08-31-2014, 12:28 PM
Stanford opens a 4-point favorite at home against USC.
Stanford 34
Under Stanford Control 24
It's a statement win for Stanford.
Under Stanford Control 24
It's a statement win for Stanford.
08-31-2014, 12:50 PM
Did anyone see the U$( game? The box score shows that U$( had 9 penalties for 76 yards, including several false starts on the OL. Aside from those miscues, did the young OL play well? It will be interesting to see whether Simmons and/or Rogers can play next week to take some of the load off of the true freshmen.Â
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
Did anyone see the U$( game? The box score shows that U$( had 9 penalties for 76 yards, including several false starts on the OL. Aside from those miscues, did the young OL play well? It will be interesting to see whether Simmons and/or Rogers can play next week to take some of the load off of the true freshmen.Â
When I registered here in 2014, TrumpCard seemed like an apolitical user ID...
08-31-2014, 12:53 PM
How's this for a statement:
Stanford 23 (Three touchdowns and a safety)
USC 6
BC
Stanford 23 (Three touchdowns and a safety)
USC 6
BC
How's this for a statement:
Stanford 23 (Three touchdowns and a safety)
USC 6
BC
Stanford 23 (Three touchdowns and a safety)
USC 6
BC
08-31-2014, 01:36 PM
This is not the score prediction topic. Hold yer water.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
08-31-2014, 01:45 PM
Agreed on the point total.Â
Does the Cardboard allow looping back to the original subject after 5 posts? Because I say a 4 points for a two time Conference Champions Pac-12 opener at home is insulting.
Does the Cardboard allow looping back to the original subject after 5 posts? Because I say a 4 points for a two time Conference Champions Pac-12 opener at home is insulting.
Agreed on the point total.Â
Does the Cardboard allow looping back to the original subject after 5 posts? Because I say a 4 points for a two time Conference Champions Pac-12 opener at home is insulting.
Does the Cardboard allow looping back to the original subject after 5 posts? Because I say a 4 points for a two time Conference Champions Pac-12 opener at home is insulting.
08-31-2014, 02:03 PM
(08-31-2014, 01:45 PM)Trevmiesterj link Wrote:Agreed on the point total.Â
Does the Cardboard allow looping back to the original subject after 5 posts? Because I say a 4 points for a two time Conference Champions Pac-12 opener at home is insulting.
Even a two time conference champion who lost to $C last year, and the previous three years had won by a only one score? It sounds about right to me.Â
Of course, I think we'll destroy $C and that they're overrated, but from an independent observer -4 sounds accurate enough.Â
(08-31-2014, 01:45 PM)Trevmiesterj link Wrote:Agreed on the point total.Â
Does the Cardboard allow looping back to the original subject after 5 posts? Because I say a 4 points for a two time Conference Champions Pac-12 opener at home is insulting.
Even a two time conference champion who lost to $C last year, and the previous three years had won by a only one score? It sounds about right to me.Â
Of course, I think we'll destroy $C and that they're overrated, but from an independent observer -4 sounds accurate enough.Â
08-31-2014, 02:03 PM
Trev-
I think many of the odds makers are looking at Fresno as more competitive than Davis, and the fact that U$C ran over 100 plays and gained 700+ yards. That is a formidable set of totals for a team that played in against a bowl eligible team.
In contrast, Stanford only put up 461 yards against an FCS school. At least that is how it is looking to the book makers. The reality is, if we take the 3pt. default home field advantage out, they are saying Stanford would only be favored by 1 point on a neutral field. If I was still a betting man I would take that action all day. Even considering that USC fans may make up a large contingent of the stadium crowd next week.
The fact is, I am hoping we shove the ball down U$C's throat and that Siete Steve gets his first loss as the $C head coach. I honestly detest that man, and if my friends in the AD department are to be believed, he is a worse person when the cameras are off.
I think many of the odds makers are looking at Fresno as more competitive than Davis, and the fact that U$C ran over 100 plays and gained 700+ yards. That is a formidable set of totals for a team that played in against a bowl eligible team.
In contrast, Stanford only put up 461 yards against an FCS school. At least that is how it is looking to the book makers. The reality is, if we take the 3pt. default home field advantage out, they are saying Stanford would only be favored by 1 point on a neutral field. If I was still a betting man I would take that action all day. Even considering that USC fans may make up a large contingent of the stadium crowd next week.
