ND has moved to a 6 point favorite
- Thread starter IowaIrish1
- Start date
I don't think so. Just a new QB and the first comfortable winning margin of the year for the home team.
http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-football/odds/las-vegas/
The word is out that Ian Book is Joe Montana. That news alone will skew the odds.
No injuries on our side. In fact, the only change I'm aware of is that our starting LB Casey Toohill is back in the two-deep, which surprises me. I'll believe it when I see him on the field, as he was in a cast two weeks ago.
Anyway, the line move is most likely due to ND fans betting the Irish up. It happens most years against us.
"The word is out that Ian Book is Joe Montana. That news alone will skew the odds."
Yep -- just ask Bodi -- if he is not pissed off at anyone!
That doesn’t seem correct here.
ESPN’s FPI, which does not take fan betting into account at all, has ND at 70% to win.
Coincidentally, a 6 point spread is also correlated with almost exactly a 70% chance to win.
Seems more likely the movement is a reaction to NDs QB change and wake performance
KJ Costello, Kaden Smith, Bryce Love, JJ Arcega-Whiteside, Trent Irwin. Ian, Jafar, Tony Jr, Dexter, Chris, Miles, Drue, Te'Von. This is going to be a good one.
Costello is solid and Love is obviously great, but it is JJ Arcega-Whiteside that worries me. Every time I watch this guy play he is making plays, usually basketball/bodying up type physicality over the DB's and Safeties. I'm looking forward to the Irish D putting pressure on Costello that he hasn't seen from us in past years, and I think Alohi and our DB's will be up to the challenge.
The line was 3.5 after the Wake game, and has since gone to 6. So presumably the performance of Book and the Irish against Wake Forest was already factored in when the 3.5 line was set.
True, but that's irrelevant to what I'm saying.
The fact that the Vegas line and statistical prediction models are now alligned in terms of ND's likelihood to win means that the bets which moved the line from 3.5 to 6 are far less likely to be "optimistic ND fans" and far more likely to be savvy gamblers taking advantage of what appeared to be a overly favorable line.
The point is, both Vegas and statistical models have ND as a 70% chance to win right now, so it doesn't seem logical that "opptimistic ND fans" are having much of an impact, or the Vegas line that they do impact should not be aligned with the models that they do not.
The line is moving because at 3.5 that was a good bet. Stanford has beaten a bad USC team and if Oregon knew how to execute a QB sneak they would have potentially won by 2 TDs, but at the very least won. ND on the other hand appears to be on the upswing and may have found an offense to compliment a top 10 defense. Stanford cannot generate a pass rush with their front four this year and ND can. ND wins the trenches - ND wins the game.
Agreed, conceptually....but not sure about your conclusion.
It seems like the keys to Stanford's Defenses under Shaw have been:
(1) Generating negative plays
(2) Getting off the field on 3rd Down
(3) Not allowing Big Plays
The 2017 and 2015 defenses weren't as good at these things (statistically) and ended up much being much weaker scoring defenses than normal. The 2016, 2014, 2013, and 2012 defenses were good at most/all of these and ended up being good/great scoring defenses.
All 3 of those seem primarily dictated by the ability of the Front7 to get into the backfield and make plays
(where as interception numbers and other DB stats don't seem to correlate to Stanford's defensive success nearly as much)
It's only been 4 games, but Stanford appears to have been fairly disruptive so far, with almost all of that disruption coming from their Front 7.
That seems to bode well for the Stanford defense, imo
That is possible, but why would Vegas set an opening line so low, if they didn't think it was the right one? We've seen this before with ND-Stanford, that the line is set at X, and the lines moves to ND X-2 or X-3. I could be wrong, but I would wager (pardon the pun) that it is moving due to bets by Irish fans, who let's face it, outnumber "savvy gamblers" by a significant margin.
Because Vegas "set" that line quite a while ago, and allows betting to adjust the initial line (except in rare circumstances)
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the Vegas line is now aligned with statistical models because you prefer your conclusion.....but you still have not dealt with the simple fact of that alignment, at all.
