Harry Kane & the Gambler’s Fallacy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 มิ.ย. 2024
- Try The Athletic for FREE for 30 days: theathletic.com/tifofootball
The Gambler’s Fallacy - the belief that unusual trends in completely independent events must somehow even out over time. Formed on the roulette tables of Monte Carlo, now applied to Premier League footballers.
But how? And is it right to compare the outcomes of football to a fallacy?
Jon Mackenzie explains. Illustrated by Alice Devine.
Follow Tifo Football:
Twitter: / tifofootball_
Facebook: / tifofootball
Instagram: / tifofootball_
Listen to the Tifo Football podcast:
The Athletic UK: bit.ly/TifoPodChannel
Apple Podcasts: bit.ly/TifoFootPod
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/06QIGhq...
Watch more Tifo Football: Tactics Explained: • Tactics Explained | Ti...
Finances & Laws: • Finances & Laws | Tifo...
Tifo Football Podcast: • Tifo Football Podcast
Most Recent Videos: • Most Recent Videos | T...
1 Popular Videos: • Popular Videos | Tifo ...
About Tifo Football:
Tifo loves football. We create In-depth tactical, historical and geopolitical breakdowns of the beautiful game.
We know there’s an appetite for thoughtful, intelligent content. For stuff that makes the complicated simple.
We provide analysis on the Premier League, Champions League, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, World Cup and more.
Our podcasts interview some of the game’s leading figures. And our editorial covers football with depth and insight.
Founded in 2017 and became a part of The Athletic in 2020. For business inquiries, reach out to tifo@theathletic.com.
Music sourced from epidemicsound.com
Additional footage sourced from freestockfootagearchive.com
#PremierLeague - กีฬา
Causally, Joe. Not Casually.
Dyslexia stirks again
Casual preparation strikes again
A less well articulated man might have got away with it.
Mod's getting sacked by the iron fist of Joseph today
I want to take this opportunity to mention that Finland _exited_ the competition in the group stage, not _excited_ it, JOE. (See women's Euros goalkeeper video)
Thought this had to do with me putting Kane in my fantasy side so early in the season and giving him the armband. “He starts slow every season, but this season will be different as he cannot start every single season slowly. The odds must change.” Sigh 😔
Yep, that's a good example, although technically not gambler's fallacy as the events (seasons) are related.
Did you have hope after seeing the 4:1?
Spurs won 4-1 and their striker and best player didn't get a single goal contribution. I'm starting to think the universe is trolling us.
damn me too haha!
I thought it had something to do with him wanting to leave spurs for a title team. Next year must be my year to leave....harry kane prob.
Thought this video was going to be about how everyone thought Harry Kane was a one season wonder and season after season people believed he had finished his high scoring seasons
I think that applies more to Salah
@@nadadur really? I’ve never heard anyone doubt Salah. Unlike Harry who gets it every season even though the consistency
@@joeltihverainen9315 He was doubted his second season at Liverpool but the doubt has faded away
@@calebstaten5602 ah right. Not a Liverpool fan. Spurs all the way
Thought it was going to be about why Harry Kane continues to stay at Tottenham if he wants trophies
I thought this was going to talk about how Kane keeps taking free kicks.
That is the true fallacy here
I thought it'd talk about him staying at Tottenham in the hope of winning a trophy every season
that would be 'Harry Kane and the Definition of Insanity'
@@comradewestov3047 🤣
2:52 “Casually unrelated” as opposed to casually related, which is when your brother never calls and “doesn’t want to get too attached” **cries**
causally* They spelt it right in the video, just didn't pronounce it right
A perfect example of that during penalties is the Penalty shootout for the Champions League final in 2016 when all of Real Madrid players chose the same right hand side corner and Oblak jumped the opposite side thinking that one of them must break the cycle.
Immediately thought of that I thought their thought process was that they(real madrid) will definitely shoot one to the left hand side that’s why he always went there to at least save one
I don't think it's really related to the gambler's fallacy though. The penalty isn't chance. Someone is making that choice. So that's trying to second guess a human, not probability.
@@DJMavis except as the keeper, the location of the penalty may as well be chance because you don't know where the taker will out it.
@@owenrodgers8020 putting aside that keepers do research, the previous penalties might well affect the current one though. Imagine that the first three went bottom left and the keeper saved the second two. The taker might think to bluff and go bottom left, or might go to the right at the keeper keeps going left, or might do their usual penalty, or... There are many options of course, but in one on one, especially with history, it's far from random chance.
@@owenrodgers8020 putting aside that keepers do research, the previous penalties might well affect the current one though. Imagine that the first three went bottom left and the keeper saved the second two. The taker might think to bluff and go bottom left, or might go to the right at the keeper keeps going left, or might do their usual penalty, or... There are many options of course, but in one on one, especially with history, it's far from random chance.
He probably knows this isn't true, or at least Jermaine Defoe did when he told him. It's a mental gymnastic to ensure you don't lose confidence in yourself after missing chances, and it's kinda clever.
I know when I was in my teens and playing in goal for my local team, I would leave my water bottles etc outside the nets. My 'logic' was the ball would be attracted to the net if there was already stuff in there! I knew it was nonsense of course, but it is fun to incorporate these little rituals because, as you say, it helps with getting your game gears going!
Defoe’s advice works because it encouraged Harry to shoot more. Talented striker x more shots = more goals.
Yes, that is what the video says
Defoe's advice fulfilled it's purpose. The goal was to say to Kane "If you shoot 10 times, you gotta score at some point". It's like saying to kids that Santa Clause will reward them if they behave. The purpose is to motivate them to be good. You are using lies for a good benefit.
Lololol
@@rotex03 Still, it was based on faulty logic, and it further exposes the public to what an absolute moron Harry Kane is. He would have won the Balon d'Or by now if it was not for his embarrassingly low intelligence (he does not understand neither breathing through his nose nor basic probability)
@@rotex03 Santa Claus is not a lie if used as a personification of morality, what seems like the case in this example. Jesus Christ is more fitting but if Santa gets the job done it's a success
This is like when Saul Goodman convinced a waitress that he was Kevin Costner. And it worked, because HE believed it!
Everyone else rewatching the show too? lol
The video says it could happen again.
He was for that night!
@@man4437 and Better Call Saul
lol Walter's face as he says that kills me
"Don't be a square" - Mia Wallace (Pulp Fiction). Defoe didn't mean it in the most literal stupid way, he meant if a top striker has 10 chances in a game instead of 5, chances are he will score 1 goal more. Simple concept and simple advice to Harry.
Casually? You mean causally…
Just being a bit too causal with the script read.
I think he knows that, just uses it as motivation to shoot at every chance
If it works it works. Athletes are famously superstitious.
The quotes literally show he does not understand the concept of basic probability.
@@mss11235 He just accepted Defoe's theory like he was some kind of goal soothsayer
I reckon it makes a little sense with the penalty, because a penalty taker may well think that they surely won't get away with another in the same direction because they think the keeper has cottoned on. Whether that logic is flawed or not is up for debate, but I don't think its the gamblers fallacy, as previous shots can affect the next ones.
Agreed, when you have a person influencing the outcome on both sides it's not in any way the gambler's fallacy - it's pure psychology. More like paper-scissors-stone, which (at least after the first throw) is almost always won by the person who could better get in the head of their opponent.
To clarify, you are correct that it is not the gamblers fallacy in that context. But it’s not from the takers point of view, but the goal keepers. The fallacy itself is purely psychological, a way our brain tries to process random events in a seemingly organized way. While you’re right that human behavior affects it hear, that’s the random event. The keeper making the assumption that they couldn’t go back to the same side, despite there being no reason for it as it’s a different person (the next roll) is the fallacy. It’s like if left was black, right was red, down the middle is green. The goalkeeper is the one constant, put the shooter always changes. So the keepers use a logic based on the last penalty, but the players are new and have no consistency from the last.
@@tompoodiack2034 but the players have seen the last penalty, most of the time, in a shootout. There is very little to do with random chance.
But does not mean it will surely occur it increases the percentage but does not mean it will happen
Pretty sure Defoe and Kane aren’t been literal but more creating a mindset.
If he misses 3 chances in a match, instead of getting down and dropping tools about it they say to themselves “it’s fine, it just means I’m closer to scoring”
It’s not literal ffs
In all likelihood not but it might come from a real misunderstanding about what shooting percentage means i.e. it is not predictive
Honestly this video is really good from you guys and it made me feel better
Literally none of those examples can be described as gamblers fallacies
Title sounds like Harry Potter's book title
This is an extremely weird video. Not only does gambler's fallacy not apply to football by definition, but it's not obvious that either the Lineker or Kane quotations are examples of it. Maybe Lineker felt his shooting slackened if he took a bunch of warmup shots? As for Kane, he's an excellent striker who knows how to correct mistakes, so his chances of scoring likely do increase from one shot to the next. In which case, there's no fallacy?
I think one of the producers found out about the gambler's fallacy, found it interesting, and decided to shoehorn it into a football video.
Thought this would be about choosing Kane over Haaland for my fantasy as he was more proven in the prem and less of a 'gamble'. Safe to say, I quickly swapped him as soon as Haalands second went in...
It's a bit tricky there. I mean Haaland seemed pretty lost throughout the game. City's heavy possession game kept Haaland locked tight. That's why City and Pep teams usually play without classic strikers and use more midfield-like forwards instead who are comfortable in tight spaces. Haaland's second goal was so unlike City, I doubt they'll create that many chances with that fashion.
@@gunmuratilban8667 Also that West Ham CB who ran like a headless chicken when Haaland is behind him waiting any second to make the crucial run behind.
Would also be interesting to do a video on how commentators regularly roll out those stats that are basically unrelated to the current event, e.g fulham have scored 4 goals when playing against opponents with brazilian players or how team hasn't won a game X player makes less than 2 tackles
Maybe that's why he skied his penalty! Saving his luck for the big one, the F.A. cup third round tie against Portsmouth 😂
Love the videos guys.
Great vid man
Some really good content this channel has been putting out
A classic TIFO video, excellently presented in a unique manner, top class work
My favorite kind of Tifo content
Didn’t think Tifo would be teaching me about casual relations today
Sometimes it’s easy to forget that the chaos monster that is Joe Devine is the one behind these videos
Very interesting. Unlike spinning a roulette wheel, activities in football like passes, shots, corners, free kicks and penalties are not independent but can influence each other. There are various superstitions that manifest on the football field, like making the Sign of the Cross and touching the ground before crossing the touchline to enter at the beginning of a game or as a substitute, raising one's hand before taking a corner, etc. None of these are based on any real logic.
I don’t think the goalkeepers in penalties example is an example of the gamblers fallacy. They’re making a decision based upon what they think the next penalty taker is going to do. It’s psychological guesswork. It’s not arbitrary as in the case of the roulette table.
Exactly penalty shootouts are game theory
Surely make a shoot and roll in roullete are two different things. When you shoot, if you miss to slighly left, you can adjust it on your next shoot (not saying it will be a goal) but its not always 1:37 like roullete
The penalty shoot out example isn't Gambler's Fallacy at all, as which way the keeper has dived previously can influence the decision making of the next penalty taker. David Platt has spoken about how this affected his penalty at Italia 90. He took the third penalty against West Germany and had noticed that the keeper had gone right on the previous 2 penalties. He originally decided that he was going to hit the ball right, but just before he took the penalty he changed his mind and went left as a result. It wasn't a well hit penalty and the keeper went left too, and it was very nearly saved. That's a very real example of why the gambler's fallacy does not apply to a penalty shoot out - we're talking about humans, not random machines like a roulette wheel.
Tifo Football and Basketball double upload? LETS GOO
Great video as always ❤
As a former goalkeeper I can tell you that the keeper is not diving to the other side specifically because the pattern they are guess based on their reading of the current penalty taker or knowledge of the shooters previous penalties. Also this doesn’t account for kicks down the center
Thought the video is about how Tottenham keeps making Kane believe he'll win something with them
I think that the goalkeeping example isn't actually the gambler's fallacy, or at least not entirely. Saving a penalty isn't random like a roulette wheel. It's more like a game of rock-paper-scissors, but with the odds stacked against the keeper because of how many angles and speeds the penalty taker has to choose from. Games like rock-paper-scissors would be random if two computers played each other, but because humans are quite bad at acting truly at random, it's possible to read your opponent and achieve consistent results better than random chance. In this case, because penalty takers may actually factor the previous penalties into how they choose to take their own penalty, it may not be irrational to do so as a keeper.
I wonder if teams could exploit this in penalty shootouts, like by arranging to have four players in a row shoot the same way.
CL Final 2016 had something like that I reckon
Chelsea did it in 2008 Champions League, and they planned it. All of the first 6 went to Van der Sar's left and he saved none. Then for the 7th, Van der Sar pointed to his left, clearly understanding the tactic, as Anelka lined up his shot. Anelka changed his mind at the last moment; Chelsea's players had been instructed to all shoot to Van der Sar's left but Anelka went to his right and it was saved.
@@brynknight2745 Damn that was genius from EVDS
Driving me crazy that the ball is spinning the same direction the wheel is rotating in the animations.
Thought this would be about Kane thinking that he’d finally get a trophy at Spurs as it would be such a low chance to not win one so many years in a row, thus him staying at the club believing their odds would be better now
*causally not casually 🤦🏻
Thank you for teaching me something new ,rabbi 🙌.
The Gamblers Fallacy is more about the law of big numbers than about trends equalling out in general. They do, not after 10, 50 or 200 repetitions, but if repeated infinitely. If they didn’t, the game would not be “fair”.
Thank you, wish he'd framed it that way. In Kane's case that would be called regressing to the mean. Small sample sizes (several games, maybe even a whole season) will produce outliers and it could be reasonable to convince oneself to "shoot through a dry spell" to get back to his normal strike rate. By the same token, a hot streak of several goals over a short period won't last indefinitely either, even though in both cases past performance has no influence on whether they continue.
@@FaustoTheBoozehound Ah yes, regression to the mean is also what I wanted to say but not remembering. Funnily enough, it kinda contradicts the Gamblers Fallacy or rather trumps it in real-life scenarios. It is also the reason why Kane's story was very logical. When creating unusually bad outcomes, one should be positively affirmed since, eventually, you will perform better again. Negative feedback or punishment can lead to you performing overall worse in the long run.
@@LaZPavony Regression to the mean and gambler's fallacy almost seem to answer the same question two ways. "It has to turn around, right" "No, but yes."
The background music is so good.
Great video.
Anyone know the background music used in the video?
Now this was a brilliant video
Was the information for goalkeepers diving during penalties taken from the book "Twelve Yards"?
The problem with human beings and their abilities regarding this topic is that they are not repeatable a 100 % of the time, so there is no certainty - and humans have a mind that can be influenced by countless factors. Therefore, even penalty shootouts cannot be called gambler's fallacy, because neither the keeper nor the shooter are emotionless robots that can reproduce a task the same way 100 % of the time and their decisions are not random.
So while a goalkeeper jumps to the left side after having the previous shot takers shoot to the right side, anticipating that not every shot taker will shoot to the right side, the next shot taker might assume that the goalkeeper thinks exactly that way and thus shoots to the right side again on purpose. So neither the shot of the shot taker nor the side the goalkeeper jumps to is random.
In addition, all of this is influenced by things like experience and tendencies of the shooter and whether or not the goalkeeper has studied the shooter - and the shooter might in return assume that the goalkeeper has studied him and thus chooses a different side than the one he usually prefers. There are so many mindgames in a penalty shootout that gambler's fallacy plays no role at all.
Please do a video on Barcelona and finances and what happened to get them where they are and what could be the way out now
I will never for the life of me understand why people in the Monte Carlo example saw the ball land on black 26 times, and reasoned that the 27th time would be red. My intuition would either tell me that either 1) the next roll will be 50/50 or 2) the wheel is somehow biased against red because of small small irregularities in its manufacturing.
I know that it's a fallacy because there is no reasonable explanation for why the ball should land on red. I just can't understand why anyone would believe that fallacy in the first place.
does anyone know the the name of the song in the background
Anyone know the name of the music playing in the background? It's too good to not ask about it.
This concept is pretty similar to the Wayne Gretzky quote from Michael Scott “You Miss 100% of the shots you never take”. Can’t make it if you don’t shoot
great video
That's not correct. Imagine you roll a 37-sided die 20 times. What is the chance of getting a > 1 result every single time? (36/37)^20. Hence, the chance of rolling a 1 AT LEAST ONCE is (1 - (36/37)^20). Generally speaking, the chance of rolling a 1 at least once in N rolls is (1 - (36/37)^N), which tends to 1 (i.e., 100%) when N increases. It is therefore highly unlikely that you roll non-1s too many consecutive times. It is not independent once you KNOW that you missed N times.
what's crazy is after 26 blacks, black is considerably more likely than red (due to bayes theorem, and real life not having perfectly fair games)
Bayes' Theorem does not apply to Roulette, which is an independent event each spin - there are no prior conditions to know. If you can judge where the ball will finish based on the speed the croupier releases it, you're gonna make a lot of money in the casino. Whether it came up black before has zero bearing on its conditions on the next throw. Pretty funny that you're applying gambler's logic to this whilst erroneously attributing your fallacy to a probability theorem. The veneer of knowledge.
fair games only exist in toy problems. in real life we only have bayes, so after 50 blacks the chance it's a fair game is vanishingly small. after 26 it's certainly worth a punt. i recommend matt parker's video on cheating at minecraft
tbf, i pose this question to every millionaire gambler i find, and about half fail to see the greater universe in which the question resides. patrick veitch was particularly impressive in working it out, you can find that video somewhere too
the interesting thing is you say 'roulette' and people default to thinking about toy problems, even when you're specifically talking about real life
@@fraac If you want to talk about real life, the table would be closed long before it reached 50 blacks in a row if the house had any concerns the wheel wasn't spinning properly and it was delivering uneven results. So you wouldn't be betting at all.
@@KindredBrujahand at 26 - which happened - you should be betting on black
Got my game plan for my next FUT champs shoot out, cheers
I wonder if anyone will study whether your goal/xg changes after missing a chance with a xg of say >0.3
Am I colour blind or are the squares of the roulette table in the graphic yellow, black and green; which is different from the red, black and green stated in the commentary?
Before clicking , i thought the only Gambler's Fallacy present was that each season people thought KANE would stop scoring goals and he still delivered each season
It's really interesting, to make and underpin a video from a single line in an interview 7 years ago
Linekar makes more sense to me, but as psychology more than superstition. I can see how the subconscious surge of adrenaline and creative potential at the prospect of scoring might diminish after repeated attempts and goals, and makes sense you would want to preserve the freshness of that buzz for the actual game.
This is dangerously close to a TedEd video. Brilliant 👌
The strangest thing about the gambler’s fallacy is that people tend to respond faster to the same outcome as before even as they make the opposite guess. This is known as the Perruchet Effect.
Causally. It happened twice! Class.
Anyone know what the music is in the background?
Where did the United video end up from yesterday?
Surely by that logic, if missing a chance gives him the mental edge for the next one, scoring a chance does the opposite and makes him think he's unlikely to score?
By that logic yes
@@isaaccastro4846 it implies he should miss several shots in a row actually, since most (good) players score a goal every 5-10 shots
you've seen casual relation, now get ready for competitive relation
So Arsenal just aren't getting a sensible transfer's piece? Sick.
dead team
@@menzies09er I don't speak 12 year old, soz man.
3:40 what is even more weird when you look at favoured corners by right and left footed penalty takers.
As a matter of interest the mathematical description of the fallacy is 'The fallacy of the maturity of chances'. People make tha same mistake when considering tossing a coin.
If a coin is tossed ten times and comes down heads every time most people will believe that it is more likely to come down tails the next time. Actually it is probably more likely to come down heads again because it is a loaded coin.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the "these things event themselves out over the course of a season" line that most pundits (including Gary L) and even players use when things happen in a match.
I mean, that take is kind of valid though. If you claim that getting a faulty decision against you means it is more likely to go in your favor the next game, that's obviously false*, but if you just claim that over the course of a season you will most likely get around as many against you as for you, there's nothing wrong with that.
*Maybe the ref decision example is a bad one, since refs may actually (possibly subconsciously) try to favor a team that they know were shafted earlier, or refs may consistently have a bias for/against a team, but you get my point.
@@bungaIowbill I do, but it's a very nebulous balancing act. The way things "balance out" for one of the bigger teams compared to how/if they do for the smaller ones (size being league position wise). And then there's the times when two teams who got the short end of things come up against each other, meaning both can't get their "owed" good breaks at the same time.
There's a hazy line between short-term and long-term. You might get huge runs of flipping a coin and getting the same result, but long term it should even out to a 50/50 result, all things being given. The Gambler's Fallacy fails because it's thinking is correct on a nebulous long-term timeframe. Case in point, if a coin if flipped 1m times, it shouldn't land heads those 1m times, even though that's statistically possible. However, if you toss a coin a Googleplex number of times, a run of a million heads/tails wouldn't really stand out in the same way tossing a coin 1m times and having a run of 10-20 same results wouldn't, even though both seem like they shouldn't happen during the run.
So yes, while the take that "things even themselves out" does hold water when it comes to football (or any sport) due to how interconnected everything is, there's no guarantee that balancing out would happen within the same season.
@@morlath4767 Right, this is true. One season is long enough for some things to even out, but too short for others.
Just for "fun": if one person flips a coin 38 times, they have an 87% chance of getting *at least* 16 heads, a bit shy of the average 19 heads. If 19 people flip a coin 38 times, there is just a 7% chance that *all of them* get at least 16 heads. But, if the 19 people flipping a coin 38 times is repeated 7 times, there is an 89% chance that all 19 people will get an average of 16/38 heads throughout the 7 "seasons".
(Of course, this doesn't actually apply at all to football since the results of teams are not independent like coin flips, but it still illustrates the point.)
*Causally, not casually.
why the sombre music in the background
Can anyone identify the backing music?
Another example is people every season betting that Kane will finally score in august
really made me think
best football content ❤️
Here I was thinking xG and xA would be the height, but along comes Tifo bringing Mental Models into to Football. More please.
Now while I haven't a clue I always thought that if you were to get loads of blacks on a roulette table the odd of getting a red would he higher since the table would average itself out between red and black? Now I see that nonsense
is that bohemian rhapsody on piano in the backgroud?
No one show Harry this video
...but the wheel did, eventually, roll onto another colour. The gamblers weren't wrong, they were just too early with their bets!
Actually, I think Harry Kane's right in saying that. I can't go into Kane's head and check what he thinks. This could also simply be Kane thinking that if he keeps shooting, at some point, eventually, one will go in. This may be foul reasoning, but it resolves to the same outcome.
To an extent he has a point I completely agree but the more shots you have the more chance you have of scoring
Agreed, players like Frank Lampard and Matt Taylor used to ping in shots all the time - Not only did Frank score many cracking goals, he also got plenty of deflected ones too
Mentality, willpower and self-efficacy will always trump logic and data.
Sounds like logic to me so I guess your inaccurate 😎
The diving patterns may not be gambler's fallacy logic. Goalies are trying to predict what penalty takers will do, and they may think that the next penalty taker will likely go to the other side for many reasons - for instance penalty takers may (falsely) believe that goalies are more likely to save a penalty that's similar to the previous player's attempt. Penalty shootouts consist of two humans attempting to predict each other's actions and are as such a very complex game of rock paper scissors - behaviour that looks logically unsound may be an attempt to predict logically unsound behaviour from your opponent
thought this was gonna be about Harry Kane not leaving Tottenham thinking that at some point they would start winning trophies
I think the advice from Defoe speaks to the fact that ,as a striker, you should not shy away from taking shots because you missed the last one.. I remember reading the other time that Cristiano Ronaldo takes the most shots of any forward in Europe, and he is now one of the highest scoring forwards in world football history...
This means that either the entire tifo production team did not know the meaning of “causal” or all of them are “casually” editing their videos 🥹
When I play penalty shoot out in PES with my friends, I always dive my goalie to just one side all the time, either right or left. Always managed to blocked 1 or 2. They never knew my habit. I won every single time.
The irony is I watched Spurs vs Wolves yesterday , Kane first shot hit the Crossbar and 2nd time, it was a simple header which he tap in and scored.
Is the argument about the goalkeepers using the gamblers fallacy logic in penalty shoot outs not in itself use of that logic?
The title sounds like an offshoot Harry Potter novel
This reminds me of jimmy butler in an NBA game being 0 for 7 from 3. Then making a 3 with about 50 seconds to go and you could see him saying I had to make 1.
Knowing Jimmy Butler, he was cracking a joke. Dude is a very intelligent player and hilarious. Kane has exposed himself with MANY Neanderthalic tendencies, and you can now add to the list prone to logical fallacy as another.
nah the real gamblers fallacy is Harry Kane thinking that every new season is the season he finally wins a trophy
Can you do a video on son heung min? Hes so criminally under rated
stop
@@guillermorestrepo2658 why. Son deserves recognition
Kept thinking the music was gonna break into Bohemian Rhapsody