The fact is, I am hoping we shove the ball down U$C's throat and that Siete Steve gets his first loss as the $C head coach. I honestly detest that man, and if my friends in the AD department are to be believed, he is a worse person when the cameras are off.
Heroism is not defined by one great act, but by a lifetime of right action.
Trev-
I think many of the odds makers are looking at Fresno as more competitive than Davis, and the fact that U$C ran over 100 plays and gained 700+ yards. That is a formidable set of totals for a team that played in against a bowl eligible team.
In contrast, Stanford only put up 461 yards against an FCS school. At least that is how it is looking to the book makers. The reality is, if we take the 3pt. default home field advantage out, they are saying Stanford would only be favored by 1 point on a neutral field. If I was still a betting man I would take that action all day. Even considering that USC fans may make up a large contingent of the stadium crowd next week.
The fact is, I am hoping we shove the ball down U$C's throat and that Siete Steve gets his first loss as the $C head coach. I honestly detest that man, and if my friends in the AD department are to be believed, he is a worse person when the cameras are off.
I think many of the odds makers are looking at Fresno as more competitive than Davis, and the fact that U$C ran over 100 plays and gained 700+ yards. That is a formidable set of totals for a team that played in against a bowl eligible team.
In contrast, Stanford only put up 461 yards against an FCS school. At least that is how it is looking to the book makers. The reality is, if we take the 3pt. default home field advantage out, they are saying Stanford would only be favored by 1 point on a neutral field. If I was still a betting man I would take that action all day. Even considering that USC fans may make up a large contingent of the stadium crowd next week.
The fact is, I am hoping we shove the ball down U$C's throat and that Siete Steve gets his first loss as the $C head coach. I honestly detest that man, and if my friends in the AD department are to be believed, he is a worse person when the cameras are off.
Heroism is not defined by one great act, but by a lifetime of right action.
08-31-2014, 02:04 PM
(08-31-2014, 01:45 PM)Trevmiesterj link Wrote:Agreed on the point total.Â
Does the Cardboard allow looping back to the original subject after 5 posts? Because I say a 4 points for a two time Conference Champions Pac-12 opener at home is insulting.
Not in this conference, this year, it's not.
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
(08-31-2014, 01:45 PM)Trevmiesterj link Wrote:Agreed on the point total.Â
Does the Cardboard allow looping back to the original subject after 5 posts? Because I say a 4 points for a two time Conference Champions Pac-12 opener at home is insulting.
Not in this conference, this year, it's not.
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
08-31-2014, 02:34 PM
(08-31-2014, 02:03 PM)SUBuddha link Wrote:Trev-
I think many of the odds makers are looking at Fresno as more competitive than Davis, and the fact that U$C ran over 100 plays and gained 700+ yards. That is a formidable set of totals for a team that played in against a bowl eligible team.
In contrast, Stanford only put up 461 yards against an FCS school. At least that is how it is looking to the book makers. The reality is, if we take the 3pt. default home field advantage out, they are saying Stanford would only be favored by 1 point on a neutral field. If I was still a betting man I would take that action all day. Even considering that Unabashedly Scamming Charlatans fans may make up a large contingent of the stadium crowd next week.
The fact is, I am hoping we shove the ball down U$C's throat and that Siete Steve gets his first loss as the $C head coach. I honestly detest that man, and if my friends in the AD department are to be believed, he is a worse person when the cameras are off.
I know you're partially playing devils advocate, but I just want to point out the lack of utility of pure yardage when (barring turnovers) both teams get a near equal number of possessions. I agree that USCs performance was impressive and against a much better team, but in a vacuum I'd argue a yardage line of 460 to 110 is much more impressive then 700 to 300.
It's all about the efficiency (points scored vs. given up per possession).
(08-31-2014, 02:03 PM)SUBuddha link Wrote:Trev-
I think many of the odds makers are looking at Fresno as more competitive than Davis, and the fact that U$C ran over 100 plays and gained 700+ yards. That is a formidable set of totals for a team that played in against a bowl eligible team.
In contrast, Stanford only put up 461 yards against an FCS school. At least that is how it is looking to the book makers. The reality is, if we take the 3pt. default home field advantage out, they are saying Stanford would only be favored by 1 point on a neutral field. If I was still a betting man I would take that action all day. Even considering that Unabashedly Scamming Charlatans fans may make up a large contingent of the stadium crowd next week.
