- 10:07 AM
- 11/22/09
I did absolutely awful the last round, so I either have an insane round now to catch up, or shoot for the Costanza. If you want to score some points, do the opposite of what I do.
For the pitchers I picked the two closers from the teams I expect/hope to Lidge and Rivera, on the theory that in a long series they can potentially get 6+ IP in 6 or 7 games, and if they don't give up a run... there's your ERA leader. It's a risk mostly in that they might get 4 or 5 IP and not qualify. But Rivera in particular might have a multi-inning outing.
posted by hincandenza at 02:59 AM on October 14
Speaking of the Costanza- did the SpoFi Pantheon ever get around to hosting the Championship images on the site itself? I just dug up the original Costanza awards designed by gpsm from around aught-six, and they look fantastic!
posted by hincandenza at 10:51 AM on October 07
Coming out of retirement; haven't played one of these in a while, but with some hardware in the ol' Spofi closet (and possibly even a coveted Costanza if I recall correctly), it's time for an old man to show these young whippersnappers how it's done! :)
posted by hincandenza at 10:42 AM on October 07
DrJohnEvans: We should also delete some of the old and unused accounts to free up memory.But not this one! Le Sigh By the way, I noticed all the old posts for that user are gone. Is that what wc2k2 was talking about here, that we lost a bunch of data at some point? And if that's the case, can I get that user number. :)
posted by hincandenza at 03:03 PM on June 13
Pats by 21 1. Patriots score first 2. Offense (Brady TD pass) 3. 1:47
posted by hincandenza at 12:18 PM on January 30
Almost five years for me, coming in when somebody shouted "SportsFilter!" once too often in the Blue.My story of missed opportunity: as a frequent poster in sports thread back on Metafilter in the pre-SpoFi days, I was offered a chance to be one of about six founding members if I could kick in about $100 to get the ball rolling. Sadly, that was shortly after I had lost my dot-com gig (Rivals.com) and I was cash-strapped. I still got user #15... until I lost the password. Repeated pleas to DB-maestro rcade to do a union of my user 599 posts into user 15 and reset the password have fallen on deaf ears. Alas, by now my #599 posting history dwarfs my #15 posting history, which at some point was cleansed, despite the cool low number. If only I could have both the low number and the gaudy posting history of brilliantly insightful and witty comments.
posted by hincandenza at 07:33 PM on January 24
Oh, and to add insult to injury, not only did I not hit the spread in the Pats game, but Green Bay's Jon Ryan outpunted Mike Scifres of San Diego by 3 yards, 193-190, to take away THAT pick as well. Only two people even picked the GB punter, although a few got within a couple of yards of the actual total, and owlhouse actually picked the exact yards of San Diego's punter (190). Christ, this is why I don't gamble with real money. :)
posted by hincandenza at 09:59 PM on January 20
I can't believe the Pats took a knee in the last minute. Why- was it just to avoid injury? The game was won; even an interception run back for a touchdown couldn't win the game, so why not toss another 7 on there, or at least try for it? I'm just bitter because for the second week, the Patriots turned it off once the game was decided, blowing my chance at making the damn SpoFi pick-'em spread.
posted by hincandenza at 05:27 PM on January 20
Patriots by 17 Green Bay by 10 San Diego/Scifres with 201 yards Wow, it wasn't until I just now put in my choices that I noticed a fair number of 17 and 10, San Diego with around 200 yards picks. Either we're all mad... or we'll all a collective genius!
posted by hincandenza at 10:45 AM on January 18
I can't believe there were two people who nailed all 4 games- and hey, I think Monica Poland got a couple of spreads, including one right on, and Hater187 got all 4 games and a couple of in-the-range spread picks. Jaysus... can't wait to see how the standings look after this weekend... :(
posted by hincandenza at 11:54 PM on January 13
Yeah, well that didn't last- 28 to 17 going into half time. After the first 4 minutes, when the Hawks went up 14-0, the Packers have outscored them 28-3, scoring TDs on all 4 possessions if I'm not mistaken. Where'd the D go? On that last TD before the end of the half, a Hawk had Favre wrapped up... and just let him slip away. Where's the hustle?! How frustrating. Eh, let's just hope this is not how the Pats game goes... Go Pats! Btw, regarding turnovers: I think the tiebreaker should be if there's a tie in turnover differential, then whichever team forced the most turnovers wins the tie breaker (i.e., if you force 6 turnovers and give up 3, you'd win over the team that forced 5 and gave up 2). If there's still a tie after that, then we should just call both teams a winner.
