SB Plays

I like the Rice UN bets more than the Pierce OV based on a few factors. One is that the Ravens will probably realize early (as the Falcons did) that a run heavy approach is a fast path to scoring 14-17 points, which is not going to be enough to win this game. The SF run D is just too solid. Two - Betting Overs is never what you want your portfolio to primarily consist of. Everyone bets Overs because they are easier to "see" and your mind just sort of gravitates to them as you search for reasons why a team may succeed. You pay a premium for Overs because of the natural bias bettors have for betting them. You also have most in-game developments working against you when betting Over. A blowout game, weather, injuries - all work against the Over bettor. There is also a mean/median dynamic that exists with many of these props that works against the Overs. A player like Jacoby Jones, who is high variance, is the type you must be wary of betting Overs. His avg yds pg is 26 but his median is 17. Big play guys often have that stat-line characteristic and betting Over on them is just a poor subset. Lastly, I just don't think the game goes that way where a Raven back can be counted on for above normal carries. I agree that Pierce has the most upside stat-wise between the two and that his touches are trending up. Just not sure the game plays out that way. Rice UNs were bet down early so can't recommend anyone jump in now. I made bets at UN 18.5 and he now sits at 16.5 to 17. To advise betting him now would be pretty bad advice. His line was bet into place days ago. Ravens rush yds UN 108 would be a better way to go if you wanted to bet against the Raven run game. I like Skeeters posts. A post that has some content and gives you something to consider is much better than one that just says "bet the Dolphins -2" without any info on the thought that went into it.

Smart post, Frank. I agree with everything you said regarding "overs"....especially the injury factor. I am generally 90% on unders. The only exception is my Pierce play, and I am willing to take my chances as he is trending up and running so much better than Rice of late that I see him splitting carrries with Rice 50/50. So even in the worst nighmare of a SF blowout he still might split 20 carries with Rice, as doubtful if they abandon the run totally. But having said that, I am still more heavily invested on Rice going under (17 1/2, 66 yards) than Pierce over, as I am an under player by nature for the reasons you mentioned. The most important reason that numbers are always slanted to the "over" side is the fun factor....betting unders is simply no fun for the general public. You never have the excitement of seeing your player break through the defense and score from 50 yards out. All I am hoping for with so many "unders" is for the game to be completed as quickly as possible. So the biggest excitement I will experience is seeing the referee do the "windmill" motion to keep the clock moving on a close out of bounds play.

Virtually everything you guys are posting introduces bias in some way. The only thing in the world that is honest & unbiased is math; math will never lie to you. I choose to stand by my numbers.

If I ask three dentists what their favorite kind of music is and two say shitty, I don't logically think 2/3 of people like shitty music. I probably shouldn't even think 2/3 of dentists do. Everything everyone talks about all the time has a bias, however small. Humans can't be 100% objective because they're not robots, and neither are you. It's said not to talk about politics or religion. The problem isn't with the topics. It is with the people who want to talk about those topics. I mean, at this point you're just trying to get a rise out of people. Your tone today vs 6 weeks ago has changed completely. We want the old CB or no CB at all.

I've posted about (1) you can't ignore price in a wager and (2) having a conviction in my numbers. That's not trying to get a rise out of people that's just being refreshingly honest and demonstrating faith in math. In sorry that this makes you feel discomfort.

Very hard to go[B] strictly [/B] with numbers on Super Bowl as the Kapernick 49ers only have a 10 game sample size. Very difficult to extract meaningful data. I wouldn't get too hung up on numbers that are so few. Numbers more helpful on the odds of say, Derek Jeter getting a base hit in a game. You have a sample size of thousands to work with that will get you in the ballpark, and can massage the numbers from there based on what kind of year he is having and pitcher he is facing.....etc. His career represents a healthy sample size. Not so with NFL.... you have to practically start anew each year due to changing personnel, injuries...etc.....so you are left with only a handful of games to base decisions on.

Your assessment of sample size is agnostic of either player or casino. Do the casinos have a greater sample size to choose from than 10 games for Kaepernick? Of course not. Math can still hold under the (not-so-real) constraints you are proposing.

Spreadsheet numbers will never be as sharp as the numbers made that START with a raw statistical number and are then sharpened with current information. Could give endless examples of why it's better to apply some knowledge of the situation vs just going with an excel number. Try making lines for the Lakers players tonight using raw numbers and see where that leads. If you don't have the information or confidence in your ability to incorporate the information into your line, then that is a different story. You'd be better off just taking what the computer spits out in that case. No one is saying spreadsheet lines are not bettable, just that the assumption that all bias (capping) is already in the line is questionable. It's probably just the opposite because prop odds are hung in a fairly formulaic manner. The linesmakers have spreadsheets too and they use them.

[QUOTE=ColonialBlue;56681]Your assessment of sample size is agnostic of either player or casino. Do the casinos have a greater sample size to choose from than 10 games for Kaepernick? Of course not. Math can still hold under the (not-so-real) constraints you are proposing.[/QUOTE] This doesnt make a lot of sense to me CB as the variance associated with the next event is surely contingent on the sample size and thus the casino has less math to work with and must use use inference. The player must also but I dont see how you can strictly use math when the variance and thus standard deviations are great. I may be wrong in extrapolating your logic but lets say a new kicker was 1 and 1 on extra points and the casino put up -1000/+800 on no missed extra point. Your math would say this is a great bet on the yes as he is 50-50. Am I missing something?

Of course they have spreadsheets. Ive been saying that all along - price matters. I don't know how to state this clearer - in some cases *I will use the casino number* because it correlates with mine and the *price* is wrong and it creates an overlay. This conversation has come full-circle and you're re-enforcing my previous points: it's irresponsible to post a pick with a bad (or while ignoring) price. An example of this is the current price on the Flacco completions in the SB, a wager on which I have commented on in the past. The current number is 20.5 which is a little higher than what any formula/spreadsheet will give you (at least it was the last time I checked it, I would have to run them again). HOWEVER the under is currently being offered at +125 which is an excellent *price* for an event that will happen about less than 50% of the time. I will take the under on this and I may very well lose. But if I take enough overlays the math will work out for the best in the long run.