Congratulations Slave and Catrin!!!

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally Posted by dtb

Can any of you health-care types point me toward a website or other resource where I can buy me some medical insurance? Should I just go to an insurance agent?

GOD! What a pain.

When I was unemployed, I bought my insurance through the state bar.

Just like RT suggests.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'm not comparing oddball numbers with good numbers. I'm saying that if the rule was, use end of regulation numbers as opposed to end of game numbers, you would be in a better position with numbers like 3 and 3 since there is no way you can win the big prize if regulation ends up tied 13-13 the other way. Contrast that with 6-3. Of course you can win if you end up with a final score of 23-13, but is it not an extra hinderance people with two different numbers don't have?

I read an article on the frequency of which numbers come up. And obviously some numbers are better to have than others. But, without looking at the statistics, I would much rather have 3 and 0 than 3 and 3 or 0 and 0, because I wouldn't have to worry about a tie game at the end of regulation knocking me out of the money.

TM

I've honestly never worried about this. The likelihood of winning any quarter with any square is low enough that I'd take tying good numbers in the hope of winning a quarter. End of the game numbers could be basically anything (sure, 2 and 5 are less likely, but most other numbers are in play) -- hopes for 0, 3, 6, 7 relate more to winning early quarters than late don't they?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

You could make the same case for every square that's not a difference of 3 or 6 (or, I suppose, 2).

I'm not sure what the debate is here. I am not comparing boxes, I am comparing rules. My point earlier was that if you had two of the same good number, your advantage is lessened by rules that say the final score is the score that is to be used, as opposed to a rule that uses the end of the 4th quarter score.

If you have 3 and 3 or 4 and 4 or 7 and 7, which rules are better for you? A tally at the end of the game or at the end of regulation?

TM

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I am not comparing boxes

Perhaps we need Boxicle Day?

[notcasesensitive]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'm not sure what the debate is here. I am not comparing boxes, I am comparing rules. My point earlier was that if you had two of the same good number, your advantage is lessened by rules that say the final score is the score that is to be used, as opposed to a rule that uses the end of the 4th quarter score.

If you have 3 and 3 or 4 and 4 or 7 and 7, which rules are better for you? A tally at the end of the game or at the end of regulation?

TM

Well in that case, the fairest thing would be to have half of the final payout be for end of 4th Q and half for end of game. That way in the event of OT, neither would lose out, but if no OT it works out that both parts go to the same person. Still I'd take 3-3 or 7-7 happily any time. So HAS there ever been OT in a Super Bowl??

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

So HAS there ever been OT in a Super Bowl??

No.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

I've honestly never worried about this. The likelihood of winning any quarter with any square is low enough that I'd take tying good numbers in the hope of winning a quarter. End of the game numbers could be basically anything (sure, 2 and 5 are less likely, but most other numbers are in play) -- hopes for 0, 3, 6, 7 relate more to winning early quarters than late don't they?

Of course you always want good numbers. That is not the question.

I brought it up because I had multiple boxes. One box, 3 and 3 was out as soon as the score was close in the fourth quarter. But it shouldn't have been. The right combination of a field goal and a touchdown would have won me the big cash if you used the score at the end of the fourth quarter. In fact, anyone who has two of the same number are completely out of it in a close game in the fourth. If there is a tie at the end of the fourth, they lose. That never factors in if you have two different numbers. The question is not whether or not you still have an advantage over two shitty numbers if you're lucky enough to get two of the same good number. The question is, how much of that advantage do you lose with one rule as opposed to the other?

Similarly, if you have 6 and 3 for example (which are two pretty good numbers already) and the final score pays out, your odds are better than they were if the rule is that the fourth quarter score pays out.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

Well in that case, the fairest thing would be to have half of the final payout be for end of 4th Q and half for end of game. That way in the event of OT, neither would lose out, but if no OT it works out that both parts go to the same person.

That seems fair.

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

Still I'd take 3-3 or 7-7 happily any time.

Of course.

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

So HAS there ever been OT in a Super Bowl??

That can't be the question. The question should be: how often do games go into overtime?

TM

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

. The question should be: how often do games go into overtime?

TM

There are typically about 15-20 OT games each regular season, out of 256, so 6-8% of games. But in some respects the likelihood of an SB going into OT is more relevant, since who's betting on boxes for, say, a Bengals-Eagles regular season tilt?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

There are typically about 15-20 OT games each regular season, out of 256, so 6-8% of games. But in some respects the likelihood of an SB going into OT is more relevant, since who's betting on boxes for, say, a Bengals-Eagles regular season tilt?

Come on. Are you saying that looking at the number of times there was an OT game in Superbowl history is a better predictor than looking at NFL games in general? I think you just want to argue.

TM

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Come on. Are you saying that looking at the number of times there was an OT game in Superbowl history is a better predictor than looking at NFL games in general? I think you just want to argue.

TM

1) I said in some respects, reflecting that SB matchups are different from the large majority of regular season games, and the incentives facing coaches and players are different.

[spoiler space: math is hard]
2) To back that up, given that around 6-8% of regular season games go into overtime, I calculated the likelihood that we would see 0 superbowls (out of 43) have an overtime if the percentages were the same. There is less than a 5% chance of that occurring, which using ordinary statistical assumptions means that the chances of the SB going into overtime are lower than for regular season games.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by dtb

Can any of you health-care types point me toward a website or other resource where I can buy me some medical insurance? Should I just go to an insurance agent?

GOD! What a pain.

I don't recall if this was the exact site I used, but it is a useful start to get an idea of price and coverage. http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by dtb

Can any of you health-care types point me toward a website or other resource where I can buy me some medical insurance? Should I just go to an insurance agent?

GOD! What a pain.

You want to find a way to get it as part of a group - BnB's idea of through the Bar sounds right. Otherwise, there can be small business groups or the like, and you want to find one of them. Can you COBRA?

[greatwhitenorthchick]

I wrote a story for this book and got paid $50 for it. If enough people buy it, I might get paid more!!! So here is a link if you want me and other illustrious contributors like Carrie Fisher to make some more $$.

Exciting.



http://www.amazon.com/What-Was-Think...3687141&sr=8-1

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You want to find a way to get it as part of a group - BnB's idea of through the Bar sounds right. Otherwise, there can be small business groups or the like, and you want to find one of them. Can you COBRA?

get out of the box.

I just saw Being There. the rich can have live in Doctors. She just needs to find say, a John hopkins MD who also attended CIA and fire cook. That way there is no long drive to hospital or sitting in germ filled waiting rooms.