Welcome to Access to Trader, the number one community for those who are committed to taking control of their trading in order to achieve success, profitability, and longevity. Thank you for joining us. Here's Dan Shapiro to help you find your edge, master your process, and own your future. Hey guys, good evening, everybody. Welcome to another edition of the Access to Trader.com nightly wrap up show up. Everybody is doing well. If you are brand new to the channel, guys, thank you very much. Once again, I say this every night, but thank you very much, honestly, for joining us, spending a few minutes of your day to kind of listen to me ramble and go on about things called technical analysis that fortunately for us makes a lot of sense. But again, if you are not privy to it on a day to day basis is just basically a bunch of useless lines on a chart, right? As I've been told many, many times what kind of these charts and these lines are a little bit important to us. Again, if you're not in the webinar, well, then you don't know. Anyway, right? So let's talk about the tape, right? So the QQQs, I'm just talking about the Qs. Everything else has gone absolutely parabolic. Since we reclaimed the 50 day moving average, we've been on a runaway train, absolute runaway train. The market has done incredibly well. Stocks are just going into parabolic mode, especially the names in the NASDAQ 100, just one after another. I'm just going to go through just the really big names here. You have Metta and Apple, huge runs, NVIDIA going crazy, Amazon going nuts, AMD, the old gang, right? The absolute old gang. Teslas woke up, everything's going crazy, right? Here's the problem. Here's the problem. Here's the problem the way I see it. Not necessarily a problem, but something that I started really observing in the afternoon. So the big number came out this morning. The CPI number came out one tenth of a percent cooler, right? Then estimates and the market went absolutely nuts, right? Absolutely nuts. You saw everything going crazy. It doesn't make a difference what stock we don't need to, you know, we basically don't need to go over individual names. Every stock went nuts, right? Every stock went absolutely crazy. And here's the dilemma, right? Here's the dilemma. The NASDAQ 100, the QQQs have gone since from October the 26th. This is only three weeks, right? From October the 26th to where we are present day, on November the 14th, the keys have gone from 3.42 to 3.86, okay? And not only do we get to 3.86, but if you look at the weekly view of the market, right? Actually, look at the monthly view of the market. I want to show you. We are approaching, right? The July highs of 3.88, okay? Why is this a problem? It's a pretty damn big move without any distribution, without any rest, without any pullback. The one day that we had a little bit of reversal, but all it did was hit the five-day moving average and went right back. Here's the biggest issue I've had. Okay, guys, I've traded the most exaggerated market, right? Which is the dot-com era. That's the most irrational exaggerated market of all time. Stocks were going up every single day. If you watched, you know, if you are brand new to the channel, if you Google Meyer Offman, we did an interview together from Peter from St. Lucia at that time that basically compared what the dot-com era was to kind of where we were in 2020 and kind of where we are now. And the one thing during the dot-com era, as Meyer said, and we know we all live through it, stocks, it wasn't one stock going up every single day. It was a basket of stocks, 20, 30 stocks, you have biotechs, you have softwares, you have semiconductors, everything was going up, it's 20, 30%. And we thought, at least I thought, in two, three years, I was going to be retired, right? And this is going to keep this in mind. The internet craze only lasted for 15, 18 months. That's it. It wasn't longer than that. You know, don't listen to the stories. It was literally from like the end of 98 when the Asian contagion crisis was kind of leaving, it started basically from 99 to the middle of 2000, right? In the middle of 2000, by 2001, the bubble started popping. Obviously, 9-11 played a huge role in reversing equity prices as well. But I never thought it was going to end. That was kind of the common denominator. And when it did end, we couldn't recreate, right? We couldn't recreate the golden goose because the golden goose was dead.   And I see rocket ship emojis. I see the moon emoji, diamond hands emoji. And I said to myself, we're at the same people, the diamond hands, the emojis, the this, that, and the other thing during like AMC and GameStop and all that stuff. And the one thing that I've always maintained, retail is always the last to know. Retail also doesn't know when they won. So give you an example, right? So GameStop went from... Let me see, I don't keep track of this salt of the earth, but GameStop went in 2020, right? From $3 to what? 120? I'm assuming that's split. I think it was 300 more than that, right? It was like 300, whatever it was. Somebody's an e-signal is not showing the split. And the problem was retail didn't know they won. They didn't know. They didn't know. Apparently a star gone from 3 to 300 is normal. So they didn't think they won. What was the, you know, the realization? The reality happened? Well, here's GameStop, right? Back to 12. AMC, another, you know, darling of the universe, right? Had this magical run. And AMC, you know, went nuts and all that stuff. And well, here's AMC now. And the moral of the story is when you start seeing emojis and moon shots and diamond hands and all that cute stuff the internet is all great about, that means the retail public is always the last to know. That means the retail public is buying the last leg of any move. Now again, by no means am I turning around today and going, oh, that's it. This is the top of the market. But this is where I start to be a little bit, as the people say it, woke, right? Little woke, right? We had a monster rally. Absolute monster rally. Can they continue to rally tomorrow? Absolutely. Can they continue to rally the next day? Absolutely. Right? Absolutely. Again, the market is super duper strong. The problem is, the problem is when I start seeing these little emojis and all that stuff, that means the retail is knee deep. That means they don't want to miss the move. News alert, you missed the move, right? If your first entry tomorrow is in the video at 500, you're probably doing it wrong. The video is up 100 points in two and a half weeks. So that's kind of my point, right? That's kind of my point. And when I started looking at charts tonight, everything was super extended. You know, on dips, absolutely. Like today, for example, when the CPI number went absolutely crazy, all we did today was buy dips. NVIDIA into dips into rising 60 minutes support. Tesla, there was meta, there was Amazon, right? That's the play, right? You want to buy strong stocks into light volume rising support. So if the sellers get trapped and there's an eager round of shorts saying that's it, that's the top, it's going to squeeze back. That's exactly what it did. The problem is, again, when you see so much retail representation in such a short term price action event and they want more and they want more, right? That's the muscle memory, right? That's kind of going back to the dot com era. That's kind of going back to 2020 and 2021 saying we saw this movie before, right? Whether it's going to be tomorrow, it's going to be tomorrow, the next day, the day after, maybe it doesn't. Eventually, again, when you have the NASDAQ 100 going from 342 to 386, gravity got to kick it, right? And again, like I said, by no means am I turning around and go, that's it. That's the top. Tomorrow, we short everything. First of all, what do you mean you short everything? Are you buying everything so you can't short everything, right? Trade by trade. Again, settle down with the whole sell everything buy everything. But I am aware now, I am woke now and the most important part is I am going to be looking for signs. And what's the signs you're going to be looking for? Well, you want to start looking for signs that if stocks are gapping up and they don't take out the previous day's channel, that's a pretty big sign, right? That's a pretty big sign that's called kind of a double top. The second thing that you want to see is the leaders that have been making this move up. Well, see if they stop participating on the future spikes. For example, NVIDIA has been arguably the biggest rock star in the last two and a half weeks. If this stock doesn't rally with the futures, attempt to rally the futures in the next couple of days, well, guess what? It's getting tired. Again, it reports on November 21, so the dynamics of NVIDIA may be a little bit different than other stocks. But this is where you have to get a little bit more, not necessarily the word defensive, but kind of readjust your approach. So I am a firm believer as much as I do bounces and rejections into supply and demand. I take offers. That's what I do. I take offers on the upside and I hit bits. At some point, you have to kind of reshift your thinking about it just because everything's a little bit stretched out. So I think the game plan for tomorrow, at least initially, or at least initially is if we do get a gap up, let's try those initial remounts, bounce spots on light volume. But if we start seeing any type of hesitation for bounce in those areas where we know they're supposed to bounce, and we start seeing lower lows take place again, doesn't necessarily have to be tomorrow, maybe it's the next day below the previous day's channel, below the 60-minute channel, that is going to at least give us a sign that, hey, maybe the buyers are getting tired. The same way the sellers got tired on NVIDIA, for example, on October the 31st, maybe they get tired, maybe they get tired on 100 points. Guys, keep this in mind, NVIDIA was at 392. This was two weeks ago. We're at 500. So again, you have to look at more of this market, more of kind of one big feasibility study. Like we talked about today in the webinar, I love when I put together a game plan, I look at the game plan as reward versus risk, meaning that most days the market is going to be up a little bit or down a little bit, and in normal nature, normal, organic option flow, organic equity flow will confirm price action. When you have a series of gap ups, gap ups, gap ups, and it's a runaway train, the market is going parabolic, instead of turning a reward-to-risk scenario, now it's a risk-to-reward scenario. So basically, if you're buying tomorrow NVIDIA on strength, maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but the reward-to-risk ratio was here. Now up here is the risk-to-reward ratio, and it's basically what we talk about if you're a brand new trader and you're brand new to the channel, it's something called, you're jumping out of the first floor, and if you fail, you might get maybe a bruised hip, maybe a broken bone, but if you're jumping out of the 12th floor, there's a good chance that you could get a severed head, and you can't come back from a severed head. And something that I talk about always the time, like again, when I start getting defensive, again, it doesn't mean that tomorrow's the top, the next day is the top. Again, I'm not looking for tops, I'm the last one that looks for top. I'm still going with the trend, I'm still looking for dips, but once I start seeing, especially with the emojis and the whole social media thing, I start thinking to myself, hey Dan, sell when you want to, not when you have to. And today, we talked about it in the webinar, I can't possibly go along again overnight tonight. I just can't do it, right? I just can't do it. I don't want to keep on pushing the envelope hoping I'm going to be right, especially after 100 point move on the video, after, let's see, or after what, 242, after what? 45, nearly 50 point move on the cues in two and a half weeks. So going into tomorrow, I'll be just playing ranges, right? Playing ranges, look for any clues, potential gas out, look for any potential rolling tops, look for potential maybe put buyers coming in on rallies. You know, again, all these different clues. We talk about data accumulation every single night to kind of paint a picture for the next day. And again, like I've been saying for years, I want to sell when I want to. Nobody wants to sell when they have to. And if you are playing blind, if you are chasing, and if you are kind of like negating the fact that we had a 45 point rallying the cues in two and a half weeks, again, maybe your next entry will be correct, but maybe it won't. And the most important part is what you want to avoid is if you're having a good two, two and a half week run, especially with this big reclaim of the 50 day moving average. The last thing you want to do is give back two and a half weeks on one candle, right? That's kind of a nausea feeling. I've done that so many times in my career, in my first five to seven years, it's nauseating. Eventually, you start to figure things out.  Maybe I shouldn't go in this dark alley. Maybe I should go across the street when it's a well lit sidewalk. And these are the things we kind of do and kind of grow as traders. And I'll tell you, can the market continue going tomorrow? Absolutely, right? Absolutely. But boy, oh, boy, it's getting very, very tough to find setups that are coming out of ranges because literally everything is gone. You know, one name I kind of like going into tomorrow hasn't really broken out yet is Fast and All. Fast and All looks pretty good. It's consolidating, it looks good. If you look at all the stocks we talked about the last couple of days that consolidated, right? DDOG, we talked about it the last couple of days it went. Shopify, consolidated the last couple of days it went. Even Starbucks today, right? Even Starbucks today finally got on the channel and this thing went as well. So it's very, very important to kind of find these things, but boy, oh, boy, it's getting really hard. Tesla, you know, it's getting very close. We talked about Tesla last night in the video about getting above this supply zone. It did. Now the next big hurdle for Tesla is to get above the 50-day moving average. Can it do it? Can it not do it? We'll see, right? We'll see. But from the point of reference, when you look at stocks, what happens when you get above the 50-day moving average again? Let me give you guys some examples, right? You see the light blue line? Qs reclaim the light blue lines, explode it. Amazon reclaim the light blue line, explode it. Nvidia reclaim the light blue line, explode it. I'm sure there's $20,000 stocks I could point to. So Tesla again for the next couple of days, let's watch that light blue line, right? That's the 50-day moving average. And if Tesla finally reclaims the 50-day, and who knows? Maybe tomorrow it gets rejected off the 50-day, but if Tesla finally reclaims the 50-day, I think it could start an upward cycle and join the party as well. So that's it, guys. The dynamics are starting to turn a little bit. My spidey sense is a little bit starting to tingle. Maybe I'm a day off. Maybe I'm two days off. Maybe I'm three days off. But again, I'd rather be safe than sorry. Guys, God bless. Have a great day. Tomorrow is another data number. You got the PPI, what else is new. And hopefully the market will treat you very, very well. Guys, God bless. I'll see you all tomorrow.


