Re(1): ''Lock & Feed''? - What do you think? Hall of Fame #140 Posted on May 17, 2025 at 01:58:36 PM by Craig G
My basic thinking hasn't changed over the years.
I like things to be somewhat scientific, which is to say, truth-seeking. To be credible, you need to provide a sound argument, and after that some actual data.
Bada-Bing states that none have ever actually confirmed what we already know. Great, assuming that his beliefs are automatically correct, based on no hard data whatsoever. It works for him.
ctshermaneos states that his betting... for the past 5 plus years has averaged about 4,000 bets a year and then says It seems... well, no disrespect intended, especially since I don't track these things either, but if I did think it was so clear that cheating was going on, I would track it, and compare the outcome to my expectations. "It seems" doesn't cut it.
We've all seen some of those discarded programs heavily annotated with hash marks and other symbols. So why not do that here?
If you really want to look at this seriously, there is a lot to consider.
First, as I wrote back then, the team that you are facing with PGP, is probably hot, or superior, or both. That's probably why they are at PGP. Therefore you would would expect that for ALL cases - leave lock and feed out of it - where a player or team is serving to an opponent with PGP, the expectation is receiver wins more than 50%. Even more so in doubles.
Second, well, I'm not gonna bother since this is almost certainly a case of less than zero interest.
So let's just say that it is possible to deconstruct this argument backwards and forwards, inside and out. I'm talking air-tight logic, simulation, and adequate real-world data. And end up actually knowing what you are talking about.
Tiger's Jai-Alai Chalk Talk
