1. Adding the car numbers of the top ten finishers will be less than 250
2. Martin will finish in the top 15
3. Rusty Wallace will finish between 11th or 20th
4. The number of Cup Contenters will increase by at least 1
5. Jr will finish in the top 10
10
Mar
RPG Richmond: Draft
"Draft" <dr…@optonline.net> wrote in news:aNthe.10359$HJ2.7488@fe11.lga:
> 1. Adding the car numbers of the top ten finishers will be less than 250
That sounds kinda close to a gimme. Most of the top teams have
lower numbered cars. On the other hand, one could view this
as saying "Johnson and Kurt Busch and Edwards and Jarrett finish
out of the top 10", which we’d probably call a very good pick.
Anyone care to run stats on this one?
John
Agreed. Let me change this.See Below….
1. Adding the car numbers of the top ten finishers will be less than 100
2. Martin will finish in the top 15
3. Rusty Wallace will finish between 11th or 20th
4. The number of Cup Contenters will increase by at least 1
5. Jr will finish in the top 10
Bonus: Mears will finish 30th or lower.
"John McCoy" <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9656BE49A357Apogosupernews@216.168.3.30…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Draft" <dr…@optonline.net> wrote in news:aNthe.10359$HJ2.7488@fe11.lga:
>> 1. Adding the car numbers of the top ten finishers will be less than 250
> That sounds kinda close to a gimme. Most of the top teams have
> lower numbered cars. On the other hand, one could view this
> as saying "Johnson and Kurt Busch and Edwards and Jarrett finish
> out of the top 10", which we’d probably call a very good pick.
> Anyone care to run stats on this one?
> John
"John McCoy" <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9656BE49A357Apogosupernews@216.168.3.30…
> "Draft" <dr…@optonline.net> wrote in news:aNthe.10359$HJ2.7488@fe11.lga:
> > 1. Adding the car numbers of the top ten finishers will be less than 250
> That sounds kinda close to a gimme. Most of the top teams have
> lower numbered cars. On the other hand, one could view this
> as saying "Johnson and Kurt Busch and Edwards and Jarrett finish
> out of the top 10", which we’d probably call a very good pick.
> Anyone care to run stats on this one?
Mental math on every other race gives
d500 – 282
vegas – 309
bristol – 389
texas – 330
dega – 423
I’m cool with it as not a gimmie. Kurt Busch ends up as a big spoiler for
that — if he’s in the top 10, you’re left with only 153 "numbers" do
distribute amongst 9 cars, give you 17 "numbers" per car. Kurt runs well
at short tracks. Given that, and the history, it’s a good pick in my book.
-Russ.
-Russ.
"John McCoy" <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9656BE49A357Apogosupernews@216.168.3.30…
> "Draft" <dr…@optonline.net> wrote in news:aNthe.10359$HJ2.7488@fe11.lga:
>> 1. Adding the car numbers of the top ten finishers will be less than 250
> That sounds kinda close to a gimme. Most of the top teams have
> lower numbered cars. On the other hand, one could view this
> as saying "Johnson and Kurt Busch and Edwards and Jarrett finish
> out of the top 10", which we’d probably call a very good pick.
> Anyone care to run stats on this one?
> John
No stats. but I vote gimme… look at the cars that have been winning and/or
running in the front… 24, 6, 12, 2, 8, 9, 15, etc.
Michael
Total for this week.
"Draft" <dr…@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:FCvhe.10400$HJ2.9721@fe11.lga…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Agreed. Let me change this.See Below….
> 1. Adding the car numbers of the top ten finishers will be less than 100
2. Martin will finish
> (-1) 204 next time I’ll entertain the arguments
> in the top 15 (+1) 15th
> 3. Rusty Wallace will finish between 11th or 20th (+1) 19th
> 4. The number of Cup Contenters will increase by at least 1 (+1) +4 15 to
> 19
> 5. Jr will finish in the top 10 (-1) 14th
> Bonus: Mears will finish 30th or lower. 28th, (it was close though)
> "John McCoy" <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9656BE49A357Apogosupernews@216.168.3.30…
>> "Draft" <dr…@optonline.net> wrote in
>> news:aNthe.10359$HJ2.7488@fe11.lga:
>>> 1. Adding the car numbers of the top ten finishers will be less than 250
>> That sounds kinda close to a gimme. Most of the top teams have
>> lower numbered cars. On the other hand, one could view this
>> as saying "Johnson and Kurt Busch and Edwards and Jarrett finish
>> out of the top 10", which we’d probably call a very good pick.
