NFL - Are You Ready For Some Football?! - Off Season

[Boris Godunov]

If that's actually your justification for placing money on Seattle over Chicago, you're an idiot.

[Al B. Sure!]

No. That's not the only reason. I posted this as well:

Chicago Bears *yawn*

But since it's the favorite topic of discussion for Apolyton and the multitudes of Chicagorillas here, the Bears are a pretty schizophrenic team. Last I saw them, the Giants embarrassed that offense and teams like the Seahawks and Redskins beat them but then a few weeks later, they were racking up the points against teams like the Eagles and Jets. I don't know what to make of this team; they've alternated between looking like a bottom-dweller and looking like a playoff team. Chicago's success or failure all seems to be predicated on that offensive line and the protection they can afford Jay Cutler.

Last time these teams met, the Seahawks had 6 sacks and Matt Forte did nothing (since then, injuries to the Seahawks D-line have weakened the Seattle rush D whereas Forte has become more effective). I think if Matt Forte can be a credible run threat (the Saints had no run threat, and even less of one when Reggie Bush got banged up) and a threat in the short-yardage/screen passing game, it will throw a wrench in the Seattle pass rush and allow Cutler the time to throw down-field. But you're dealing with Mike Martz here so who knows if Chicago is really going to try to establish the run.

I like the mismatch of Charles Tillman on Mike Williams; I like the Seattle receiver depth; I think Chris Clemons and that D-line will get enough pressure on Cutler to prevent the deep ball to Knox/Hester; I think the Seattle LB's can handle Greg Olsen and Forte in the short passing game.

I think the Bears D can handle Lynch but won't be able to stop Hasselbeck from coolly hitting Stokely and Obamanu on crossing routes.

I like Seattle to win it

Honestly, I put money on Seattle last week and I had less to go off of. Seattle showed last week that they are capable of playing at a high level, something which wasn't present before last week.

I was 3/4 on picks last week thanks to Akers missing two field goals and costing me a perfect weekend To be fair, I only betted on the Jets and Seahawks last week though.

Plus, I'm playing with house money now (and a nice bit of house money thanks to the Seahawks and Jets) so I can afford to take a risk.

[Boris Godunov]

Betted?

[SlowwHand]

I wasn't going to say anything. I came real close.
Is this a site where you bet play money?

[Al B. Sure!]

Play money?

It's not like I was betting $10K or anything. I put $100 on the Seahawks and used a promo code to bump my bet up to $150. With the 4.5:1 odds, after I won that wager, I then flipped $200 of that on the Jets and netted $895 from an initial $100 wager.

No big money here for you to doubt my story. I wish I could say I put $1000 or something on the Seahawks because that would amazing. But yeah, it's pretty damn cool I made almost $900 by Saturday night from a $100 bet the night before, but are you seriously doubting anything? I can't be the only person who bet on the Seahawks money line.

I used sportsbook.com, by the way.

And yes, Boris, "BETTED"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/betted

betted past participle, past tense of bet (Verb)

[SlowwHand]

I just misunderstood. Good luck.

I play Texas Hold 'Em with play money at poker stars.

[Al B. Sure!]

I'm very small time and it was my first bet this season. I used to do little $10 I think it's called parlay bets at my old job in previous seasons but I'm not a serious gambler and never bet online or anything (although I have lost nearly $10K being a ****** and going long on AIG and Citigroup calls a few years back That experience has made me very reluctant to risk money). But with me winning a grand in fantasy, I said what the heck? What's $100 on the Seahawks? Now, I'm playing with house money so I said f it and put money on all the underdogs this week.

The money line odds at sportsbook are as follows:

Ravens +155
Packers +120
Seahawks +350
Jets +320

If any two of those underdogs win, I'll turn a profit for this weekend. I think there's a very good chance that at least two of those underdogs will win.

[Al B. Sure!]

I also did that anti-NE/PIT sort of straddle I talked about and my current positions are:

AFC Champ Futures:
$50 on the Jets for $500
$50 on the Ravens for $400
$100 on the Ravens for $450

NFC Champ futures:
$10 on the Seahawks for $500

Super Bowl futures:
$10 on the Jets for $200


I'm only sharing because if there actually is a Ravens or Jets vs. Seahawks SB and I gloat, I'm pre-empting all the stupid doubters and haters.

[Boris Godunov]

And yes, Boris, "BETTED"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/betted

The link provided doesn't actually state what you quoted. Where did that come from?

"Betted" is really only properly used as a past participle to modify a noun ("That was the sum betted.") It's not used as the past tense of the verb, as "bet" is its own past tense verb. "I bet on the Jets last weekend."

"Betted" sounds totally retarded in your context. You'll never make anything of yourself if you talk like that.

[Al B. Sure!]

Read it, Boris:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=betted

Notice what it says. That's where I got the quote from.

This should also help:

http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=betted+is+a+word&source=bl&ots=nYyTqix0-3&sig=V-oZpRtVdypTa0XGfvvgjLzSWUE&hl=en&ei=nmsvTaWiIcqr8Abgo7iQCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CEUQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q=betted%20is%20a%20word&f=false

[Jaguar]

The link provided doesn't actually state what you quoted. Where did that come from?

"Betted" is really only properly used as a past participle to modify a noun ("That was the sum betted.") It's not used as the past tense of the verb, as "bet" is its own past tense verb. "I bet on the Jets last weekend."

"Betted" sounds totally retarded in your context. You'll never make anything of yourself if you talk like that.

This is correct.

[Al B. Sure!]

And yet if you check my sources, they state that using betted can be an acceptable past tense conjugation, according to Bierce 1909 and Follett 1966 via Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage.

The given usage example is:
"Dixon betted himself it would be there before him" - Kingsley Amis, Lucky Jim, 1954


See why Boris shouldn't be posting in the NFL thread! Look what sort of thread-jack he started! I guess he's just taking out his anger against Auburn on me.

[Al B. Sure!]

Back to NFL news! Here's the new head coaches.

49ers: Jim Harbaugh
Browns: Pat Shurmur (somewhat little known; Shurmur was the QB coach of the Eagles from 99-08 and the O-coordinator of the Rams the past two season; bodes very well for Colt McCoy's development; Shurmur is also part of the Mike Holmgren coaching tree via Andy Reid)
Panthers: Ron Rivera
Broncos: John Fox

[Demonbinder]

Did you see where the Seattle coach said he would kick to Devin Hester? Maybe he will (not a good idea) but why does he have to say it? :lol

[Boris Godunov]

Read it, Boris:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=betted

Notice what it says. That's where I got the quote from.

This should also help:

http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJ...20word&f=false

Read that second link again. You're misconstruing what it says, probably deliberately. At least, I *bet* you're doing it deliberately. The Kinglsey usage was for an indefinite, not a definite--it specifically mentions the distinction.

Notice it says that Bierce 1909 and Follett 1966 were the ONLY ones who said "betted" was the correct past participle. "No one else agrees." If you have to go back to 1966 to find someone with whom "No one else agrees" to justify it, you're wrong.

See also what it says about Evans 1957: "Bet" is used for definite transactions. The example that site gives for actual usage of "betted" is what I said earlier: a past participle modifying a noun ("amount of money betted").

Using "betted" as you did makes you sound like you have down syndrome.
.