The fact is, I am hoping we shove the ball down U$C's throat and that Siete Steve gets his first loss as the $C head coach. I honestly detest that man, and if my friends in the AD department are to be believed, he is a worse person when the cameras are off.
I know you're partially playing devils advocate, but I just want to point out the lack of utility of pure yardage when (barring turnovers) both teams get a near equal number of possessions. I agree that USCs performance was impressive and against a much better team, but in a vacuum I'd argue a yardage line of 460 to 110 is much more impressive then 700 to 300.
It's all about the efficiency (points scored vs. given up per possession).
08-31-2014, 06:44 PM
I watched the U-S-C game enough to get a little worried. In a schedule preview that I ran on my site yesterday, I gave Stanford an 80% chance of beating the Trojhans, but now I think that's a bit optimistic. As good as the Stanford receivers are, U-S-C's group is even deeper, especially with the additions of Adoree Jackson and Juju Smith, true freshmen both. (By the way, Smith played at Long Beach Poly, where my wife teaches and daughter will start as a freshman (a true freshman!) this week. We watched him play a lot over the past two years, and it was lots of fun. If you ever have the chance to watch a five-star recruit play high school football, do yourself a favor and buy that ticket. Poly, as you know, is a football factory. They've got another 5 star senior this year, Iman Marshall.)
But back to the Trojhans. As good as their offense is, it isn't as scary as Oregon's, and I kind of think our receivers will torch their secondary. Oh, and Damien Mama is probably the largest human being I've ever seen. It's rare that an offensive lineman looks big on a football field because he's standing next to other guys his same size, but there are no other guys his size. it's ridiculous.
If this were the "Predict a Score" thread, I'd say Stanford 36, Bad Guys 17.
But back to the Trojhans. As good as their offense is, it isn't as scary as Oregon's, and I kind of think our receivers will torch their secondary. Oh, and Damien Mama is probably the largest human being I've ever seen. It's rare that an offensive lineman looks big on a football field because he's standing next to other guys his same size, but there are no other guys his size. it's ridiculous.
If this were the "Predict a Score" thread, I'd say Stanford 36, Bad Guys 17.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
I watched the U-S-C game enough to get a little worried. In a schedule preview that I ran on my site yesterday, I gave Stanford an 80% chance of beating the Trojhans, but now I think that's a bit optimistic. As good as the Stanford receivers are, U-S-C's group is even deeper, especially with the additions of Adoree Jackson and Juju Smith, true freshmen both. (By the way, Smith played at Long Beach Poly, where my wife teaches and daughter will start as a freshman (a true freshman!) this week. We watched him play a lot over the past two years, and it was lots of fun. If you ever have the chance to watch a five-star recruit play high school football, do yourself a favor and buy that ticket. Poly, as you know, is a football factory. They've got another 5 star senior this year, Iman Marshall.)
But back to the Trojhans. As good as their offense is, it isn't as scary as Oregon's, and I kind of think our receivers will torch their secondary. Oh, and Damien Mama is probably the largest human being I've ever seen. It's rare that an offensive lineman looks big on a football field because he's standing next to other guys his same size, but there are no other guys his size. it's ridiculous.
If this were the "Predict a Score" thread, I'd say Stanford 36, Bad Guys 17.
But back to the Trojhans. As good as their offense is, it isn't as scary as Oregon's, and I kind of think our receivers will torch their secondary. Oh, and Damien Mama is probably the largest human being I've ever seen. It's rare that an offensive lineman looks big on a football field because he's standing next to other guys his same size, but there are no other guys his size. it's ridiculous.
If this were the "Predict a Score" thread, I'd say Stanford 36, Bad Guys 17.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
08-31-2014, 06:44 PM
(08-31-2014, 02:03 PM)SUBuddha link Wrote:Trev-
I think many of the odds makers are looking at Fresno as more competitive than Davis, and the fact that U$C ran over 100 plays and gained 700+ yards. That is a formidable set of totals for a team that played in against a bowl eligible.
Well, Stanford was favored by 3.5 over the Trojans a few weeks ago. In other words, it doesn't look like much stock has been put into either team's first week performance to arrive at the opening line. Stanford has the longest home winning streak in the country, now that South Carolina lost. Stanford has a 17 game home win streak, IIRC.
