WWW Indian Wells R4: Tsonga vs Soderling [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

WWW Indian Wells R4: Tsonga vs Soderling

whattheheck
03-17-2010, 04:58 AM
Robin won the last 2 times.

ssj100
03-17-2010, 05:06 AM
Could go either way. Depends on who is playing their A-game. If they both play A-games, Tsonga wins in 3.

Sunset of Age
03-17-2010, 09:58 AM
Soderling in two or three.

Bilbo
03-17-2010, 08:13 PM
J. Tsonga in 3

Roamed
03-17-2010, 08:16 PM
I hope Soderling. But though he's been playing good this tournament, put into the perspective of the rest of the year things have been erratic. Thinking Soderling in 2 but wouldn't be surprised with other results.

tennishero
03-17-2010, 08:19 PM
tsonga in 3.

Jomp1
03-17-2010, 08:20 PM
I hope Soderling. But though he's been playing good this tournament, put into the perspective of the rest of the year things have been erratic. Thinking Soderling in 2 but wouldn't be surprised with other results.

It's been solid since Rotterdam though, didn't lose a set in DC and not yet this tournament.

vn01
03-17-2010, 08:27 PM
I want Tsonga,but Soda wins this.Maybe in 3,or even in 2

Roamed
03-17-2010, 08:38 PM
It's been solid since Rotterdam though, didn't lose a set in DC and not yet this tournament.

I was thinking about Llodra in Marseille and the AO loss but he was great at Rotterdam and DC :)

BlackSilver
03-17-2010, 08:52 PM
Could go either way. Depends on who is playing their A-game. If they both play A-games, Tsonga wins in 3.

God.......

I was thinking about Llodra in Marseille

He never was a favourite in that match

Orka_n
03-17-2010, 08:55 PM
Take this in 2, Robin.

Guille.
03-17-2010, 11:15 PM
I hope Robin wins:D

gusavo
03-17-2010, 11:34 PM
God.......



He never was a favourite in that match

LOL. so I assume you bet huge amounts on that match then. will you give me 2 times the money on sod the next time they play then? so how likely do you think hes to win this match?

coonster14
03-17-2010, 11:43 PM
i think soderling wins this, but i hope tsonga wins.

DrJules
03-17-2010, 11:44 PM
Soderling as Tsonga does not return the big serve very well.

BlackSilver
03-17-2010, 11:52 PM
LOL.

Your laughs aren't gonna win the discussion

so I assume you bet huge amounts on that match then.

I didn't bet.

will you give me 2 times the money on sod the next time they play then?

Why are you obsessed with money? Let's bet something more interesting.

so how likely do you think hes to win this match?

This one against Tsonga?

ReturnWinner
03-17-2010, 11:54 PM
Soda in two sets.

Jomp1
03-17-2010, 11:59 PM
I was thinking about Llodra in Marseille and the AO loss but he was great at Rotterdam and DC :)

Ah yes Marseille forgot about that one. But it was two tight sets and Llodra was playing pretty well if I recall, no meltdown like against Granollers atleast :D

gusavo
03-19-2010, 04:31 AM
Your laughs aren't gonna win the discussion
lol
pretty impossible to not win an argument from post 0 when your opponent is saying söderling was not favourite against llodra.

I didn't bet.
what! so why do you not want all that free money that was available? at least you would think if you disliked money you would take that free money from the betting companies and redistribute them to poor people. most certainly is going to be a better situation for the world.

Why are you obsessed with money? Let's bet something more interesting.
what are you talking about

This one against Tsonga?
yes

BlackSilver
03-19-2010, 07:34 PM
lol
pretty impossible to not win an argument from post 0 when your opponent is saying söderling was not favourite against llodra.

Keep laughing, you still aren't winning the discussion. You know, you have to proof what you say to win the discussion, or at least, give some convincing arguments to make other people to believe in it. Not that I did it too (yet).


what! so why do you not want all that free money that was available? at least you would think if you disliked money you would take that free money from the betting companies and redistribute them to poor people. most certainly is going to be a better situation for the world.

Who says I care about poor people?


what are you talking about

How about we bet about our permanence in this forum?


yes

It was 80-85% to Soderling in my opinion.