>> Anyone care to run stats on this one?
>> John
"Somebody" <someb…@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote in message
news:nLxhe.5866$5u4.20568@nnrp1.uunet.ca…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "John McCoy" <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9656BE49A357Apogosupernews@216.168.3.30…
>> "Draft" <dr…@optonline.net> wrote in
>> news:aNthe.10359$HJ2.7488@fe11.lga:
>> > 1. Adding the car numbers of the top ten finishers will be less than
>> > 250
>> That sounds kinda close to a gimme. Most of the top teams have
>> lower numbered cars. On the other hand, one could view this
>> as saying "Johnson and Kurt Busch and Edwards and Jarrett finish
>> out of the top 10", which we’d probably call a very good pick.
>> Anyone care to run stats on this one?
> Mental math on every other race gives
> d500 – 282
> vegas – 309
> bristol – 389
> texas – 330
> dega – 423
> I’m cool with it as not a gimmie. Kurt Busch ends up as a big spoiler for
> that — if he’s in the top 10, you’re left with only 153 "numbers" do
> distribute amongst 9 cars, give you 17 "numbers" per car. Kurt runs well
> at short tracks. Given that, and the history, it’s a good pick in my
> book.
> -Russ.
Sorry I was thinking top 5
Michael
"Michael McGaha" <mich…@ronindev.com> wrote in message
news:Jozhe.1684$sb5.746@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com…
> "John McCoy" <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9656BE49A357Apogosupernews@216.168.3.30…
> > "Draft" <dr…@optonline.net> wrote in
news:aNthe.10359$HJ2.7488@fe11.lga:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> >> 1. Adding the car numbers of the top ten finishers will be less than
250
> > That sounds kinda close to a gimme. Most of the top teams have
> > lower numbered cars. On the other hand, one could view this
> > as saying "Johnson and Kurt Busch and Edwards and Jarrett finish
> > out of the top 10", which we’d probably call a very good pick.
> > Anyone care to run stats on this one?
> > John
> No stats. but I vote gimme… look at the cars that have been winning
and/or
> running in the front… 24, 6, 12, 2, 8, 9, 15, etc.
Let’s look at those numbers, top tens, wins for the 10 races prior to this
week
24: 5,3
6: 5,0
12: 4,0
2: 4,0
8: 5,0
9: 3,0
15: 4,0
So of your group Michael, the very best any of them have done is to be top
10 half of the time (3 guys) and the rest are lower. Only one of that group
had any wins after 10 races.
Let me throw a couple others out of the top 10 at you, that you excluded:
48: 7, 1
97: 6, 1
Both these guys are more likely to finish top 10 than anyone in your group,
and more likely to win than anyone but the 24 from your group.
More instructive perhaps is to look at the top 10 in points which are: (48 +
16 + 24 + 38 + 97 + 20 +12 + 29 + 42 + 6) = 332. This should be considered
the baseline over/under, and in reality, those are the cars that have been
running up front and/or winning. Predicting the finish total to be over 333
or under 331 is a weak pick approaching gimmie territory, but the farther
out from that you get the more courageous the pick is.
