Nope. I can assure you that Fan Duel does not have a committee of bookmakers watching Akron vs. Wisconsin Green Bay on video at 3 AM. That is not how the gambling industry works.
Hubert Davis Catch-all
- Thread starter LeoBloom
- Start date
- Replies: 2K
- Views: 33K
- UNC Sports
That’s hyperbolic. You don’t need eyeballs on every hour of every game in order to have the eye test factor into oddsmaking. You should know that.
I'm okay with that. To-may-to - To-ma-to
Well how does the eye test even work then?
I know several professional sports bettors and, to the man, they all tell me that they don't have the time and/or it is a waste of time to actually watch the games.
They have this thing called video so they can watch it when they damned well please. If you know anything about the industry , it's more than me but don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining. I doubt you know the industry to that level and with the money involved , the right way to say it is that it is only that many games.
I've read you post three times and I still don't understand it. What are you trying to say?
Have not seen the line posted, but I would have to imagine the odds of him returning are very high at this point.
There were posters, myself included, who said the metrics lovers can get really f’ing annoying because they can’t talk sports without pulling out their spreadsheets. They dont even know how anymore.
If the shoe fits… but those comments best as I could tell were not directed at posters here necessarily. But it’s definitely not straw man, it’s very very real. There are plenty of zero-sum “metrics or cave man” proponents around. And they’re a part (among many parts) of what’s ruining sports for many of us.
Bigs said "completely" useless.
I've not seen any opponent of metrics -- at least on this site -- say that metrics are "completely" useless.
When someone argues in terms of 100% yes or no on something, especially something as nuanced as sports metrics, it makes it hard to have a productive discussion.
In response to this.
Nope. I can assure you that Fan Duel does not have a committee of bookmakers watching Akron vs. Wisconsin Green Bay on video at 3 AM. That is not how the gambling industry works.
I know what you were responding to. I just don't know what you were trying to say.
- Messages
- 8,321
I misread oddsmaking as odd smacking. I got a chuckle out of that.
- Messages
- 3,390
This is more inspired by your post than in direct response to it, so don't take this post as intending to put words into your mouth, but it makes me a little sad when people try to create this diametric opposition between "metrics lovers" who supposedly don't even care about the games and people who just want to watch the games without thinking or hearing about any "metrics stuff." It's very reminiscent of the critiques that were leveled against Bill James and his acolytes for years in the baseball world - that they were nerd withs computers who were polluting an otherwise "pure" sport, turning an art into a science in a way that many people felt was antithetical to what baseball was all about. But Bill James loved baseball. He was an obsessive baseball fan. He wasn't trying to do anything that would deter people from watching and loving baseball; just trying to use data to understand the sport better.
The concepts of loving/watching a sport and seeking to use data to better understand what is happening in the sport need not be in conflict. They are, or at least can be, complementary. I get why some people don't like it when a football broadcast shows the statistical opinion on whether to punt of go for it, or the win probability graphs, or whatever. But too much of that hostility seems rooted in what is fundamentally a desire to not try to understand a sport any more than one already understands it. As if by ignoring the data, you can just pretend it doesn't exist.
Bigs says a lot of completely useless things but he’s been more right than wrong lately (
)Part of our original point (or at least mine) was that someone doesn’t have to explicitly argue in terms of 100% yes on metrics to come across like they are 100% yes on metrics, and to come across as though they are indeed infallible. It’s the inflexible certitude, like I mentioned before. “I have numbers so I have no doubts.” That’s where mf’ers get really Poindexter pocket protector-style annoying.
Last edited:
I'm saying there is not reason they can't. I don't know that they do but, if they don't it's not for the BS you spouted. I don't claim to know how but since there is competing systems ,I assume, somehow , somewhere there is a human interface, whether it's at the programming stage, the software selection stage or somewhere. I mean, I assume there's competitive services. Are they selling sizzle and no steak? Who and what defines the differences?
It seems they have to stay in pretty close touch just to verify injuries and other related peripherals. It seemed reasonable on the face to me, that actually watching the games could happen.
Heelsandeers
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,360
Is earning a higher seed in the NCAAT than predictive metrics would indicate a sign of good or bad coaching?
- Messages
- 3,390
I agree with you that this can be frustrating, but I don't think it's really unique to metrics people. Anyone who expresses any certitude on this subject is FOS. My personal anecdotal experience is that the "eye test" adherents tend to be much more likely to act that way, though.
- Messages
- 4,134
My hope is we have a bad win against dook ** and not a good loss against dook** even if it means our metrics will prevent us from making the NCAAT
Centerpiece
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,388
Perhaps another unfair question?
