A little over 500k in entries right?bostonbeerbelly said:6967 entries eliminated by my count - only 1033 left
I dont. Give me 'Zona or give me death!wade boggs chicken dinner said:what was it someone said last year?
oh yeah, we suck at this.
bostonbeerbelly said:6967 entries eliminated by my count - only 1033 left
bostonbeerbelly said:None of us could have seen that coming, but I guess one of the things I didn't get was if we voted and had five teams with enough votes as of last night why that wasn't our selections. Why vote if it can be overturned by a few people in the early hours of the morning. Not saying I had any better picks than what we went with, but as a group we would have had 2 on PItt and 1 on Indy. Either way this sucks, was looking to a long run with this and never expected this to happen today.
I have to say I find it remarkable the restraint you've shown here. Other people would have said "I told you so" in a much more direct manner.I dont. Give me 'Zona or give me death!
I was confident enough in Arizona that I won $400 on them today, so that helps.wade boggs chicken dinner said:I have to say I find it remarkable the restraint you've shown here. Other people would have said "I told you so" in a much more direct manner.
Maybe we should just let you decide our entries next year?
That's an interesting statement. If we're not going to look at spreads, odds, and gambling experts, how should we decide?If people are just going to look at spreads, odds, and gambling experts, you may as well just not play.
Of course you can separate line from opinion. I don't even look at the lines when making these picks.tims4wins said:You can't separate the lines from opinions. It is blurry. We picked NO because they were at home against a 2-14 team from last year that got pummeled in week 1, not because the spread was 10. But the spread was big because of those factors. Hard to separate.
You are never as good as you look when you win big and never as bad as you look when you get blown out. I have been saying it all week that at least one big favorite and maybe multiple were going down this week.
Dare I say...go Jets
Neither do I but my gut still told me NO was a fairly safe pick. The point I was trying to make is that it is hard to separate it - were they a popular pick because of a big spread or was the spread so big because they were a popular pick? Chicken and egg type dealKenny F said:Of course you can separate line from opinion. I don't even look at the lines when making these picks.
It all goes back to the fact that this week was very disorganized. If we're going to do this next year we need to decide on an approach and stick to it.Kenny F'ing Powers said:I was confident enough in Arizona that I won $400 on them today, so that helps.
Early season lines are wonky and there was no reason for Arizona to only be a 2 point favorite. That team was very good before Palmer got hurt last year, and while their D isn't as good this year, I figured they'd make a turnover prone QB like Cutler pay. The only thing going for the Bears over the last 5 years was that they could score points. No Marshall and a gimpy Jeffrey really limits that.
If people are just going to look at spreads, odds, and gambling experts, you may as well just not play. The only thing I'm frustrated about is that I didn't defend my Arizona pick more vigorously. When people didn't like it, I backed down and went with the crowd, divying up my picks between the 3 most popular picks here. I should have thrown all 21 picks on Zona like I did Miami last week. Maybe it would have sparked more discussion.
We were saving PIT for future value.It all goes back to the fact that this week was very disorganized. If we're going to do this next year we need to decide on an approach and stick to it.
I would have thrown some votes on Carolina and Arizona. Also, no idea how we missed putting picks on Pittsburgh.
Oh well, it was fun for a week.
It all goes back to this week was a bloodbath. Pats beat up Pitt. San Francisco killed Minnesota. Minnesota beat up Detroit this week. Pitt kills San Francisco.FL4WL3SS said:It all goes back to the fact that this week was very disorganized. If we're going to do this next year we need to decide on an approach and stick to it.
I would have thrown some votes on Carolina and Arizona. Also, no idea how we missed putting picks on Pittsburgh.
Oh well, it was fun for a week.
My point was that I think some other teams would have gotten consideration. We wouldn't have avoided losing a ton of picks, but maybe we'd have some left. Then again maybe not.NortheasternPJ said:It all goes back to this week was a bloodbath. Pats beat up Pitt. San Francisco killed Minnesota. Minnesota beat up Detroit this week. Pitt kills San Francisco.
Unless you're Going to spread out picks to 10 teams per week this can happen.