For everyone waiting on the rod giveaway here is the winner right now Congratulations, be sure to DM me on my personal Instagram at Nova pescatelli I will be sure to get the rod out to you stay tuned for the other giveaway winners because they will be coming soon Thank you all so much for the support. Yo, what's poppin folks? Welcome to another video if you guys are new to the channel be sure to smash the subscribe button hit the like button as well Hit the notification bell comment down below some video ideas. We got a dope fishing over here Crocodile a dub with the hat I'm digging it bro. I feel like that's your style. It's alligator What's your name again fishing with norm? That's my name if you want to check out these two boys what you need to because you're gonna be seeing them a lot in my videos Check out our YouTube channel. It's not check out like us like check us out But like but you can't check us out because we are good That is a good point, but like check out you meant to say check out the you I need to clarify there because we don't need too many people checking me out You know I mean we're doing a cheap versus expensive chatter baits Which is I don't even think that's been done before homie We're actually a dick sporting goods right now and we're gonna be making a run for this and I see in how it goes I already have the inexpensive chatter bait, which you guys are gonna see later on in the video But we're gonna be going in the dicks to find the most expensive chatter bait. They absolutely have what are you doing dog? Let's just get inside.  Are you excited for the chatter dog challenge? I'm excited because chatter dogs catch big fish So that's why these people are gonna be spoiled right? I like your Adam Dude, I'm digging the hat bro guys. Let me know what you guys think about Adam's hat We got to add an antique shop because whoo this boy is dropping a banger. I mean a banger. Yes, sir You're welcome norm. Thank you Some boys made it up in the fishing section all the amazing fishing tackle around us So guys I want you two boys to help me out to find you the most expensive chatter bait You can possibly find and I know there's one that's almost like $25, so that's gonna work The other one which is the inexpensive one is $1. You guys don't get to see that yet though. It's probably the juice No Back the last time they're right here and there's absolutely none of them So we got to find them you have the spinner bait and chatter bait section super small here for some reason We looked everywhere and this is all that they have which doesn't really make too much sense We're gonna start off with the with the regular chatter bait So this is like a $4 chatter bait and this is normally what I used to throw before now There's so many options for chatter baits This used to be like the og $4 chatter bait super great deal for $4, but we're trying to fish for the most Expensive chatter bait today, but hold up. Do they have the elites? Okay, but for $7 they have the elite chatter bait So this is just like a upgraded version of the og chatter bait by z-man. This is not the most expensive This one's only $7 the most expensive and when I say expensive it's pretty free expensive. Where is it? Oh right here? the jackhammer the jackhammer for 1999 $20 and bass first house was there a couple days ago. It was $27 I see I'm dead serious dude because I was doing a $50 challenge That's like I can only buy one of these things if I bought one, but here it's $20 for just to keep in mind You still have to buy trailers, but for just a chatter bait $20, but apparently for good reasons, but I've heard that they make it out of the best stuff possible Tungsten to I could be wrong. I think it has like a tungsten a Gama gots you over something like that. I don't even know I don't know What do you think about a $20 chatter bait out? I'm like give give your honest opinion on a paying $20 for a chatter bait Yeah, that just go with the $4 chatter bait Yeah, no, I break off way too many chatter baits for to financially make sense for me to be paying $20 for them That's my problem Like this thing could be the juice dog, but like I break off a lot You know what I'm saying you throw in chatter baits around spots like dogs and like wood and it can easy snap off You know round to 10 pounders. What? man, oh They're good, dude. I'm not even kidding. There's a staple in the back, and I'm my fingers bleeding now No, I'm dude. I'm not even kidding. That is one sharp pecker on the next episode of nursing with more Broken fingers I'm bleeding. I'm not you're just gonna make more blood come out Well, yeah, it's a point when you stab yourself in the middle You're supposed to get all that out all the nasty stuff out you get bit by it I'm supposed to squeeze it out Squeeze it out. All right. All right, let's get to the point boys. Let's get to the point So this chatter bait guys, there's a little problem with it This one's green pumpkin the ones that I ordered that are only $1 are actually black and blue But that's all they have is the green pumpkin. Wait, dude. What about this one? Um? Yeah, they're all green pumpkin. I mean that's that's the only problem.  You know what I mean Yeah, at least that's like pretty close, but we also need some trailers So I want you guys to pick that out alligator Adam. I think you're a dog tagging you in I'll put you in the game coach That's an option man Wait should we do like the cheapest trailers we can find for the cheap one and the most expensive for this one So it's like actually the cheapest first expensive chatter bait, you know what I mean? What a genius I think that's it norm so we get like the cheapest packet trailers in the most expensive packet trailer So this thing it ended up being like thirty five dollars or something I'm gonna be honest with you Did you graduate from like, you know some top top-match college or something? Oh, not exactly.  All right guys, so you're going to get these bad boys right here these D bombs superbug color It's a little bit of a blue black Pumpkin mix it's got so look half of its black and blue and half of its green pumpkin We were talking and since the expensive one's going to be green pumpkin and the cheap one's going to be Black and blue. It just makes the most sense man. Like look see that right there green pumpkin black and blue Is that not brilliant dude? I think we're genius. I think that's an even better idea All right, we're gonna go with these right here These are the shiny nice kytex these are expensive these are $6.99 for some trailers So we've got the cheaper ones right here, and we've got the more expensive ones right here All right, let's get it so boys and girls I'm about to show you guys the cheap chatter baits I ended up buying I went on wish comm I ended up buying some very inexpensive chatter baits just about $1 I'm gonna push it over to norm and alligator Adam, and they're gonna talk about them Actually doesn't look too bad. How much do you say you got this we're gonna dollar a piece. Yeah dollar a piece Please let them be good But look at the blades the blades are a lot smaller we need to get an up close shot on this tiny dude This is a micro and it's a weedless like it's a has one of the swing heads What do you think about that? Come on muscles old alligator Adam supposed to be strong and dandy Like the head on it the head actually looks really good that doesn't look bad for a dollar It doesn't the blade is small, and I'm curious about how that's gonna wobble and I'm curious about this hook We see if the hook will bend out or not. I mean it seems like it's All right, but if I get a big one on here, I am gonna bet that it's gonna straighten out. Yeah, I don't know I mean they're obviously cheap for a reason. It's just we got to figure out why But it looks good, but I feel like when we fish with these things we're gonna figure out why they're only a dollar Like that's just they're either not gonna work right the hook's gonna bend out the spirit's gonna fall Something's gonna go wrong. So you guys heard their opinions on it. I don't know I'm I'm a little curious about it They're gonna both be throwing the one dollar one Which is the cheap one and I'm gonna be throwing the expensive 20 dollar chatter bait I told him I had to let him use the one dollar ones because that's 20 dollars, man I am not trusting old norm over here with a 20 dollar chatter bait because I already throw in the most This makes no sense. Why do you get to throw the expensive one because I know you're gonna break it off No, this is your this is your idea to fish with cheap chatter baits.  Oh dang right So here's the old expensive one that I'm gonna be trying to throw We're gonna rig this up with this old bad boy put a craw on the back of the day And then we're gonna put them on this rod. So let's go ahead and rig this up And then we're gonna get this challenge started, baby. All right boys. We getting started with the expensive chatter bait There he is geez He's trying to jump i'm just skirting him.  Not bad. He ate the expensive one So that's one for the expensive and it's the first fish today.  He felt huge when I jacked him, but he was also across the pond. Let's get him back in the water dude He's stuck in the grass. Oh my gosh. Oh my gosh. Yeah Maybe not Did he swim away? What what in the heck bro? That was a big I was hopping it so like I landed over there on the bank And I swore I had one so I jacked him And then I was like wait, what is going on like there's nothing here and all of a sudden I felt one just yank on me Oh, I just got thumbed on my fall Oh He came off dude that looked that seemed like a big in to the way you're right, man That was a good bite, but like the hook didn't penetrate.  Oh my gosh You think it's the one that was biting you the other time No, that was off the other ones were on that first tree. This one was on that second tree Such a strong fish you about drug me in the water I mean I got him in the grass and I was trying to pull him out and then he pulled me right back and I mean he pulled me right to the edge So boys all I gotta say the cheap chatter bait is beating the expense of one by size I can tell you that that's a good fish every bit of four pound Yes, sir the one I lost is bigger a little bigger than that I'd say but he was man That's good. Do you think it was the one or you don't know because that first tree I had two bites off of but this one I threw right where norm just threw and he hit it right there Wow getting it on the fall So I don't know what the deal is with that but every single fish has hit it on the fall for me and I've had three bites So good job dog. Good job dog. Let's get back in the water. Do you guys just take a picture with it? Yeah, if you want to you got your phone.   That was awesome right there. This is insane. He I rolled my chatter bait up I got it right by the bank came out of nowhere Munched it Look at that beautiful bass pushing that three number All right, two Two to one on the chatter baits Biggin Oh my gosh That's like a five pounder Okay, maybe not five, but it's a biggin Same size as that other one That is crazy to me. They're loaded up over here, man. I'm telling you those two to two now, man The cheapest competing up with the the $1 ones competing up with the $20 dog. He's keeping up. It started working for me. So We'll see we're gonna keep throwing it. See what happens. Go ahead get this one back in Nice healthy Florida fish big ins, bro All big in the chatter baits There he goes That was sweet. I like turn my head and all I see is this huge one just Dumblin in the water. I had another one slap me, bro He got how one hit me too, but he hit it on the fall again. That one didn't but the other bite I did But I wanted to go set the hook and he wasn't there anymore. Yeah, no, that's exactly how that one did to me Oh, you did it again No freaking way he ate it just like the last one solid two and a half pounder Get it by the bank. He just tumbles right over it falls it in boom donzo That was crazy. So crazy to meet beautiful fish. I do not mind catching a two pounder like that all day long See you later, jimmy Oh, yeah, he's ready.  Are you kidding me? What the heck? There's one Got another one. Oh no Oh my gosh, check that out Norm, give me an update, bro nor Give me an update, bro Throwing a chatter bait with a trailer on it and I've worked it every way. It's just not happening. It's hot out here There he is Yes That puts four I think for the expensive one dinky man dinky Dinky squeaky.  That's Not the best thing It's a good little fish bad. He's not as big as those other ones, but He's solid Two two and a half pounder beautiful florida bass


