviously ridiculous not having Westbrook but it's close so could still change. Durant and Zaza are way ahead with Kawhi in tow, Davis not miles behind.
Zaza thing is a little funny but you'd feel a bit bad for the guy scraping to make the bench missing out, not so bad for KAT etc but harsh on the likes of Gasol if he's in the coaches conversation.

Ah, no. The rules changed last year to prevent this exact scenario. I'm on my phone so can't get you the required references but if you google it you'll see the main rule change was that fans only account for 50% of the vote anymore for starters, the other 50% is media and NBA Coaches (from memory).

ButtersSuki

Going to be in the states for most of Feb with work, have tickets for a couple of games so looking forward to those.

GoldFour4

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Ah, no. The rules changed last year to prevent this exact scenario. I'm on my phone so can't get you the required references but if you google it you'll see the main rule change was that fans only account for 50% of the vote anymore for starters, the other 50% is media and NBA Coaches (from memory).

The starters drop podcast from last Friday (6th Jan) went through this quite well. He has little to zero chance of making it.

brady23

malistheman wrote: »

The starters drop podcast from last Friday (6th Jan) went through this quite well. He has little to zero chance of making it.

I remember reading something last year about the rule change but didn't realise it was 50/50. It basically eliminates any anomalies happening in the future.
I assume:
West will be Westbrook, Harden, Durant, Kawhi and Davis.
The East will be harder to predict outside of LeBron and Giannis but could be 3 Cavs starting.
East for me LeBron, Giannis, Butler, Lowry Thomas.

West Reserves: Curry, Paul, Lillard, Green, Griffin, Cousins and Hayward

East Reserves: Irving, Wall, Walker, DeRozan, George, Love, Millsap and Embiid.

I have 4 guards there finding it hard to pick 3, DeRozan should be a lock but would be the one I'd eliminate on personal preference, probably be a toss up between Wall and Walker though, Wall probably getting the nod imo.

brady23

T-WOLVES on a 3 game win streak now, big change in Rubio at least from a numbers perspective, 13,15 & 17 assists in their last 3 games.
Hopefully it continues, he's one of my favourite players. 8th spot in the West is still up for grabs, they have the best net differential and no one above them until OKC are looking great, I did say I'd fancy the Pelicans to sneak it but hopefully the T-Wolves are starting to figure it all out.

ButtersSuki

Don't know if this still holds but read a piece a few weeks ago re TWolves were ahead at half time in more games than any other team in the league. Given their record, that's a pretty bad 2nd half of game showing. Wonder how much of that is down to Thibs minutes policy and how much down to immaturity/youth and/or quality/depth of the overall squad? They're clearly doing a lot right in the 1st half of games, only for that to unravel in the 3rd and 4th quarters.

I'm a big Thibs fan btw so not having a pop there.

Another strange one I noticed is Rubio is actually a very good FT% shooter (circa 88% from memory). Normally high % FT shooters are good shooters yet it remains his biggest weakness, and given how the PG position has evolved even in the last 2-3 years alone he's looking like an anomaly now, almost dare I say it a dinosaur from a different time period. Not as much as Rondo though!

ButtersSuki

Phily have won 5 of their last 6.....

Anyone see Embiid's block last night?

https://watch.nba.com/video/2017/01/13/0021600593-cha-phi-play6

It's No. 5 here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsegjCa6cwg

He looks HUGE, esp. in the head on to the basket shot.

brady23

Just watching the Rockets and Nets and I can't get over how bad that Nets team are.
They are just horrific, Hollis-Jefferson and Bogdanovic aren't bad plus they're missing Lin and Lopez but with their draft pick situation there is absolutely nothing to draw fans to their games either this year or next

nerd69

brady23 wrote: »

Just watching the Rockets and Nets and I can't get over how bad that Nets team are.
They are just horrific, Hollis-Jefferson and Bogdanovic aren't bad plus they're missing Lin and Lopez but with their draft pick situation there is absolutely nothing to draw fans to their games either this year or next

That celtics trade is looking more and more like an NBA equivalent of the Herschel walker trade.

brady23

Not sure if it's by design, "slump" or just fatigue but Westbrook appears to be slowing down just a tad.
He's averaging 2 minutes less per game, over 3 points and 1 assist less but 1 more rebound per game in the last 10 games.
OKC are 5-5 during that period vs a few decent teams.
BPI has him as a 50% chance to average a triple double this season but I think he might fall short, he's currently on 10.5 and 10.7 assists and rebounds.