(08-31-2014, 02:03 PM)SUBuddha link Wrote:Trev-
I think many of the odds makers are looking at Fresno as more competitive than Davis, and the fact that U$C ran over 100 plays and gained 700+ yards. That is a formidable set of totals for a team that played in against a bowl eligible.
Well, Stanford was favored by 3.5 over the Trojans a few weeks ago. In other words, it doesn't look like much stock has been put into either team's first week performance to arrive at the opening line. Stanford has the longest home winning streak in the country, now that South Carolina lost. Stanford has a 17 game home win streak, IIRC.
08-31-2014, 08:28 PM
Keep in mind that Vegas spreads aren't predictions, at least not about who will win. They're predictions about how people will bet. Some teams get a boost just because lots of people bet on them, and USC is one. My guess is that if we were playing USC's team but with a different name, the spread would be -6 or -7.
Keep in mind that Vegas spreads aren't predictions, at least not about who will win. They're predictions about how people will bet. Some teams get a boost just because lots of people bet on them, and USC is one. My guess is that if we were playing USC's team but with a different name, the spread would be -6 or -7.
09-01-2014, 12:41 AM
(08-31-2014, 08:28 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:Keep in mind that Vegas spreads aren't predictions, at least not about who will win. They're predictions about how people will bet. Some teams get a boost just because lots of people bet on them, and USC is one. My guess is that if we were playing Unabashedly Scamming Charlatans's team but with a different name, the spread would be -6 or -7.
If this were true, you could make some easy money by betting against USC every game. After all, you only need to be right 53.7% of the time to make money. I think the market is efficient and there are enough people countering this to make the large schools' point spreads accurate.
(08-31-2014, 08:28 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:Keep in mind that Vegas spreads aren't predictions, at least not about who will win. They're predictions about how people will bet. Some teams get a boost just because lots of people bet on them, and USC is one. My guess is that if we were playing Unabashedly Scamming Charlatans's team but with a different name, the spread would be -6 or -7.
If this were true, you could make some easy money by betting against USC every game. After all, you only need to be right 53.7% of the time to make money. I think the market is efficient and there are enough people countering this to make the large schools' point spreads accurate.
09-01-2014, 12:51 AM
(09-01-2014, 12:41 AM)optimistic link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=10491.msg96112#msg96112 date=1409542126]
Keep in mind that Vegas spreads aren't predictions, at least not about who will win. They're predictions about how people will bet. Some teams get a boost just because lots of people bet on them, and USC is one. My guess is that if we were playing Unabashedly Scamming Charlatans's team but with a different name, the spread would be -6 or -7.
If this were true, you could make some easy money by betting against Unabashedly Scamming Charlatans every game. After all, you only need to be right 53.7% of the time to make money. I think the market is efficient and there are enough people countering this to make the large schools' point spreads accurate.
[/quote]
If this weren't true, betting lines wouldn't move during the week. They don't move because teams are getting better or worse, they move because too much money is coming in on one side or the other.
Other teams with inflated lines are NotreDame and the Dallas Cowboys.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
(09-01-2014, 12:41 AM)optimistic link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=10491.msg96112#msg96112 date=1409542126]
Keep in mind that Vegas spreads aren't predictions, at least not about who will win. They're predictions about how people will bet. Some teams get a boost just because lots of people bet on them, and USC is one. My guess is that if we were playing Unabashedly Scamming Charlatans's team but with a different name, the spread would be -6 or -7.
If this were true, you could make some easy money by betting against Unabashedly Scamming Charlatans every game. After all, you only need to be right 53.7% of the time to make money. I think the market is efficient and there are enough people countering this to make the large schools' point spreads accurate.
[/quote]
If this weren't true, betting lines wouldn't move during the week. They don't move because teams are getting better or worse, they move because too much money is coming in on one side or the other.
Other teams with inflated lines are NotreDame and the Dallas Cowboys.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
09-01-2014, 09:20 AM
The "well, they're just trying to balance bettors fifty-fifty and aren't real predictions" seems like it could use an extra few logical steps. Because such inefficiencies should be easily arbitraged by a few smart dudes with a lot of money or lots of anti-ND bettors or whatever. So even if the initial line is off the eventual line should be a reasonably good prediction. Otherwise there'd be mass numbers of professional gamblers, if lines were persistently and predictably incorrect.