Finally, after what feels like several months of emphasizing Lachlad for race after race after race, we get our pre from that this weekend at the Dixie Vodka 400 down in Homestead, Miami, the first time that this race has not been the season finale since all the way back in 2001. So it's going to be a different race and it's going to be, at least in my eyes, a fun one for DFS because we've got a whole lot of freedom. So let's break that down and figure out which drivers we should target for Sunday's race. Welcome on into the Heat Check Fantasy podcast powered by Number Fire. That's right here on the FanDuel Podcast Network and NumberFire.com. My name is Jim Sonnis. I am a senior writer and analyst for NumberFire.com here to break down the Dixie Vodka 400 from a NASCAR DFS perspective. Lach for this race is at 3.30 p.m. Eastern time on Sunday and we already know where every driver is going to start. So once again, we have a situation where as you listen to this podcast, you can go right now and fill out your lineups because we have all the data we're going to get. So feel free if you want to to go fill out lineups. I can give my actual rankings based on qualifying for each of these tiers, which we will do exactly that in the tier by tier breakdown. So should be a pretty fun race and I love the flexibility of being able to fill out lineups as the week goes along. We'll take a look at the track breakdown here in just one second. But first, have you ever wondered what would happen if the Chicago Bears had drafted Patrick Mahomes or if Michael Vick played against Lamar Jackson? Well now, you get to find out with FanDuel's Football Multiverse, a new contest type consisting of Madden simulations around crazy what if scenarios. Each scenario will be streamed on YouTube and have an accompanying free to play fantasy game. Next week's episodes include what if the Patriots were to sign Cam Newton and what if we took away the weapons from Patrick Mahomes? Would he still be the Mahomes we know and love if we were to do that? Both contests are now available. I believe in the FanDuel lobby, so fill those out. Watch the streams Wednesday and Thursday night at 8 p.m. Eastern on the FanDuel YouTube page. JJ Zacharyson and I will be on the call for those eligibility restrictions apply. Also a quick reminder to subscribe to the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed because we are kind of back in full swing outside of NBA and MLB, which hopefully will be back at some point in July. But we have PGA podcast going up every week now, Tuesday at 10 a.m. as well. One will be recording those. Those should be up both on the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed and on the FanDuel YouTube page later on. And of course NASCAR podcast, as you are well aware, going up each week as well. Subscribe to the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed to get your DFS on as we progress through the next couple of weeks. Track breakdown here for Homestead and again, we get a break from selling our souls for lap sled. If you look at the races since the end of the COVID-19 layoff, four of seven races in that time have been 325 or more laps and three of them were at least 400 laps. This one is only 267. That's still long enough where we shouldn't just completely disregard laps led, but it gives us a lot more freedom with where we can find our studs. In Martinsville, in Bristol, and for the Coca-Cola 600, we had to deploy the Waves strategy if we wanted to use studs starting in the back half of the top 12. That is not necessary here for a couple of reasons. The first one is that we don't need as many laps led on our rosters. There have been eight races since the start of last year on tracks similar to Homestead that are one and a half miles long and have lower banking. In those eight races, the five drivers compiling the perfect lineups in those races have averaged 139.25 laps led. Only one perfect lineup had less than 100 laps in it. So again, we can't just disregard those laps led, but it is nowhere near what it was for the longer races. In Martinsville, you needed like 400 laps led to have a perfect lineup. Here you need about a buck 39. That's not that bad at all. So we can't disregard them, but we can deemphasize it and not sell our souls for laps led. If you look at the other reason why it's okay to not sell out for starting position, it's because it's easy to pass on a multi groove track like Homestead. The drivers most likely to lead laps are all going to start in the top 12 spots. But Denny Hamlin led more than half the race from the 23rd starting position in Kansas last year, a similar track to Homestead. Joey Logano led 105 laps in Las Vegas last year. He started 20 seconds. We've seen on this track type, you can move to the field and lead a lot of laps regardless of where you are starting. It just happens to be everyone's going to start in the top 12 here, but it doesn't matter where they start within those top 12 spots. So if they're starting 12th, they can still in theory lead almost as many laps as the drivers starting first. So that's the key difference here between Martinsville and Homestead is that you don't need to use the way strategy. You can find your studs wherever you want within those top 12 spots. You should still roster two studs, but if they're starting first and second, that's fine. There are enough laps led for that to be a viable action. But let's say your two favorite drivers starting 11th and 12th, that is also okay. They should be able to work their way forward pretty quickly and if they're fast enough, they can potentially win that race. When you combine that with the lowered necessity of points from laps led, those drivers are going to be fine from a DFS perspective. So basically the key takeaway here is we have freedom in our studs. It doesn't really matter too much specifically where they start. Just pick your two favorite studs, lock them in, and go from there. That's the way you should handle the studs for this race. For the value plays, we do want to favor driver starting a bit further back and there are pretty good options here, which we'll talk about in the tier by tier breakdown. The reason why we want to do that is because it's easy to pass here. So starting 13th versus starting 24th will not drastically alter your projected finishing position, especially because it is 400 miles, there's a lot of time to make up ground. So the further back a driver starts, the better both their floor and their ceiling for DFS become. You don't have to disregard drivers starting closer to the front, like starting 13th, 14th, 15th, but I would give preference to drivers who drew lower qualifying positions when they did draw for the order last night. And I think that if you want an example of why this two-stud approach and then look for place differential is viable, just look back to last year's race at Homestead. In that race, both Kyle Bush and Martin Truex Jr. made the perfect lineup. They both led more than 100 laps. They started up front. That is the thought process for the studs. All of the value plays in that lineup started 16th or lower. Two of them started outside of the top 20 and that was another race where the starting lineup was set by owner points. So there, the same thing that we have this weekend, the drivers starting further back were drivers who had performed worse throughout the course of the year. It did not matter. They were still good options for DFS.  And again, it's okay they haven't performed well thus far. They can still be good DFS options for us on Sunday. The one thing to keep in mind of value plays is that equipment does matter here more so than it has in several of the races recently. That means that punting will be a lot less viable than it was on Wednesday night. If the equipment isn't good enough, drivers won't be able to keep up with the competition and they won't be able to gain spots and they won't be able to finish well. So to get a read on which drivers have good enough equipment, I would focus most on the races in Charlotte and Atlanta. They're very different tracks from Homestead, but they both came out after the COVID-19 layoff and some teams have improved since we had that three month gap. And they were fast enough where those two tracks, I should say those two tracks Charlotte and Atlanta were fast enough where if the equipment wasn't good, they wouldn't have been able to keep up. And you would know based on the performances at those two races. So that's why I'd focus on Charlotte and Atlanta to judge if your value plays are fast enough to keep up. For the studs, I would put extra weight on the race in Las Vegas because that's the only other one on the schedule with similar banking to Homestead at least among those that are one and a half miles long. And there hasn't been as much movement among the studs as among the value plays since the end of the COVID-19 layoff. So we should look at Charlotte and Atlanta for them too. They obviously matter because they're a mile and a half and that matters, but Las Vegas is the closest analog we've got to Homestead thus far. If a stud was good there, we should expect them to be good once again on Sunday. So to recap the track breakdown here, we want two studs per Lana. Doesn't really matter where they start. If they're first and 12th, cool. If they're 11th and 12th, cool. If they're first and second doesn't matter. Pick your two favorites and go from there. I would give a bump to value plays who start further back as long as they are fast enough to compete. And to judge that, lean on Atlanta and Charlotte to determine if they have the necessary or the speed necessary to get a good finish for the studs. Look at those races, but also look at Las Vegas to decide who is going to contend. So with that said, let's move into our tier by tier