Pats Favorites to Win Super Bowl

[long distance]

You underestimate the AFC south at your peril. All four teams there will give Pittsburgh a good game.

they are not playing AFC south
but you guessed right anyway - i do not estimate them highly for the moment

 

[50-yard-line]

How in the world are you coming to that conclusion??!!

So, by your logic, if a racehorse is getting 5-1 odds versus the rest of his competition in that race, he should be winning every fifth race? That's not how this works.

Actually, you're right - I mixed PROBABILITY and FREQUENCY.

5-1 means the racehorse should LOSE 5 times for every race it wins, so it's actually one in 6.

Thus, in the example of the Pats, they should win every 7th year, statistically-speaking.

 

[50-yard-line]

they are not playing AFC south
but you guessed right anyway - i do not estimate them highly for the moment

For some reason, I had it in my head that we were playing the AFC West this year.

Hmm, well, even better, because I think the West is better than the North this year.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree with the two apparent weaknesses.

It isn't Brown or Blount. Brown is a 3rd down back, who is likely to get reps instead of White.
The open question is the name of the punishing backup to Blount. I don't see that player on the team. However, Belichick has often picked this kind of backup off the waiver wires in July or August.

At OT, I suggest that Scar strongly disagrees or we would have drafted another OT. I expect that he is fine with Cannon, Waddle and Thuney (emergency OT)

Why is brown likely to get reps in place of white? White has already shown more skill as a pass receiver than brown had his entire career.

 

[Ring 6]

Take Wentz at #2 instead of trading down for a litany of busts. I can't believe they passed on a franchise QB, the position that moves the needle in the NFL. If Wentz turns into the guy for the Eagles, Philly wins that trade all day. This is why the Browns are the Browns. RG3 isn't going to change their fortunes.

RGIII was Wentz 4 years ago. Who won that trade?
Actually RGIII was much more highly rated as a prospect.

 

[50-yard-line]

RGIII was Wentz 4 years ago. Who won that trade?
Actually RGIII was much more highly rated as a prospect.

And rightly so. RGIII was ruined in Washington, physically and emotionally. Nobody watched out for the kid when it was getting into his head, and his coach put him back on the field when it was pretty damned clear that something in his knee was tearing.

I remember jumping up and down in front of the TV watching that game, screaming "GET HIM OUT!!!!!"

It brought back terrible memories for me...I know that hop.

 

[Double TE]

A Jets fan would have to be a fool not to drop a few thousand on the Jets to win it all at 40-1, especially now that Geno is healthy again.

"A Jets fan would have to be a fool" was all you had to say. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[Ring 6]

And rightly so. RGIII was ruined in Washington, physically and emotionally. Nobody watched out for the kid when it was getting into his head, and his coach put him back on the field when it was pretty damned clear that something in his knee was tearing.

I remember jumping up and down in front of the TV watching that game, screaming "GET HIM OUT!!!!!"

It brought back terrible memories for me...I know that hop.

RGIII failed because of RGIII. the trade was awful for Washington.

 

[50-yard-line]

RGIII failed because of RGIII. the trade was awful for Washington.

Right. As a ROOKIE, he put up 3200 yards passing and another 800+ rushing, with 20tds and only 5 picks with a 102 rating.

The kid had a ton of talent - he was even good in the pocket (so he was no CK). With a good system and mentors around him, instead of the Washington dumpster fire, he could have gone the way of Russell Wilson instead of the way of Kaepernick.

I doubt he can be turned around now, but that kid could have been special. Sometimes you just see "it."


I felt the same way when Farrell was ruining Jackie Bradley last year. "It."

 

[SlowGettingUp]

so it's actually one in 6.

Thus, in the example of the Pats, they should win every 7th year, statistically-speaking.

Actually if you have a 1 in 6 chance repeated 7 times, you have only about a 70% chance of winning at least once in that period.

1-(5/6)**7 = 0.72

 

[supafly]

Actually, you're right - I mixed PROBABILITY and FREQUENCY.

5-1 means the racehorse should LOSE 5 times for every race it wins, so it's actually one in 6.

Thus, in the example of the Pats, they should win every 7th year, statistically-speaking.

You're ignoring other key variables, such as strength of the competing field. That's going to change everything.

