Dahobbs

I don't necessarily disagree with the proviso that Kentucky is a much better defense. If he is self sacking, refusing to throw the ball to open receivers, missing badly on deep shots, and generally looking hesitant, yes. But if we have a repeat performance in the sense that we are up 10-0 at half and he has executed what was there for the taking, I will not be unhappy. I'd prefer better obviously, but that depends upon more than just Quinn.

I agree he played better against MSU. The fumbles killed us there. But he still wasn't executing the short game very well (e.g., see the 4th down play).

12 personnel would have worked fine if our TEs could run block consistently. Arkansas ignored that threat and our TEs didn't execute blocks. And then Quinn didn't hit the plays that were there. Whether your source is legit or not, the bolded is clearly true from the games he has played in so far. Ultimately, for me, it comes down to this: we would be golden if either Quinn were to get his head (and feet) right or if Arch were to come in and start taking and executing the play that is there rather than just wait for the big shot. Who you play depends on which one you think is more likely to happen this season. We've already seen good Quinn before his injury (footwork as a lot better), so going with the former makes some amount of sense.

I don't believe @Thatguy has ever said that.

I never said you can't get similar market bubbles in a stock. You absolutely can and do see that. And savvy investors recognize what is happening even if they also try to profit from it. With Bitcoin a lot of time and money has been invested in convincing folks that something different is going on. That's where the ponzi element comes in. Bitcoin attracts fraudsters and will continue to do so. I wish y'all well in your gambles. I have no issue with someone making money off of trading Bitcoin anymore than someone making money at the craps table. But, I do think people should see it for what it is and not as having connection to Bitcoin's fundamental utility (which is zero, or even negative if you account for energy costs).

That's stupid. But whatever, continue worshipping him.

Sam was not a better passer. But I do think he was a much better leader.

Success rate on its own its a decent consistency metric for an offense. But I'm struggling coming up with anything this version of "net success rate" would be a decent metric for. I could see it being more useful if you're comparing net success over total plays rather than percentage of each team's plays. E.g., Texas had 40 successful plays less Arkansas' 30 successful plays over 90 total players (numbers made up). That would get you a "net success rate" of .11, which I think may actually be an interesting metric to track. It'd tell you who did more good things during a game. If you're the team that did more good things and still lost, there is something interesting going on that maybe you can fix. Alternatively, if you did less good things and somehow won, you might be concerned that it is not sustainable.

He is multi banned from Surly by the admin. He is paid to spread bullshit. That is why is here. You're just enabling it because you don't know the history and just read this thread.

I understand now. It is messed up (at least in my head) because it is comparing percentages rather than totals. That seems like a pointless stat. We ran 30% more plays than Arkansas. But because we were slightly less successful as a percentage of our plays (rather than totals plays), the net success rate ends up being negative even though we had a much higher number of successful plays.

No, he doesn't. He isn't a real person.

Again, that really doesn't track when actually looking at the game play by play. We consistently had the ball in plus territory. We generated yards. And we inflicted a lot of negative plays. And we forced Arkansas to play deep from its own territory. I just don't see how are net success rate was negative. Arkansas had all of 11 plays in the first half that at glance would have likely had a positive EPA. Texas had double that. It was closer to even For the second half. I maintain that the chart is wrong.

But that's not actually how EPA works. At the yard line we were typically at, we would have had a positive EPA on all of those plays, which would be a 100% success rate under his definition.

That makes no sense. If the losing team is set at zero, then all it tells you is how the opposing team did. It doesn't give you the number for the losing team at all. So it tells one side of the story of a game, which isn't very much.

Right, but even if that is the stat, the chart doesn't make any sense. It cannot be measuring that stat for each team on there.

There is no way that is accurate. For instance, the chart has half the teams at a dead even 0 net success rate. That simply isn't believable. I also don't believe that Tennessee had more successful plays than Georgia when Georgia had 3x as many tfls, won the turnover battle 1-0, had more first downs, a higher 3rd down efficiency, 130 more yards of offense, and a higher completion percentage. Something is messed up with the chart.

No. There is a complicated layer of systems behind the scenes that enables those digital transactions. It isn't inherent in the dollar.

I don't understand that chart.

I didn't say Bitcoin couldn't be used as currency. I said it is poor currency. And it is. Its value changes too frequently and by too much. Transaction speeds are slow. Transactions are expensive. It would sort of be like trying to use a vanguard fund as a currency. You could technically do it. But very few people would accept it (without being first converted to an actual currency like dollars). The friction costs are too high to make small transactions worthwhile. And bigger transactions suffer because you can't plan large future contracts/transaction in a very volatile "currency." Real digital currencies will be useful.

I look forward to your next username. Bye.

Avoid the fumbles and the negative plays and the run game works itself out. We shouldn't lose 2-7 yards against light boxes every 4th or 5th run.

Tell me you don't know what a ponzi-scheme is. If I invest in Nvidia, it is because I expect Nvidia to make more money selling GPUs and related services. I'm wanting to own a piece (however small) of that business. When one "invests" in bitcoin, you're not doing so because you expect people to actually start using bitcoin as a currency. And you're not doing so because you expect bitcoin fundamentally will do something useful (it never will). You're doing so because you're hoping other people are drawn in the by allure of quick money and then you can sell your bitcoins to them at a higher price. That's it. That's the business. And, by definition, that is a ponzi-scheme. I had bitcoins before you did. I was mining them for fun early on. I just recognize bitcoin for what it is. Digital currency as a broader concept is different. Nation states will in fact adopt digital currency. And it will actually be useful. And it will not require proof of work bullshit. And eventually bitcoin will die or fade into irrelevance like many other crypto-currencies. But, until then, I absolutely agree the frenzy will continue. Gamble away. A lot of people will make a lot of money doing it. And then suddenly a lot of people will lose a lot of money. Just don't be the one caught holding the bag.

You're doing it wrong.

I agree, "every major bitcoin player" would be an exaggeration. Fortunately, I said "every other major bitcoin player". Fiat-currencies aren't ponzi-schemes because they are used as currencies, not speculative investment holdings. No one is selling you on the idea that dollars are going to go up in value forever. No one is selling you on the idea that you'll get huge yearly gains by investing in dollars. That isn't why people hold them. For bitcoin, people want you to buy them so the value goes up. When the value goes up, they can sell for a profit (in dollars of course). They want your new money to fund paying out previous investors like them. That's a ponzi-scheme. Bitcoin isn't used for real (non-illegal) transactions, not in any volume that matters. And never will be because it fucking sucks as a currency. It is volatile and unpredictable. Rapid inflation or deflation of a currency is bad. And bitcoin is quite literally setup to ensure that both will occur. Bitcoin may continue to go up for a long time. People get excited about quick money, and that is what Bitcoin sells (or rather what people who promote bitcoin sell). The market can remain irrational for a long time, so I ain't betting against it. But I sure as fuck recognize it for what it is, and you should too. It is gamble, pure and simple. At some point the house will win and someone will get left holding the e-bag.

Seriously? FTX/Sam Bankman-Fried? Binance/Zhao? And then there are the regular arrests for folks associated with large bitcoin money laundering and scam operations.