Jump to content

Your New Jersey Devils Regular Season Thread: 2022-2023 Edition


Crisis

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, mfitz804 said:

I’ve explained it multiple times, you just don’t seem to be accepting that explanation.  If a gambler said “I am betting $100 no matter what I bet on” and stuck to that, sure, there is no difference in the number or amount of bets placed.

If instead, they just decide not to place a bet on that game (my example was getting only 4 games THAT DAY instead of 5), then the house (which I assume you understand by now) loses by not having the opportunity to take your money. 

You keep saying it hasn’t been explained to you, but it has. Whether you agree or not is a separate issue.

I fully understood that part. I understand that if someone decide to only bet on 4 games and not 5 that the house is not potentially taking the money. That's simple. 

My question is... why would a gambler NOT gamble on a 5th game that day? In relation to what started this conversation... which is that teams are not giving enough long-term specific details about injuries. And my point from the get-go is that on the day a bet it put in. We DO know who's playing. So how is the long term thing and transparency a problem for that 5th game

I assume because X player would be playing or not. But we DO know on game day who's playing or not. So how is that a problem with anything week-to-week or lack of transparency. Also if X player playing or not is truly the deciding factor. If he's not playing he can just bet on the opposing team, he has options.

now i know you said 

Quote

 

Imagine instead that based on the information, you decide to skip the Devils game altogether and just do a 4 game parlay for less money. 

 

But that'd be a dumb move and nothing to do with Fitz giving enough details or not. The factor is the player playing or not that day. Nothing else

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

I fully understood that part. I understand that if someone decide to only bet on 4 games and not 5 that the house is not potentially taking the money. That's simple. 

My question is... why would a gambler NOT gamble on a 5th game that day? In relation to what started this conversation... which is that teams are not giving enough long-term specific details about injuries. And my point from the get-go is that on the day a bet it put in. We DO know who's playing. So how is the long term thing and transparency a problem for that 5th game

I assume because X player would be playing or not. But we DO know on game day who's playing or not. So how is that a problem with anything week-to-week or lack of transparency. Also if X player playing or not is truly the deciding factor. If he's not playing he can just bet on the opposing team, he has options.

now i know you said 

But that'd be a dumb move and nothing to do with Fitz giving enough details or not. The factor is the player playing or not that day. Nothing else

You just aren’t paying enough attention to all of the various explanations that have been given. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

You just aren’t paying enough attention to all of the various explanations that have been given. 

Shouldn't he be paying attention to the Finland vs Slovakia game that I thought he was at?    

Nemec had a good scoring opportunity a few minutes ago but the goalie made a nice blocker save.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Crisis said:

It's not as black and white as this.  Maybe you think NJ wins with Palat, but that doesn't necessarily mean you think they will lose without him.  Like mfitz said, maybe you skip that game because without Palat, you are less certain of the result.  And if you don't bet the game, that's a loss for the house.

You also seem to be wrapped up in this "day of" thing.  There are many other bets someone can place that would rely on knowing if a top player or goalie are out days, weeks, or months.  And whether you think they can recover completely or quickly from a specific type of injury.  You can bet on futures like division/conference winners, if a team makes or misses the playoffs, individual awards like Vezina or Conn Smythe.  The context of the injury plays a big role in all the other aspects besides is player x in or out of the lineup this very day.

Yes i got that but thats a decision the gambler makes based on a player playing or not that day. But does it really have anything to do with the GM not being specific enough in that case.

Now, so your 2nd paragraph is something that hasn't been brought up (or it went over my head) and i did ask multiple times if bets are made in advance / through like a week or just on the day. I said many times i don't know how it works. Im wrapped up cause i wasn't given an alternative. That scenario is making more sense where you might want to bet on... Boston finishing first in the conference and say Pastrnak goes down tonight with a knee injury. You might want to know if he'll be back sooner than later before you pull the trigger on that. But again, more often than not, we do know roughly how long players will be out for based on their injuries. And we do know if it's for quite awhile so in this case it's the injury itself causing problem for the house and not as much the GMs not giving enough details in my opinion. Also It might not always be accurate cause people do heal differently and will play once they are comfortable but that's not always black and white, So you can't really promise a timeline if you don't know. but more often than not we do have an idea unless the injury is tricky like Woods hips for example. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lateralous said:

Shouldn't he be paying attention to the Finland vs Slovakia game that I thought he was at?    

