All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. One could interpret last year as a result of force feeding. They had nobody. He shouldn't play the slot as much in 2018 considering the additions at WR; and I don't see him forcing Howard off the field except in obvious passing downs. For a running back, he's not particularly good at running the ball except when he given a clear lane in space.
  3. need 2 more!
  4. Reuters Top News‏Verified account @Reuters FollowFollow @Reuters More EXCLUSIVE: Trump says he would consider lifting sanctions on Russia if Moscow were to take steps to work with U.S. on issues like Syria and Ukraine. More from @Reuters interview: https://reut.rs/2N4BlI3
  5. This page https://www.playerprofiler.com/nfl/alex-collins/ has Alex Collins as the #9 best RB in 2017 at evading tackles, #5 in elusiveness/juke rate, & #2 at breakaway run and breakaway run rate. He was the #4 RB in YPC against a stacked front, but only #22 versus a weak front. This seems to blend with comments about his vision and running skills versus simple speed. It seems like much of his success may depend on game script.
  6. Up With People sucks. @KarmaPolice OTC
  7. Round 9.2 Devontae Booker RB Denver Music later. Sorry Senor Floppo. There will be music- just not right now. And I don't do the texting thing, either.
  8. cant wait for Labor Day weekend when he posts Part 2
  9. Guess I learned something from reading this thread - we only let immigrants in when we need cheap labor. I thought it was for the good of the immigrant, not the economy.
  10. Other notable BB "busts"....Nick Saban, Jim Schwartz, Romeo Crennel, Mike Vrabel, Bill O'Brien, etc.
  11. RFE/RL‏Verified account @RFERL Yanukovych has been charged with high treason, complicity in an aggressive war against Ukraine, and complicity in premeditated activities aimed at altering Ukraine's state borders. Jamie Kelly ?? ??‏ @Barkforlove1 Aug 16 Replying to @RFERL This is what Manafort and Tad Devine were involved in. They are responsible for every one of the 10,000+ deaths from the unrest they helped create. All for power and money. #Treason
  12. No, probably because the conclusions drawn by the person who published that stat were dubious https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/author-of-the-war-on-cops-argues-that-more-black-people_us_57fcf5c4e4b0d786aa52bd9f Author Of ‘The War On Cops’ Argues That More Black People Should Be Killed By Police [...] Or perhaps, as MacDonald argues in the War on Cops, black lives should be compared to police officer lives. Only 13 police officers were killed by police in 2014 by black offenders, but 306 black people were killed by police officers that same year. MacDonald is arguing that in a world where a war on cops actually exists, the lives of 306 black people are not worth the lives of 13 police officers. She spins this with pseudo-academic language writing, “an officer’s chance of getting killed by a black assailant is 18.5 times higher than the chance of an unarmed black getting killed by a cop.” This statement makes sense only if you accept that the lives of 13 officers are worth more than the lives of 306 black people – or that it takes over 24 black lives to equal 1 blue life. Interestingly enough, MacDonald’s completely racist and ungrounded assertions lends more validity to the argument that the majority of law enforcement officers should be unarmed than it does to the idea that black lives don’t matter. The best counterargument for MacDonald’s argument that a cop is 18.5 times more likely to kill a black person than a black person is to say: only if you believe that black lives are worth less numerically than others. It might be helpful to remind them that black people are people. They are not 3/5ths people. They are not 1/30th a police officer. They are people. Black people are people. Their lives matter. Black Lives Matter.