posted by hincandenza at 05:13 PM on January 12
Seattle by 7 NE by 21 Ind by 7 Dal by 6 Turnovers: 13 total. Best ratio: Patriots, +3
posted by hincandenza at 01:35 PM on January 10
Seahawks by 10 Chargers by 14 Jaguars by 7 Giants by 3 Engram, 122 yards
posted by hincandenza at 06:12 PM on January 03
heh. Okay, now that's funny.
posted by hincandenza at 12:52 PM on October 15
rcade: Hal: Are you the guy who wants his lost low user number back?Um, yeah, but what does one have to do with the other?
posted by hincandenza at 10:19 PM on October 14
So with that kind of readership, why are there not more posts and comments? Seems like mostly the same small set of people...
posted by hincandenza at 03:32 PM on October 13
Well, might as well once again note that I'd still like to reclaim this account, what with its low number, and merge it with my current account's posting history. I've offered my decent tech services to help, since it should mostly be a matter of change all instances of posts/comments from user ID 599 to userid 15. Also, because I like to dwell on the past, I was invited to be part of the original founding Pantheon of SpoFi when it was just an idea on Metafilter. Ah, but for want of a spare $100 I let limitless fame, fortune, and the bevy of bountifully endowed buxom SpoFi groupies pass me by. Ack- now I need another drink....
posted by hincandenza at 06:49 PM on January 30
He hasn't posted yet, but I pick... whatever Mr.Bismarck picks. With neither the Patriots nor Hal Incandenza still in it... well, it's just an empty experience (alas). I might as go out with a bang, and get some of that Mr.Bismarck magic.
posted by hincandenza at 01:51 PM on January 29
You and me both- I got a whopping ZERO. Sweet jesus.... at least I almost got the kicker right for one point, but it was Gould over Vinatieri 13-12. I'm officially out of it- even if I got all 7 points or whatever next week, there's no way Mr.Bismarck gets skunked- looks like he's going to run away with this... Wait- four people picked the Colts by 4?! What the deuce- who picks a win by 4?!
posted by hincandenza at 09:26 PM on January 21
I'll wait till the pats/colts is over, but the spreadsheet already looks off: Mr.Bismarck got 3 points for Gould/11, which is not the exact total nor is it confirmed yet to be the right choice (although he's likely to get 2 points)
posted by hincandenza at 05:27 PM on January 21
The total points in the superbowl should be close to the points available in this round. The three point question should have tiers, too- i.e., you can get 1 of 3 points if you get X, but if you nail it with Y, you get all 3 points (kind of like the way you've been doing the spread picks). I'd say the total points available in the Superbowl should probably be 6 or 7. Part of the trick is to make sure that the Superbowl game isn't pointless in the pick 'em; if the choices are all binary (team A vs. team B) and small in number, and say Mr.Bismarck has a 3 point lead on his competition, then no one else can win unless they pick differently than him on everything and he's 100% wrong. People should be rewarded for leads, but to keep it interesting you should make it possible for people to catch up. Things like "pick the total yardage for each team. Within 30 yards, you get one point, within 15 yards you get two points"- leaves it open for come-from behind victories. :)
posted by hincandenza at 03:03 PM on January 19
hincandenza Saints by 10 (24-14) Patriot by 7 (24-17) Vinatieri with 10 (3FG, 1PAT)
posted by hincandenza at 10:49 AM on January 15
Oh- then yeah, kind of embarassing. :) Although in Excel, you can avoid this if you just make sure to highlight all the columns before doing a sort. What I liked to do last year that you might find useful is to have a worksheet sorted by name, doing the computations and formulas in there and never using a sort on them. Then when I updated the final results (and it auto-computed that weeks scores), I'd select all the cells, do a copy, and then in a different worksheet do right-click Paste Special, and choose to only paste the Values. This would give a separate value-only worksheet that I could sort and format, including conditional formats like "Bold when a number = 9" or whatever. It also made it easier to do sums week to week, since the order and format of the users never changed on the primary computation sheet.