breakdown for this weekend based on the salaries on Fando where we have Kevin Harvick in the elite tier at $14,500 through Denny Hamlin at $12,200. And there are three drivers who are clear standouts in my model. All three drivers are in this tier and all three are starting in the top seven spots. Those three drivers are Kevin Harvick, Martin Truex Jr. and Joey Logano. Harvick grades out almost as well as he did in Atlanta, which is scary given how good he was there. His Atlanta ranking in my model was the eighth best for any driver at any race since the start of last year, and it was the best in 2020 by a good margin. This week he is 10th. So he was eighth best in Atlanta, 10th best this week. He ran really well in Las Vegas. He dominated Atlanta and he had speed in the second Charlotte race. So to me, Harvick deserves to sit a top hour list. Drivers in Harvick's tier in my model have won five of nine races. That's a small sample, so don't put a lot of stock in that. But the takeaway is he's got good odds to win this race and we should react accordingly. So Harvick is number one for me. Logano is not that far behind him. Logano actually won that race in Las Vegas. And again, if we're putting extra weight on that, it makes sense to bump up Logano. He had a top four average running position in that Las Vegas race and the second Charlotte race. So I'm going to put Logano second behind Harvick, which means that Truex is third. I have nothing against Truex. I think he's really good and he has been the one car who hasn't been as compromised by the Joe Gibbs racing struggle so far this year. But because the Gibbs cars have not been as good on the lower banked one and a half mile tracks as the Ford teams have been, I am going to put Truex just a little bit lower behind Harvick and Logano. So it's Harvick, Logano, Truex for the top studs for me on Sunday. As far as Kyle Busch goes, I'm still okay being lower on him. He was really good in Atlanta. You could use that to say that the the JGR cars are getting better. But that was also a heavy tire wear track where the driver can matter a bit more. It's going to be slick on Sunday because it's going to be super hot and that leads to slick conditions. So the driver does matter here too, but it doesn't matter quite as much, I wouldn't think, as it did in Atlanta. So that's going to put Busch down on the list for me. If I'm ranking this year again, it's Harvick, Logano, Truex for the top. I'll put Denny Hamlin after that. He's starting in the pole. Good speed. I think I would say maybe better speed than Busch, maybe potentially. So Hamlin's going to be fourth, followed by Kyle Busch, and then Brad Keselowski. I would not argue with you if you decided to rank any of them highest. I would probably push back on Kyle Busch being highest, but overall I think that to me it's Harvick, Logano, and Truex leading off this tier. The second tier is a good tier as well. It is Chase Elliott at $12,000 through Jimmy Johnson at $10,400. And I think there are three guys in this tier who could win this race. And those three are Chase Elliott, Ryan Blaney, and Alex Bowman. The case for Elliott is really easy. He has had a top nine average running position in every race since Daytona. And I have six races in my model that I deemed to be relevant from 2020, relevant to this track. And Elliott has had a top seven average running position in all six of those races. So if you look at just the current form section of my model, Chase Elliott is actually the number one driver in that portion. The reason that Harvick is ahead of him and Logano is because they have better track history and homestead. But Elliott's never been the championship four. And the championship four tended to do really well in those championship races. I don't put a lot of stock in track history as a result of that. And because of that, I can put Chase Elliott confidently number one in this tier for me. And I'd be okay considering Chase Elliott, betting him to win. He is eight to one right now at Fandall Sportsbook. Blaney and Bowman are more volatile than Elliott's, but their upside is pretty similar. Blaney almost won in Las Vegas. He finished third in both Charlotte races. He now has four top fives in the past five races. And in the one race where he didn't finish top five, he led 60 laps before crashing in that one. He was running really well, just happened to crash. So Blaney is knocking on the door of a win and he's going to get there eventually. He drew the 11th starting spot. So there's actually even some place differential juice here. Bowman was in Blaney's position earlier in the year where he was knocking on the door of a win, did get one in Fontana, but struggled a bit of late. He was really fast in the two Charlotte races. He was battling with Blaney for the win late in Las Vegas. Again, our most similar track so far. So from an odds perspective, I think that Chase Elliott has the best odds of winning this race in this tier. But I think that Blaney and Bowman can definitely get it done too. So my ranking in this tier is Chase Elliott, Ryan Blaney, Alex Bowman, and then there is a gap down to Jimmy Johnson and then Kurt Busch. All those drivers, again, are starting the top 12. I should note that as well. The mid-range on Fandall is William Byron at $10,000 through Matt DiBenedetto at $8,000. And the only driver in this tier starting inside the top 12 is Clint Boyer. I don't think he is a true threat to win. So I am okay being lower on Boyer than I am the other guys in this tier. The standout to me, if you can get there for both cash games and tournaments, is William Byron. Byron is starting 22nd and that is because he has made mistakes this year that have hurt him in the point standings. But that's to be expected of a driver who is just 22 years old. He had a top 10 average running position in Las Vegas and in the first Charlotte race. So the upside is there and he can get you extra upside via place differential. So Byron is probably going to be popular and I think he's kind of expensive. And so I think that Eric Jones is a pretty elite pivot off of Byron, given Byron's volatility. And I'm willing to do that. But straight up, Byron is a really strong option for all formats. And I think he fits really well in the line. It's where you use someone like Chase Elliott, Ryan Blaney or Alex Bowman as your second stud, because they are a little bit cheaper than the guys in the Harvick Lugano Truex range. So Byron fits really well if your second stud is a little bit cheaper. Outside of Byron, the three other drivers in this tier, starting outside the top 20 are Eric Almerola, Tyler Redick and Matt DiBenedetto. And I am comfortable having all of them in my core for tournaments and considering those three drivers for cash games. Almerola just fell out of the top 12 in points on Wednesday and he drew the 21st starting place, which means he's going to place differential upside. But we know that car has speed. He's just underwhelmed as a driver so far this year, which has masked the strength within that car and within that team. But with the car mattering a little bit more this week, I am in on Almerola. Matt DiBenedetto, a similar line of thinking here because he is basically in a Penske car, so similar equipment to Blaney, Kezalowski and Lugano. DiBenedetto this year has had a top 14 average running position in Las Vegas, Atlanta and the second Charlotte race. And he actually finished second in that Las Vegas race as well. DiBenedetto starting 23rd and I'd expect him to move through the pack pretty quickly. So that's why I like those two guys. As for Redick, the equipment isn't as good as those two, but it's good enough and the talent here is awesome. Redick is a two-time Xfinity series champion and you win championships by winning at Homestead and that's exactly what Redick did both in 2018 and 2019. Looking at this year in the Cup Series, Redick had a top 13 average running position in both the Charlotte races, which means the equipment, although it may not be as good as DiBenedetto and Almerola, is good enough for him to compete. And he's starting back in 24th. So if I had to rank this tier, the guys in this tier, I think because of the salary discounts, I'd go DiBenedetto at the top, followed by Eric Almerola. I would go Byron three, despite the fact he's pricey and Tyler Redick would be fourth, but those three or four guys are all in consideration for cash and I want to get a lot of them for tournaments as well. This tier is just pretty much loaded and I'm okay with all of them. Eric Jones again, a high quality pivot off of Byron in tournaments and Austin Dillon is on Babywatch. So if you plan on using him, make sure he is actually at the track before walking away from your computer because he is supposed to have, or his wife is supposed to have their son at some point this week. If it's Sunday, he may miss the race. So make sure you are keeping tabs on Austin Dillon if you want to use him. He's really good in my model and I'm not overlooking him. He's just not starting quite as far back as DiBenedetto, Almerola and Redick. Moving down to the value tier, that is Ryan Newman at $7,800 through Christopher Bell at $6,600 and I love the tier above this one. The 8,000 tier is really good. This specific tier is a bit tougher because there aren't a ton of drivers and top tier equipment and they're not starting as deep in the order. That matters a lot. So of this group, I would say Mack Kenseth probably has the best stuff, but he himself hasn't been all that great since things picked back up and he's starting 20th. So I think that that's, it's a bit of a turnoff for me, I would say and as a result that Christopher Bell is going to be the top of this tier for me. He drew the 36th place starting position, which is the lowest spot he possibly could have grabbed. I was super skeptical of Bell's equipment coming into this year and that was validated in the first four races, but he's been better since the COVID-19 layoff. He had a top 15 average running position in both the Charlotte races. He finished 11th in the second Darlington race. So I don't think Bell will get a top 10 finish year, but if he can finish around 15th after starting 36th at this salary, he will pay off for DFS. So in this tier, Bell is my favorite guy. If you're looking for finishing upside, you can go Ricky Stenhouse Jr. He finished third in Las Vegas thanks to some awesome pit strategy and he was also fourth in the second Charlotte race. The odds that Stenhouse crashes are very, very, very, very, very, very high. So don't get too upset if it happens. It is an accepted risk of using Ricky Stenhouse Jr., but I will still give him a look for sure because of the guys in this tier, he's the one who can conceivably get you a top five finish. So I'm going to use Stenhouse. I'm not happy about it, but I feel like it is pretty necessary given the runs he has had at Las Vegas and Charlotte. The punting tier on Fandle is Cole Custer at $6,400 on down, and Custer is very similar to Christopher Bell, except I feel a bit better about the equipment being good with him than I do with Bell. Custer just hasn't done a ton with that equipment so far this year, but he's starting back in 35th. So again, you do not need