Nemec had a good scoring opportunity a few minutes ago but the goalie made a nice blocker save.   

lol i did pay attention... that game was yesterday.

I assume you're watching the game on tv now and thinking it's actually live... that's funny

Spoiler: Finland won

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

You just aren’t paying enough attention to all of the various explanations that have been given. 

Dude its overwhelming having a conversation with multiple peoples about a subject you're learning on the spot. Just straight up answer my question. Im not trying to argue im trying to understand and you're not answering straight up questions.

Also many explanations are not really making a case as to why the way NHL are doing things now is actually a "real" problem rather than a slight inconvenience in some specific scenarios.

None anyway that trumps a GM not wanting other teams to know too much about their players to keep leverage and protect the players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

lol i did pay attention... that game was yesterday.

I assume you're watching the game on tv now and thinking it's actually live... that's funny

Ha, guilty as charged.  Yes, I'm watching this in the background at work on NHLN and assumed it was live 

Edited by Lateralous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SterioDesign said:

Dude its overwhelming having a conversation with multiple peoples about a subject you're learning on the spot. Just straight up answer my question. Im not trying to argue im trying to understand and you're not answering straight up questions.

Also many explanations are not really making a case as to why the way NHL are doing things now is actually a "real" problem rather than a slight inconvenience in some specific scenarios.

None anyway that trumps a GM not wanting other teams to know too much about their players to keep leverage and protect the players.

I straight up answered multiple times. It’s clear you aren’t keeping up, which is fine. 

Fine also is you disagreeing with what was said. But to say “nobody is answering” when you have been answered a dozen times just isn’t correct. Nobody needs to prove anything to you, and you can disagree all you like. 

The motivations of the GM to keep leverage and protect players are all well and good, we’re talking about the league requiring a specific injury report, and the motivations the league might have in requiring something like that. We already see it in the NFL. My position remains the same, it’s doubtful that enough people are gambling on hockey to make that happen in the NHL, although clearly it has increased exponentially now that it can be done online. 

And I still feel like there’s something wrong with allowing gambling companies to sponsor the teams they take bets on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SterioDesign said:

im heading over for the US Slovakia game in a few minutes though. So pay attention to that one haha

 

I'm actually going to leave here shortly to go up to Newark.  I've seen the Devils here in Philly recently but this will be my first time at the Rock since pre-Covid.    

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

I straight up answered multiple times. It’s clear you aren’t keeping up, which is fine. 

Fine also is you disagreeing with what was said. But to say “nobody is answering” when you have been answered a dozen times just isn’t correct. Nobody needs to prove anything to you, and you can disagree all you like. 

The motivations of the GM to keep leverage and protect players are all well and good, we’re talking about the league requiring a specific injury report, and the motivations the league might have in requiring something like that. We already see it in the NFL. My position remains the same, it’s doubtful that enough people are gambling on hockey to make that happen in the NHL, although clearly it has increased exponentially now that it can be done online. 

And I still feel like there’s something wrong with allowing gambling companies to sponsor the teams they take bets on. 

Not to this question no. One last time then, when it comes to the example that you brought up. The 5 games parlay.

The issue you're bringing up is "a gambler might not pick the Boston Devils game" and only pick 4 games, so the house is not getting as many bets. I get that fully. But i don't really get why he wouldnt either. If youre picking a winner... if a key player is not playing and you think it might be a factor, you can just pick the other team. it's a flip coin on any given game. It's a personal decision not to pick that game then and has nothing to do with the GM not giving enough details

So again, my question is, why wouldn't a gambler pick our game today? We know who's playing RIGHT now. And IF Hughes wasn't playing. Well then pick Boston.

So how is that a problem of the league not being specific enough? We know who's playing and who isnt. And how healthy they must be if they do play

Please address everything i said in here and we should be done with this convo. That's truly what im trying to understand.

 

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MadDog2020 said:

Have fun! Hopefully you bring us some good luck.

Yeah Lateralous by all means feel free to facilitate better results than the last time these two teams met.  I was there for that one.  Will be there for the Ranger game on 1/7.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Not to this question no. One last time then, when it comes to the example that you brought up. The 5 games parlay.

The issue you're bringing up is "a gambler might not pick the Boston Devils game" and only pick 4 games, so the house is not getting as many bets. I get that fully. But i don't really get why he wouldnt either. If youre picking a winner... if a key player is not playing and you think it might be a factor, you can just pick the other team. it's a flip coin on any given game. It's a personal decision not to pick that game then and has nothing to do with the GM not giving enough details

So again, my question is, why wouldn't a gambler pick our game today? We know who's playing RIGHT now. And IF Hughes wasn't playing. Well then pick Boston.

So how is that a problem of the league not being specific enough? We know who's playing and who isnt. And how healthy they must be if they do play

Please address everything i said in here and we should be done with this convo. That's truly what im trying to understand.

 

I’ve already addressed all of this. 

If someone doesn’t feel they have good info regarding a player’s availability and condition, they may not bet on that game. It’s not a guarantee, but to think they’d just reverse the bet and bet the other way doesn’t make any sense, because the issue is still not having full information. Sure, they “can” just pick the other team, but maybe they do and maybe they don’t. Maybe they say “I don’t know what kind of factor Jack will be, so I am just gonna stay out of this one”. Which is obviously bad for the party taking the bets. 

We absolutely do not know 100% who will be playing, but even if we do, we don’t know if they are coming back at 75% or 100%, and we often don’t know what the injury was. You brought up Miles Wood and his hip injury, that obviously has a bigger chance of not being 100% than if he left a game with a cramp in his leg. Yet both are just “lower body injury”. Maybe a guy doesn’t want to risk money knowing that the team’s MVP may or may not be playing at full strength, his time may be limited in-game, etc. You are assuming that whether or not a guy is in the lineup is the only consideration, when it obviously isn’t. 

I don’t think it could possibly be made any clearer than that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

Not to this question no. One last time then, when it comes to the example that you brought up. The 5 games parlay.

The issue you're bringing up is "a gambler might not pick the Boston Devils game" and only pick 4 games, so the house is not getting as many bets. I get that fully. But i don't really get why he wouldnt either. If youre picking a winner... if a key player is not playing and you think it might be a factor, you can just pick the other team. it's a flip coin on any given game. It's a personal decision not to pick that game then and has nothing to do with the GM not giving enough details

So again, my question is, why wouldn't a gambler pick our game today? We know who's playing RIGHT now. And IF Hughes wasn't playing. Well then pick Boston.

So how is that a problem of the league not being specific enough? We know who's playing and who isnt. And how healthy they must be if they do play

Please address everything i said in here and we should be done with this convo. That's truly what im trying to understand.

 

I addressed this too and it seems like you just don't understand what we are saying.  I even tried to use as many of your buzz words or phrases as I possibly could.

3 hours ago, Crisis said:

It's not as black and white as this.  Maybe you think NJ wins with Palat, but that doesn't necessarily mean you think they will lose without him.  Like mfitz said, maybe you skip that game because without Palat, you are less certain of the result.  And if you don't bet the game, that's a loss for the house.

You also seem to be wrapped up in this "day of" thing.  There are many other bets someone can place that would rely on knowing if a top player or goalie are out days, weeks, or months.  And whether you think they can recover completely or quickly from a specific type of injury.  You can bet on futures like division/conference winners, if a team makes or misses the playoffs, individual awards like Vezina or Conn Smythe.  The context of the injury plays a big role in all the other aspects besides is player x in or out of the lineup this very day.

If Palat playes -> Bet NJ

If Palat doesn't play -> Not certain that NJ will win, also not certain that BOS will win, too close of a game to call, don't take the chance.

I bet fairly regularly and there are just some games that you don't want a piece of.  If you're not sure who will win and/or the payout isn't high enough for the risk, you don't just throw one of those into a parlay.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MB3 said:

you’ve advanced to “getting into arguments over things that haven’t even happened”, you’re doing great sweetie. 

no its simply a call back. Cause everyone here knows who's truly acting like a 2 years old when we're not winning lol

Actually i kind of jumped the gun on that one didn't i..... even before we actually lose... all you need is the team being behind by a goal and you just want everyone shot into the sun and traded

Edited by SterioDesign
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.