Also, and likely more importantly, 5-1 means that for every dollar you put up, you get 5 back on your bet. The odds for any sporting event are going to change according to who the general public sides with.

Attempting to relate betting odds (which change based on nothing more than the public's "feel") to future probability of winning/losing is something that's over my head and seems like a shady proposition, but the bottom line is that we've been favored to win in most years.

 

[50-yard-line]

You're ignoring other key variables, such as strength of the competing field. That's going to change everything.

Also, and likely more importantly, 5-1 means that for every dollar you put up, you get 5 back on your bet. The odds for any sporting event are going to change according to who the general public sides with.

Attempting to relate betting odds (which change based on nothing more than the public's "feel") to future probability of winning/losing is something that's over my head and seems like a shady proposition, but the bottom line is that we've been favored to win in most years.

I'm not ignoring anything. What you're talking about is built into the odds.

A horse goes off today at 5-3 in the Derby...those odds don't ignore the condition of the track or the strength of the field.

Of course it's not an exact science, but 5-1 means this team should not win the Superbowl 5 times out of 6.

 

[Ring 6]

Right. As a ROOKIE, he put up 3200 yards passing and another 800+ rushing, with 20tds and only 5 picks with a 102 rating.

The kid had a ton of talent - he was even good in the pocket (so he was no CK). With a good system and mentors around him, instead of the Washington dumpster fire, he could have gone the way of Russell Wilson instead of the way of Kaepernick.

I doubt he can be turned around now, but that kid could have been special. Sometimes you just see "it."


I felt the same way when Farrell was ruining Jackie Bradley last year. "It."

"It" can't be ruined. Regardless of excuses Washington made what resulted in a terrible trade. Every highly touted qb who fails had excuses that's part of the reason trading so much for one with that risk is foolish.

 

[Ring 6]

You're ignoring other key variables, such as strength of the competing field. That's going to change everything.

Also, and likely more importantly, 5-1 means that for every dollar you put up, you get 5 back on your bet. The odds for any sporting event are going to change according to who the general public sides with.

Attempting to relate betting odds (which change based on nothing more than the public's "feel") to future probability of winning/losing is something that's over my head and seems like a shady proposition, but the bottom line is that we've been favored to win in most years.

All 5 to 1 means is that less than 1/5th of the money bet is on that team, and if 5 to 1 are the lowest odds then more money is bet on that team than any other.

It had nothing to do with the probability of winning but has everything to do with what the people making bets believe the probability of winning is.
If the argument is by being favorites they have a better chance to win that is wrong. If the argument is by being favorites people who bet their own money believe they have a better chance to win that would be correct.

 

[Kontradiction]

Right. As a ROOKIE, he put up 3200 yards passing and another 800+ rushing, with 20tds and only 5 picks with a 102 rating.

The kid had a ton of talent - he was even good in the pocket (so he was no CK). With a good system and mentors around him, instead of the Washington dumpster fire, he could have gone the way of Russell Wilson instead of the way of Kaepernick.

I doubt he can be turned around now, but that kid could have been special. Sometimes you just see "it."


I felt the same way when Farrell was ruining Jackie Bradley last year. "It."

RGIII also benefitted greatly from DC's in the NFL not knowing how to properly defend the read option that season. Once they did, he was much less effective. Now, how much of his descent into "sucktitude" has to do with that and how much of it has to do with his knee is up for debate. But, based on what I've seen of him since 2012, I would say that it's more the former than the latter.

 

[supafly]

I'm not ignoring anything. What you're talking about is built into the odds.

A horse goes off today at 5-3 in the Derby...those odds don't ignore the condition of the track or the strength of the field.

Of course it's not an exact science, but 5-1 means this team should not win the Superbowl 5 times out of 6.

Yes, you are, by assuming that the strength of the field will stay the same, thus throwing out projections of how often they should win based on BETTING ODDS set by the public's feeling for each individual year.

 

[supafly]

All 5 to 1 means is that less than 1/5th of the money bet is on that team, and if 5 to 1 are the lowest odds then more money is bet on that team than any other.

It had nothing to do with the probability of winning but has everything to do with what the people making bets believe the probability of winning is.
If the argument is by being favorites they have a better chance to win that is wrong. If the argument is by being favorites people who bet their own money believe they have a better chance to win that would be correct.