posted by hincandenza at 09:14 PM on January 14
You're doing fine- it's Google spreadsheets that might be making it overly complex. Guess it's caveat picker: everyone should double check/track their own point scores.
posted by hincandenza at 08:59 PM on January 14
Damn- I was all excited that I was in a tie for the lead, but then I looked closer. That spreadsheet can't be right. For example, Mr.Bismarck had two perfect picks this week (3 points each) plus picked the Saints to win, the spread of 9 exactly in the Ravens/Indy game, plus picked 132 yards for the rushing (within the +/- 15 of the real value of 143) for another point. By my count, Mr.Bismarck should have 9 points total this week, to go with his 4 last week, and be crushing us all with 13 points. And to answer Ufez Jones' question above, the rules said you got points for the rushing yards within margin-of-error regardless of whether you picked the right back to earn them: while his pick is bolded, he didn't seem to get the points for them.
posted by hincandenza at 08:47 PM on January 14
apoch: looks like you do need a gmail, but don't worry about it- not a concern! I'll happily wait till you post the final results at the end of the weekend. Don't mind me and my rambling- I'm a chatterbox at heart! :) Again, you're doing a great job as "commish"- keep up the good work, it's certainly making watching the games more exciting when I know I have official picks riding on them!
posted by hincandenza at 03:20 AM on January 14
Thanks for the link apoch! A word of warning to anyone viewing it: it appears that the Results option allows the Google spreadsheet to automatically get the correct results from some sports feed- but as a result, it's getting them in real time and re-computing the spreadsheet as the game is being played. Do you know if there is any way to sort the spreadsheet when viewing it, like in Excel? I.e., see who's got the most total points, or the most points in week 2, etc? (on preview: that Weatherford run on an apparent punt situation to get the 1st down with 17 seconds left in the 2nd- ballsy and damn entertaining!!!)
posted by hincandenza at 08:40 PM on January 13
hincandenza picks BAL by 7 NO by 3 SEA by 7 NE by 10 Shaun Alexander, 145 yards. The line, and probably smart money, goes for CHI and SD instead of SEA and NE. But I live in Seattle, and am from New England, so what the hell. I think Seattle has a decent chance of gelling, and in doing so showing that they are a better team than their record. Or, they may fold like a house of cards... Plus, NE is 10-1 in the playoffs during the Brady/Belichick era, with 3 Superbowl wins. That means they've lost one game in the 4 years they've made the playoffs. Until proven wrong, I have no reason to not pick the Patriots all the way through to the Superbowl. Their win last week shows to me that NE was a slumbering giant, doing the old Chicago Bulls trick of coasting in the regular season and saving your energy for the playoffs. When you're that talented, you can do this. I think NE wins this in convincing fashion. The Chargers are good, they are talented, they are balanced- but they aren't NE. I haven't counted the actual picks, so I'm curious to see if SpoFi is following the money line/hometeam/conventional wisdom, or if we're picking NE overwhelming for example, due to the presumed "New England Mystique". :)
I'm curious how you do it. A separate pick and spread average is one way, but there's a certain value to a sum of all spreads with direction to determine the pick in the sense of confidence as a factor. In other words, if one team's supporters are predicting a marginal win, while the other team's are predicting a blowout, the overall 'confidence' is leaning towards the blowout team, even if the total # of picks per team give the edge to the small margin of victory.
- NE by 6: The majority picks NE, and the overall spread average is (10+5+3)/3 = 6
- NE by 4: The majority pick is NE, and the NE pickers only averaged 4 in their spread. The SD spread picks are discounted once the raw team majority is computed
- SD by 10: The spread+pick sums to a collective lean towards SD by 2 (if SD is + and NE is -, then +10 -5 -3), or an average of SD by 2/3. Thus SD is the collective pick using the overall spread+pick, and like in the item above the SD only average spread is 10
- SD by .67: See above
posted by hincandenza at 07:00 PM on January 10
Nice looking spreadsheet! Thanks for the rules clarification, apoch- I like the way you've decided that you can get points on the spread if you hit it exactly whether or not you pick the winner, but are only eligible for the margin-of-error point if you did get the winner right. I guess that also means that if you hit the spread exactly but not the team- you'd get one point and not two, because while you got the spread exactly you don't qualify for the margin-of-error point as well since you got the winning team wrong. Just to make sure I understand, then: the bonus question is the running back (or person, on the assumption that it will be a back anyway?) with the most rushing yards next weekend out of all four games.
