MB Handicapping contest week 1 (NFL 7) results
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:42 am
Sorry for the delay on my responses. I will be traveling all week, so the board gets a well-deserved break from NNOY.
Here are the records for week 1, I will confirm payments etc later in the week.
Primo 3-0
Gekko 3-0
NNOY 2-1
Big T 2-3
KW3 1-2
KJ DUKE 1-2
Vegas Gamblers 1-2
Wooderson 1-2
SG Hammer 0-3
Not official entries:
JB 3-0
Walla 1-2
Diesel 0-1
Note I am updating this after a serious night of drinking and watching the Bengals bring home my weekend. Head is pounding, so I’ll double check everything later (be sure to post any disagreements with this ASAP.)
Also note that JB DID post his picks at 10:50 so they are not “after the fact” per se. However I agree it’s like playing holdem and skipping all the blinds until you get AA or KK. We’d still love to have you JB, and you proved you can go 3-0, but Primo makes a great point that you would not have joined with an 0-3 record so we can’t give you credit for 3-0.
Remember you can use your 33 picks anytime, so you can still join JB and not be at a disadvantage.
[ October 26, 2004, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: nnoy ]
Here are the records for week 1, I will confirm payments etc later in the week.
Primo 3-0
Gekko 3-0
NNOY 2-1
Big T 2-3
KW3 1-2
KJ DUKE 1-2
Vegas Gamblers 1-2
Wooderson 1-2
SG Hammer 0-3
Not official entries:
JB 3-0
Walla 1-2
Diesel 0-1
Note I am updating this after a serious night of drinking and watching the Bengals bring home my weekend. Head is pounding, so I’ll double check everything later (be sure to post any disagreements with this ASAP.)
Also note that JB DID post his picks at 10:50 so they are not “after the fact” per se. However I agree it’s like playing holdem and skipping all the blinds until you get AA or KK. We’d still love to have you JB, and you proved you can go 3-0, but Primo makes a great point that you would not have joined with an 0-3 record so we can’t give you credit for 3-0.
Remember you can use your 33 picks anytime, so you can still join JB and not be at a disadvantage.
[ October 26, 2004, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: nnoy ]