Jomp1
03-19-2010, 07:43 PM
Keep laughing, you still aren't winning the discussion. You know, you have to proof what you say to win the discussion, or at least, give some convincing arguments to make other people to believe in it. Not that I did it too (yet).




Who says I care about poor people?




How about we bet about our permanence in this forum?




It was 80-85% to Soderling in my opinion.


http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-04-03/1238782717002.jpg

BlackSilver
03-20-2010, 07:59 PM
http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-04-03/1238782717002.jpg

Are you afraid to keep it going?
Because this seems to be the case when people start to use photo responses. Good to see you have no arguments to support your point, which endorses my point about you being a layman about the subject :)

gusavo
03-21-2010, 01:25 AM
Keep laughing, you still aren't winning the discussion. You know, you have to proof what you say to win the discussion, or at least, give some convincing arguments to make other people to believe in it. Not that I did it too (yet).
as I said, I have already won by taking the non-crazy side of the discussion. I guarantee you there is 0% chance of a higher than absolute 0% of people being profitable at sportsbetting not knowing that söderling was a clear and big favourite against llodra. you can ask any highly educated, and any person with high iq and some knowledge of this subject and they will all agree with my first sentance.
this is very convincing arguments. anyone who dont believe this has either very little idea about tennis knowledge on the atp players or/and are unable to look up the odds.

Who says I care about poor people?
nobody.
typically people do, and rediulously near 100% either care about poor people/some other charitable thing to give money to or they care about attaining money for themselves. hence my innitial comment- why did you not take the free money.

How about we bet about our permanence in this forum?
maybe. what are you talking about?

It was 80-85% to Soderling in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
very wrong again.

BlackSilver
03-23-2010, 02:07 AM
as I said, I have already won by taking the non-crazy side of the discussion. I guarantee you there is 0% chance of a higher than absolute 0% of people being profitable at sportsbetting not knowing that söderling was a clear and big favourite against llodra. you can ask any highly educated, and any person with high iq and some knowledge of this subject and they will all agree with my first sentance.
this is very convincing arguments. anyone who dont believe this has either very little idea about tennis knowledge on the atp players or/and are unable to look up the odds.

No you didn't. While it makes sense to follow the collective opinion of a group on a wager based on the statistics of their previous success, like: "group X sets right 80% of their bets on football matches", the way you are using it is a common argumentative error.
You are appealing to their authority to guarantee the infallibility of your point of view, which is false
Worst is that you can't even guarantee this nonsense of "0% of 0% of bla bla bla" and "ask any people with high iq and knowledge of subject"
So even if you are right, you will never be able to demonstrate it to me.


nobody.
typically people do, and rediulously near 100% either care about poor people/some other charitable thing to give money to or they care about attaining money for themselves. hence my innitial comment- why did you not take the free money.

I don't bet in tennis matches. But what the hell is this nonsense about free money anyway?


maybe. what are you talking about?

Let's bet about a possible future rematch of Llodra against Sodeling in Marsseille and a rematch between Soderling and Tsonga in Indian Wells.
If those rematches happens, if Soderling wins on Marseille or Tsonga in Indian Wells, I leave this forum. If the oposite happens, you leave this forum.


very wrong again.

No it wasn't, by similar reasons of the first part of my post. You can think that someone is a fool for not following it and doesn't understand anything about the subject based on the odds from sport's betting internet site., but you can't assert that someone's opinion is wrong based on it.

gusavo
03-23-2010, 03:12 AM
No you didn't. While it makes sense to follow the collective opinion of a group on a wager based on the statistics of their previous success, like: "group X sets right 80% of their bets on football matches", the way you are using it is a common argumentative error.
You are appealing to their authority to guarantee the infallibility of your point of view, which is false
Worst is that you can't even guarantee this nonsense of "0% of 0% of bla bla bla" and "ask any people with high iq and knowledge of subject"
So even if you are right, you will never be able to demonstrate it to me.
I argued perfectly.
talk properly, its a bit confusing.
yes their knowledge on the subject makes it impossible for them to bet on llodra for 2 or less times the money because then they would not be profitable betters.
I can guarantee the 0% chance of any profitable betters being profitable if they believe that he would be a favourite again söd. I can say that at least close to zero percent of people with high iq and knowledge on tennis will think that llodra was a favourite. lets check the odds the next time they meet and you will, again, be shown that you are wrong.
I know you will never be able to show me one profitable better thinking llodra was the favourite, since its impossible, cause then he would not be profitting.