Again, if your opinion was right and "optimistic ND fans" were altering the line significantly, the line should have moved out of alignment with statistical models rather than becoming aligned with them.
Actual facts seem to support the line movement simply as the result of savvy gamblers taking advantage of what is statistically viewed as a favorable line.
Okay, where are these "statistical models" (plural). You mention one, from ESPN. Where are the others? Also, where do you get the correlation that a 6 point line translates into a 70% win probability? Is that postulated by the model, or something you are just assuming?
Again, taking all of the information available from last Saturday's games, the Vegas books across the board started with a 3 to 3.5 point spread. That was their assessment of the relative strengths of the teams. I find that to be more credible than any statistical model, as we are talking about seasoned pros whose livelihood depends on their accuracy in setting the lines. The lines have now moved, as they always do, not because the books reconsidered their assessment of the two teams, but because more money is being bet on Notre Dame. You think it's because of "savvy gamblers". I think it's because of a surge of Notre Dame fans in the betting pools. There is no way to know who is right here, without access to records we clearly aren't able to see.
And, of course, it doesn't make any difference as to what happens on the field. The betting line is the last thing the players care about.
Have to get back to work, thanks for the exchange.
Yeah, it's okay to just admit you don't understand much about statistics or betting and ask to be educated....because this is a pretty bad look.
First --- There are statistical correlations between a spread and a % chance to win. These are made using large amounts of data and are widely available. You can see one example here.
Second --- All the Vegas lines started at 3/3.5 because they were set earlier and that's where betting had them coming into the week. Vegas almost always allows lines to continue to be moved by betting rather than moving the line themselves, unless something extraordinary happens (QB injury, etc.). So Vegas allowing bets to move these lines is meaningless
Third --- Its very common to see lines move when new information creates a difference between analytic/statistical projections of outcomes and the spread currently available on those same outcomes.
That is exactly what happened here, as the previous 3-point line only gave ND ~59% chance of victory, which was not inline with other models, such as ESPN's FPI
I haven't found any other publicly available statistical models that are updated daily/weekly
Lines are set around Monday morning. That is not "some time ago". The movement has to do with more money coming in for ND than Stanford.
I think ND will win at home, but I don't think Stanford only has a 30% shot. So, take Stanford to cover.
I think ND will win at home, but I don't think Stanford only has a 30% shot. So, take Stanford to cover.
Of course line movement has to do with money coming in on ND, that's a given.
The whole discussion is "why" money was coming in.
Because statistical model(s) had ND with a 70% chance to win (not debateable) a statistically driven (or rational) bettor would then bet on ND up until a point whether the spread meant that it was no longer favorable to do so ...... which occurs at a 6 point edge.
It's not magical that is where the line ended up, it's driven by math.
Again, your "opinion" fails to deal with basic statistics, just as @hayaka 's does.
Though, given how pathetically inept you showed your "opinions" to be leading up to the ND/Mich game, that's not surprising.
I've never seen either one provide a per game, percentage of victory analysis that's updated on a weekly/daily basis.....all I've seen are Top25 style rankings, analysis of a teams performance, or season end projections.
If you're not wrong here, provide the link(s)
My lord, you are a pompous ass.
How the hell do you know WHY people are betting on ND? Do you really think all these subway fans follow the FPI updates and place their money accordingly? I would be surprised if even 10% know about FPI. A better explanation would be that Stanford needed OT to win on Saturday while ND cruised. And that ND has about ten times as many homer fans compared to the Cardinal.
A (as in one) statistical model has ND with a 70% chance to win. Check out Sagarin. He has the game as a toss up.
That and Stanford getting a game handed to them in Primetime will push the public away from them.
It's okay, I know me being right about literally everything and laughing at your idiotic "opinions" based on nothing but stupidity must wear on you.
But that's what happens when you talk without knowing anything and are wrong literally every time you open your mouth.
