Amazing trends revealed on podcast

[HawkU]

What am I missing on the "against-the-spread" stats? I guess they are quite amazing if you're a gambler. As a non-gambler why should I care?

I'd rather know the Ws and Ls during those cover games. It seems like a moral victory when it's said that - well they lost but covered the spread.

 

[in8hawk]

I like how the trends are supposedly a predictor of future events. I'm like you, I think they are pointless unless you are a degenerate gambler. I like the statements like, "This team has won the last 20 games when..." and it is followed by some meaningless info. It just as well be "a full moon" or "when they have eaten steak for the pregame meal". None of it matters. Say you flip a coin 50 times, it comes up tails 50 times in a row. What are the odds it will be heads on the next flip? It is still 50/50, the trend is has nothing to do with the odds.

 

[HawkInATX]

I like how the trends are supposedly a predictor of future events. I'm like you, I think they are pointless unless you are a degenerate gambler. I like the statements like, "This team has won the last 20 games when..." and it is followed by some meaningless info. It just as well be "a full moon" or "when they have eaten steak for the pregame meal". None of it matters. Say you flip a coin 50 times, it comes up tails 50 times in a row. What are the odds it will be heads on the next flip? It is still 50/50, the trend is has nothing to do with the odds.

I really wanna agree with you. But I can't. You're totally right about the coin flip part, but if I flipped a coin 50 times and got the same thing every time, I'd start to wonder about the coin. Which is where the trends come in. But where you're totally right is this: trends that include information that really does seem incredibly unrelated probably don't have any impact and are just a fluke. Deace's trend is actually relevant (I feel dirty saying that), in that all you need to do is equate November with late-season, and posit that Iowa gets better as the season goes on at a faster rate than other teams or tends to find their stride in the latter part of the year. That's not far-fetched to believe.

 

[NCHawker]

What am I missing on the "against-the-spread" stats? I guess they are quite amazing if you're a gambler. As a non-gambler why should I care?

I'd rather know the Ws and Ls during those cover games. It seems like a moral victory when it's said that - well they lost but covered the spread.

Dace and Jon forever talking about point spreads (Gambling) and then we pause for a word from our alcoholic beverage sponsor. What's the message ? DRINK - GAMBLE !

 

[CJHawkeye]

I like how the trends are supposedly a predictor of future events. I'm like you, I think they are pointless unless you are a degenerate gambler. I like the statements like, "This team has won the last 20 games when..." and it is followed by some meaningless info. It just as well be "a full moon" or "when they have eaten steak for the pregame meal". None of it matters. Say you flip a coin 50 times, it comes up tails 50 times in a row. What are the odds it will be heads on the next flip? It is still 50/50, the trend is has nothing to do with the odds.

Who wins a game is not a 50/50 random event. Trends matter because there are dozens of human factors that go into winning a game. Otherwise OSU wins last week 100% of the time.

 

[1hawkeye1]

You gotta admit it's pretty interesting whether you are a gambler or not.

 

[xlakehawk]

Unfortunately the trend as communicated on the podcast isn't valid. Deace's exact words: "In its last 11 games played after November 1 against teams with a .750 winning percentage or better, IOWA is 11-0 against the spread. Last year the HAWKS played 6-2 (.750) Penn State on November 5. According to Gold Sheet the spread was Penn State by 7. Final score: Penn State 41 IOWA 14 Off the top of my head, I have to believe the Rose Bowl debacle woudn't fit either.

 

[Marinehawk]

Who wins a game is not a 50/50 random event. Trends matter because there are dozens of human factors that go into winning a game. Otherwise OSU wins last week 100% of the time.

It's not who wins...it's who covers the spread, otherwise, I'd be gambling some.

 

[The Big LeHAWKski]

Betting College FB is as big a crap-shoot as investing in Bitcoin.

 

[in8hawk]

My point was that trends are only there to make you think an outcome is likely, but don't necessarily have any real affect on the outcome. If a trend states that a team wins on a full moon after the 4th of July when they are wearing clean underpants 80 percent of the time, means absolutely nothing, and that is what we are taking about here. Odds are if 2 teams are playing, one of them will win means the odds are 50/50. There are variables that will shift the likelihood of one team winning over another-ie talent gap, coaching/game plan, match-ups, etc but the odds don't change, gamblers want to think that it will but that is why they don't tend to do well over the long term. Good luck doesn't exist and I was as bad as anyone when I played, had to do stupid rituals every game, but none of it mattered.