I'm not sure how you're previous point relates to my previous post. It seems you're trying to beat around what I was saying because you know it's a valid point and disproves what you were saying. That's what I was getting at.PR0v3 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 10:40 pmI’m not really sure what your point is then and how it relates to my original post?jjleurquin wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 9:31 pmI'm not talking about the damn slot machines. I'm talking about the oddsmakers that decide what the lines are going to be every sunday. While their model is not perfect they will always come out ahead by using historical data to determine the odds and they'll move the line to even out the bets to get their 10% commission. Is it possible to beat them in the long run? Yes. but it's not likely.PR0v3 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:35 pmNo, it’s not the same perspective. Casino games are built on odds. The slot machines have built in odds to the games. For example, for every $1.00 put into the slot machine, it is programmed to give back $.98. This is written in code, it is predictable, it is the odds. Over time, this is what will happen. There may be some jackpots hit every now and then that cost the casino money on that pull, but with a large enough sample size they will make $.02 on every play. The odds are in the casino’s favor. Over time you cannot win.
What people are doing with fantasy football “analytics” and “models” is different. We do not know the odds of the game, we only know the results of the past slot machine pulls. If I play the slot machine, feed it $100 and hit a million dollar jackpot, I made a losing play. My EV on a $100 pull is $98. What the analytic crowd is doing is taking the $1M jackpot, comparing it to the $100 pull, and saying that when I go to the casino next door and play a completely different slot machine that my odds of winning $1M is 100%, since, you know, it just hit that way last time I pulled a slot. That is not how it works.
Either you think oddsmakers don't know what they're doing. Or you agree that making models like this is indicative of what will happen in the future. Which one is it, because one disproves the other.