For You Gamblers

[sandiego17]

I am not saying that there is no analysis, but betting behavior is an unrelated component that gets factored into the equation. People have had the perception that the Chargers have been a great team for years, that Turner was a horrible coach and now he's gone, that the new GM is some whiz kid (which I think is true--he has peed on himself plenty so far). I think these ideas make the Chargers a more attractive bet than what the strength of the team really is and Vegas oddsmakers know this because their primary job is to get the money spread evenly, not accurately predict team records.

Its not nearly as simplistic as you say, the sharks would destroy Vegas if the lines did not reflect objective analysis. If they saw a huge error, Vegas would lose regardless of public perception. Appears you think they made a huge error, in that case, easy money. Go for it. I give Vegas much more credit than that.

Oh, the notion that all of the analysts are biased against the Chargers is absurd. Some may be, but not all of them and they all have us a bottom 10 team, which is what I think we are right now.

Never said they were biased against the Chargers, just simply that they had biases built into their "analysis" and that agreeing with other analyst is the safe play.

[Yubaking]

Its not nearly as simplistic as you say, the sharks would destroy Vegas if the lines did not reflect objective analysis. If they saw a huge error, Vegas would lose regardless of public perception. Appears you think they made a huge error, in that case, easy money. Go for it. I give Vegas much more credit than that.



Never said they were biased against the Chargers, just simply that they had biases built into their "analysis" and that agreeing with other analyst is the safe play.

I didn't say it was a huge margin. I think the Chargers will be good for 6 wins and would understand a "true" over/under based upon objective football analysis of 6.5 games. But the Chargers haven't won less than 7 games since 2003, so I could see oddsmakers upping the over/under for the Chargers by one game. That is the kind of margin we are talking about here--not huge. But it still doesn't make the posted over/under an objective analysis of the football teams.

And in terms of a writing career, I think distinguishing oneself from the others may just be the safer play, but I think it is difficult to do when nearly all of the evidence supports only one conclusion--that we are not very good. The analyst doesn't want to end being a fool either.

[BoltBalls]

I didn't say it was a huge margin. I think the Chargers will be good for 6 wins and would understand a "true" over/under based upon objective football analysis of 6.5 games. But the Chargers haven't won less than 7 games since 2003, so I could see oddsmakers upping the over/under for the Chargers by one game. That is the kind of margin we are talking about here--not huge. But it still doesn't make the posted over/under an objective analysis of the football teams.

And in terms of a writing career, I think distinguishing oneself from the others may just be the safer play, but I think it is difficult to do when nearly all of the evidence supports only one conclusion--that we are not very good. The analyst doesn't want to end being a fool either.

If you really think the true over/under is at 6.5 wins then you should be betting the under at 7.5 all day long

[richpjr]

Yubaking may very well give Den60 a run for his money for title of biggest pessimist ever!

[Bolt-O]

Yubaking may very well give Den60 a run for his money for title of biggest pessimist ever!

I was thinking they were the same person. Same horse, same stick.

[Den60]

Yubaking may very well give Den60 a run for his money for title of biggest pessimist ever!

Maybe he lost his rose-colored glasses as well.

[Den60]

I was thinking they were the same person. Same horse, same stick.

No, I'm not him. As far as the same stick I suppose I could say that about a lot of the homers on here.