As for knowing "why people are betting", feel free to read about rational actor analysis and basic statistics and then come back.....because that's what is being discussed here.
It's the same sort of analysis that I used to CORRECTLY tell you how overrated Michigan (especially Michigan's Defense) was.
Logic is easy if you're not stupid
(so you have my condolences)
lol
I guess you must be a billionaire using MATH and STATISTICS to clean up every night via sports betting.
What did "rational actor analysis" say about ND beating 128th ranked Ball State by only 8? It seems that Domer "logic" doesn't always accurately predict the outcome. How do you explain that?
Last edited:
You can't actually be this stupid, can you?
You're just playing the fool, right??
We're not predicting who is going to win here, but rather analyzing the cause of line movements.
And yes, statistics and rational actor analysis describe those phenomenon fairly well.
This type of stupidity is why I'm always having to educate you on how overrated Michigan is.........and why I'm always laughing at your pathetic "retorts"
With this type of stupidity, you absolutely deserve the beatings I've handed you
lol "the beatings".
You haven't shown why the line has moved. You have an opinion that the betting public moves in accordance to FPI. Except that in truth, sometimes they do, and other times they move away.
By the way, your sacred FPI has Michigan 3 slots higher than ND.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/statistics/teamratings
The beatings have been thorough and consistent.
You have yet to be right about even a single thing, as I constantly school you on every topic and laugh while I do it.
Michigan overrated -- Yep
Michigan Defense overrated -- Yep
Betting Spread Driven by Statistical Probabilities -- Yep
Once betting becomes relevant to the Top25 rankings, then the rest of your post will matter.
You just cited FPI as a model that is more accurate than the initial Vegas odds. And yet, that same FPI using "statistical probabilities" rates Michigan as superior to ND.
Wrong, as always.
I cited FPI as a more recently/quickly updated analysis than a Vegas line which purposefully relies on public betting to move the line.
The FPI I cite is simply a statistical analysis of probably of a specific outcome, not a ranking in any way.
We already know what happens when ND plays Michigan.....ND dominates!
As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about and are only providing comic relief.
Seriously.....tell me more about how Michigan's defense is anything other than "Good, but nowhere near elite"
S&P says 4th best overall defense.
18-24-1 = dominates? Okay...
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa
18-24-1 = dominates? Okay...
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa
As I've schooled you on many times, Michigan (especially its defense) is good against crap teams....but average against good teams.
The results show that, over and over and over again.
There is a reason that Michigan is DOMINATED by all of its rivals and simply cannot beat good opponents.
Michigan/Harbaugh love to inflate stats against crap teams, which is what results in Michigan be SO OVERRATED at almost all times.
As I've schooled you on many times, Michigan (especially its defense) is good against crap teams....but average against good teams.
The results show that, over and over and over again.
There is a reason that Michigan is DOMINATED by all of its rivals and simply cannot beat good opponents.
Michigan/Harbaugh love to inflate stats against crap teams, which is what results in Michigan be SO OVERRATED at almost all times.
Tell it to S&P and FPI.
It's so great watching you flail around like the idiot that you are.
You use stats to try and ignore reality
- ND dominates Michigan
- Michigan is overrated
- Michigan's defense is not special
- etc.
Nothing could describe the complete and total failure that is Michigan better than your pathetic and moronic posts
Congrats on the first 8 wins before 1900 when ND wasn’t even a team, & they just scrimmaged for fun to learn the game. (Even twice one year & only a half one game).
Then Yost got so butt-hurt later on he had them changed to offcial wins.
Like one famous person in Michigan says, “95% of Michigan's success was before they allowed black people to play, played 5 or less games a season, & schools awarded themselves titles.”
Michigan has won 1 outright title in over 100 years, 1.5 in total in over 100 years.
And since the Big10 no longer was the Big2 & Little8, Michigan has won 1 conference title (and lost to ND that year, 2004).
Similar threads