80% of my pool of 700 is gone after this week. 95% will be gone if Indy loses
It's just one of those weeks.
ConigliarosPotential said:Long-time listener, first-time caller, etc... (I also have no stake in the pool.)
This discussion is fascinating, but I have noticed some recency bias in the analysis. Not to pick on DOTB specifically, but this is a great example of what I mean:
FWIW, I'm in a private league with friends. 25 entries. 19 left coming into today. 2 through, with a third possible with Indy tomorrow. I was the only one who picked Pittsburgh. 10/19 were on New Orleans. Bloody Sunday. I had two entries, went New Orleans and Pittsburgh. I was shocked when the picks opened and I was the lone guy on that game. Nuts.FL4WL3SS said:It all goes back to the fact that this week was very disorganized. If we're going to do this next year we need to decide on an approach and stick to it.
I would have thrown some votes on Carolina and Arizona. Also, no idea how we missed putting picks on Pittsburgh.
Oh well, it was fun for a week.
tonyandpals said:People gotta vote for the votes to be counted. Only 6 teams got a whiff and most of the individual scenarios discussed during the week mostly called for 3-4 or 4 teams. I agree, there needs to be a tighter format and I was AWOL for a day when I could have put %s up sooner. If we stuck to the vote it would have been come out of it with 2 picks on PIT and one on IND. Scenario 5b(6) gave people a shot at something similar with a little more spread. In the end, that vote needs to happen Saturday night to give a chance for input. Even though on Saturday I said it would be coming in the AM, we still had 9 votes out of the 15 or so active people for the week.
What a difference a week makes.
Yeah and I think strategy is different in a league with 19 entries left than one with 2500 left. In the former you want to pick against the grain more as its likely to end in the next few weeks. In the latter there's a case to follow the crowd more and try to survive till week 12 or so when you then start to get risky. Or maybe my sense is wrong and in both cases you should diversify widely- but I suspect that's only true when you have a rare week 2 where all the favorites lose.PaulinMyrBch said:FWIW, I'm in a private league with friends. 25 entries. 19 left coming into today. 2 through, with a third possible with Indy tomorrow. I was the only one who picked Pittsburgh. 10/19 were on New Orleans. Bloody Sunday. I had two entries, went New Orleans and Pittsburgh. I was shocked when the picks opened and I was the lone guy on that game. Nuts.
Echo the thanks Tony.crystalline said:Thanks for running this. Get em next year and I'll get it together in time to buy shares. If anyone gets bored in the off season and wants to run some simulations of prior seasons to test strategies let me know and I will help out (set up around some kind of public python/Julia/R notebook).
In thinking about this more, my gut feeling is that there are some seasons that it pays to stay close to the overall betting proportion just to make sure we get enough entries through. However, other seasons (like this one), it pays to diversify as people don't really have a feel for who the good teams are and who the bad teams are.crystalline said:Yeah and I think strategy is different in a league with 19 entries left than one with 2500 left. In the former you want to pick against the grain more as its likely to end in the next few weeks. In the latter there's a case to follow the crowd more and try to survive till week 12 or so when you then start to get risky. Or maybe my sense is wrong and in both cases you should diversify widely- but I suspect that's only true when you have a rare week 2 where all the favorites lose.
While I still lean towards maufman that we likely don't have an advantage picking winners, I have to give KFP credit. Guy was right about picks. And he said to watch a lot of football in the early weeks to guide your picks.
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
In thinking about this more, my gut feeling is that there are some seasons that it pays to stay close to the overall betting proportion just to make sure we get enough entries through. However, other seasons (like this one), it pays to diversify as people don't really have a feel for who the good teams are and who the bad teams are.
So perhaps - because it's almost impossible to figure out which to use season to season - the trick is to do both - i.e., instead of looking at our entries as one pool of 20-ish entries, we have two pools of 10-ish entries with the diversify crowd running one set of entries and the other crowd running the other set.
tonyandpals said:
I like this thinking.
Anyone interested if they offer a 2nd chance pool, which they likely will with so many out.
tonyandpals said:
I like this thinking.
Anyone interested if they offer a 2nd chance pool, which they likely will with so many out.