None of these picks are in any way related- you can get the latter two by picking the yardage exactly, you can get the first two by picking the back and the yardage within 15, you can get the second choice only (1 point total) by getting the yardage within 15 yards but with the wrong name.
- 1 point: pick the right name
- 1 point: pick the yardage within 15 yards
- 1 point: pick the yardage exactly
posted by hincandenza at 09:49 PM on January 07
Nevermind on my last post- apoch clarified the rules nicely in his latest LR post. Much obliged!
posted by hincandenza at 09:38 PM on January 07
I guess you copy/pasted those rules from DJE. However, I'd like to toss out that historically, past NFL playoff pick'ems were run with each pick as independent: you could pick the spread independent of the winner, independent of the over/under, independent of MVP, etc (so your separate picks can be hedging each other). Granted, in past NFL pick'ems we didn't do the margin-of-error, and often had different value for the picks (i.e., because the spread was a dead-on pick, it was worth 2 points, etc). But as DJE says: this is your pick'em, feel free to say now what you want the rules to be and how you meant it. Don't let us old fogeys badger you around! :) So while the bullet points do imply that the spread is tied to picking the winner, they don't say that you have to pick the winner to get the spread (just that if you did both, you'd get 2 or 3 points). I know that I'd be happy with them as different picks for this and future weekends. It makes it more interesting, I think: you can actually find yourself rooting for a team to lose that you had picked, when you realize that you'll make more points if they don't score and keep the spread at, say, 3. So my vote, for what it's worth, is that we should go with the independent picks method: it what I thought it would be until mid-thread, and it's how SpoFi has played in the past- and it also sounds like it's how apoch was already keeping score so far. In any event- you're doing a great job as Commish this year, apoch! Lord knows I've been where you are, and it makes for very busy but very fun weekends! :)
posted by hincandenza at 07:35 PM on January 07
Holy cow- that was SOME Seattle/Dallas game! Sweet jesus, what an ending! No one got the spread (although I still think the spread points should be awarded regardless of hte winner pick- a couple of crazy Nostradami picked Cowboys by 1!).
posted by hincandenza at 10:25 PM on January 06
Alas! If my picks had stayed at 10.5 for Indy, I'd have gotten the m-o-e point (since the 15 point spread - 0.3*15 = 10.5 exactly). Only drjohnevans, gspm, and Mr. Bismarck have picked Indy within the margin of 10.5-19.5, and are leading early with 2; lots of other people have 1, and quite a few with none so far. Man, I love pick'ems action! Go Seahawks!
posted by hincandenza at 08:04 PM on January 06
Well, it'd be more insulting if you weren't still [proudly] displaying your Costanza on your user page. :)
posted by hincandenza at 02:38 PM on January 04
Ohhhh! Yes, I was misunderstanding. I had it reversed- I thought one's pick defined the allowed actual spread, but it's the actual spread that defines the margin of allowed picks. Heh- BIG difference. Thanks for "integerizing" my picks. I'll stop troubling you now! :)
posted by hincandenza at 01:55 PM on January 03
The assumption I'm making is that the +/- .3 means that a pick of "10" covers all spreads from 7 through 13, while a pick of "10.5" covers that additional 14th point. Similarly, a pick of "7.5" covers 5 through 10 points, while "7" covers only 5 through 9- and a TD+FG (10 points) is a not uncommon winning margin. So there is no way I can get 12 points this week, and may be gritting my teeth if any of these games end up as exactly 10 or 7 point spreads (since I'll be losing a point I'd have otherwise had). But it also means that I'm picking NE to win by 10; if NE wins by two TDs, I won't miss getting that second point. The advantage is I'm giving up any chance at the third point on each game, in return for picking a slightly wider spread that hopefully earns me a point where one might have been lost. Anyway, my final picks are unchanged from the original- sorry for the churn! :(
Winner Spread Indy by 10.5 Seattle by 7.5 NE by 10.5 Phi by 7.5
posted by hincandenza at 01:36 PM on January 03
Yep- like I said above, I understand and accept that consequence. The thinking is that 10.5 means I can cover spreads of 7 through 14 instead of 7 through 13, increasing my chances of catching the spread within a margin of error. The use of 7.5 might be less intelligent- since 7 is a common outcome, and the increase in spread size isn't as meaningful. If you're cool with it, I wouldn't mind making those 7.5's into straight 7's and then letting it be set in stone... even though I posted 15 minutes ago saying changes shouldn't be allowed... :) One thing unclear from the rules: do you not get a point if you get the spread, but not the winner? The post seems to imply that you only get the 1 or 2 points from the spread if you pick the winner, as opposed to them being separate but cumulative picks (i.e., playing you can get 8 of 12 points by nailing the spread dead-on in every game... even if you pick the wrong team in every one)
posted by hincandenza at 01:15 PM on January 03
Did willthrill72 pick? I want the opposite of his choices throughout the playoffs. :) Ah, I see that he and grum have indeed picked... but I agree with some of their choices! :o What to do, what to do...
Um... I assume there's no rule against non-integer spread picks? I chose numbers that, when using the apoch/Dr.JohnEvans formula would maximize the size of the spread around the number I was picking. I figure it's fair given that I'm giving up the possibility of that third point for nailing the pick dead on in return for marginally increasing the size of the window (i.e., 10.5 means I cover a full one through two touchdown window). So I'm limiting myself to a maximum of 8 points instead of 12 for this round, but increasing my odds of getting closer to that 8 points. If apoch is not cool with this, he can just round down my picks to 10's and 7's. Also, I agree with the not changing your picks- while as commish in the past I allowed any updates/picks right up to the moment of kickoff for that game, I think it's fair to expect people to stick with their choices and not be too wishy-washy. The only exception I think should be the Superbowl itself: if you're a contender behind the front-runner, you might want to adjust your picks to differ from your competition on the principle that it's the only way to win.
Winner Spread Indy by 10.5 Seattle by 7.5 NE by 10.5 Phi by 7.5
posted by hincandenza at 12:58 PM on January 03
3 seconds, 9 seconds, and 57 seconds. I may be mistaken on the intermediate score (might have been 11), but the others I remember clearly- I've done 3 on more than a few occasions. I used to be a minesweeper junkie way back in the day. Feel free to bask in my awesomeness!!!
posted by hincandenza at 01:53 AM on July 15
Where does JG get off slamming me like that?! Hmph... methinks she's still just bitter about that Randy Johnson paternity thread... Thanks for the props YYM, at least someone here likes me! :)
posted by hincandenza at 09:31 PM on May 30
I can't seem to post comments to threads on the main page right now. :(
posted by hincandenza at 03:29 AM on February 27
And part 2- apparently the comments field has a limit on size, although the error was just "Sorry, we had trouble entering your comment".
| NFL 2006 PLAYOFFS PICK 'EM FINAL RESULTS | |||||
| SpoFite | Wild Card Round | Divisional Round | Conference Round | SuperBowl | TOTAL |
| mbd1 | 12 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 24 |
| falconsfan | 8 | 4 | 10 | 2 | 24 |
| jlimm1959 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 0 | 24 |
| thatweirdguy2 | 13 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 24 |
| littleLebowski (inc) | 12 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 24 |
| Ying Yang Mafia | 8 | 11 | 2 | 2 | 23 |
| cl | 12 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 23 |
| billsaysthis | 6 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 22 |
| DrJohnEvans | 6 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 21 |
| YukonGold | 6 | 9 | 6 | 0 | 21 |
| catfish | 8 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 20 |
| danostuporstar | 6 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 20 |
| skydivedad | 4 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 19 |
| grabofsky74 (inc) | 0 | 8 | 11 | 0 | 19 |
| panoptican | 10 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 19 |
| chicobangs | 8 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 18 |
| tselson | 8 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 18 |
| drevl (inc) | 8 | 8 | 0 | 2 | 18 |
| grum@work | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 16 |
| willthrill72 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 16 |
| babooze808 (inc) | 13 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 15 |
| ProSam (inc) | 12 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 14 |
| zac4667 (inc) | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 |
| kgken (inc) | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
posted by hincandenza at 06:38 AM on February 09
Just posting this table in this thread for future reference, since I'll probably edit my user profile at some point and it won't be stored there.
| NFL 2006 PLAYOFFS PICK 'EM FINAL RESULTS | |||||
| SpoFite | Wild Card Round | Divisional Round | Conference Round | SuperBowl | TOTAL |
| smithers | 8 | 21 | 8 | 6 | 43 |
| MeatSaber | 12 | 13 | 7 | 9 | 41 |
| Saxman | 8 | 13 | 10 | 8 | 39 |
| The_Black_Hand | 12 | 18 | 5 | 4 | 39 |
| dusted | 10 | 10 | 10 | 6 | 36 |
| owlhouse | 9 | 13 | 7 | 6 | 35 |
| rcade | 8 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 34 |
| yerfatma | 11 | 16 | 3 | 4 | 34 |
| Texan_lost_in_NY | 10 | 15 | 7 | 2 | 34 |
| azdano | 6 | 8 | 10 | 8 | 32 |
| NoMich | 10 | 6 | 10 | 6 | 32 |
| UfezJones | 10 | 6 | 10 | 6 | 32 |
| jojomfd1 (inc) | 0 | 17 | 10 | 4 | 31 |
| tron7 | 12 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 30 |
| terrapin | 8 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 30 |
| skydivemom | 6 | 6 | 11 | 6 | 29 |
| gspm | 8 | 10 | 7 | 4 | 29 |
| goddam | 6 | 10 | 11 | 2 | 29 |
| chris2sy | 14 | 11 | 2 | 2 | 29 |
| 86 | 8 | 4 | 12 | 4 | 28 |
| justgary | 8 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 27 |
| lil_brown_bat | 9 | 11 | 7 | 0 | 27 |
| rainbaby | 10 | 12 | 2 | 2 | 26 |
| SPOFI COLLECTIVE | 8 | 6 | 3 | 8 | 25 |
| Hal Incandenza | 12 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 25 |
posted by hincandenza at 06:36 AM on February 09
I'd like to thank everyone for playing- I hope you had as much fun playing as I did being Commish this year! I'm also proud to have introduced the first instance of what I hope will be a tradition here at SpoFi, of awarding the Costanza trophy to the worst player in the field each year. Thanks go to gpsm who spent much time designing the final Costanza plaque, and to ProSam who contributed some great designs as well. The mighty dusted also has his classic winning banner design used for yet another SpoFi Fantasy playoffs contest. Our winners should feel proud to hoist these elegant and beautiful trophies in their user profile pages. For those who've won this year, please copy the images in my profile page and host them yourselves- I'm currently hosting those images on my personal computer, so it's not a long-term solution. Alternately, to our much admired pantheon of Admins, I think the SpoFi community would be grateful if you could host the myriad of awards banners here on the site itself. I am still available to write a "Hall Of Fame" .cfm page if you're willing to assist me in getting it implemented. :)
posted by hincandenza at 11:13 PM on February 05
Hi, grum, I'm Curtom Bradyschilling. Nice to meet you... Man, the green-eyed monster rears its ugly head. It's rough, having every sports fan on the planet wish they were so fortunate as to root for the hometown teams of the loyal New England fan base... By the way, let me be the first (in this thread at least) to roundly congratulate NoMich on his running of this playoff run. He kept it friendly, loose, and interesting through all 4 weekends of the playoffs. His updates were timely, and his scoring was accurate. You can't ask for better than that!!! By the way, BillSaysThis: I believe the below banner belongs to you. Feel free to save the image and host it on your user page (or make a better one that I can; it'll disappear from that link soon enough- and hey, SpoFi gods, when you gonna start hosting these banners on the SpoFi server where they belong?!?). 
posted by hincandenza at 03:49 AM on February 07
Ack! I woulda won (or at least tied for 1st at 23) if I'd just played all weeks. :( I coulda hoisted a second banner on my user page... I woulda been a dynasty!!! I guess I'll just have to live with my football team joining the most elite of NFL franchises by winning 3 of 4 super bowls, mere months after my baseball team mounted a historic, unprecedented, mindblowing, apocalypse heralding World Series Championship. It's a tough cross to bear, being a New England sports fan these days...