  13. Already a hot-button issue in the United Kingdom, a controversial bookmaking practice is starting to spread in the U.S.'s growing legal sports betting market, too. Bookmakers from London to Las Vegas are refusing to take bets from a growing number of customers whose only offense might be trying to win. The full scope of the issue in the U.K. is difficult to determine, but it's believed only a small fraction of the roughly 8.5 million "punters" (the European term for bettors) are impacted. Gaming experts say sportsbooks might have closed as many as 50,000 betting accounts in recent years, and just as many punters have had their betting limits restricted to mere pittance. As one U.K. bettor put it, "If you try to win, they don't let you play anymore." Yes, bookmakers are severely restricting or closing accounts for what appears to be the fact that these people are winning," said U.K. gambling consultant Steve Donoughue, secretariat for an all-party parliamentary group that focuses on gaming. "The hilariousness of it," Donoughue added, "is that they restricted one of my member's accounts, and he's a Lord." The profit-minded corporations that have entered the bookmaking game, however, look at it from the perspective of their bottom line and wonder what business would ever choose to cater to customers thought to be "uneconomical." It's like encouraging a world-class competitive eater to dine often at your all-you-can-eat buffet. American sports betting is not immune to the practice. Banning or limiting sophisticated players has been a regular part of Las Vegas sports betting for decades, and, like in the U.K., there's absolutely nothing illegal about it. Bettors say the practice is increasing and has even occurred in some of the new states (such as New Jersey) that have entered into the now-legal bookmaking game in recent months. Americans should be worried," said Brian Chappell, a founder for the U.K. bettor advocacy group Justice for Punters. "It's coming." A reputation for sportsbook giant William Hill In Nevada, refusing to take bets from any customer, from card counters to wise-guy sports bettors, is completely within any casino's legal rights. From Caesars Palace to the Venetian to more local spots like Station Casinos, every bookmaker in town will tell you -- albeit somewhat quietly -- that they've 86'd customers for one reason or another. Seasoned bettors are concerned, though, that the practice of banning or limiting accounts is not only increasing, but the reasoning behind the decisions is becoming more and more suspect. Many believe that the only thing betting intelligently will get you at some shops is a one-way ticket to being thrown out. An iconic U.K. bookmaker that's rapidly growing its footprint in the U.S. is said to be by far the most aggressive with the tactic. ESPN communicated with 20 bettors for this article who said they had been banned from betting with William Hill U.S. in Nevada. Two said they already have been cut off at the new William Hill books in New Jersey, too, something the Division of Gaming Enforcement is reviewing. "In our world, our community," said Joe Fortuna, one of the professional bettors who says he was cut off by William Hill in Nevada, "everyone knows you'll get thrown out of there." "It's not even really close," said another Las Vegas bettor who had been restricted by William Hill and requested anonymity. "They're by far the worst." Founded in 1934 in London, William Hill was granted a Nevada gaming license in 2012. The company has grown into the largest bookmaker by volume in Nevada, serving more than 100,000 customers and operating in more than 100 locations -- including at casinos like Casino Royale and Hooters on the Las Vegas Strip. They have the most customers and, in turn, probably have the most complaints directed at them. A vast majority of William Hill's customers are recreational bettors who wager small amounts and never test the limits, house rules or gaming regulations. Industry sources say it's the remaining sliver of bettors who make the book uncomfortable enough to eliminate some of them from the equation. William Hill has a reputation of banning bettors in Nevada and the U.K. Danny Lawson/PA Images/ Getty Images William Hill executives make the decision on which accounts to shut down during a weekly meeting in the Las Vegas corporate office, according to multiple sources familiar with the company's practices. In these meetings, often held on Wednesdays, CEO Joe Asher will scroll through a list of accounts, flagging any that stand out as potential threats. He will then ask his team of traders why they should continue doing business with these customers. The traders, sources said, regularly resist, promising that a player ultimately will lose back all their winnings and then some. Their resistance, however, has not prevented hundreds of bettors from being put on a list that prohibits them from betting with William Hill in person or on the company's mobile app. "I would be surprised if it's not in the thousands," one industry source said. William Hill says the bettors on the banned list belong there. Nevada bookmakers are heavily regulated and risk federal scrutiny as well as six- and even seven-figure fines from Nevada Gaming Control if they don't maintain anti-money laundering and know-your-customer protocols. If a bettor is found to be unsuitable and violating federal law or state regulations, the bookmaker who took their bet is often held responsible too. To stay in good standing with regulators, licensed operators must be careful. Anyone named in illegal gambling investigations is put on William Hill's banned list, along with bettors suspected of sharing accounts on the mobile app, a violation of gaming control regulations. There is, however, a select group of bettors, dozens of them, who insist they haven't done anything except try to place smart bets and yet were still cut off. Some are angle-shooting advantage players, who target oddsmakers' mistakes and any latency in updating the lines, while others on the list say they are simply avid sports bettors who try to play the best odds. All kinds have been shown the door at William Hill, according to the bettors and additional industry sources. "It is completely false to say that we ban people simply for winning," William Hill U.S. told ESPN in a statement. "There are literally tens of thousands of customers in Nevada that are winners at William Hill. That's one of the great things about sports betting -- a lot of customers do win. "In the rare situation where we do prohibit someone from wagering with us, there are a variety of reasons why. They include the sharing of accounts (usually tied to someone who previously has been banned), betting on behalf of third parties, screen scraping and other efforts to 'game' the system, as well as compliance