Let’s look at all the races so far this year:
Daytona (24 + 97 = 8 + 10 + 48 + 6 + 20 + 40 + 37 + 2) = 292
Cali (16 + 48 + 97 + 42 + 99 + 29 + 6 + 38 + 12 + 2) = 389
Vegas ( 48 + 5 + 97 + 24 + 29 + 16 + 41 + 17 + 12 + 20) = 309
Atlanta (99 + 48 + 16 + 6 + 9 + 25 + 15 + 07 + 10 + 38) = 273
Bristol (29 + 38 + 20 + 8 + 88 + 48 + 77 + 45 + 16 + 10) = 379
Martinsville (24 + 9 + 6 + 12 + 2 + 40 + 21 + 48 + 38 + 01) = 201
Texas ( 16 + 42 + 48 + 41 + 40 + 15 + 97 + 21 + 8 + 2) = 330
Phoenix (97 + 15 + 31 + 8 + 25 + 18 + 99 + 5 + 09 + 01) = 308
Talladega (24 + 20 + 15 + 19 + 42 + 38 + 97 + 49 + 88 + 31) = 423
Darlington (16 + 24 + 9 + 6 + 12 + 42 = 28 + 8 + 99 + 20) = 264
Richmond (9 + 20 + 12 + 5 + 29 +16 + 38 + 18 + 15 + 42) = 204
Draft: give yourself a healthy heaping of MMV points, but since you changed
your prediction to 100 you’re out the points I think.
Because not once except for this Martinsville and this race, has the total
added up to less than 250.
-Russ.
"Somebody" <someb…@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote in message
news:VaIhe.5933$5u4.20680@nnrp1.uunet.ca…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Michael McGaha" <mich…@ronindev.com> wrote in message
> news:Jozhe.1684$sb5.746@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com…
>> "John McCoy" <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9656BE49A357Apogosupernews@216.168.3.30…
>> > "Draft" <dr…@optonline.net> wrote in
> news:aNthe.10359$HJ2.7488@fe11.lga:
>> >> 1. Adding the car numbers of the top ten finishers will be less than
> 250
>> > That sounds kinda close to a gimme. Most of the top teams have
>> > lower numbered cars. On the other hand, one could view this
>> > as saying "Johnson and Kurt Busch and Edwards and Jarrett finish
>> > out of the top 10", which we’d probably call a very good pick.
>> > Anyone care to run stats on this one?
>> > John
>> No stats. but I vote gimme… look at the cars that have been winning
> and/or
>> running in the front… 24, 6, 12, 2, 8, 9, 15, etc.
> Let’s look at those numbers, top tens, wins for the 10 races prior to this
> week
> 24: 5,3
> 6: 5,0
> 12: 4,0
> 2: 4,0
> 8: 5,0
> 9: 3,0
> 15: 4,0
> So of your group Michael, the very best any of them have done is to be top
> 10 half of the time (3 guys) and the rest are lower. Only one of that
> group
> had any wins after 10 races.
> Let me throw a couple others out of the top 10 at you, that you excluded:
> 48: 7, 1
> 97: 6, 1
> Both these guys are more likely to finish top 10 than anyone in your
> group,
> and more likely to win than anyone but the 24 from your group.
> More instructive perhaps is to look at the top 10 in points which are: (48
> +
> 16 + 24 + 38 + 97 + 20 +12 + 29 + 42 + 6) = 332. This should be
> considered
> the baseline over/under, and in reality, those are the cars that have been
> running up front and/or winning. Predicting the finish total to be over
> 333
> or under 331 is a weak pick approaching gimmie territory, but the farther
> out from that you get the more courageous the pick is.
> Let’s look at all the races so far this year:
> Daytona (24 + 97 = 8 + 10 + 48 + 6 + 20 + 40 + 37 + 2) = 292
> Cali (16 + 48 + 97 + 42 + 99 + 29 + 6 + 38 + 12 + 2) = 389
> Vegas ( 48 + 5 + 97 + 24 + 29 + 16 + 41 + 17 + 12 + 20) = 309
> Atlanta (99 + 48 + 16 + 6 + 9 + 25 + 15 + 07 + 10 + 38) = 273
> Bristol (29 + 38 + 20 + 8 + 88 + 48 + 77 + 45 + 16 + 10) = 379
> Martinsville (24 + 9 + 6 + 12 + 2 + 40 + 21 + 48 + 38 + 01) = 201
> Texas ( 16 + 42 + 48 + 41 + 40 + 15 + 97 + 21 + 8 + 2) = 330
> Phoenix (97 + 15 + 31 + 8 + 25 + 18 + 99 + 5 + 09 + 01) = 308
> Talladega (24 + 20 + 15 + 19 + 42 + 38 + 97 + 49 + 88 + 31) = 423
> Darlington (16 + 24 + 9 + 6 + 12 + 42 = 28 + 8 + 99 + 20) = 264
> Richmond (9 + 20 + 12 + 5 + 29 +16 + 38 + 18 + 15 + 42) = 204
> Draft: give yourself a healthy heaping of MMV points, but since you
> changed
> your prediction to 100 you’re out the points I think.