posted by hincandenza at 12:01 AM on February 07
Winning Team: Patriots MVP: Corey Dillon Margin: 14 Total: 54
posted by hincandenza at 01:13 AM on February 04
lbb, I think we have to wait until another thread is spawned by NoMich sometime this week, with the official rules/spread/picks, before the SB conversation picks back up. Hey, curious, though: am I the only one who thinks that the biggest value of the "T.O.: Will he play?" drama is in the impact to the Patriots coaching staff? Even though it's really just a tiny possibility Owens makes an improbable appearance despite such a recent, serious injury, the legendary Patriots coaching staff, will effectively have to draw up two different sets of defensive setups, and run their players through two different sets of practice routines. Granted, they'll probably set up their practices mostly around an Owens-less Philadelphia, with only a small portion of time on how to neutralize Owens, just based on the odds that he's healthy enough to play effectively. Still, it may be the one way of minimizing that brilliant staff: make the Eagles roster uncertain enough that the Patriots aren't truly sure even what "team" they'll be playing on the 6th!
posted by hincandenza at 05:23 AM on January 31
Here's my attempt to make this sensible. We can choose to play this way for the Superbowl, or using the method used this time. How spread betting works: Technically, the Vegas line is such that you don't bet on the team to win/lose outright, as this would lead to imbalanced betting. This is probably the source of "cover the spread" confusion among many people here. The "spread" is not a separate bet- it is the definition of your bet! For example, a significant majority of betters will probably go with NE for the Superbowl, which means Vegas would lose a bundle if they had to pay out for NE. If NE wins by even 1 point, and 90% of people picked NE, then Vegas is paying 9 winners to every 1 loser. This is a situation where Vegas itself is in effect being a bettor, favoring one team over the other, and thus in a position to lose money depending on the outcome of the game. This is not something Vegas likes to do. :) The Spread line is used to encourage betting on both teams equally So instead of a straight A/B choice, Vegas sets a spread line, which is very much like a golf handicap. This allows Vegas to create consistent betting situations where the two teams can be wildly mismatched, but still allow the bets placed to be even in the end by making the bet itself seem "even" in the bettor's minds. The Vegas line is such that when they set it at "NE -7.0", what they're saying is that they expect betting to favor NE fairly heavily right out of the gate, so as such are giving NE a handicap of 7 points. Vegas is making a prediction not of the game, but of the bettors! You, the bettor, then either bet on the Patriots or the Eagles, but not quite as a straight A/B choice: whichever team you pick you are by definition picking to "cover the spread". So, if you bet on the Patriots, they have to win by at least 7 for your bet to pay off. If you bet on the Eagles, then you're not actually betting the Eagles win at all, per se; you're only betting that the Eagles don't lose by more than 7 (i.e., lose by less than 7, or win outright). The opening line is a best-guess prediction by the betting firms on what will entice bettors to place their bets equally between the two teams; then, as bettors place their bets, they adjust that line frequently, so that their total risk is balanced- in other words, so that regardless of what happens in the game, the total bets on either side will cancel each other out, and Vegas takes home their fee. Why the spread line can move over the next two weeks The key thing to understand is that Vegas doesn't actually care about football, or care about predicting the outcome in any meaningful fashion. They care only about money. So, as people place bets, the line will be adjusted for new bettors after that, to compensate for how the bets are falling so far. If people still rush disproportionately to NE at 7.0, Vegas will push the line further toward NE. This is not because they think that NE will win big, but rather it's an attempt to encourage people to start betting the other way, and thus even out the bets. If the line were announced at NE -40, suddenly everybody would bet heavily on Philadelphia, because even people like myself who think NE will win, well- no way NE wins by 40 points, right?! Vegas just moves the line (obviously a little more gracefully than -7 to -40) as bets are made so that the bettors themselves effectively define the point spread. Even if Vegas didn't think the Patriots would win by 40, if moving the line to -40 is what it takes to even out the bets, Vegas would move that line in a heartbeat. What Vegas wants in the end is that the total bet on one side is equal to the total bet on the other side. In this way, regardless of the final score or victor, Vegas pays out one half the bets winnings with the other half's losings- while taking their 10% cut from the winners, also known as the "vig". This is their guaranteed profit! How we played here at Sportsfilter All that said above on how "real" betting works, what I think the rules were for this last round were a more fun-based "pick the winner, but separately pick the spread" method. This is entirely different from how they do it in Vegas; what I thought I understood from NoMich is that the rules for Sportsfilter were "Pick the team to win, as a straight A/B choice". Then, independent of that, "pick whether Team A or B covers the spread", meaning that either the favored Team A wins by at least the spread, or whether underdog team B wins, or loses by less than the spread. So unlike Vegas, our rules seem to allow saying "New England will win, but I don't think they'll win by the spread, so I'll pick Pittsburgh to cover the spread". In Vegas, these two bets would be mutually exclusive. Given that there's no money in this, and thus that there's no reason to move the spread line to keep bets balanced, I think it's perfectly fine to use this method for the Superbowl. It just means we all have to be clear on how it works in Sportsfilter vs. how it works in real Vegas, and make sure our picks declare exactly what we're predicting so there's no confusion in terminology. Anyway, I hope that this helped, in all its longwindedness, some people understand the spread line in Vegas, as well as our own unique homegrown version here at SpoFi.