a top 10 finish for him to pay off, especially at a $6,400 salary, and Custer outperformed Bell at this track in the Xinnity series. He actually won here in 2017. He was runner up behind Retic in 2018 and 2019. So to me, Cole Custer might be the best play below $8,000, and he's down at $6,400, and I will have a really good amount of him. I know we talked about how punting is not as viable here, but I think with Custer and with Bell, you're getting two good enough drivers who could conceivably get a top 15 and are starting super deep in the pack. So those two guys are drivers I'll be using quite a bit of on Sunday. I do think you can consider John Hunter Nemechek and Ryan Priest down here. Nemechek is starting 18th, which is a bit too high, but he had a really good run in the second Charlotte race. Priest will start 33rd. So for him, it's more about the starting spot than what he is doing himself. But overall, I think that Custer and Bell are the two values I feel best about entering Sunday's race. They're starting deep in the pack, their equipment is good enough, and it's really good for Custer, and the talent is there too. So I think those are the two guys I'll be using most once we get below around $8,000. All right, let's finish up here with picks to win for Sunday's race, one above $10,000 on Fandall and one below it. For the guy above it, I'm gonna go Kevin Harvick. I know it's a cop out to pick the favorite, but he's the favorite for a reason. And again, drivers in his range within my model win a lot. So I want to account for that and make Kevin Harvick my win pick once again for this race. For the driver below $10,000, we didn't talk a lot about him in the tier by tier breakdown in part because he's starting a bit higher in the order, but I'm gonna pick Eric Jones. Eric Jones is 50 to one right now in Fandall Sportsbook, which is kind of bonkers when you consider the fact that he finished third here in this race back in November. He started 16th in that one. So I think that the upside is there, and that's why Avium is being a really good pivot off of William Byron. Jones, tough year so far this year, but good equipment and we've seen him be good on tracks like this in the past. So Eric Jones at 50 to one below $10,000 is my pick for Sunday's race. That is all the time that we have for today. Do want to thank you all for tuning in. And again, a lot of stuff coming up next week as well. We got PGA podcast on Tuesday, NASCAR podcast coming up on Thursday. So make sure you are subscribed to the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast feed wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like what you hear or if it helps you have success in DFS, make sure you leave us a rating and review as well. And these podcasts are going up on the Fandall YouTube page as well. So make sure you are subscribed there also. Big thank you to Calvin Theobald, our video producer for under the video side of things here today and putting all those clips up on the Fandall YouTube page and the Fandall Twitter account. Thank you, Cal as always and good luck everybody with your DFS lineups for this weekend. It should be a fun one. Got good selections in most of the tiers and should be a fun race too with a hot and slick track. So it'll be fun to watch those drivers slip sliding around all afternoon. We'll talk to you again next week. This has been the heat check fantasy podcast powered by Number Fire.


Hello, my name is Lisa and I'm from the youth department at West Pam Memorial Library. Thank you for joining me today for our virtual baby time. We're first going to start out with an hello song that has a lot of body awareness in it. So as we're pointing to your child's body parts, feel free to tickle and touch as we go along. Are you ready? Let's first find our nose. Where's your nose?  Touch your nose. Touch your nose.  Touch your nose today. What else can we do? Can we touch our toes? Well hello everybody, can you touch your toes? Touch your toes. Touch your toes. Well hello everybody, can you touch your toes? Touch your toes today. What else can we do? Can we wiggle our ears? Well hello everybody, can you wiggle your ears? Wiggle your ears. Wiggle your ears. Well hello everybody, can you wiggle your ears? Wiggle your ears today. Let's do one more. Can we tickle our tummy? Well hello everybody, can you tickle your tummy? Tickle your tummy. Tickle your tummy. Well hello everybody, can you tickle your tummy? Tickle your tummy today. Perfect. Welcome to our baby time. We're going to do another body awareness. This one's going to be focused on our face. So I'm going to show it on my face, but feel free to do it on your child's. Are you ready? We're going to start it with our eyes, our nose, our cheek, and our chin.  So we're going to do that one more time and I'll show you on Benson. I'll do it one more together.  Good job. So we're going to do another tickle, and this one is really good at introducing the concepts of slow and fast. I'm going to do slowly, slowly goes the garden snail. So you can do this, tickle a couple of different ways. If baby's having tummy time, you can do it up their back.  Let's try it. Slowly, slowly, very slowly goes the garden snail. Slowly, slowly, very slowly up the garden trail. And now we have a fast mouse that goes quickly, quickly, very quickly goes the garden mouse, quickly, quickly, very quickly into the garden house. Let's try that one more time. Slowly, slowly, very slowly goes the garden snail. Slowly, slowly, very slowly up the garden trail. Very quickly, very quickly goes the garden mouse, quickly, quickly, very quickly into the garden house. Fantastic. So the next thing we're going to get into is we're going to do some bounces.  If you don't feel like lifting them up, that's totally fine. You can modify it by lifting up their arms instead. So our first song we'll be doing does have a lift, so we can always lift the arms instead. But we're going to do Acabaca Soda Cracker. Acabaca Soda Cracker, Acabaca Boo. Acabaca Soda Cracker, up goes you. Acabaca Soda Cracker, Acabaca Boo. Acabaca Soda Cracker, I love you. Do a nice little tickle and hug at the end. Let's try again. Acabaca Soda Cracker, Acabaca Boo. Acabaca Soda Cracker, up goes you. Acabaca Soda Cracker, Acabaca Boo. Acabaca Soda Cracker, I love you. Our next bounce has a lot of rhythm in it. Bouncing is really good for children to feel the rhythm as they're also listening to their rhymes at the same time. So we're going to be doing Grandfather Clock. Are you ready? My grandfather's clock goes tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock, stop. My kitchen clock goes tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock, stop. My alarm clock goes tick, tick, tick, tick, tock, tick, tock. So the more you do this rhyme, the more your children will be able to anticipate the tickle that's coming at the end and they'll have a lot more fun when they're expecting it. Let's try it again. My grandfather's clock goes tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock, stop. My kitchen clock goes tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock, stop. But my alarm clock goes good job. So next we are going to be playing with some scarves. So if you don't have a fancy scarf like this at home, you can use just like a pashmina or if you have a clean dishcloth or a clean facecloth, you can also use that as well. Cloths are really good because you can wave them up in the air, you can throw them and they nicely float down. Or my favorite thing to do is peek-a-boo. So that's what we're going to do first. We're going to play a game of peek-a-boo with our kids. I'm going to put Benson down right here so you can see him. And we're going to play peek-a-boo. And there's a fun little rhyme that we can do together.  Let's try that again. Ready?  Good job. The next one we're going to do is really good for a bath time, which is practicing for a bath time. So we're going to pretend our scarf is our washcloth. And we're going to pretend to wash our face. Are you ready? This is the way we wash our face, wash our face, wash our face. This is the way we wash our face so early in the morning. What else should we wash, Benson? Can we wash our toes? This is the way we wash our toes, wash our toes, wash our toes. This is the way we wash our toes so early in the morning. What else can we wash? Can we wash our head? This is the way we wash our head, wash our head, wash our head. This is the way we wash our head so early in the morning. What else can we do? Can we wash our tummies? This is the way we wash our tummy, wash our tummy, wash our tummy. This is the way we wash our tummy so early in the morning. So as you can see, that song can go on forever and ever until you run out of body parts. So it's a really nice one when you're having bath time or just playing around at home. Okay, so now we are going to get into some dancing. So if you're feel comfortable, please stand up. I'm going to be staying seated so you can see me in the video, but we're going to do some dancing. So when we're dancing, these are really good for calming down baby or just to get some hiccups out or some burps. So we're going to start out with doing Baby Was Born In The Circle Of The Sun. Baby was born in the circle of the sun, circle of the sun on birthing day. Baby was born in the circle of the sun, circle of the sun on birthing day. Clouds in the north, clouds in the south, wind and rain in the east and the west. Clouds in the north, clouds in the south, wind and rain in the east and the west. Baby was born in the circle of the sun, circle of the sun on birthing day. Good job. So normally we do these types of rhymes at baby time and we do them as a march in the circle. What you can also do if you're at home, you can either walk around the house and bounce baby, but you can also take a look at yourself in the mirror and bounce in front of the mirror. Not only will baby get to look at their face, but they will also get to look at yours while you're singing and dancing together. The next one we're going to try is mama's little baby loves dancing.  And it goes like this. Mama's little baby loves dancing, dancing. Mama's little baby likes to boogie down. Mama's little baby loves dancing, dancing. Mama's little baby likes to boogie down. Lean to the left, lean to the right. Hook that baby nice and tight. Lean to the left, lean to the right. Hook that baby nice and tight. Mama's little baby loves dancing, dancing. Mama's little baby likes to boogie down. Mama's little baby loves dancing, dancing. Mama's little baby loves to boogie down. Good job. Okay, we're almost at the end of our story time today. Thank you so much for joining me. I will do one last song with you, and it's going to be our goodbye song. And we will be singing the goodbye train. So you get to wave goodbye. If you're holding baby, you can bounce along with us. And then there's a nice little Chew Chew as we sing our song. Ready? Oh the goodbye train is leaving. See you soon. Chew Chew, oh the goodbye train is leaving. See you soon. Chew Chew, oh the goodbye train is leaving. Oh the goodbye train is leaving. all the goodbye train is leaving. See you soon. Thank you so much for joining me. Have a wonderful day. Goodbye.


