GB getting points at home

[Easy E]

Guess we'll see. I'm not a big fan of betting on home teams that haven't shown much, but since I'm not 100% sold on Tampa yet, I'll just avoid this game as you initially mentioned.

[ QUOTE ]
So, handicapping boils down to SWAG? Isn't your argument the same as saying "Well, your Aces lost to 7-2 offsuit, you never should have raised before the flop"?

Since when did being on the wrong end of a decision make it a bad decision?

You'll have to explain that one further.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, good handicapping doesn't boil down to SWAG (a great acronym btw). My point is to say the obvious logic of sports analysis (a minimum of knowledge that virtually everyone on this board has) is less important in NFL handicapping than maybe any other sport/league because of the very low sample of games bettors use to form their analyses. It seemed to me Mookie decided Tampa Bay is a great team based on 2 somewhat impressive victories where they barely made a single mistake (sample of 2 games being unrepresentative of their true mistake/turnover rate), and that Green Bay is utterly incapable of putting up a fight against TB based on their 2 performances. So maybe I didn't state the point clearly enough, or alternately, understand Mookie clearly enough: I hear too often in NFL game picking that X play was a good one despite unforeseen events occuring (those I mentioned -- own field turnovers etc.) that are in fact totally foreseeable and occur constantly in NFL games.

My wrong end-bad decision wording probably wasn't correct -- let me give you an example of why. 8 months ago, I bet against Ryne Sandberg getting into the HOF on Tradesports. I pored over HOF voting results over 40 years and determined Sandberg had about a 15% chance of getting into the Hall (his final tally was 76%, 1% over the minimum required). I made my bet at about +125 and lost $250. Based on what I found, I did not regret then nor regret now that I made the bet. Did I lose? Yes. The reason I don't regret it is this 15% figure accounted entirely for the chance Sandberg's voting results would break nearly all precedents on the way to entry. Using precedent only, Sandberg's chances were below 5%.

If Mookie has accounted for "unforeseen" but totally foreseeable events like Griese's predilection for fumbling, special teams play and own field turnovers, then I take back what I said. But based on the way I've seen bettor after bettor say things like "no way Team X doesn't cover y points", then my words stand as the warning intended.

If you take issue with my style on the way to getting the board in general (a well-educated group) to take higher account for foreseeable "unforeseen" events, that's fine and ok, and I apologize for the brusqueness. But I hope my perspective is doing some good in this regard.

[fnurt]

I think the problem is that many people look at fluky events and say "see, I called that game right, I just got unlucky," but when they win their bet due to similarly fluky events, they fail to consider whether their pick may have been wrong but lucky.

This is the phenomenon that causes most gamblers to overrate themselves, whether at sports betting, poker, or whatever.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the problem is that many people look at fluky events and say "see, I called that game right, I just got unlucky," but when they win their bet due to similarly fluky events, they fail to consider whether their pick may have been wrong but lucky.

This is the phenomenon that causes most gamblers to overrate themselves, whether at sports betting, poker, or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very, very true. It's defining probable, intragame events as "flukes" that gets potentially good bettors into a lot of trouble in the LR.

[Easy E]

That's what I was looking for- now I can agree with your original point. I just wasn't sure what stance you were taking. Good reply post by the way.

[ QUOTE ]

If you take issue with my style on the way to getting the board in general (a well-educated group) to take higher account for foreseeable "unforeseen" events, that's fine and ok, and I apologize for the brusqueness. But I hope my perspective is doing some good in this regard.

[/ QUOTE ]

May I suggest..... Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People"?? [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

"Issue with your style?" " Apologize? " Pshaw! I'm not one to criticize on that standard! [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I just was checking to make sure you weren't an idiot (the probabilities have moved up to 73% positive, probably good enough to bet on now.. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img])

27% chance of idiot? lol They must've shifted that bell curve way to the right on the IQ graph if that's the case.

[Easy E]

Don't make me rethink my kindness and lower the percentages again... [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

fade of the century lol

I was the first one to personally thank you this week for doing the full 3+1 computations, I figured that counted for something.

[Easy E]

[ QUOTE ]
I was the first one to personally thank you this week for doing the full 3+1 computations, I figured that counted for something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quoting official Rule #10 again

<font color="purple">(bribes are encouraged- compliments don't count). </font>

[jedinite]

Green Bay lost two in a row at home last year. I'm sorry to say its going to happen this year, as well.

I don't like this game that much on early research, but if I were picking it, I'd be laying the points.