> Because not once except for this Martinsville and this race, has the total
> added up to less than 250.
> -Russ.
Russ, yes, I did change it to 100 and lost on the point. oh well. I did
thought that 250 was something that was pretty challenging enough to make it
interesting.
Maybe next time.
Daytona – 292
Cali – 389
Vegas – 309
Atlanta – 273
Bristol – 379
Martinsville – 201
Texas – 330
Pheonix – 308
Dega – 423
Darlington – 284
Considering it’s only happened once all year, I’d say its anything but a
gimme.
Just for Grins…this is the point standins after Darlington – 313. I think
250 is a good one.
-jason
"John McCoy" <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9656BE49A357Apogosupernews@216.168.3.30…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Draft" <dr…@optonline.net> wrote in news:aNthe.10359$HJ2.7488@fe11.lga:
> > 1. Adding the car numbers of the top ten finishers will be less than 250
> That sounds kinda close to a gimme. Most of the top teams have
> lower numbered cars. On the other hand, one could view this
> as saying "Johnson and Kurt Busch and Edwards and Jarrett finish
> out of the top 10", which we’d probably call a very good pick.
> Anyone care to run stats on this one?
> John
"Somebody" <someb…@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote in
news:VaIhe.5933$5u4.20680@nnrp1.uunet.ca:
> Because not once except for this Martinsville and this race, has the
> total added up to less than 250.
I would not have guessed that (obviously). I’m glad you did the
stats on that, that’s info worth knowing.
> Draft: give yourself a healthy heaping of MMV points, but since you
> changed your prediction to 100 you’re out the points I think.
I vote for giving him the RPG point. It was a good, interesting
pick; and I’m sorry my questioning made him change it.
John
"John McCoy" <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9657D11C9B7DFpogosupernews@216.168.3.30…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Somebody" <someb…@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote in
> news:VaIhe.5933$5u4.20680@nnrp1.uunet.ca:
>> Because not once except for this Martinsville and this race, has the
>> total added up to less than 250.
> I would not have guessed that (obviously). I’m glad you did the
> stats on that, that’s info worth knowing.
>> Draft: give yourself a healthy heaping of MMV points, but since you
>> changed your prediction to 100 you’re out the points I think.
> I vote for giving him the RPG point. It was a good, interesting
> pick; and I’m sorry my questioning made him change it.
> John
Thanks John. Kind gesture. I’m sure your thought is questionable and it will
have to go to a vote.
On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:39:52 CST, John McCoy <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I vote for giving him the RPG point. It was a good, interesting
>pick; and I’m sorry my questioning made him change it.
OK by me.
Marty
"Draft" <dr…@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:22Jhe.10594$yx.3598@fe08.lga…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Somebody" <someb…@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote in message
> news:VaIhe.5933$5u4.20680@nnrp1.uunet.ca…
> > "Michael McGaha" <mich…@ronindev.com> wrote in message
> > news:Jozhe.1684$sb5.746@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com…
> >> "John McCoy" <igop…@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >> news:Xns9656BE49A357Apogosupernews@216.168.3.30…
> >> > "Draft" <dr…@optonline.net> wrote in
> > news:aNthe.10359$HJ2.7488@fe11.lga:
> >> >> 1. Adding the car numbers of the top ten finishers will be less than
> > 250
> >> > That sounds kinda close to a gimme. Most of the top teams have
> >> > lower numbered cars. On the other hand, one could view this
> >> > as saying "Johnson and Kurt Busch and Edwards and Jarrett finish
> >> > out of the top 10", which we’d probably call a very good pick.
> >> > Anyone care to run stats on this one?
> >> > John
> >> No stats. but I vote gimme… look at the cars that have been winning
> > and/or
> >> running in the front… 24, 6, 12, 2, 8, 9, 15, etc.