That's pretty much what I've been trying to say, so you wrap it up very succinctly.

Having 5-1 odds certainly does NOT mean that one should win the SB every 5 years as suggested by the poster that I responded to.

Actually, that has nothing to do with it at all.

 

[jimnance]

I'm not ignoring anything. What you're talking about is built into the odds.

A horse goes off today at 5-3 in the Derby...those odds don't ignore the condition of the track or the strength of the field.

Of course it's not an exact science, but 5-1 means this team should not win the Superbowl 5 times out of 6.

With all due respect, THIS IS THE DUMBEST **** IVE EVER HEARD. Seriously, have you been sparking up today? You have 0 understanding of how odds work. 5:1 odds mean one thing and one thing only- if you win you get $5 for every $1 you bet. It ONLY applies to this years SB. It has nothing to do with any other SBs in any other years. Ease up on the weed man. Don't mean to make fun of you but dude, that is some really dumb ****. Please know what youre talking about before you make a fool of uourself

 

[50-yard-line]

With all due respect, THIS IS THE DUMBEST **** IVE EVER HEARD. Seriously, have you been sparking up today? You have 0 understanding of how odds work. 5:1 odds mean one thing and one thing only- if you win you get $5 for every $1 you bet. It ONLY applies to this years SB. It has nothing to do with any other SBs in any other years. Ease up on the weed man. Don't mean to make fun of you but dude, that is some really dumb ****. Please know what youre talking about before you make a fool of uourself

With all due respect, NO **** SHERLOCK.

And you're wrong. 5-1 means that if they played this season, these teams, this schedule, 6 times, they place the probability that the Patriots would win one of those 6 rolls of the dice.


_________________________________________________________________________
In statistics, the odds for an event E are defined as a simple function of the probability of that possible event E. One drawback of expressing the uncertainty of this possible event as odds for is that to regain the probability requires a calculation. The natural way to interpret odds for (without calculating anything) is as the ratio of events to non-events in the long run. A simple example is that the (statistical) odds for rolling six with a fair die (one of a pair of dice) are 1 to 5. This is because, if one rolls the die many times, and keeps a tally of the results, one expects 1 six event for every 5 times the die does not show six. For example, if we roll the fair die 600 times, we would very much expect something in the neighborhood of 100 sixes, and 500 of the other five possible outcomes. That is a ratio of 100 to 500, or simply 1 to 5. To express the (statistical) odds against, the order of the pair is reversed. Hence the odds against rolling a six with a fair die are 5 to 1. The probability of rolling a six with a fair die is the single number 1/6 or approximately 16.7%.

Odds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
___________________________________________________________________________


So if the Patriots go off at 5-to-1 (odds against), what the bookmaker (then affected by the money flowing) is saying that they have a 16.67% chance of winning the Superbowl, and so, statistically, all things starting the same, they should succeed once of out every six rolls - in this case, the season = roll.

Yes, it was a very long time ago, but I was started college as a math major and was particularly adept at statistics, and spent five years working as a financial analyst. And yes, such activities do make me want some weed...

Now don't you feel smarter having read that? And don't you wish that you had worded things a bit less assholishly (new word!)?

 

[50-yard-line]

All 5 to 1 means is that less than 1/5th of the money bet is on that team, and if 5 to 1 are the lowest odds then more money is bet on that team than any other.

It had nothing to do with the probability of winning but has everything to do with what the people making bets believe the probability of winning is.
If the argument is by being favorites they have a better chance to win that is wrong. If the argument is by being favorites people who bet their own money believe they have a better chance to win that would be correct.

If you look at the post to which I was responding:

"Nice to see, but we go through this every single year and it generally hasn't produced the results we'd like."

you might figure out that all I was pointing out is that statistically, they're actually DOING BETTER than the odds.

And yes, it GENERALLY has produced better results than 6-1. If the Patriots had been given 6-1 every year since 2001 and you had bet them every year, same amount, would you be UP or DOWN?

Personally, even if the odds had been this promising (6-1) for the Pats to win the SB, I wish I'd have dropped 10 grand on them every year since 2001. How about you?