General Forum

I have a different take on this thought provoking question:

Posted By: samo666
Date: 26 Sep 01, 6:11 am

In Response To: bad beats versus getting beaten badly (Math Boy)

An example would be the caro/ATL game of last weekend, which I played under 41 (I know, I know, I should've set the alarm Monday and gotten a 42).
The total ended at 40. Those who watched the game know that a score in the last minute was imminent, but a turnover saved the play (the 42 wouldn't have saved the under players, as it turns out, had they scored).

Yes, it was a winner. But my feeling after watching the game was that it was a bad play. The number posted (41) was pretty good, and if the same game was about to be played in an alternate universe, I would pass.

However, I could play under 41 on a game, have the score go to 47 or more, but feel that I would make the same play again. (For example, turnovers by a team which has a great positive turnover record normally, which lead to defensive td's by the opponent. Bad calls by officials which constitute key plays - e.g., a faulty pass interference call on 3rd down which enables a team to keep their drive alive leading to a td, etc.).

So I guess I disagree with many on one issue - I don't really feel that a loss is a loss and a win is a win. There's more to it for me.

I probably know the handicapper you're referring to. I think these situations often come about through taking big dogs , and I think that this is frequently due to serious errors in evaluating and setting power ratings on those teams. E.g., Russ Culver was blown out of last year's Hilton handicapping contest by repeatedly taking the Browns and Bengals, who lost by large margins in many games. Did this make him a worse handicapper than others who lost the same percentage of games, but by closer margins? I don't know ultimately - excellent question.

Messages In This Thread

bad beats versus getting beaten badly -- Math Boy -- 25 Sep 01, 11:23 am

Obvious downfall -- Don Schlesinger -- 25 Sep 01, 1:44 pm

not so obvious -- Dunbar -- 26 Sep 01, 6:28 am

To me, a waste of time -- Don Schlesinger -- 26 Sep 01, 1:23 pm

an observation -- Dunbar -- 1 Oct 01, 11:55 am

My great claim to fame :-) -- Don Schlesinger -- 1 Oct 01, 5:26 pm

I'm definitely impressed! -- Dunbar -- 2 Oct 01, 7:18 am

Jr. Mets, I believe -- Don Schlesinger -- 2 Oct 01, 11:51 am

who was the handicapper nt (nt) -- steve -- 25 Sep 01, 2:14 pm

Contrariwise... -- James -- 25 Sep 01, 3:03 pm

One problem -- StevieY -- 25 Sep 01, 3:16 pm

selection bias? -- Lefty -- 25 Sep 01, 3:46 pm

some responses -- Math Boy -- 25 Sep 01, 3:59 pm

close games -- Vetsen -- 25 Sep 01, 4:39 pm

How to be sure?? -- Don Schlesinger -- 25 Sep 01, 5:04 pm

I miswrote -- Math Boy -- 25 Sep 01, 6:58 pm

Math Boy, I AM the man! -- Goats -- 26 Sep 01, 7:29 am

I somewhat agree (and my results)... -- MDMAniac -- 25 Sep 01, 6:11 pm

I strongly agree with your post. -- fezzik -- 25 Sep 01, 9:05 pm

More results (and commentary) -- Colin Caster -- 25 Sep 01, 10:55 pm

IMO, your post was the best in a great thread -- fezzik -- 26 Sep 01, 7:29 pm

I have a different take on this thought provoking question: -- samo666 -- 26 Sep 01, 6:11 am

I like your example -- Bad Cutter -- 26 Sep 01, 8:13 am

To me, . . . -- Don Schlesinger -- 26 Sep 01, 1:29 pm

Excellent post. You may be correct. -- samo666 -- 26 Sep 01, 2:20 pm

The reason I think it's important... -- MDMAniac -- 26 Sep 01, 2:58 pm

Being better than the line -- StevieY -- 26 Sep 01, 4:23 pm

I'd like to meet you one day, Stevie -- Don Schlesinger -- 26 Sep 01, 5:34 pm

It would be my honor (nt) -- StevieY -- 27 Sep 01, 7:50 pm

Typo -- Don Schlesinger -- 27 Sep 01, 8:37 pm

You gotta learn to blame that on the keyboard (nt) -- Razor -- 28 Sep 01, 5:46 am

Right! :-) -- Don Schlesinger -- 28 Sep 01, 8:45 am

General Forum is maintained by Pi Yee Press