reasons or being offensive to staff and/or other customers. "If someone tells you that the reason that they are prohibited from wagering with William Hill is because they are winning, they are not telling you the whole story." The company declined to answer further questions on the record and did not respond to follow-up requests to clarify the meaning of "screen scraping." Several bettors said they weren't certain what "screen scraping" entails. At ESPN's request, bettors provided emails and screenshots from their mobile accounts that notified them they could no longer bet with William Hill. Some bettors said they were even in the red overall at the book, but might have had a recent hot streak or won on a long-shot futures bet that proceeded their being cut off. It happened to Fortuna two years ago. After cashing a winning bet on the Golden State Warriors in the NBA Finals, he went back to the William Hill book the next day and was told he was no longer allowed to bet. "They don't give you any reason," Fortuna said. "We called corporate and didn't get anywhere. It's almost like they're saying, 'We don't have to serve you,' which is unfair. You can't win. It's not really bookmaking." Another bettor was informed of his banishment via email: "While we appreciate your previous business, the company has decided to no longer conduct business with you," a William Hill representative wrote. The bettor said he sent three follow-up emails and left multiple phone messages asking for a reason for the decision but never got a response. How other Nevada sportsbooks operate Some professional bettors have accepted that the books' right of refusal is just part of the cost of doing business that comes along with their chosen career. Some bettors said they go to great lengths to try to stay off the radar. They'll keep their bets under the limits and will even intentionally place wagers at less-advantageous odds. "My personal experience here is that they have not backed me off," said Ed Miller, a Las Vegas-based sports bettor and accomplished poker author. "I have won here in Nevada. I know other people who have won. If you don't want to get backed off, you've kind of got to play it on their terms a little bit." Not every sportsbook in Nevada takes a hardline approach to dealing with sharp bettors. Some Vegas veterans believe it is part of their responsibility as a bookmaker to accept decent-size wagers -- anywhere from $500 to $2,000, for example -- from any bettor in good standing. Some even welcome wiseguys, to an extent. The Westgate Las Vegas SuperBook divides bettors into eight categories, based on how sharp they are perceived to be and previous betting history. Ethan Miller/Getty Images "We like having wise-guy action," said Chris Andrews, sportsbook director at the South Point Casinos and a nearly 40-year Nevada bookmaker. "You can use their information if you manage them properly, and it will help your bottom line." Ed Malinowski, sportsbook director for The Stratosphere, divides wise-guy action into two categories: handicappers who bet their opinions, and advantage players who might place arbitrage bets on both sides of games and target off-market lines and odds. "The advantage players are the ones who are just scalping prices and taking advantage of weak numbers," Malinowski said. "Those are more of the undesirable-type players we don't want in here." The Westgate SuperBook, which is known to accept sharp action, creates a profile on every bettor in its database. Similar to The Stratosphere's practice, the SuperBook places bettors in eight different categories. "We categorize them from the sharpest of the sharp -- the guys who bet their own opinions and we respect greatly -- to your average Joe," said Jay Kornegay, vice president of race and sports for the SuperBook. "We get a lot of sharp players in here that we deal with on a daily basis. We monitor them very, very closely. We profile to a point where we know exactly what they're doing and mold their limits accordingly." In the end, you have two professions, each trying to increase profits, but only one side gets to make the rules. "It's a cat-and-mouse game with these guys," added Malinowski, a 25-year-plus Nevada bookmaker. "Obviously, they're doing their job, and we're trying to do ours." 'A business, not a public service' The crux of the debate can be boiled down to two quotes from a January seminar in the U.K., hosted by the Parliamentary All-Party Betting & Gaming Group titled, "Are Bookmakers unfairly closing customer accounts?" During the meeting, members of Parliament listened to industry stakeholders, including bookmakers and punters, state their cases. "Risk management should not be taken to equal risk elimination," said Simon Rolans, chairman for a horse racing bettors advocacy group. "Betting on horse racing, by its nature, involves risk -- whichever side of the counter you are on -- and that is a significant part of its appeal compared to some alternatives." Richard Flint, CEO of U.K. online bookmaker Sky Betting & Gaming, spoke next. "We are ... a mass-market leisure and entertainment business," Flint said. "And that word, 'business,' brings me to my first major point. We run a business, not a public service. And we run it to be a commercial success. I'm not embarrassed about that." In shooting for commercial success, should bookmakers be allowed to refuse to take bets from customers who take steps to try to win? On the other hand, should a business be forced to take on a customer they fear will repeatedly damage its bottom line? The debate is getting ready to play out in state legislatures across the U.S.
  14. Good three points.... ####### hate this matchup. Lovren might be getting Drew Bledsoe'd in front of our eyes. #TeamGomez
  15. I don't understand the votes by people not believing that the US military at least considered a "gay bomb" when loads of reputable news sources reported that, yes, the US Air Force did consider it according to released government papers.
  16. If it's not on the first page I won't go find it.
  17. Ranking Every NFL Team's Backup QB Situation Ranking NFL backup QBs by team: Who has best contingency plan?
  18. I cant believe that I'm doing this--but 4.4 Josh Gordon @flapgreen
  19. at the drama queen calling out posters for spamming the board. If only they would implement a way to ignore replies to posters I’d never have to read his garbage ever again.
  20. No. CNN and other news outlets regularly seek interviews with jurors after cases are completed. Your conspiracy theory makes no sense.
  21. Kaycee replaces Brett on the block.
  22. Tennessee Titans: Marcus Mariota is pleased with second year wide receiver
  23. Yeah Roto has Nicholson at FS and Swearinger at SS but Swearinger has never really been a box guy, he's always lined up deep.
  1. Load more activity