I don't bet in tennis matches. But what the hell is this nonsense about free money anyway?
uhh, what the hell do you think? if you think he was a favourite you bet on him for about 3.7 or whatever it was and make millions.

Let's bet about a possible future rematch of Llodra against Sodeling in Marsseille and a rematch between Soderling and Tsonga in Indian Wells.
If those rematches happens, if Soderling wins on Marseille or Tsonga in Indian Wells, I leave this forum. If the oposite happens, you leave this forum.
nice bet there. if you win, you win nothing and a random person has to leave the forum and if you lose, you have to leave. great bet.
why not their next match? the rules are really silly.


No it wasn't, by similar reasons of the first part of my post. You can think that someone is a fool for not following it and doesn't understand anything about the subject based on the odds from sport's betting internet site., but you can't assert that someone's opinion is wrong based on it.
oh it was wrong, anyone can tell you he wasnt 80-85 to win the match. I can assert it to near infinity, just as I can with the christian god not excisting. you dont understand anything about the matchup if you believe that.

Orka_n
03-23-2010, 03:51 PM
oh it was wrong, anyone can tell you he wasnt 80-85 to win the match. I can assert it to near infinity, just as I can with the christian god not excisting.Is that so? Romans 1:22 "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools."

And stop stalking me with PMs. You creep me out.

BlackSilver
03-23-2010, 10:03 PM
I argued perfectly.
talk properly, its a bit confusing.
yes their knowledge on the subject makes it impossible for them to bet on llodra for 2 or less times the money because then they would not be profitable betters.
I can guarantee the 0% chance of any profitable betters being profitable if they believe that he would be a favourite again söd. I can say that at least close to zero percent of people with high iq and knowledge on tennis will think that llodra was a favourite. lets check the odds the next time they meet and you will, again, be shown that you are wrong.
I know you will never be able to show me one profitable better thinking llodra was the favourite, since its impossible, cause then he would not be profitting.

In this part of the argument I don't have to move a finger. It was you that came with the better's and high iq people assertion, so it's up to you to prove it, not me. If you don't, there are two possible conclusions:

1) You are lying
2) You don't know what you are talking about.
If you do, there is one
1) Nearly all of these highly qualified betters (you will have to show me reasons to convince me that they are highly qualified) and high iq people with deep tennis knowledge (the same as above) do agree with you and in this case is a supporting point to you.

But as I already explained to you this hypothetical possibility ain't enough to guarantee the infallibility of their point of view, so when you use it to discard with 100% my POV, you are just being illogical (as the result of the match shows). Specially because these still hypothetical success betters and highly knowledge high iq people maybe disqualified to bet in Soderling or Llodra matches or a match between both.
Unlike you think you still didn't show me nothing yet
to convince me that I was wrong or even that I very likely was wrong


uhh, what the hell do you think? if you think he was a favourite you bet on him for about 3.7 or whatever it was and make millions.

God........ what you said would only makes sense if I was 99.9% sure that he was gonna win. But where I said that? :)


nice bet there. if you win, you win nothing and a random person has to leave the forum and if you lose, you have to leave. great bet.

Then you accept it?

why not their next match?

Please tell me you aren't being serious. Please

the rules are really silly.

Not for me.


oh it was wrong, anyone can tell you he wasnt 80-85 to win the match. I can assert it to near infinity, just as I can with the christian god not excisting. you dont understand anything about the matchup if you believe that.

Pay attention to what I say. The odds at a betting internet site aren't really important to me for making my own personal opinion as I explained.
This is my personal opinion and as I already explained before, you can't use the odds to disqualified my pov.

gusavo
03-25-2010, 01:18 PM
In this part of the argument I don't have to move a finger. It was you that came with the better's and high iq people assertion, so it's up to you to prove it, not me. If you don't, there are two possible conclusions:

1) You are lying
2) You don't know what you are talking about.
If you do, there is one
1) Nearly all of these highly qualified betters (you will have to show me reasons to convince me that they are highly qualified) and high iq people with deep tennis knowledge (the same as above) do agree with you and in this case is a supporting point to you.
no, its up to you to prove the insane viewpoint of llodra being a favourite over söderling which virtually noone who watches tennis a lot/ has any kind of knowledge of tennis agrees with and an absolute zero percent of profitable betters agree with.
I dont have the time to find every sportsbetter in the world and tell you these things. if you dont find several sportsbetters and ask them if it is really true that the world of sportsbetting works the way I have told you, you either
1 hate money
2 hate any kind of charity thing in the world
3 dont really believe in your powers