> > Let’s look at those numbers, top tens, wins for the 10 races prior to
this
> > week
> > 24: 5,3
> > 6: 5,0
> > 12: 4,0
> > 2: 4,0
> > 8: 5,0
> > 9: 3,0
> > 15: 4,0
> > So of your group Michael, the very best any of them have done is to be
top
> > 10 half of the time (3 guys) and the rest are lower. Only one of that
> > group
> > had any wins after 10 races.
> > Let me throw a couple others out of the top 10 at you, that you
excluded:
> > 48: 7, 1
> > 97: 6, 1
> > Both these guys are more likely to finish top 10 than anyone in your
> > group,
> > and more likely to win than anyone but the 24 from your group.
> > More instructive perhaps is to look at the top 10 in points which are:
(48
> > +
> > 16 + 24 + 38 + 97 + 20 +12 + 29 + 42 + 6) = 332. This should be
> > considered
> > the baseline over/under, and in reality, those are the cars that have
been
> > running up front and/or winning. Predicting the finish total to be over
> > 333
> > or under 331 is a weak pick approaching gimmie territory, but the
farther
> > out from that you get the more courageous the pick is.
> > Let’s look at all the races so far this year:
> > Daytona (24 + 97 = 8 + 10 + 48 + 6 + 20 + 40 + 37 + 2) = 292
> > Cali (16 + 48 + 97 + 42 + 99 + 29 + 6 + 38 + 12 + 2) = 389
> > Vegas ( 48 + 5 + 97 + 24 + 29 + 16 + 41 + 17 + 12 + 20) = 309
> > Atlanta (99 + 48 + 16 + 6 + 9 + 25 + 15 + 07 + 10 + 38) = 273
> > Bristol (29 + 38 + 20 + 8 + 88 + 48 + 77 + 45 + 16 + 10) = 379
> > Martinsville (24 + 9 + 6 + 12 + 2 + 40 + 21 + 48 + 38 + 01) = 201
> > Texas ( 16 + 42 + 48 + 41 + 40 + 15 + 97 + 21 + 8 + 2) = 330
> > Phoenix (97 + 15 + 31 + 8 + 25 + 18 + 99 + 5 + 09 + 01) = 308
> > Talladega (24 + 20 + 15 + 19 + 42 + 38 + 97 + 49 + 88 + 31) = 423
> > Darlington (16 + 24 + 9 + 6 + 12 + 42 = 28 + 8 + 99 + 20) = 264
> > Richmond (9 + 20 + 12 + 5 + 29 +16 + 38 + 18 + 15 + 42) = 204
> > Draft: give yourself a healthy heaping of MMV points, but since you
> > changed
> > your prediction to 100 you’re out the points I think.
> > Because not once except for this Martinsville and this race, has the
total
> > added up to less than 250.
> > -Russ.
> Russ, yes, I did change it to 100 and lost on the point. oh well. I did
> thought that 250 was something that was pretty challenging enough to make
it
> interesting.
> Maybe next time.
Geez man I’m inclined to give you the point — you made a perfectly valid
prediction, a fairly courageous one at that. Some folks that hadn’t
researched it thought might be a gimmie, and you changed it to one that in
my mind was close to bonus territory and of course got it wrong.
What do you think folks.. it was a good prediction to start with, shall we
give him the point?
-Russ.
On 16 May 2005 01:30:01 GMT, "Somebody" <someb…@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote:
>What do you think folks.. it was a good prediction to start with, shall we
>give him the point?
Yes. "The quality of mercy is not strained."
Marty
Martin X. Moleski, SJ wrote:
> On 16 May 2005 01:30:01 GMT, "Somebody"
<someb…@nospam.russdoucet.com> wrote:
> >What do you think folks.. it was a good prediction to start with,
shall we
> >give him the point?
> Yes. "The quality of mercy is not strained."
> Marty
Agreed.
That would make him +3 rather than +1, right?
On Mon, 16 May 2005 14:24:11 CST, "Bob Paxton" <redgree…@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "The quality of mercy is not strained."
>Agreed.
>That would make him +3 rather than +1, right?
I think that’s right.
To go from a -1 to a +1 is to move two places on
the number line.
Marty