There's a good chance we don't win out

Status
Not open for further replies.
#202
#202
vtvol98 said:
Stoops has really turned them around. I was very concerned about this game earlier in the season. I feel like Josh Dobbs will do an encore performance of what Dak Prescott did to them Saturday.
Click to expand...

Agreed. They are much improved, but even though they are and do have a good passing game, which could be lethal, I like our chances having seen them against Dak.
 
#203
#203
Stats are helpful in making predictions. They are the stuff of analysts and commentators. I am a FAN, so I don't care about these stats. I look at the five teams we are playing and, at this point, I can see us beating all of them handily. Injuries on our team could change that, but I don't see any of these teams becoming significantly better than they are right now, which means we should beat them all. But this is why they play the games, right?
 
#204
#204
IzzyFoReal said:
Stats are helpful in making predictions. They are the stuff of analysts and commentators. I am a FAN, so I don't care about these stats. I look at the five teams we are playing and, at this point, I can see us beating all of them handily. Injuries on our team could change that, but I don't see any of these teams becoming significantly better than they are right now, which means we should beat them all. But this is why they play the games, right?
Click to expand...

...matchups as well. UK wont be easy to stop for our secondary, and neither will Mizzou since they reinstated Mauk.
 
#205
#205
Kentucky is the only loss left that's even possible. Every single team after that is horrible. And sorry to burst your bubble but I just don't see us losing to UK.
 
#206
#206
IzzyFoReal said:
Stats are helpful in making predictions. They are the stuff of analysts and commentators. I am a FAN, so I don't care about these stats. I look at the five teams we are playing and, at this point, I can see us beating all of them handily. Injuries on our team could change that, but I don't see any of these teams becoming significantly better than they are right now, which means we should beat them all. But this is why they play the games, right?
Click to expand...

As individual games, yes we should beat the teams. As a collection of 5 games, we probably won't win all 5. Like the free throw analogy, I should hit each individual free throw. However, I am probably going to miss 2 free throws out of ten, which is still good.

Or looking at it another way, we will beat Vandy. But what about if Vandy beats us for 1 quarter? That's no big deal of course, and is an anomaly, right? Think of the last 4 sec games as 1 game, and the individual games as a quarter . A team only has to beat us for a quarter of our remaining schedule for us to get a loss. There's a good chance (40% or better) that is going to happen
 
#207
#207
goldvol said:
Sorry, sir. It has nothing to do with disrespecting the UT football program. In fact, it's just the opposite. If the entire fanbase gets their hopes up (unrealistically) of being 5-0 from here on out, that could have a negative impact on the program, recruiting, and coach Jones.
Click to expand...

Dude, you feel like you want and we will think how we want. Winners expect to win, we need to win out and we can win out. Math be damned it doesn't play the game, we have good reason to think we can win out. So I say don't worry about me or my hopes they can handle it, players are not a bunch of fragile Frankie's and neither are most fans. We realize anything can happen in sports, we also realize without confidence you may as well pack your bags and go home. We're gonna WIN OUT!!! GBO!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#208
#208
ksgovols said:
That's the definition of an Oxymoron. Smart at what?

Winning percentages are never exactly 100% and the more games you play the chances of losing get higher. Even for Ohio State or Baylor.
Click to expand...

Do you have a 401k?

If so, you are gambling.

You're just paying someone else to hopefully know enough to lower your risk.

There are people who invest in sports betting the same way. Many actually have much higher returns, over a much longer time period, than any 401k I know of.

The difference is that sports, and the betting aspect, are much more assessable to the commoner. The common sports fan knows nothing of what actually drives wins and losses much like the average person with a 401k knows nothing of how to actually trade an individual stock.

EDIT: I just re-read your last sentence. These are independent events. Why would the chance of losing get higher as time goes forward? I think you are using what is called the ''gambler's fallacy.''
 
Last edited:
#209
#209
daniel3417 said:
Yes, when you cube .73 and multiply that by .85, would get .33. Good work on the calculator. However, you need to adjust the formula after each win. After we beat Kentucky, it's only squaring .73 and multiplying by .85. Then just .73 times .85.