posted by hincandenza at 04:19 AM on January 24
I'm with lbb. There's no money involved, only pride, and we don't have the kind of sleazy types who'd lie for a silly little banner (so if you want to spot me 7 points for my virtual picks in the first two rounds, please do so. :) ) Where the person picked the underdog, and then used the phrase "covers the spread" they clearly meant the underdog covered the spread (their pick would be nonsensical otherwise). But for those people where it's unclear- such as "NE, covers, over"- whether they meant the underdog covers the spread but still loses, or the favorite covers the spread by winning by a larger margin than predicted, we might as well use people's honesty here. But as a lesson, you really should have typed out what you mean when you said "cover", so there couldn't be confusion. :)
posted by hincandenza at 09:45 PM on January 23
Pats win/ Pats cover the spread/ Over. Sah-weet! Mah boys going to the Superbowl for the 3rd time in 4 years! I smell a DYNASTY cookin'!!!
posted by hincandenza at 08:53 PM on January 23
It's all but ovah! The pats made this a long drive, and the score stands at an ironic 34-20 right now (though that will probably change soon enough)
posted by hincandenza at 08:51 PM on January 23
Critical call here- if the Pats get another catch overturned, it's still a game; otherwise, if the interception call stands, the game's all but over.
posted by hincandenza at 08:40 PM on January 23
Nope, I'm with you weedster. If Philly "covers the spread" it means they win by at least the predicted margin. If Atlanta "covers the spread" it means they win, or lose by less than the predicted margin. In any event, that's why I made clear to plain-text my predictions in parentheticals, so there wouldn't be confusion for NoMich. And the Pats just put a FG up on the board in this time-consuming drive; any future NE scoring all but seals it barring a miraculous comeback by PIT. But the NE defense has been missing this whole second half, which scares me deeply. PIT is scoring, and scoring quickly, in this 2nd half. :(
posted by hincandenza at 08:32 PM on January 23
Yeah, i was rootin' for Vick to get the meaningless touchdown there- it'd have made it 27-17, for a PHI-cover-over scenario. Drats! Surprised the Eagles held the Falcons to just 10.... but good for them! 'Bout time the Eagles made the Superbowl, although I suspect they'll still lose to whomever comes out of the AFC. This is why I don't gamble in real life; I can't imagine watching that game and eating my fingernails when the game is over but I've got money on Vick making a last minute score.... On preview: what's with the time stamps? I'm seeing posts at 5:07p PST on january 23rd; when it's 3:06pm PST right now!
posted by hincandenza at 05:24 PM on January 23
NE @ PIT
posted by hincandenza at 09:48 PM on January 19
Yes, awesome job NoMich; the graphs are sharp, the results up-to-date... huzzah!
posted by hincandenza at 11:21 PM on January 16
Yep, tied with trox at 7 points, with jasonspaceman, MeatSaber, and rocketman right behind. Incidentally, is there a reason you get 2 points for nailing the spread exactly, as opposed to getting 1 point for picking an over/under on an official spread or total, or picking a spread/over/under yourself (i.e., "Steelers win by at least 14")?
posted by hincandenza at 09:16 PM on January 16
Sweet jesus, this is a LOPDSIDED game in New England. [strongbad]Holy Freakin' Crap!![/strongbad]
posted by hincandenza at 06:37 PM on January 16
MLB Post-Season Pick 'Em, World Series Edition
Wow- so I can't possibly win, nor can I possibly get the Costanza. Such joy. :)
I guess I'll pick:
the Yankees to sweep in 4 (ensuring a Phillies win),
name A-Rod the MVP,
under 101.6 pitch average for the starting pitchers,
3 hours and 31 minutes.