tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15857498.post4112283826030943840..comments2023-10-31T08:24:26.150-07:00Comments on The Wizard of Odds: Who Needs Polls When You Have Bettors?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15857498.post-71645605714734355282007-10-15T07:54:00.000-07:002007-10-15T07:54:00.000-07:00Las Vegas can not predict every upset. Stanford-US...Las Vegas can not predict every upset. Stanford-USC comes to mind, as people have mentioned. But both the polls and Vegas agreed, that was a huge upset. This post simply points out that the lines in Las Vegas <BR/><BR/>The voters in the polls are not always lazy, but they are busy, reporters and coaches who can't each sit down and read, much less watch, 30 games each week. So they vote individually, with a glance at the records, the week's scores, and always with a big dose of what they know about the history of the teams.<BR/><BR/>The flip side of this is the situation with the odds makers. Lines at any bookmaker are set by a collaboration of people who are doing this as their job - crunching the numbers, watching film, keeping up on the teams. They are also specific to the matchup, as the polls can't be - if Team A has a weakness that Team B exploits particularly well, this will show up in the line but not in the polls.<BR/><BR/>Again, Las Vegas won't predict every upset, but when the line varies significantly from what the polls would indicate, you can expect that there is a good reason.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04161544603486483108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15857498.post-88089639767250019002007-10-15T07:38:00.000-07:002007-10-15T07:38:00.000-07:00This is like saying lightning never strikes the ea...This is like saying lightning never strikes the earth because it didnt hit farmer John's field last night. the first thing I thought of as well was Stanford-USC. Must be a slow news day to write this crap.Mazlowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891170424239846228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15857498.post-25836388998171596122007-10-14T16:35:00.000-07:002007-10-14T16:35:00.000-07:00Also, a lot of AP voters don't rank on how good a ...Also, a lot of AP voters don't rank on how good a team they think they are, but what they've done. Alabama in 2005 is a real good example - not a very good team, but got up to #3 just by barely winning every game, but no sports writer thought they were in the same league as Texas or USC *I'm a Bama fan for reference*.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15857498.post-59201122901892746882007-10-13T09:58:00.000-07:002007-10-13T09:58:00.000-07:00Using one or two data points as "proof" is ridicuo...Using one or two data points as "proof" is ridicuolous, but betting lines are obviously much stronger predictors of actual outcomes than polls or sportswriters' opinions. When it doubt, follow the money. Markets work.<BR/><BR/>With standard juice, you only have to win 52.4% to be a winning sports bettor. The fact that almost no one can do this is evidence of how good the linemakers really are.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10366265708024171981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15857498.post-90477426865627549302007-10-12T15:21:00.000-07:002007-10-12T15:21:00.000-07:00The books set lines on how they think the public w...The books set lines on how they think the public will bet. If the public tilts one way, the lines are adjusted accordingly. <BR/><BR/>The books set the line on USC-Stanford way high, but the bettors drove it up even further.<BR/><BR/>The books don't care about anything but getting even betting on both sides.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15857498.post-50242062268079244672007-10-12T13:26:00.000-07:002007-10-12T13:26:00.000-07:00so I suppose the bettors were right in making K-St...so I suppose the bettors were right in making K-State a 14 point dog to Texas? 41-21. Woops. What a pointless article based on TWO games.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15857498.post-31344274706961928372007-10-12T10:12:00.000-07:002007-10-12T10:12:00.000-07:00This has got to be the dumbest article ever. Just...This has got to be the dumbest article ever. Just because the bookies had two higher ranked teams as dogs makes them all knowing? Dogs are covering all over this year. I could pull two games to make the exact opposite conclusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15857498.post-52293257891898967032007-10-12T07:28:00.000-07:002007-10-12T07:28:00.000-07:00"Anonymous" beat me to the obvious comment about S..."Anonymous" beat me to the obvious comment about Stanford & USC.<BR/>Closer to home, there were also a couple of recent games where my Scarlet Knights were favored by the bettors, but not by the bounce of the football.<BR/>It's still a game. And we're all just guessing.<BR/><A HREF="http://www.beatvisitor.com" REL="nofollow">BeatVisitor.com</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15857498.post-17373240183462656112007-10-12T05:51:00.000-07:002007-10-12T05:51:00.000-07:00Yeah, the bookies were right on the mark with Stan...Yeah, the bookies were right on the mark with Stanford & USC, thinking the Trojans were going to win by more than 5 touchdowns...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com