Looking at this as one string of events is a statically incorrect viewpoint. And yes, I'd love to take a bet on this. By your math, I need 3 to 1 payout odds.
Click to expand...

Vegas will take your parlay.
 
#210
#210
goldvol said:
Don't expect to win out. Math doesn't expect us to win out. Butch doesn't expect us to win out (he only focuses on the next game). You start expecting us to go 5-0 from here, you are probably going to be disappointed and will ultimately want to fire Butch.

Take Kentucky, of which we are a 7.5 point favorite. Historically, we will win about 73% of the time with this spread. South Carolina and Missouri will have similar spreads, if not a closer game. Let's assume the Vandy spread is 14 (85% chance to win). I'll assume North Texas is 100%, even though it's not.

So we are 73% favorites in 3 games and 85% favorites in 1 game. Looks like we are big favorites to win, right?
Wrong. With these odds, the odds of being undefeated from here on out is only 33%. 2 out of 3 times we will have at least 1 loss.

Feel free to adjust the percentages within reason. You can make us 90% favorite in each of the last games, and we still only go undefeated 2 out of 3 times.

I am a fan. I want to win every game. We are probably favored in every game. We are the better team in every game. However, we probably will finish 7-5 this year.
Click to expand...

There is a 90% chance that I wasn't ready for 40% of these figures.
 
#211
#211
goldvol said:
You guys either are either hustlers, or you need to check your math. With your math, if it's 50% chance of winning (coin flip), would you suggest I give 2 to 1 odds? :) If 33% is the actual odds of winning out, the correct odds would be 2 to 1. So to be a good bet for me, I would give something like 1.5 to 1 to a person that is overly confident that we will win.

3 to 1 would be saying we have a 25% chance to win out.
Click to expand...

It's really surprising how bad people are at understanding this. It like a coin toss, instead of a 50/50 chance of either outcome, it's 70/30 based on talent. Using those percentages, it can actually be calculated what should be expected in a five event series, just like you can calculate the likelihood that you should get all five heads when you flip a coin.

That being said, we have a 70% chance to win Saturday. Take that for what it's worth, worry about the rest later.
 
#212
#212
goldvol said:
Are you saying you are so confident in Tennessee winning that you would put money on them to win out?
If I am betting on a Tennessee game, I always bet against them. That way I always win. Tennessee wins or I get some money.
Click to expand...

That's not good gambling. You're still losing money.
 
#213
#213
I don't get how anyone capable of two digit division can disagree with what the op is saying.
 
#215
#215
This is one model. The probablity calculation is not bad, and I'm not saying it's a bad model, but I think we can do better.

This particular model is based on historic win percentage against real and estimated point spreads.

One way you could improve it is by more accurately estimating future point spreads.

Instead of doing that, you might also consider other variables in an effort to get more accurate percentages for a particular game.

For example, what is the historic win percentage against a particular point spread when taking into account rushing yards per game and rush defense?

The trick here is picking meaningful variables. I think some analysis could be done to determine which variables have the most significance.

Along related lines, I've been toying with the idea of scraping stats sites and using learning algorithms to choose who to take for a given game with a given spread.

I was thinking of maybe using support vector machines or something similar.
 
#216
#216
goldvol said:
Don't expect to win out. Math doesn't expect us to win out. Butch doesn't expect us to win out (he only focuses on the next game). You start expecting us to go 5-0 from here, you are probably going to be disappointed and will ultimately want to fire Butch.

Take Kentucky, of which we are a 7.5 point favorite. Historically, we will win about 73% of the time with this spread. South Carolina and Missouri will have similar spreads, if not a closer game. Let's assume the Vandy spread is 14 (85% chance to win). I'll assume North Texas is 100%, even though it's not.

So we are 73% favorites in 3 games and 85% favorites in 1 game. Looks like we are big favorites to win, right?
Wrong. With these odds, the odds of being undefeated from here on out is only 33%. 2 out of 3 times we will have at least 1 loss.

Feel free to adjust the percentages within reason. You can make us 90% favorite in each of the last games, and we still only go undefeated 2 out of 3 times.

I am a fan. I want to win every game. We are probably favored in every game. We are the better team in every game. However, we probably will finish 7-5 this year.
Click to expand...

Historically, we've beaten Kentucky 34 out of 35 times and it took Derek Stooley to lose that one. Ain't no coin flip model gone predict that.

If it weren't for Derek Stooley, those would essentially be the numbers for Vandy too.

All of you are treating this like a hyper coin flip. You've added one layer of complexity to your model but it's still just a coin flip that is 70:30 instead of 50:50 which is not college football.

Daj is telling me we lost to Florida because Rivals said they were more talented over the last four years. Anyone who watched the game has an answer for that: HOGWASH.

Here is all you need to know. We are more talented by a large margin over everyone else on the schedule. If we lose another game, we have to look squarely at the BSiA.
 
#217
#217
I just find this premise to be disingenuous because it lacks context. Even if we take the numbers (which are subjectively derived) at face value, to say that having a slightly greater than 50% chance to win out doesn't even remotely mean that it is LIKELY that we won't win out. It would simply mean that either scenario ( we win out vs. we don't win out) seems equally probable. So with all else being allegedly equal, we should be left to decide for ourselves where to set our expectations relative to other teams (which is where the context comes in).
 
#218
#218
GBO97 said:
Kentucky is the only loss left that's even possible. Every single team after that is horrible. And sorry to burst your bubble but I just don't see us losing to UK.
Click to expand...

Missouri has a really good defense, it's a crummy trip up there, and it's probably going to be a night game when it's cold as hell. Not exactly a stretch to imagine us coming out flat and getting in a rockfight. If you don't think a loss there is "even possible" then you haven't been watching college football very long.
 
#219
#219
37620VOL said:
The stock market averages a 7% annual return. Gambling is pretty much the opposite. But other than that you nailed it.
Click to expand...

Averages are great, but they aren't a guarantee. Without a guaranteed return how are you not 'gambling'?

I think you would be hard pressed to find a definition of gambling that doesn't fit what most call investing, or vice versa. Ask thousands of people who were set to retire about 2008-2010 if the average growth of X% meant that they didn't have a huge portion of their wealth erased in a very short time. It made no difference to them what the market averages. When they timed their withdrawal from the market, they had lost.

But, that is my point. There are people who 'sports invest' in a way that returns far better than 7%, for far longer periods. Gambling, in my view, is what people do who don't have the requisite knowledge or skill to eradicate risk enough to be profitable wagering on market or sports fluctuations. Investing is what those do who have that necessary skill set. If you are allowing someone else to do it for you, you are gambling that they have the skills you lack. By the time you pay their fees, and realize that few funds actually match the S&P for long periods of time, then (at least in my view) letting someone else play with your money is gambling.
 
Last edited:
#221
#221
daj2576 said:
Averages are great, but they aren't a guarantee. Without a guaranteed return how are you not 'gambling'?
Click to expand...

You're talking about day traders vs professional gamblers. I'm talking about average investors versus average gamblers. In the difference is that investing has a bath then 7% return where the opposite is true for gambling.
 
#223
#223
Vercingetorix said:
Missouri has a really good defense, it's a crummy trip up there, and it's probably going to be a night game when it's cold as hell. Not exactly a stretch to imagine us coming out flat and getting in a rockfight. If you don't think a loss there is "even possible" then you haven't been watching college football very long.
Click to expand...

The 1st year MU came in the conference they were horrible ended up 5 and 7. One of their 5 wins was against us in overtime. Of course the outlier is that was a Dooley team. We are 0 and 3 lifetime against this team with the ugly uniforms , that needs to change and they need to become our 3rd UK and Vandy.
 
#225
#225
Well One thing i am sure of . Bookies do not play the game neither do accountants . But the whole discussion has been entertaining .
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top