2014 Off Topic Thread

[Luke]

I don't think betting the super bowl is a long term winning strategy. I know you guys won, so congrats, but if you told me you were going to bet the super bowl again tomorrow I would still sit it out. It is the most scouted game of the year, I really don't think I know more than everyone else about football. I think the NFL is probably the toughest sport to win consistently.

Basically, you guys got lucky. It still counts, and I am not hating, but it is just a slot machine IMO.

That said, I will take a flyer on a game if you have a feeling, so let me know.

It doesn't matter how scouted a game is . The only thing that matters is sorting through the BS and breaking down the game--which we did. We weren't lucky; the game couldn't have been a bigger blowout.

[poopoo333]

The thing that really turned me onto the Seahawks after leaning them already was seeing the public side all on Denver on the biggest game of the year. I like to fade the public on big games...it usually works out.

[MMA_scientist]

It doesn't matter how scouted a game is . The only thing that matters is sorting through the BS and breaking down the game--which we did. We weren't lucky; the game couldn't have been a bigger blowout.

I disagree that level of scouting doesn't matter. The more scouted the game is, and the more action on the game, the more efficient the betting market is going to be. The lines are sharper. Maybe you figured it out, but you can't tell me you foresaw a blowout like that by the underdog.

[MMA_scientist]

The thing that really turned me onto the Seahawks after leaning them already was seeing the public side all on Denver on the biggest game of the year. I like to fade the public on big games...it usually works out.

This, I can understand. You have a methodology, you saw signs indicating an opportunity based on line movement. To me, that's different than believing that you have a beat on how the game will roll out.

[Luke]

I disagree that level of scouting doesn't matter. The more scouted the game is, and the more action on the game, the more efficient the betting market is going to be. The lines are sharper. Maybe you figured it out, but you can't tell me you foresaw a blowout like that by the underdog.

Its a statistical fact that the line only comes into account in 20% of all NFL games. The rest of the time, just picking the winner of the game wins you your bet. By those standards, it didn't matter how sharp the line( point spread) was on this game. If you can pick who is going to win the game, you'll win 80% of your wagers.

Did I predict a Seattle blowout, no, but I also didn't think the points would matter and that's why I took the ML rather than the points. In all honesty, I expected Seattle to win by 7-10 points.

I also pay zero attention to who the public is on FWIW.

[Luke]

I'm not pretending we are geniuses for picking Seattle. I actually picked SF over Seattle in the NFC Championship. I'm just saying this inst luck. The biggest bettors in the world make their money on the NFL, so it can be beat

[trotterz]

I'm not pretending we are geniuses for picking Seattle. I actually picked SF over Seattle in the NFC Championship. I'm just saying this inst luck. The biggest bettors in the world make their money on the NFL, so it can be beat

I kind of agree with you. I used to place bet on hockey as here in Canada, hockey is #1 sport. The thign with hockey if that the #1 team in the league could play a game agains'nt the worst team in the league, and the best team will lose 5-0. It happens regularly pretty much every night. There is no sure thing in hockey. As in Football, usually, if Denver are playing jacksonville, there is no way that Jacksonville will win 40-0. usually (not always), the best team wins.
Same thing could be said in soccer ..... A soccer game can oftenly end 1-0 ... so let's say a really bad team are just lucky to score one goal from far away agains't the best team in the league, the game could easily end this way.
IMO footbal is probably the easiest team sport to bet and make money on

[poopoo333]

From my observations over the past couple of years on NFL/NBA/MLB, when there is a big game on or a game on Network TV (MNF, SNF, playoff games, Thursday night NBA on TNT, etc), the public is usually on the losing side of the ATS (against the spread) bet.

Also Luke, you say you pay zero attention to who the public is on, but in a sense you probably did it unintentionally during the NFL season. Remember the NFL thread you posted with the "trap lines"? All of these trap lines that seemed "too easy" was heavily backed by the public. I don't remember if you actually bet the opposite side of the trap lines, but I do remember you keeping a tallying record and it was at a winning percentage. That was basically "fading the public" in a sense. I heavily believe in trap lines for what it is worth as well. In fact, in these "trap line" games that the public won...they were on the verge of losing until some crazy flukey place or a meltdown in the last 5 minutes of the game (no luca fury here).

[poopoo333]

Anyways, Luke and I are moving on to NASCAR. See you guys from the top of our mansion.

[Svino]

I don't think betting the super bowl is a long term winning strategy. I know you guys won, so congrats, but if you told me you were going to bet the super bowl again tomorrow I would still sit it out. It is the most scouted game of the year, I really don't think I know more than everyone else about football. I think the NFL is probably the toughest sport to win consistently.

The NFL is an extremely difficult sport to win at consistently, because there are solid statistical models out there and most of the time, the line movement is driven by people who use said models, i.e. smart money.

However -- that applies only to the regular season. The Super Bowl is very very different. The Super Bowl is such a huge betting event, even for people who don't generally bet on sports, that dumb money overwhelms the smart money on a regular basis. For that reason, it is home to some of the worst lines you will ever see in sports. One example sticks out in my mind: the Super Bowl in the late 90's that was Denver vs. Green Bay. Denver was a statistically superior team but was something like a 12 point underdog, probably because the public was going off the fact that Denver had been a wild card team and the NFC had at that point won the Super Bowl about 231 times in a row. There was also a pretty bad line the last time Manning was in the SB, where the Saints, who really should have been favored, but weren't, did indeed win. I think then, as this year, the public was going off the common misconception that a team is its quarterback.

Basically, if Seattle / Denver had been a regular season game, I'm pretty sure Seattle would have been (slightly) favored. This is why I don't bet the NFL generally, but do often bet the Super Bowl (and often the playoffs, where what I said above applies, but to a lesser degree).

I'll also point that in terms of predicting future performance, the game was not nearly as lopsided as it looked. Turnovers are mostly luck, as are kick returns and flukes like that safety. Future performance is better estimated by ability to move the ball down the field, and Denver actually showed that they could. The yardage difference was only something like 340 yards for the Seahawks to 300 for the Broncos.

[Luke]

Also Luke, you say you pay zero attention to who the public is on, but in a sense you probably did it unintentionally during the NFL season. Remember the NFL thread you posted with the "trap lines"? All of these trap lines that seemed "too easy" was heavily backed by the public. I don't remember if you actually bet the opposite side of the trap lines, but I do remember you keeping a tallying record and it was at a winning percentage. That was basically "fading the public" in a sense. I heavily believe in trap lines for what it is worth as well. In fact, in these "trap line" games that the public won...they were on the verge of losing until some crazy flukey place or a meltdown in the last 5 minutes of the game (no luca fury here).

I bet some of the games in that thread, but not all. I was going by lopsided money, not public percentages. I remember one game I posted that you and chico said was almost a 50/50 split but the money was very lopsided towards one team.They are both still against the public, just a different ways. I was tracking it mostly to see how it did.

When I said I don't pay attention to who the public is on I meant it doesn't factor into my betting. I remember one Sunday night game this year Chicago was playing at Pitt with the Bears being a -2.5 away favorite . People were pounding the Bears and yet the line never moved, so a lot of people though Pitt was the play. I bet Chicago anyway and I believe they won easily. If I like a game, I'm going to bet it whether the public is on it or not.

[Luke]

The NFL is an extremely difficult sport to win at consistently, because there are solid statistical models out there and most of the time, the line movement is driven by people who use said models, i.e. smart money.

However -- that applies only to the regular season. The Super Bowl is very very different. The Super Bowl is such a huge betting event, even for people who don't generally bet on sports, that dumb money overwhelms the smart money on a regular basis. For that reason, it is home to some of the worst lines you will ever see in sports. One example sticks out in my mind: the Super Bowl in the late 90's that was Denver vs. Green Bay. Denver was a statistically superior team but was something like a 12 point underdog, probably because the public was going off the fact that Denver had been a wild card team and the NFC had at that point won the Super Bowl about 231 times in a row. There was also a pretty bad line the last time Manning was in the SB, where the Saints, who really should have been favored, but weren't, did indeed win. I think then, as this year, the public was going off the common misconception that a team is its quarterback.

Basically, if Seattle / Denver had been a regular season game, I'm pretty sure Seattle would have been (slightly) favored. This is why I don't bet the NFL generally, but do often bet the Super Bowl (and often the playoffs, where what I said above applies, but to a lesser degree).

I'll also point that in terms of predicting future performance, the game was not nearly as lopsided as it looked. Turnovers are mostly luck, as are kick returns and flukes like that safety. Future performance is better estimated by ability to move the ball down the field, and Denver actually showed that they could. The yardage difference was only something like 340 yards for the Seahawks to 300 for the Broncos.

Seattle actually opened as a 1 or 2 point favorite

[Luke]

Anyways, Luke and I are moving on to NASCAR. See you guys from the top of our mansion.

Bol, Nascar.

Fuck it .Lets do it

























Edmann

[MMA_scientist]

Degenerates. Every last one of you.

[poopoo333]

Rousey/Gustafsson/Jones is -125. I do not see how this does not win. Thoughts?