Hello students, let's solve the following question of probability. It says in class 11th of a school 40% of the students study mathematics 30% study biology 10% of the class study both mathematics and biology. If a student is selected at random from the class Find the probability that he will be studying mathematics or biology Let us now start the solution and let a be the number of students studying mathematics B be the number of students studying biology Now we have given that 40% of the students study mathematics So the probability of a is 40% which can be written as 40 upon 100 which is equal to 0.40 and probability of B is 30% Which is equal to 0.30 Now we are given that 10% of the students study both mathematics and biology so the probability of a and B or we can say probability of a intersection B is 10% which is equal to 0.10 We have to find the probability of a student which is selected at random studying mathematics or biology So we have to find probability of a or B or we can say probability of a union B Now we know that probability of a or B is given by probability of a plus probability of B minus probability of a and B Now probability of a is 0.40 probability of B is 0.30 and probability of a and B is 0.10 Which is equal to 0.60 So the probability of a student who is studying mathematics or biology is 0.60 which is same as 0.6 It's a question and the session. Bye for now. Take care. Have a good day


Today, today that we're going to finish the dynamics, we'll finish it in a couple of minutes. We're talking about the shot of the A on Monday. And we talked about the paper box process. This is going to be the extra credit problem on midterm two. So I wrote it down here so we're clear on what it is. And once you think I just blew it out. We're actually going to talk about midterm two. The paper box process is a long note that does not conform to the prediction of the shot of the A's principle. Explain why very briefly and specifically. I'm going to want a chemically specific reason why the shot of the A's principle is not obeyed by the paper box process. It has something to do with the iron catalyst. What is it about the iron catalyst? That means that you can't just increase the partial pressure of hydrogen and get the rate of production of ammonia to increase. That's what I mean by it doesn't follow the shot of the A's principle. You can simply increase the partial pressure of hydrogen or the partial pressure of nitrogen by itself and accelerate the rate of ammonia production. That's what you would expect looking at this reaction though, isn't it? The shot of the A's principle says, hey, if I increase this, then people are going to shift to the right. So think about that. Research it on the web. Research it in the library. It'll be worth either five or ten points depending on how much you get right or zero, of course. That's what you're saying. So that's what's going to be a very, very case about that. So a shot of the A's principle says, if you increase the total reaction pressure, this should be blue because it should go to the left because this shift from low-reduction to a low-reaction pressure. I increase the pressure because there's two moles of amortune here and one mole of N2O4 here. One mole of gas versus two moles of gas. If I increase the pressure, I should drive the reaction to the left. So I went through and showed that we can make that a quantitative. We can make a quantitative prediction about the total pressure. I guess I got carried away. We don't necessarily have to be able to do this. But here's the reaction that we wrote down on Monday. We can go through and calculate the position of each word. We've seen these expressions. Calculate the mole fraction, the amortune and N2O4. The mole fraction of N2O4 is just the number of moles of N2O4 if I drive the total moles N2O4 plus N2O2. So if we just plug in this and this for the number of moles, like here for the amortune, as an example, here's the number of moles. Here's the total number of moles, that plus that. If I write this expression, if I write the amortune for N2O4, I get this expression right here. So now I write the expression for the equilibrium constant in terms of pressure. Sometimes we call that K sub V. That just means the equilibrium constant written down in terms of pressure. And so it's just N2 squared over N2O4 squared. Of course, always normalized by the standard pressure. And so we're going to end up with an extra factor of P0 in the denominator where we're going to cancel all these speeds. Yes, that's the pressure corresponding to the standard state on bar. And then we can write this in terms of the total pressure by using the mole fraction. The mole fraction and the total pressure is the partial pressure. So I can write the partial pressure of N2 in terms of the mole fraction, same thing for N2O4. And then I can plug in our expression to the mole fraction that I derived two slides ago. Here's the expression for the mole fraction of N2O4. Here's the expression for the mole fraction of N2O4. And then if I do an algebra and simplify that, I get this equation right here. Everybody saw it, we're actually getting this equation right. But this is indeed very satisfying because what it tells us is that if we increase the total pressure by increasing the pressure of either N02 or by reducing the volume of the reaction to the vessel, either way, if that P goes up, this portion's going to get smaller, isn't it? If I increase the size of the denominator, this portion's going to get smaller, this portion's going to get smaller. This is going to be shifts to the left. This gets smaller, X gets smaller. X is the progress of the reaction. And of course the converse will also be true. Now, you don't have to be able to derive this, but it is rather satisfying to see that you can do that if you want to. On Monday, we actually calculated the position of equilibrium using these sets of conditions and we did that by solving the quadratic formula. On Monday, this equation can be used to arrive at exactly the same conclusion. That's the same value for X that we got on Monday. It means we probably did it correctly. Okay, so that's the effect of pressure. You can usually tell just by inspection what effect pressure will have on a gas phase equilibrium. If you apply pressure, the system tries to minimize the number of moles of gas. Very simple. In the case of temperature, what matters is delta H. We have this thing called the Van Gogh equation and I don't want to spend all of my talking about it or going through what it means. But basically, if a reaction is exothermic, another word is delta H for the reaction that's less than zero. The reaction will show d log k over dt of less than zero, of course. According to this reaction, in other words, k will get smaller with increase in t. In other words, the reaction will shift to the left favoring the reactants when t is increased. What I want you to do is go and read about this in Chapter 17. There's a short section on the Van Gogh equation that talks about the temperature dependence of chemical reactions. It's very important. We could spend 20 minutes talking about it right now. I'll ask you something about this equation on Friday with if the reaction is this, changing the temperature to this, what's going to happen to the reaction rate? Or the repeated reactant equilibrium rate. Okay? We are done with thermodynamics. We are done with statistical mechanics. In Chapter 17, what we covered was we talked about Section 17.1 that gives energy minimum and the reaction gives energy and how to calculate those things. We talked about chemical potential to the Section 17.2. There was a section on the statistical description of the equilibrium constant that is very interesting, but we didn't talk about it. I read it. We did talk about the effect of pressure today and the effect of temperature. We sort of talked about it. I showed you the Van Gogh equation, and I asked you to read about it at that Section 17.5. This is everything we did to Chapter 17. There's a lot more sped off focusing on electric chemistry, which is a subject mirrored dear to my own heart. It's what I do, but we don't have time to talk about it. Okay? So this is everything that we talked about in Chapter 17, and this is the last stuff that we'll talk about that pertains to thermodynamics. Now we're also going to skip Chapter 18. We don't have time for it. It's sort of a transitional chapter anyway. We're going to jump straight to Chapter 19, which is about chemical kinetics. Now we are, in fact, yes, the basics. How are reaction rates measured? How is the reaction a lot of fine and dry? Where is an integrated rate of law? Why do we need it? How does a reaction rate go? There's a lot of background on chemical kinetics, but Chapter 19 is very important. Now where are we in the scheme of things, Steve? How badly off-track have we come? This is where we hope to be. This is our scheme on day one. We were bright-eyed and pushed pale. Now, here we are today. We're right in the middle of week seven, in turn, so. And we're not free ledgers in the chemical kinetics as shown on this scheme right here. We're just starting chemical kinetics here. So, I regret to tell you what's happened to reaction dynamics. I don't think we're going to have a lot of time to talk about it. So we're going to completely revamp this force this summer because everyone now recognizes that you can't do all of this in one quarter. You can't have two cores, quantum mechanics, psychroscopy, and then have one quarter of the statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, chemical kinetics, and chemical dynamics. It can't be done. So, this doesn't really affect you. We're going to try and do this through some justice. We try to do this subject right here, some justice. We spend a lot more time on it. We're not going to have as much time to spend on this. There should be a whole 10-week force on this. You'd enjoy it. But we're going to do it all in about three weeks. One, two, three. How much time is left? Okay, so on the mid-term, mid-term is a week from Friday now. It's really going to focus on the stuff since mid-term one, so the stuff at the end of, mainly the thermodynamic stuff, I don't think there's any stat mech at all on mid-term two. All right, and the stuff that we're going to do in this lecture on Friday and on Monday, mainly. All right, so there's going to be three lectures on kinetics that are going to be on mid-term two as well. Okay, so I'll be telling you more about that. So, this is the stuff that we're going to talk about. This guy, you know, we're sort of backtracking. We're going back to the early 1800s when thermodynamics and statistical mechanics worked out, right? The first Nobel Prize was in 1901, right? And the whole slew of guys just missed earning one of those because their work wasn't appreciated until after they died, can't win an Nobel Prize after you died. And so this is earlier than that, right? The first kinetic measurement remains earlier than the early 1800s. So, what we're talking about now is the rate of reactions. Kinetics is all about how fast the reaction occurs and what factors control the rate of the reaction. How do we measure it? How do we talk about it? How do we accelerate it? How do we decelerate it? How does the rate depend on the variables that we have controlled? All right, so we need a lot of notation and we want to be very clear about this so that there's any confusion because it's intrinsically confusing. Notation always is. So, there's something called a stoichiometric reaction. Now, that may not sound like a technical term, right? Aren't all reactions stoichiometric? Yes, they are, right? In one sense, but we're going to use the terminology stoichiometric reaction to mean something special. We're going to mean that the reaction that we're writing down is balanced, all right? But it doesn't necessarily convey any mechanistic information. A stoichiometric reaction is a balanced chemical reaction that does not convey any mechanistic information. You can't tell by looking at a stoichiometric reaction anything about the reaction mechanism. That's what it means, okay? Stoichiometric reactions are just described the stoichiometric relationship between the reactions to the product. So, here's the stoichiometric reaction, A moles of A, B moles of B, you get the idea. This does not mean that A moles of A collided with B moles of B at any point, right? That would be something having to do with the mechanism. But this reaction does not convey any mechanistic information. Something totally different might have happened. So, if the reaction between an oxygen and hydrogen is this, yes, all right? But the mechanism has nothing to do with this. And when hydrogen and oxygen react to make H2 all, there's virtually never a collision between an H2 and an O2. It might