God........ what you said would only makes sense if I was 99.9% sure that he was gonna win. But where I said that? :)
you arent very good at math are you? I guarantee you you would become a millionaire if you are correct that llodra was the favourite that match and came to that conclusion with clever thinking, ask any sportsbetter he will agree. so that means if you truly believe in yourself you should start betting.
if you would not take even a 60% chance to make 3.7 on any bet of your choice then thats insane. especially since if you keep doing it you will essentially not be able to not profit, providing you do it any kind of substantial amount of times.

Then you accept it?
as I said, you gain nothing if you win and you lose the abbility to use this forum if you lose. please tell me you arent being serious, please. if he would win far more than 99% of the time then I guess it would be worth the 10% chance of you leaving, although thats not really accomplishing a whole lot since you would just get a new account an extremely high percentage of the time.


Please tell me you aren't being serious. Please
what? you came up with the bet, which came with some really strange rules that have like 15% chance of occuring ever or something (well played). I modyfied it so that we can do it earlier (I guess we will have to do bet for honours, I dunno), whats so hard to believe?


Not for me.
thats because youre crazy

Pay attention to what I say. The odds at a betting internet site aren't really important to me for making my own personal opinion as I explained.
and thats why you will be a huge loser if you ever decide to become a sportsbetter.

This is my personal opinion and as I already explained before, you can't use the odds to disqualified my pov.
"I believe in god and you cant use science to prove theres no god" I can, more or less.

Is that so? Romans 1:22 "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools."

you remind me of those religious people quoting bible verses.

KaiserT
03-25-2010, 01:40 PM
Pinnacle closing odds on Llodra $4.030 (-0.365)
Pinnacle closing odds on Soderling $1.323 (+0.035)

So the best tennis bookmaker rated it roughly 75%/25% for Soderling.

BlackSilver
03-26-2010, 05:07 AM
no, its up to you to prove the insane viewpoint of llodra being a favourite over söderling which virtually noone who watches tennis a lot/ has any kind of knowledge of tennis agrees with and an absolute zero percent of profitable betters agree with.
I dont have the time to find every sportsbetter in the world and tell you these things. if you dont find several sportsbetters and ask them if it is really true that the world of sportsbetting works the way I have told you, you either
1 hate money
2 hate any kind of charity thing in the world
3 dont really believe in your powers

Wrong, once more.
It was YOU that came with the absurd (and weak) arguments about the betters and high iq people, it's up to you to prove it.
And yes, I do have to show why I think Llodra was the favourite. :)
But this is irrelevant to this part or the argument.
I don't care if you don't have time. Find time, otherwise you will lose this part of the argument and will became harder to you win the overall discussion.


you arent very good at math are you? I guarantee you you would become a millionaire if you are correct that llodra was the favourite that match and came to that conclusion with clever thinking, ask any sportsbetter he will agree. so that means if you truly believe in yourself you should start betting.
if you would not take even a 60% chance to make 3.7 on any bet of your choice then thats insane. especially since if you keep doing it you will essentially not be able to not profit, providing you do it any kind of substantial amount of times.

I believe I am better than you at math.
But fine, if makes you happy, I will bet something in Llodra next time if he faces Soderling in similar conditions.


as I said, you gain nothing if you win and you lose the abbility to use this forum if you lose. please tell me you arent being serious, please. if he would win far more than 99% of the time then I guess it would be worth the 10% chance of you leaving, although thats not really accomplishing a whole lot since you would just get a new account an extremely high percentage of the time.

New account?
God........What I did to deserve this?
Please doesn't project others fails in me (probably your character limitations)
Anyway, Who are you? My dad?
Concern yourself with the bet.



what? you came up with the bet, which came with some really strange rules that have like 15% chance of occuring ever or something (well played). I modyfied it so that we can do it earlier (I guess we will have to do bet for honours, I dunno), whats so hard to believe?

