正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Not all interceptions are created equal. Ask Dak! Two picks. Two different mistakes. Same result: both hurt the Cowboys. Dak is a top-tier QB, but he didn’t recognize the coverage change or move the safety. CeeDee Lamb is an elite route runner who gets it right 99 times out...

44,805 次观看 • 2 天前 •via X (Twitter)

9 条评论

Jason Ruben 的头像
Jason Ruben2 天前

Red zone interception was one of the worst reads he has ever made. Took 3 points possible 7 off the board. Changed the whole trajectory of the game.

Abolish the IRS 的头像
Abolish the IRS1 天前

He would have 3 ints if not for a ridiculous roughing the passer call

The People's Champ 🏆 的头像
The People's Champ 🏆2 天前

Dak makes 60 million dollars and wears the "C" on his chest. Dak needs to be stripped of his "C" and anyone else who is a Captain. This team has NO LEADERS ON IT

MissQChris 的头像
MissQChris2 天前

I love you Ryan, but Dak isn’t a top tier quarterback. He’s mid at best and as a Cowboys fan I’m sick of him and Jerry. It’s been 10 f*ckin years of his ass not being able to read defensive coverages. Trade both of their asses! Thanks.

Dman 的头像
Dman1 天前

Dak is not top tier he’s good but not great

YellowLite 的头像
YellowLite2 天前

"Top tier" 😂

Bfrank Sierra 的头像
Bfrank Sierra2 天前

Well done. 👏

RonDaDon 的头像
RonDaDon1 天前

That’s simply low energy lazy route running on lamb…especially knowing you’re getting the ball..

🧀 的头像
🧀2 天前

I’ll admit I had major suspicions about J Gannon, however, the schemes have shown major improvement. Showing single high and going cover 4 is something we never did years past.

相关视频

Agents vs. Graphs, clearly explained! spawning more agents is great, but it has a ceiling nobody says out loud: five agents is a count. a graph is a shape. only one of them changes the answer. point five agents at the same pile with the same window and they converge. the first one writes a finding, the rest read it, and all five reports centre on the same thing. you paid five times for one opinion with four echoes. Graph engineering fixes this by moving the decision up a layer: not how many agents, but who is allowed to look at what. you need both. here's how it works: ↳ the count buys you throughput. five things happening instead of one ↳ the shape buys you coverage. five different things happening instead of the same one five times Prompts → Context → Harness → Agents → Graphs the node that does this is the splitter, and it decides more than any other node in the system. cut a repository by folder and four workers audit the same three files. cut it by blast radius and each one sees something the others cannot. the trick is being selective about what each lane is allowed to see. separate contexts are not a nice-to-have, they are the mechanism. if two agents are meant to produce different things, they must not share a window. if they are meant to produce the same thing, you did not need two agents. one thing to know before you scale it. a branch that throws does not reject the batch. it resolves to null, and that is the containment. which means your merge quietly receives a short list. ↳ filter the nulls before the merge, or one dead lane poisons the whole result ↳ never index a merge by position. eight good branches and one failure will shift everything by one, silently skip that and the run looks like it worked. the output is just missing a lane, and nothing errored. and the one that eats whole nights: multi-agent setups can use up to fifteen times the total tokens of a single chat, because every lane reloads its own core. you are trading total tokens for a clean main window. usually the right trade, always a choice. below i have quoted my full guide on graph engineering. it covers the three topologies, the verifier patterns, and where the gate should actually open. save this and read it below ↓

Hanako

97,154 次观看 • 1 个月前

You have 100 dollars and you want 200. Betting red one dollar at a time, your chance is one in 33,171. Betting the whole 100 on a single spin, it is 47.4 percent. The careful version is fifteen thousand times worse. This is also the arithmetic of your trading account, and it means almost everything you have been taught about managing risk is, in the strict mathematical sense, a method for losing more reliably. An MIT professor works this out on a blackboard in a lecture on random walks. The result is called gambler's ruin. Two and a half points of disadvantage is nothing on one spin. But a dollar at a time you are not making one spin, you are making hundreds, and the edge gets a fresh attempt at you on every one of them. It was never the size of the disadvantage. It is the number of times you agree to face it. One hundred on red, once: 47.4 percent. Twenty dollar bets: 37.3 percent. Five dollar bets: 11.1 percent. One dollar bets: 0.003 percent. Mathematicians call the right answer bold play. It was proved optimal for unfavourable games in 1965. It is not a strategy for winning. It is the least ruinous way to play a game you should not be in. If your edge after spread and fees is negative, and for most active retail accounts it is, then your position sizing rule is not protecting you. Risking one percent per trade is the one dollar bet. It arrives at zero with near certainty, just politely, over a longer period, with a spreadsheet. Discipline does not beat a negative edge. It schedules it. All of this reverses if you have a real edge. Then small and frequent is correct and bold play is madness. So the only question that has ever mattered is whether you have one, and the number of people certain they do has never resembled the number who do. Your broker does not need you to be wrong. It needs you to be frequent.

Verax

85,472 次观看 • 1 个月前