*I'm sure he'll go have some ridiculous game now tonigjt

Gregk961

Anybody else watching the Cavs Warriors game? Pretty impressive stuff from the Warriors so far have the Cavs well and truly beaten in the first half, making the Cavs look like any other team they have demolished.

Bit of a playoff style atmosphere in the Oracle aswell certainly helps and Lebron and co cant see to get anything going at all.

brady23

Gregk961 wrote: »

Anybody else watching the Cavs Warriors game? Pretty impressive stuff from the Warriors so far have the Cavs well and truly beaten in the first half, making the Cavs look like any other team they have demolished.

Bit of a playoff style atmosphere in the Oracle aswell certainly helps and Lebron and co cant see to get anything going at all.

I've watched it on and off skipping back across a few games, you're right the Cavs don't look up to this team. If they can get everyone to the playoffs healthy I struggle to see anyone keeping with them.

LuckyLloyd

Meh, I think it's an excellent loss to suffer in many respects. The Warriors blew out the Cavs during the finals last year; they also got beat on Christmas Day. The Cavs will be ready to compete when it matters. Hint: regular season records don't matter.

brady23

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Meh, I think it's an excellent loss to suffer in many respects. The Warriors blew out the Cavs during the finals last year; they also got beat on Christmas Day. The Cavs will be ready to compete when it matters. Hint: regular season records don't matter.

No they definitely don't really matter, especially when they're both clearly going to have homecourt.

Also, irrespective of LeBron flopping etc etc, Greenes immaturity in fouling and then his reaction could come back to haunt GSW again, assuming they meet in the finals.

I like him as a player, intelligent, versatile, maximises his potential and sacrificing for the team but he can be a bit of a liability.
I think just after watching them last night, GSW are the only team that has 4 real options.

I would prefer the Cavs to win but GSW are just incredible to watch and they are just getting better.

LuckyLloyd

brady23 wrote: »

No they definitely don't really matter, especially when they're both clearly going to have homecourt.

Also, irrespective of LeBron flopping etc etc, Greenes immaturity in fouling and then his reaction could come back to haunt GSW again, assuming they meet in the finals.

I like him as a player, intelligent, versatile, maximises his potential and sacrificing for the team but he can be a bit of a liability.
I think just after watching them last night, GSW are the only team that has 4 real options.

I would prefer the Cavs to win but GSW are just incredible to watch and they are just getting better.

Draymond can't help himself. He can be got.

The Warriors looked unreal last year. Hell, they won 73 games and were 3 - 1 up in the finals...

They'll be favourites and rightly so. A loss like is a timely reminder for LeBron and the Cavs of what's required

brady23

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

brady23 wrote: »

No they definitely don't really matter, especially when they're both clearly going to have homecourt.

Also, irrespective of LeBron flopping etc etc, Greenes immaturity in fouling and then his reaction could come back to haunt GSW again, assuming they meet in the finals.

I like him as a player, intelligent, versatile, maximises his potential and sacrificing for the team but he can be a bit of a liability.
I think just after watching them last night, GSW are the only team that has 4 real options.

I would prefer the Cavs to win but GSW are just incredible to watch and they are just getting better.

Draymond can't help himself. He can be got.

The Warriors looked unreal last year. Hell, they won 73 games and were 3 - 1 up in the finals...

They'll be favourites and rightly so. A loss like is a timely reminder for LeBron and the Cavs of what's required

I like his intensity, he wouldn't have reached the level he has without it but I just wonder the benefit. How much does it really affect LeBron.

I'm looking forward to seeing what PG they pick up. I like Felder and think he'll be a good spark off the bench in the future but they need a solid back up PG.
Perhaps picking up Rondo, Knight, Lawson, Jennings or Rodriguez.

I know Rondo etc but if controlling an offense is what they need, surrounding him with lots of 3 shooters spreading the floor he could be productive provided he puts in the effort on the defensive end but he's won a championship so he knows what's to be expected.

Unsure what way any of them would work but they have those midlevel exceptions that they can use and allegedly Griffins salary guys are meant to be unbelievable so who knows.

NufcNavan

I'm no fan of Draymond Green but that was an embarrassing flop by Lebron.

killwill

NufcNavan wrote: »

I'm no fan of Draymond Green but that was an embarrassing flop by Lebron.

Without it was exaggerated but was it a flop?
Even Klay Thompson said in his interview it was a hard foul.

Either way Warriors really should up and played like they haven't all season. Cannot see past them if they can keep playing like that

ButtersSuki

NufcNavan wrote: »

I'm no fan of Draymond Green but that was another embarrassing flop by Lebron.

FYP.