Of course I came with these rules. And of course you can't understand why (no it's not because it likely will never happen again). But I won't explain to you.
I should, but I just can't. I would have to lower my level way to much for this and would never forgive myself if I did it.
I don't have vocation to be a professor and I already have to do this in other part of this same post.
Anyway here is another one with more possibilities.
Soderling vs Llodra at any indoor event outside Stockholm and Soderling vs Tsonga anywhere outside France (except by RG) and Ao open .And no DC,



thats because youre crazy

Thanks dad


and thats why you will be a huge loser if you ever decide to become a sportsbetter.

Yeah, thnaks for the advice


"I believe in god and you cant use science to prove theres no god" I can, more or less.

My god....... You still didn't get it do you?
I will quote it again, read again with attention
No you didn't. While it makes sense to follow the collective opinion of a group on a wager based on the statistics of their previous success, like: "group X sets right 80% of their bets on football matches", the way you are using it is a common argumentative error.
You are appealing to their authority to guarantee the infallibility of your point of view, which is false
Worst is that you can't even guarantee this nonsense of "0% of 0% of bla bla bla" and "ask any people with high iq and knowledge of subject"
So even if you are right, you will never be able to demonstrate it to me.

Be specific about what you didn't understand, just saying "talk properly" won't convince-me to explain everything again (especially because I think that I was clear enough)
And the sad part is that the one that is closer here to believe in god is you........and you don't even understand why :)

gusavo
03-26-2010, 10:28 AM
Wrong, once more.
It was YOU that came with the absurd (and weak) arguments about the betters and high iq people, it's up to you to prove it.
And yes, I do have to show why I think Llodra was the favourite. :)
But this is irrelevant to this part or the argument.
people always have discussions where total proof is very rarely layed out. all you have to do is find a profitable sportsbetter, kaiser might answer you, and he will tell you that im right, or that im not. And if im not he will also be able to tell you that your powers will make you millions. so either you hate money or you dont believe in your powers enough to take the time to find out.
I cant find any proof about the moon landing being real, or 9/11 not being faked, or god not excisting. people just have to read and use their head and common sense. and if theyre crazy in some way, they may end up believing stuff like that.

I believe I am better than you at math.
But fine, if makes you happy, I will bet something in Llodra next time if he faces Soderling in similar conditions.
dude, you thought you would need to be 99.9% to easily make millions.

New account?
God........What I did to deserve this?
Please doesn't project others fails in me (probably your character limitations)
Anyway, Who are you? My dad?
Concern yourself with the bet.
what are you blabbering about, I was telling you how the bet is going to be played out. if you win, you gain nothing and if you lose, you lose the abbility to post on this forum (PROVIDED that you follow the rules of the bet). what IS your problem?
concern yourself with the bet, youre blabbering about nothing here, im trying to get to what the point of the bet is.


Soderling vs Llodra at any indoor event outside Stockholm and Soderling vs Tsonga anywhere outside France (except by RG) and Ao open .And no DC,
why not their next match? you do know how odds work, right. with these stipulations it seems you dont think you have an edge over me outside of these situations.

Be specific about what you didn't understand, just saying "talk properly" won't convince-me to explain everything again (especially because I think that I was clear enough)
And the sad part is that the one that is closer here to believe in god is you........and you don't even understand why :)
I can use odds to disqualify your personal oppinion. because odds from bookmakers never really are too off. and personal oppinions are very often wrong.
here might be something to read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_bets_offered_by_UK_bookmakers
http://www.online-betting-guide.co.uk/school/understanding_bookmakers.php
youre the one believing you have magical powers. perhaps youre jesus.

BlackSilver
03-26-2010, 09:06 PM
people always have discussions where total proof is very rarely layed out. all you have to do is find a profitable sportsbetter, kaiser might answer you, and he will tell you that im right, or that im not. And if im not he will also be able to tell you that your powers will make you millions. so either you hate money or you dont believe in your powers enough to take the time to find out.
I cant find any proof about the moon landing being real, or 9/11 not being faked, or god not excisting. people just have to read and use their head and common sense. and if theyre crazy in some way, they may end up believing stuff like that.