The "well, they're just trying to balance bettors fifty-fifty and aren't real predictions" seems like it could use an extra few logical steps. Because such inefficiencies should be easily arbitraged by a few smart dudes with a lot of money or lots of anti-ND bettors or whatever. So even if the initial line is off the eventual line should be a reasonably good prediction. Otherwise there'd be mass numbers of professional gamblers, if lines were persistently and predictably incorrect.
09-01-2014, 09:49 AM
(09-01-2014, 09:20 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The "well, they're just trying to balance bettors fifty-fifty and aren't real predictions" seems like it could use an extra few logical steps. Because such inefficiencies should be easily arbitraged by a few smart dudes with a lot of money or lots of anti-ND bettors or whatever. So even if the initial line is off the eventual line should be a reasonably good prediction. Otherwise there'd be mass numbers of professional gamblers, if lines were persistently and predictably incorrect.
The way I understand it is the line opens based on the best guess of some unshaven, cigar-chomping goon sitting in a back office getting a pedicure from some barely dressed sweet young thing, then moves as people "vote" with their money. Final line ends up being some approximation of public opinion, informed or not, sort of like national elections.
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
(09-01-2014, 09:20 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The "well, they're just trying to balance bettors fifty-fifty and aren't real predictions" seems like it could use an extra few logical steps. Because such inefficiencies should be easily arbitraged by a few smart dudes with a lot of money or lots of anti-ND bettors or whatever. So even if the initial line is off the eventual line should be a reasonably good prediction. Otherwise there'd be mass numbers of professional gamblers, if lines were persistently and predictably incorrect.
The way I understand it is the line opens based on the best guess of some unshaven, cigar-chomping goon sitting in a back office getting a pedicure from some barely dressed sweet young thing, then moves as people "vote" with their money. Final line ends up being some approximation of public opinion, informed or not, sort of like national elections.
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
09-01-2014, 09:54 AM
(09-01-2014, 09:20 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The "well, they're just trying to balance bettors fifty-fifty and aren't real predictions" seems like it could use an extra few logical steps. Because such inefficiencies should be easily arbitraged by a few smart dudes with a lot of money or lots of anti-ND bettors or whatever. So even if the initial line is off the eventual line should be a reasonably good prediction. Otherwise there'd be mass numbers of professional gamblers, if lines were persistently and predictably incorrect.
Right, the opening line isn't what the Vegas guys think the actual score will be, it's what they think will be most attractive to the betting public. Are those things different? I've read that in some circumstances they are, but maybe that's all bullshit, the guys running these lines have zero incentive to be honest about how it works.
(09-01-2014, 09:20 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The "well, they're just trying to balance bettors fifty-fifty and aren't real predictions" seems like it could use an extra few logical steps. Because such inefficiencies should be easily arbitraged by a few smart dudes with a lot of money or lots of anti-ND bettors or whatever. So even if the initial line is off the eventual line should be a reasonably good prediction. Otherwise there'd be mass numbers of professional gamblers, if lines were persistently and predictably incorrect.
Right, the opening line isn't what the Vegas guys think the actual score will be, it's what they think will be most attractive to the betting public. Are those things different? I've read that in some circumstances they are, but maybe that's all bullshit, the guys running these lines have zero incentive to be honest about how it works.
09-01-2014, 09:59 AM
(09-01-2014, 09:49 AM)ferrari link Wrote:Final line ends up being some approximation of public opinion, informed or not, sort of like national elections.
Sort of like the stock market too!
(09-01-2014, 09:49 AM)ferrari link Wrote:Final line ends up being some approximation of public opinion, informed or not, sort of like national elections.
Sort of like the stock market too!
09-01-2014, 10:19 AM
(09-01-2014, 09:59 AM)Extra Point link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=10491.msg96158#msg96158 date=1409590178]
Final line ends up being some approximation of public opinion, informed or not, sort of like national elections.
Sort of like the stock market too!
[/quote]
Exactly.
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
(09-01-2014, 09:59 AM)Extra Point link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=10491.msg96158#msg96158 date=1409590178]
Final line ends up being some approximation of public opinion, informed or not, sort of like national elections.
Sort of like the stock market too!
[/quote]
Exactly.
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »