NCAAF Team totals plays

[NajdorfDefense]

If Peyton Manning got hurt and Sorgi started for 8 games, then Manning returned at 100%, would you weight the Off Stats equally for both QBs?

What if Harrison also got hurt and missed 10 games? Would the Colts O stats w/Sorgi and Stokely's starting be a good substitute for Manning and Marvin's?

Would, perhaps, one underweight the Sorgi numbers? Or maybe overweight the Manning+Harrison performance, even if they didn't play 16 games together?

Thremp suffers from the Past is Perfect Unbiased Future Predictor fallacy. I'm not saying how much to adjust for losing a Manning, or regaining him. Just that it needs to be done.

When Manning goes out Week 8 would you adjust your estimates of the Colts offensive performance? There's your answer.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a) You're still ducking the question, Mr. MathBoy. Wuss.

b) I weight more recent results more, esp when they include the return of not just one as you wrongly imply, but TWO defensive starters in the latter half of the season.

Just answer the question of WHY Week 1 = Week 9 = Week 16 and injuries don't affect performance. Obviously you can't so you change the topic.
kthxby.

[/ QUOTE ]

Recent form fallacy much?

[/ QUOTE ]

All games are equal fallacy much? Keep ducking the question, it proves you know you are wrong so easily.

And your assertions that losing 2 defensive starters doesn't impact the stats are hilarious!

Ignoring important data much?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. You can review the posts from last winter if you like. Essentially you said that the last few games the Colts had played were a better indicator of how they played going forward than an entire season worth of data. They were trash in the regular season with or without everyone. 16 data points is far than 3 data points which you were using or whatever the hell you were "feeling" or "imagining". Lets use an example from baseball to see why your thinking sucks.

Mr. Posada is a career .276 hitter. Now this of course doesn't matter. Since things like similarity in statistical value to broaden sample size don't matter. We'll use something folks like your kind are fond of: A 3-2-1 weighting system to see how his BA will be next year. Hrm... .306 Not too bad. Too bad in reality he's projected for something like a ~.240-.260

Looking at recent results as an indicator of future results is fine, since recent data typically includes injuries, mechanical breakdowns etc. But to assume recent data is a correct predictor of the future without finding the underlying reason for the shift is the height of ignorance and essentially what you did. You essentially lucksacked yourself into one of the worst regular season defenses having one of the best defensive performances in playoff history and you defend this prediction by saying that they returned 2 starters (including Bob Sanders) and some sort of mysterious X factor you can't quantify.

If you defended your posts with something like this: http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7061234

And then explained that you felt the same way about Bob, then maybe you could get places.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/dl2006.php

In closing, essentially you spout off ridiculous assertions and can't back any of them up. Look at the All-Star game prop section. You make an assertion, don't quantify it, make a guesstimate, and then try to bet it.

[Performify]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
for me personally, if the edge is greater than the 2.5% I'd gain on the money from a CD, I bet it.
But, I do derive utility from having long-term bets to keep me in action.
For all these posted, the edge is greater than 5%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Little off-topic but I believe most cash account are yielding presently over 4% and closer to 5% in some cases without any liquidity issues.

[/ QUOTE ]


Continuing the aside: Citibank (www.citi.com) has an e-savings account at a flat 5% APY. That's what I personally use as my sweep account. I'd certainly recommend it, especially over a CD at comparable or lower rates.

AFAIK you have to be a new customer and open a (free) checking account to qualify and then make two bill payments a month from the linked account.

[NajdorfDefense]

Pls explain how you adjust your evaluation of the Colts defense for the loss, and then return, of two starters.

Pls stop pretending only one starter was missing during the Colts season.
Pls stop saying I said to throw out an entire year's worth of data.

Pls stop obscuring your inability to explain yourself using math or logic by referencing Jorge Posada.

[ QUOTE ]
Essentially you said that the last few games the Colts had played were a better indicator of how they played going forward than an entire season worth of data.

[/ QUOTE ]

100% incorrect.

I said their stats with all 11 healthy starters were a *better* indication of their ability to stop the run with 11 healthy starters, rather than stats v run with <=9 healthy starters.
In fact you said you were very tempted to agree with me so stop denying it, it's there in black and white. The more recent stats just happened to be the ones where Indy had 11 healthy starters again.
And guess what? With 11 healthy guys back on the field and not playing injured, they played a lot better! Z_O_M_G!

You keep disputing this because you are a strange, confused little boy.

To prove this, I've attached a pic of me and Thremp, Thremp is the shorter person on your left:

[NajdorfDefense]

Fido has a 5.02% sweep acc't with no restrictions.

[MyTurn2Raise]

hilarious....too bad Thremp is on vacay for the next 3 days. I hope he gets internet access and sees that Gary Coleman pic. It will warm his heart.

[DanS]

[ QUOTE ]




[/ QUOTE ]

I realize that pic is circa 1985 but JFC Messier looks young there.

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
hilarious....too bad Thremp is on vacay for the next 3 days. I hope he gets internet access and sees that Gary Coleman pic. It will warm his heart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. It's funny, because I think he and I agree on *most* things, gambling-wise. It is very hard to 'cap games and avoid any/all personal bias or bet well if not using Kelly or etc.

[Thremp]

It does warm my heart. And yes, we do agree on most things. Mainly my point is smaller datasets can have ingrained bias that have inherent biases within them. Adjusting for a larger set of data with decent approxiamtions would be more correct.

I still find it funny you pose constant questions, yet refuse to provide any sort of evidence backing up almost all of your claims. Much like in the allstar prop thread. I don't know whether this is due to not wanting to give away your rice bowl or just cause you don't understand how to quantify these things you are claiming. (The quantifying is directly related to Kelly staking, so to claim you use one without the other is just a lie.)

[NajdorfDefense]

[ QUOTE ]
Much like in the allstar prop thread. I... (The quantifying is directly related to Kelly staking, so to claim you use one without the other ....

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean like you once again changing the conversation from NFL to MLB rather than admit defeat? LOLz.

Whatever, I'm not getting into that again [my point was and is that Reyes didn't have the OMG LOCK! value that others claimed, but I will gladly admit I will do *some* propping without using Kelly, if that was your point. ]

You win!




[except for not adjusting your dataset when it obviously needs adjusting. I find it amusing you refuse to admit that the stats for an NFL team missing 2-3 starters on one side of the ball will be different than when 100% healthy. It's not like you ever admit error anyway, unlike, say, King Yao when he makes a mistake. I certainly make them and will continue to do so. So you lose!
And my several hundred posted CFB and NCAAB pix here over the years speak for themselves. I guess I'm just lucky...]