be kind of surprising to them. Here's the action, right? Here's the stoichiometric reaction. But when this reaction actually occurs, there's virtually never a collision between an H2 and an O2. What happens instead is this. Hydrogen dissociates to get two hydrogen atoms. Oxygen dissociates to do two oxygen atoms. And then hydrogen atom, that collides with an O2 to give us an oligarchal linen oxygen atom. And so on and so forth. These are elementary reactions. An elementary reaction is a balanced chemical reaction just like a stoichiometric reaction. But it does convey mechanistic information, right? It is as stripped down. It is the, it's elementary to the sense that it can't be made any more primitive than what it is, all right? An OH radical actually collides with an H2. That's what actually happened and we got H2 in hydrogen atom out of it. Okay? So there are elementary reactions that comprise the chemical mechanism. And then there's a stoichiometric reaction that is just somehow the sum of all this. It's pretty much one. With me? It's confusing. These are elementary reactions. The reaction mechanism comprises elementary reactions, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. For example, this elementary reaction hydrogen ES. And we can classify elementary reactions as different types. We will get to this later. Don't worry about it now. It's very complex. How hydrogen and oxygen interact. There are explosions that can occur because of this complex mechanism. We'll talk about it later. So an elementary reaction is one of which the indicated products are formed directly from the reaction. So as in this case, that the elementary reaction is oxygen atom actually collided with H2. And we've got always track of the nitrogen atom. Okay. So we've already discussed this thing called the extent of the reaction with a degree of simple. I don't know how to pronounce. Here's the technical definition of what it is. I don't think we actually wrote down the technical definition earlier. We need a more precise and general definition for the extent of the reaction. This is the initial moles of some species J. The number of moles is a function of time of species J. And this is the stoichiometric coefficient that applies to species J. It is positive for products and negative for reactants. The stoichiometric coefficient for reactants is negative. I'm sure that's something we haven't said earlier. Stoichiometric coefficient for reactants is negative. And it's in units of moles. Okay. So this is not as confusing as this looks. Here's an example. 2 plus Br2 is 2HBr. And let's say that the change in HBr is plus 0.002 moles. That's the change in the number of moles of HBr as this reaction is occurring. So the stoichiometric coefficient. The extent of the reaction is going to be plus 0.002 moles divided by plus 2 because that's a 2 and it's a stoichiometric coefficient for a product. So it's positive by definition. Okay. And so I get 0.001 moles. That's the extent of moles of concentration. Usually moles. So now I can do the same thing for H2. I can equally equal the extent of reaction in terms of the change in H2 of minus 0.001 moles. Then I have minus 0.001 moles divided by minus 1 because the stoichiometric coefficient here is minus 1. It's minus 1 because it's a reactant. Alright.  Okay. So we can calculate the extent of the reaction if we just know how many moles of something was generated and then be used for the extent of the reaction. Okay. Now in terms of the extent of the reaction the reaction rate is given by this equation right here. What is this? This is the volume of the reaction vessel. And this is just the extent of the reaction the change in the extent of the reaction of the function of time. Yes, that's the volume. Like the extent of the reaction itself the rate of the reaction does not depend on the species used to define it. It's the same for reactants and products. The way it's defined it has to be the same for the reactants and products. You can define the reaction rate in any reactant and product. You should get the same number. There's only one reaction rate. Since this is in moles and this is the volume we have a concentration here. The concentration can be units of pressure or it can be units of concentration. Moles per cubic centimeter. Moles per liter. Okay. So usually we're not looking at an expression that looks like this. Usually we're looking at an expression that looks like this. Here's our generic reaction. I can define the reaction rate as minus one over A. A is a stoichiometric coefficient on A. It's negative times D, A, and T. Where that A in brackets there that's the concentration of A or it's partial pressure. So the rate I can define the rate with regard to A or with regard to B or with regard to C or with regard to D all of these rates have to be equal to one another and they will be if I conform to this definition of what the rate is. The rate is one over the stoichiometric coefficient times D concentration DT. We'll ask them to do this kind of fast. You guys getting all this? Now, this is a change in concentration with time or the units are typically molar per second or ATM per second. If this is a partial pressure then it's ATM per second. If it's a concentration it's typically molar per second but it could be some other concentration unit. This factor of one over volume is gone because we're talking about concentrations here. We had one over volume here momentarily until we converted that volume over this extent of the reaction into a concentration. And we're never going to go back. A rate law relates to the concentration reaction often has a general flow. So this is a rate law that's the reaction rate. That's why it's called a rate law. The rate law predicts the reaction rate. Makes sense. Or K, alpha and beta are independent of the concentration. That's a rate constant. It's called a constant because it's independent of concentration. Note also that alpha and beta are not necessarily stoichiometric coefficients for species A and B. See how that's alpha and beta? You might think that that's the stoichiometric coefficient on A and that's the stoichiometric coefficient on B. In general, that is not true. Unless the reaction that you're writing the rate law for is an elementary reaction and you know that. If you know the reaction is an elementary reaction then that is the stoichiometric coefficient on A and that is the stoichiometric coefficient on B. I'll say more about that. But in general, unless you know that you can't assume that that's true. Instead, alpha and beta are alternative experiments. Yes. So from this rate law we can say the order of this reaction with respect to A is alpha and the order with respect to B is beta. That's what that means. So there's an order with respect to all of the chemical species in this reaction. With respect to A is alpha the reaction is first order with respect to A or second order that means alpha is one or two. We commonly speak of reactions that are first order in A, yes that means alpha equals one or second order in A, yes that means alpha equals two. And the total order of the reaction is alpha plus beta. That's the overall order is the sum of those stoichiometric coefficients. The sum of those exponents rather. So K is the rate constant's units that depend on the, okay so this is important. So we mentioned that there's this thing called the rate constant. One of the confusing things is the rate constant has different units depending on what type of reaction it is. And we have to be conversant with all these different units. The rate constant tells us what the overall reaction order is. The overall reaction order is information that's embedded in the units of the rate constant. So if I tell you the rate constant for the reaction was this 26.25 per second I'm telling you it's a first order reaction. You have to know those units are units of first order reaction. Reaction has overall first order. Let's look at this in a little more detail. For example if alpha is 1 and beta is 0 then the reaction is this because of beta is 0 that's just 1. The reaction is first order in A and first order overall because 1 plus 0 is 1. So what's K going to be? You can always figure it out. You take the rate here's your rate law and you solve for K. K is rate over A the concentration of A I know the rate is molar per second A is molar so that means the units of K have to be per second I can just figure that out. If you want to know what the units of the rate constant are solve for it in the rate law plug in the dimensions of the other variables and just calculate what the dimensions of K have to be just do a little dimensional analysis so if you see units of per second you know immediately it's a first order reaction no one has to tell you that. If on the other hand alpha is 1 and beta is 1 then you've got this rate law and you've got an overall second order reaction and if I solve for K here I get rate over A concentration of A times concentration of B and the rate is always going to be molar per second so I've got molar squared and so now the units are per molar per second if I see those units I know immediately that I've got a second order reaction the units are telling me what the overall reaction order of the reaction is are was so stoichiometric reactions of rate law can be deduced from an inspection yes, yes the rate law cannot that should be bolded and in italics in other words the rate of this reaction is not this so this is what I said earlier we mentioned that this is a stoichiometric reaction you might want to just think about this as being a rate constant which it is not there is no rate constant for this arrow because this process never occurs okay this is just expressing the overall reaction that occurs as a consequence of about 20 steps alright and so it's tempting to say oh the rate of the reaction is times the concentration of hydrogen squared times the concentration of oxygen no it is untrue not even close to being true but for an elementary reaction the rate law can be generated by inspection for example if I look at this reaction right here which I pulled out of the mechanism for that why the reaction rate is given by K times the concentration of hydrogen atoms times the concentration of oxygen alright if that's a single ended arrow these products don't have anything to do with the reaction rate the single ended arrow tells me it's an irreversible reaction and I don't have to think about what those guys are I could just write products here and I have all the information I need to know about the rate only the reactants appear in this expression often reactions are significantly reversible and both the forward and backward rates are important so if you have the double ended arrow now you've got a reversible reaction you do have to think about the products you do have to know what they are alright in this case if we study the reaction from left to right remove the HI as it's produced that's important if we remove the HI as it's produced then the rate of the reaction will be this in other words if I remove the HI as it's produced I'm basically turning off the reverse reaction I'm not allowing it to happen at all the forward reaction but we can also study HI decomposition in this case if the products so HI decomposition would mean the reaction is running in the backward direction in that case these are products of the decomposition so if we remove them then the rate of the back reaction would be this because this is an elementary reaction that we're talking about here so we can write these rate laws directly from inspection that's the main point we're trying to make here and we're we're not going to talk about reversible reactions the kinetics of reversible reactions very much for a lecture or two we'll get to it but I'm just pointing out that if it's an elementary reaction we can deduce what these rates are going to look like just by looking at this there's HI there's two in front of the HI that means there's got to be a two that's the rate constant for the decomposition of the HI and if I get rid of these guys there's going to be no back and so that would be the rate of the decomposition if these guys are removed or if they diffuse away very quickly no back reaction can happen the stoichiometric reaction for acid-aldehyde decomposition this is acid-aldehyde it decomposes to give methane and CO the rate law for this reaction is this now is that an elementary reaction it's not and I can tell that just by looking at the reaction law the rate law this rate law would never apply to this reaction if this was an elementary reaction what would the rate law be that would be a one wouldn't it because there's a one here that would be the exponent so just looking at this rate law I can tell immediately that this acid-aldehyde decomposition has a complex mechanism made up of a series