Total proof? God......... You didn't show NOTHING yet, not a single evidence and have guts to came here and complaining that I am being to rigid about the proofs.
You made a outrageous claim. Outrageous claim demand outrageous proofs. At minimal, very strong evidences.
No my son, a single better is totally irrelevant, you need a much larger sample of betters so that statistics can show me that nearly all highly knowledge people thinks Soderling was the favourite and, well, that ALL the profitable betters that betted in the match betted in Soderling.
And do this soon, otherwise you will lose this part of the discussion.


dude, you thought you would need to be 99.9% to easily make millions.

No my son, I said I needed 99.9% to make the bet worth to me. Actually, much more than 99.9%.


what are you blabbering about, I was telling you how the bet is going to be played out. if you win, you gain nothing and if you lose, you lose the abbility to post on this forum (PROVIDED that you follow the rules of the bet). what IS your problem?
concern yourself with the bet, youre blabbering about nothing here, im trying to get to what the point of the bet is.

I don't know why I need my dad and mother if I have you to take care of me:)


why not their next match

Solar System alignment mainly, Their next match can happen when Saturn and Japetus won't be aligned, which, obviously, improves Llodra's metabolic functioning and makes him the big favourite :)

with these stipulations it seems you dont think you have an edge over me outside of these situations.

Really? Thank god you are here for telling this kind of thing.




I can use odds to disqualify your personal oppinion. because odds from bookmakers never really are too off. and personal oppinions are very often wrong.
here might be something to read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_bets_offered_by_UK_bookmakers
http://www.online-betting-guide.co.uk/school/understanding_bookmakers.php
youre the one believing you have magical powers. perhaps youre jesus.

Really? Proof it.
Until you can proof they NEVER are really too off (actually you can't do this, but you can, theoretically, show that they never were too off until today), you can't use it to disqualify anything.
The first link was quite useless. The second was weak-average. Nice to see that besides being a tennis layman, you can't even provide two good links about a matter of your speciality. :)

gusavo
07-02-2010, 06:50 PM
[QUOTE=BlackSilver;9751866]Total proof? God......... You didn't show NOTHING yet, not a single evidence and have guts to came here and complaining that I am being to rigid about the proofs.
You made a outrageous claim. Outrageous claim demand outrageous proofs. At minimal, very strong evidences.
No my son, a single better is totally irrelevant, you need a much larger sample of betters so that statistics can show me that nearly all highly knowledge people thinks Soderling was the favourite and, well, that ALL the profitable betters that betted in the match betted in Soderling.
And do this soon, otherwise you will lose this part of the discussion.

yep I am proven by math and research from really smart people and nobody has ever been able to disprove it, look it up retard. you made an outrageos claim, I made a very basic one.
a single profitable better confirming me that this is the case is not irrelevant at all, its a pretty good indication. I dont need a large sample of betters, but you dont know math or statistics so im not surprised you dont know that. if you find just 6 profitable betters and they all agree the likelyhood of me being right would be rediculous. that all profitable betters bet on sod in the match? uh, do you know how betting works?
yeah you cant win an argument by putting time limits and claiming I have to do something quickly or its a walkover, that has nothing to do with this conversation and it is not a loss for me if I dont spend a lot of time finding a bunch of betters to post in this thread. do you want to find a ruler for this to tell you this or what?


"No my son, I said I needed 99.9% to make the bet worth to me. Actually, much more than 99.9%."
exactly, either you arent doing it cause youre not trusting yourself or youre not doing it cause you hate money, hate any kind of charity cause and just hates everything, pretty much.


"I don't know why I need my dad and mother if I have you to take care of me:)"
why are you acting like a child, answer my posts like im always doing to yours



"Solar System alignment mainly, Their next match can happen when Saturn and Japetus won't be aligned, which, obviously, improves Llodra's metabolic functioning and makes him the big favourite :)"
you must be giving up on the argument quicker than I thought, why even answer if were not going to go anywhere


"Really? Proof it.
Until you can proof they NEVER are really too off (actually you can't do this, but you can, theoretically, show that they never were too off until today), you can't use it to disqualify anything."
we have already proven that you are about a million times more likely to be wrong than the odds made in that match, and your brilliant analysis of "uhh sod plays bad against serve&volleyers" or whatever isnt exactly going to turn someone 4 times the money into a favourite

Rafaspin
07-02-2010, 06:53 PM
Wtf?

Orka_n
07-02-2010, 06:56 PM
Gustavo :haha: :haha: :haha: