Not an UnderStatenment, Cats take a turnover for the worse; WVU 2 ADV

[gatoveintisiet]

Stats-what do I do with them? Are they predictive of future events? can they give me a statistically sound advantage over a bookie?

if you don't use stats, the book has a significant advantage over you.  actually the other side of the bet does, not the book.

Really? Explain please

a small number of bettors may have statistical models that are better than the statistical models used to set the lines.  tons of betters have access to (and use) models that are only a little bit worse.  to the extent that sophisticated bettors can overperform, it comes from bettors who underperform.  that group will include both those general bettors that use inferior statistical models and those that don't make use of any statistical information.

Hypothetically lets say all sophistication levels of models are in agreement on the superbowl and everyone bets on the winning side, in this scenario that happens far more than you may realize, who loses these bets, the tooth fairy?

[MakeItRain]

You don't really think I was advocating that the coaches should be working on late game situations do you? I was simply explaining why IMO why we were/are garbage in such situations.

I think you just like to argue with me.

lol, thats fantastic rusty

[chum1]

I think it's no less legitimate for people to have an aesthetic preference for what that they perceive to be less sloppy play at the end of a game. 

Less legitimate than what?

Less legitimate than focusing on the best way to win a game.

And what I was trying to say above is that I don't think this preference is relatively unrealistic.

I think it's unrealistic to expect much control over the preference of less late-game sloppiness (without seeing significant changes overall). Yeah, I'd prefer we perform much better at the end of close games, but I can accept there's not much that can be done about it, and therefore not a cause for concern.

If your focus isn't on the best way to win a game, then control isn't a factor.

[sys]

couldn't happen.  the superbowl is too big of a single event, on something that big, the book tries to get even money on both sides.  in the impossible hypothetical you propose where no matter what line they offered, they couldn't do that, they'd shut the book down.

[gatoveintisiet]

couldn't happen.  the superbowl is too big of a single event, on something that big, the book tries to get even money on both sides.  in the impossible hypothetical you propose where no matter what line they offered, they couldn't do that, they'd shut the book down.

sports gambling is bettor vs. book period.  The book has a 5% advantage with bets at the spread.  The bettor has to win 52.chnge% of his even money
bets to break even.  The best pro gamblers in the world run slightly above this with an extremely good year topping 60%.

In regard to lines, Pinnacle sports does the math and sets the lines for almost the entire industry.  Pinny sends early lines to the pros, the pros look for soft lines and make their bets.  Pinny adjusts from their professional player imput then attempts to forecast a line that will draw even action.  In the
end books don't care as much about good or bad lines as much as they do even action.  With that said and all their forecasting books routinely
have games with lopsided action, and don't really gaf because one game is pretty meaningless they win some and lose some and go on.

[gatoveintisiet]

we have a local book in town that is heavily lopsided more than not.  He could hedge if he wanted to but doesn't.

[Trim]

Between the advanced stats and the gambling talk, look for steve dave and I to be taking combofan pictures over here with this leprechaun.  By the way, the new, probably not as fun O'Sheas is open!

[sys]

couldn't happen.  the superbowl is too big of a single event, on something that big, the book tries to get even money on both sides.  in the impossible hypothetical you propose where no matter what line they offered, they couldn't do that, they'd shut the book down.

sports gambling is bettor vs. book period.  The book has a 5% advantage with bets at the spread.  The bettor has to win 52.chnge% of his even money
bets to break even.  The best pro gamblers in the world run slightly above this with an extremely good year topping 60%.

In regard to lines, Pinnacle sports does the math and sets the lines for almost the entire industry.  Pinny sends early lines to the pros, the pros look for soft lines and make their bets.  Pinny adjusts from their professional player imput then attempts to forecast a line that will draw even action.  In the
end books don't care as much about good or bad lines as much as they do even action.  With that said and all their forecasting books routinely
have games with lopsided action, and don't really gaf because one game is pretty meaningless they win some and lose some and go on.

on an individual bet, it's better v book.  in total, it's better v bettor with the book taking the vig.

on large numbers of small bets, like college bball, they don't try to attract even money, they try to get the line right, to protect themselves against professional money.  not the same as one big event.

[gatoveintisiet]

couldn't happen.  the superbowl is too big of a single event, on something that big, the book tries to get even money on both sides.  in the impossible hypothetical you propose where no matter what line they offered, they couldn't do that, they'd shut the book down.

sports gambling is bettor vs. book period.  The book has a 5% advantage with bets at the spread.  The bettor has to win 52.chnge% of his even money
bets to break even.  The best pro gamblers in the world run slightly above this with an extremely good year topping 60%.

In regard to lines, Pinnacle sports does the math and sets the lines for almost the entire industry.  Pinny sends early lines to the pros, the pros look for soft lines and make their bets.  Pinny adjusts from their professional player imput then attempts to forecast a line that will draw even action.  In the
end books don't care as much about good or bad lines as much as they do even action.  With that said and all their forecasting books routinely
have games with lopsided action, and don't really gaf because one game is pretty meaningless they win some and lose some and go on.

on an individual bet, it's better v book.  in total, it's better v bettor with the book taking the vig.

on large numbers of small bets, like college bball, they don't try to attract even money, they try to get the line right, to protect themselves against professional money.  not the same as one big event.

I just shared with you how things really work from watching several annual conferences chaired
By industry market makers from all sides, but whatever.

[cDubya]

Man, I can tell it's offseason...

no.  these guys love this crap.

Oh, I can tell. Some of this has been fascinating, while some has been incoherent nonsense. I'm not sure which is which anymore.

[sys]

I just shared with you how things really work from watching several annual conferences chaired
By industry market makers from all sides, but whatever.

lol.

[michigancat]

I think it's no less legitimate for people to have an aesthetic preference for what that they perceive to be less sloppy play at the end of a game. 

Less legitimate than what?

Less legitimate than focusing on the best way to win a game.

And what I was trying to say above is that I don't think this preference is relatively unrealistic.

I think it's unrealistic to expect much control over the preference of less late-game sloppiness (without seeing significant changes overall). Yeah, I'd prefer we perform much better at the end of close games, but I can accept there's not much that can be done about it, and therefore not a cause for concern.

If your focus isn't on the best way to win a game, then control isn't a factor.

I honestly don't follow

[chum1]

I think it's no less legitimate for people to have an aesthetic preference for what that they perceive to be less sloppy play at the end of a game. 

Less legitimate than what?

Less legitimate than focusing on the best way to win a game.

And what I was trying to say above is that I don't think this preference is relatively unrealistic.

I think it's unrealistic to expect much control over the preference of less late-game sloppiness (without seeing significant changes overall). Yeah, I'd prefer we perform much better at the end of close games, but I can accept there's not much that can be done about it, and therefore not a cause for concern.

If your focus isn't on the best way to win a game, then control isn't a factor.

I honestly don't follow

Suppose someone likes to watch home runs.  They wish their favorite baseball team had more home run hitters for this reason.  (They may think that this will result in more wins.  Or not.  Doesn't matter.) Similarly, someone might prefer less sloppy play at the end of a basketball game solely because that's what they like to watch.  That's all.

[michigancat]

I don't like analogies.

[michigancat]

I think it's no less legitimate for people to have an aesthetic preference for what that they perceive to be less sloppy play at the end of a game. 

Less legitimate than what?

Less legitimate than focusing on the best way to win a game.

And what I was trying to say above is that I don't think this preference is relatively unrealistic.

I think it's unrealistic to expect much control over the preference of less late-game sloppiness (without seeing significant changes overall). Yeah, I'd prefer we perform much better at the end of close games, but I can accept there's not much that can be done about it, and therefore not a cause for concern.

If your focus isn't on the best way to win a game, then control isn't a factor.

I honestly don't follow

Suppose someone likes to watch home runs.  They wish their favorite baseball team had more home run hitters for this reason.  (They may think that this will result in more wins.  Or not.  Doesn't matter.) Similarly, someone might prefer less sloppy play at the end of a basketball game solely because that's what they like to watch.  That's all.

and a better comparison would be to say "some fans prefer more home runs in the last two innings on the road". Maybe I still don't see what your point is.

[nicname]

Does this thread need revisiting?

[michigancat]

Does this thread need revisiting?

Sure: 4 turnovers in the last 23 possessions (Last 5 minutes plus both overtimes - 3 of the TO's were in the final OT). Below our average, but definitely within an expected range.

[Powercat Posse]

Does this thread need revisiting?

Sure: 4 turnovers in the last 23 possessions (Last 5 minutes plus both overtimes - 3 of the TO's were in the final OT). Below our average, but definitely within an expected range.

 

Our 1 point in final 6 poss of regulation is pretty poor.  5 possession we get 0 pts and then Foster hits 1-2 FTs.  Had Foster hit both FTs, the 5 poss with no points may have been overlooked or deemed not harmful.   

[60scat]

Face it, I think we choked.