of elementary reactions that I don't know what they are but that's not an elementary reaction right there tell that immediately we did not know if we did not know this was a stoichiometric reaction we would know once we looked at this we know it's not an elementary reaction just based on what the rate law is but I can ask what are the units of that rate constant right there what are its units and all I have to do is solve here's the rate here's the concentration concentration to the three halves if I work that out I'm going to have molar to the minus one half seconds to the minus one those are going to be the units of the rate constant and if I wanted to the constant and deduce that this overall reaction order is one and a half it's a perfect quiz question here's the rate constant tell me what the overall order of the reaction was one two three one point five it's a little confusing because we've been talking about big K the equilibrium constant and the equilibrium constant never has units but the rate constant the little K does and the units have contained information now how do we experimentally determine these rate laws this is important we have some methods that we can use for doing that that we need to know about one of the methods is the method of initial rates the idea is very simple if you've got a complex reaction a bunch of reactants A B and C you want to know what the stoichiometric coefficient is for A but you don't know what it is you want to figure out what alpha beta and gamma are the way that you do that is you isolate reactant A by making all of the other reactants enormous compared to A you make A tiny and B and C large if you do that what will happen the rate of the reaction will depend on the amount of A that you've got because you've got an excess amount of B and C B and C are not rate limiting you've flooded the system with B and C you put a tiny amount of A and now the reaction will only occur at a rate that's dictated by the amount of A and you can interrogate A and learn everything about how the reaction depends on A here's how this works if I make B and C large they're going to become pseudo constant because the amount of the reaction so B and C are large and there's a tiny amount of A A is only going to allow the reaction to occur at a relatively slow rate and the amount of B and C are not going to be significantly perturbed from their total concentrations because their total concentrations are enormous and I can treat them as constants I can define a K prime that's just that K times B to the beta C to the gamma and essentially I've turned this into a pseudo alpha order reaction I've eliminated the dependence of B and C and now the reaction only depends on A and I want to know what alpha is so if I want to know what alpha is I just take the log of both sides log of the rate equals log of K prime plus alpha times the log of A I measure now the rate for different initial concentrations of A I change the initial concentration of A while maintaining it tiny compared to B and C I have to use tiny concentrations of A but I can vary it and as I do that here's the lowest concentration of A here's the initial rate that I measure here's a higher concentration of A here's the initial rate I measured there here's the red line and here's a higher concentration all of these concentrations of A here are tiny compared to B and C I want to emphasize that and now I can just plot log of the rate log of the initial rate is a function of log of A and the slope of that is alpha by golly so I have teased out the molecularity of the reaction with respect to it's a lot of work but now I know what the order of the reaction is with respect to A and then I make B small make A and C big and repeat the experiment so I can take the reaction apart piece by piece and figure out what the molecularity is of every reactant I'm looking for a word that I can't think now how do you know whether A is small enough well you know A is small enough when you've got big concentrations of B and C let's say A is one millimolar and B and C are one molar how do you know if one molar is big enough you make it 1.1 and the reaction better not change you have to actually check to see if the reaction rate depends on B and C by changing their concentrations when they're big to convince yourself reactions only depending on the concentration of A now I can actually run my experiment so big and small are relative terms they're nebulous you have to in the lab empirically figure out if they're high enough so that A is truly isolated that's the method of initial rates method two drive an integrated rate law for the reaction an integrated rate law we've been talking about rate laws but we haven't said it but we've been talking about differential rate laws all right DADT now if we integrate that we can determine explicitly what the time dependence of A is for reactions of different molecularities first order, second order, third order and so on if we integrate our differential rate law we'll get an integrated rate law and the integrated rate law explicitly predicts what A does as a function of time take this for example the rate is minus DADT that equals K times A very simple reaction we can integrate both sides I'm going to move the minus sign over the right hand side integrate from the initial concentration of A to some final concentration I'm going to just integrate this DT and so when I'm done doing that I'm going to have minus KT since that's a zero and this is going to turn into log A over A zero and now I've got an equation that predicts the concentration of A as a function of time this equation here does not predict the concentration of A as a function of time it predicts the rate so the integrated rate law tells me explicitly here's what A does as a function of time measure the concentration of A as a function of time you can see if you can fit it with this equation if you can chances are your reaction is first order with respect to A and you can back out the rate constant from the fit now this is laborious because what if it's not first order in A well you've got to fit it to second order reaction a third order reaction a half order reaction it becomes a fitting exercise but eventually you figure it out thinking about this process so let's look at data use the integrated rate law here's what the integrated rate law is for the first order reaction and it predicts A gets smaller as the log and the slope should be negative and the slope of this is actually minus k and so we get the rate constant from the slope or you could just take the raw data which is a curve you could fit that directly in the old days every process had to be converted into a straight line so that you could do the fitting because there were no computers and a lot of the textbooks that we now use to study these processes continue the convention of turning every reaction plotting it in such a way that you get a straight line it's not really necessary to do that anymore we can fit curve lines trivially anytime we want to do that and then you get the rate constant from that fit you don't need to turn it into a straight line but this was what was done back before 1990 or so because in 1990 that's pretty much when we started to use personal computers might have been about 87 remember that very well sadly okay so we can use an integrated rate law all different molecularities of reactions but another way that we can deal with the integrated rate law is to define the half-life of the reaction the half-life is defined using the integrated rate law so you need the integrated rate law first then you can define the half-life and then you measure the half-life it's a lot like measuring you basically have to measure the concentration of the reactant or product as a function of time anyway to get the half-life actually measuring the same thing but the half-life is the time needed for half of a reactant the chemical reaction to be depleted half of the reactant to be depleted depleted so here's the integrated rate law for a first order reaction which we just derived alright the half-life just says hey I want to know how long it takes for a to fall to half of the value of a zero so if that is half of that it's just half that ratio is just half and so this is now my expression for t to the one-half that's the half-life t to the one-half so if I solve for t to the one-half it's just log 2 over k that's dead simple now note that in this case of a first order reaction the half-life is independent of the initial concentration of a zero that's the hallmark for a first order reaction you start with 0.2 you measure the first half-life that's how long it takes to get to 0.1 now you pretend 0.1 is your starting point you measure how long it takes to get to 0.5 or rather 0.05 same amount of time you measure the third half-life that's the time it takes to get to 0.025 that's the same amount of time if the half-life stays the same it's a first order reaction you're measuring the concentration of your reactant as a function of time you could just fit this green curve this equation right here and you're done so there's no particular advantage to measuring the half-life but if for some reason that happened to be a convenient way to do it you can get the order of the reaction that way one of the advantages of both of these approaches where we're using the integrated rate law is that we're ensuring that the molecularity of the reaction is staying the same over a period of time and over a range of reactant concentrations that's not true in the method of initial rates in the method of initial rates we're measuring the initial rate always for different initial concentrations of the reactant that we're isolating and so in principle we're only getting the molecularity right at the beginning of the reaction if something funny happens which is which often occurs we're going to miss it we're not going to know what happens to the molecularity later in the reaction but here we can see if something funny happens in other words if something funny happens we're going to see we're going to have a good fit to our curve here and then something is going to go wrong we're going to fall off this curve at some later point in time and that's information that we can use to understand what's going on we're not going to have that information in the method of initial rates see what I'm talking about this is superior here we're ensuring that we have a fit over a wide range of reactant concentrations in a range of times and if we see a fit all the way to the end of our time window we can be confident that over that time window over that range of reactant concentrations this reaction this rate law really holds up so this is superior one type of second order reaction ok so I think we'll just stop right here ok so this stuff that we talked about today could be on the quiz let me just say that


Hi everybody, Joe for JaspysCaseRakes.com with our last filler for that hip parade break coming up in a separate video if you're watching this one This is the pack break and then the randomizer for the spot giveaway Remember two dice rolls the first one will be for the break second one will be the giveaway part at the end big Thanks to this group for making it to happen All 30 teams are in and this Chronicles Hobby pack let's roll it randomized names and teams six the hard way three into three one two three four Five and sixth and final time three into three six the hard way for the teams one two three four five and six after six times cubs Down to brewers and of course as always as you know by now no trade windows and filler packs Here's the first half ish of the list right here half of the list right there There's the next half right there let's alphabetize by team and let's Print and rip all right and again video for this will be in a in the next separate video See what we got in here a relic maybe All right Christian Pache Got a nice Jared Kalanick here It's a gold standard rookie Jared Kalanick It's pretty sharp And behind Matt Chapman is Gleeber Torres Piece of his jersey for the Yankees right Harold. All right now. Let's flip back over here again Let's gather everybody's names once more New dice new list roll it randomized it Six and a two eight times for the eight cards in the pack top 10 After eight good luck one two three four five six seven And eighth and final time after eight from 11 on down Jimmy. Damn Very close. No cigar Sad times for everybody here, but thanks for giving it a shot. I appreciate it Much happier times though for the top 10 you're in the hit parade break coming up next Anthony is happy So is Peter Adam Kyle David Mark Jonathan Anthony Jimmy and Davis I guess I don't feel so bad for Jimmy snuck in there you go ladies gentlemen. Thanks very much everybody for making this happen I'll see you next time for the next break, which is hit parade. Bye. Bye