So, the other day I decided to listen to the podcast featured Aaron Sorkin, but before that conversation, Simmons had House in so as to make picks for NFL championship Sunday. I can't get over how bad the reasoning behind the picks they do was; like House picks a couple of arbitrary statistics with extremely small sample sizes and then makes a pick based on that. Like he seriously brought up that the Pats were only 2-3 against the spread on the road in the playoffs and that the Rams were 0-4 against the spread against opponents with winning records this year and thusly he picked the Chiefs and the Saints. I mean, never mind the infinitesimal sample which is meaningless, but the idea that a New England record that has accumulated over years with different personnel and circumstances has any particular meaning is preposterous. Plus, there's the problem that when a Pats team plays on the road, it probably isn't the best version of the Pats.
If i ever used past team record against the spread to inform my betting - which I probably wouldn't- my tendency would be to bet on the opposite side of where the current record is under the assumption that over the long term, every team's record against the spread would gravitate towards .500.But even that is gambler's fallacy and you can't time when the record will go back to even.
As for Bill, he gravitated towards the Rams over the Saints, the logic being that when two teams meet each other in the playoffs, the one who lost has an advantage because of an extra edge. As examples of this he used the Chargers vs the Ravens and obviously his daughter's high school team. However, the fact that the Patriots had beaten the Chiefs during the regular season failed to enter his mind.
I guess I am making a mountain out of an molehill. As I ve said before, the only way to enjoy these podcasts is as bs entertainment to pass the time. Because as a serious look on how to bet it's just nonsense.