+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

Thread: Expert picks...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    141
    Rep Power
    5

    Expert picks...

    Here are the records of ESPN's "experts" picking all games straight up:

    Allen 65.8%
    Golic 65.1
    Hoge 63.7
    Jaworski 67.6
    Mortensen 57.5
    Schefter 60.3
    Schlereth 64.4
    Wickersham 63.7

    And beating them all is a poll of ESPN's idiot userbase: 67.8

    But the absolute best picker?

    The Accuscore Computer: 68.5

    I for one welcome our new electronic masters...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    No relation to Bloatasaurus Rex or Mullet Bob
    Posts
    524
    Rep Power
    6
    The idea of sports 'experts' is silly.

    Picking games straight-up, you start out at 50% just picking teams at random. Add 10% if you actually know anything about football. Add 5% more if you follow it closely. Bam.

    I for one welcome our new electronic masters...
    I, for one, am not impressed by an expensive and complex computer system which produces results 1% more accurate than ESPN's idiot userbase, especially when Accuscore makes CHFF Insider look like a wise investment ($50 per month or $300 per year).
    Second verse,

    same as the first.


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    MarshVegas
    Posts
    2,069
    Rep Power
    8
    Lets look at last weeks games, home teams to the right.

    OAK/SD coinflip
    KC/DEN Coinflip
    JAX/IND coinflip
    NO/ATL coinflip
    PIT/CIN coinflip
    TENN/CAR coinflip
    AZ/PHI PHI a huge favorite who lost.
    Buff/DAL advantage Dallas
    STL/CLE advantage CLE and they lost
    WAS/MIA in my opinion advantage Miami but tons of people liked the Skins
    BAL/SEA Baltimore a huge favorite lost
    NY/SF slight advantage SF but lots of people liked the Giants coming off the NE win
    DET/CHI Slight advantage CHI IMO but lots of people liked Detriot because of their earlier game and offense
    NE/NYJ Everybody loved the Jets coming off three straight wins with the Pats losing two and the recent history of this series in NY.
    Minn/GB Huge favorite finally wins one

    If you want to nitpick some of my coinflips fine but given home field most of those were pretty damn even. If you can pick 65-70% I think it's pretty damn good. Most of the ESPN experts, like most of us, also have the clouded judgement issue of bias. The Steelers could be playing the Packers in GB with Ben and Troy out and he's finding a reason to take the Steelers.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    MarshVegas
    Posts
    2,069
    Rep Power
    8
    We should have done a CHFF pick em' league. Last time we did one I was in that 65-70% range. This year I've been picking the games on yahoo just by myself and I've done awful. I'm at 61%. Put your picks if you dare.

    I had Denver so I'm including that.

    Oakland over Minn
    Miami over Buffalo
    Cinn over Balt
    Clev over Jax
    Dallas over Wash
    GB over TB
    DET over CAR
    STL over SEA
    SF over AZ
    ATL over TENN
    CHI over SD
    NYG over PHI
    NE over KC

    I really want to pick the upsets with PHI, TENN and TB based on a feeling more than anything rational.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    73
    Rep Power
    5
    I'm on yahoo too--and I've actually beaten Mike Silver a couple of times (last week included--last week was an ass-kicker eh?). I'm at 66.67%.

    Den over NYJ
    Oak over Min
    Buf over Mia
    Bal over Cin
    Cle over Jax
    Dal over Was
    GB over TB
    Det over Car
    StL over Sea
    SF over Ari
    Atl over Ten
    Chi over SD
    NYG over Phi
    NE over KC

    Hopefully better than the 8-8 I went last weekend, though actually getting the Denver game right helps...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    164
    Rep Power
    6
    In somewhat related news, I f*cking hate CHFF's "gut instinct" farce. Especially since it was created to spit in the faces of the people who didn't shell out money for their Insider.
    Last edited by queso_cabeza; 11-19-11 at 09:22 PM.
    ...Oh, my life.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    No relation to Bloatasaurus Rex or Mullet Bob
    Posts
    524
    Rep Power
    6
    Which is, everybody?

    Who actually pays for Insider?
    Second verse,

    same as the first.


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    141
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
    The idea of sports 'experts' is silly.

    Picking games straight-up, you start out at 50% just picking teams at random. Add 10% if you actually know anything about football. Add 5% more if you follow it closely. Bam.



    I, for one, am not impressed by an expensive and complex computer system which produces results 1% more accurate than ESPN's idiot userbase, especially when Accuscore makes CHFF Insider look like a wise investment ($50 per month or $300 per year).
    I think you missed my point. The computer thing was for fun. What I was trying to get across is that when the experts decide to buck the conventional wisdom because they feel they have a deeper insight on the game, they are wrong more often than not. And not just most of ESPNs experts, but every single one of them is more wrong than right compared to football fans as a whole.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    No relation to Bloatasaurus Rex or Mullet Bob
    Posts
    524
    Rep Power
    6
    I understood your point and made one of my own.

    I mean, don't you think a computer-based picking system should have more than a 1% gap in success rate over football fans of questionably human-level intelligence? Especially when they charge such fees for use of their service?
    Second verse,

    same as the first.


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    141
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
    I understood your point and made one of my own.

    I mean, don't you think a computer-based picking system should have more than a 1% gap in success rate over football fans of questionably human-level intelligence? Especially when they charge such fees for use of their service?
    I'm shocked that a computer is anywhere near humans. The only thing a computer has at it's disposal is statistics. This works fine in something like chess where each game is decided in a vacuum with a very simple set of rules. And even then, it's only very recently that computers were able to outplay the best of us at that game. Football is infinitely more complex. You have to take into account variables such as the weather, injuries, off-field distractions, coaching strategies, matchup issues, etc...

    Are computers the sure thing when it comes to picking straight up winners? Not really. But they are better at it than the people who are paid to do the same thing. That's pretty incredible to me. (I'm basing this on the assumption that the computer is picking based only on math and statistics and without knowledge of what the fans or oddsmakers think.)

    If a computer could design a bridge 1% better than an engineer could there would literally be no bridging engineers left in the world.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts