Chollo Vista's "deep" looks

[daggum]

this guy starts a thread titled deep looks and in his very own data has pac as the underdog 4 times yet during his conclusion can't even count correctly and says pac was the underdog only 3 times. also he lists the second barera fight where pac was the fav and not the first when pac was a 4 to 1 underdog. so right off the bat that's at least 5. credibility...gone. thats the most shallow look i've ever seen. do you think hes just really bad at this or is this some kind of agenda where he pretends not to know anything or even how to count? please leave your comments like and subscribe.

[Chollo Vista]

Sorry bud, odds shark didn't date that far back... It's a lot of data to cover so feel free to let me know where I went wrong and I'll update it accordingly. Easy fix.

Also, if you're going to post anything about data, please use a source.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

A deep look into that weird f***ers internet history would be far more interesting...��

[Thunderstruck]

That’s all anybody needs is another credibility judge.

[daggum]

Sorry bud, odds shark didn't date that far back... It's a lot of data to cover so feel free to let me know where I went wrong and I'll update it accordingly. Easy fix.

Also, if you're going to post anything about data, please use a source.

Type in pacquiao barrera betting odds in Google. Also Pac was without a doubt an under dog against the linear champ saskatul but prob won't find those odds so guess it didn't happen!

[daggum]

That’s all anybody needs is another credibility judge.

Im Glenn Feldman.