The Marginal Revolution commenters on Keith Jacks Gamble’-s Super Bowl Analysis Highlights:
very interesting, but I disagree with his assignment of results to individual players. The results of individual plays, and their effect on the probabilities, depend on a lot of factors, not least play selection.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Feb 11, 2007 12:33:55 PM
Its ludicrous to imagine that the error rate of a betting market is as low as implied. Consider that in the Florida-Ohio State game, the market was off by several touchdowns.
Posted by: Vish Subramanian at Feb 11, 2007 2:22:05 PM
This is an interesting idea, but it assigns no value to the worth of Dominic Rhodes wearing out the Bears’- defensive players with his bruising running, or the clock control and just plain ball control Joseph Addai contributed to. It also fails to account for things like offensive line play.
Posted by: Mick at Feb 12, 2007 5:22:36 PM
Also, betting lines are set up to get equal money on both sides of the coin, so the betting public is supposed to be 50/50 winners and losers. Underdogs had a winning record in the NFL this year, and a runaway winning record against the spread.
Posted by: Mick at Feb 12, 2007 5:24:23 PM
My reply to the MR comments is now posted on the MR page.
[…] Bowl Analysis Highlights — Keith Jacks Gamble’s Second Turn A bunch of Marginal Revolution commenters dared criticizing Keith Jacks Gamble’s Super Bowl Analysis Highlights. The impudence! The audacity! They called […]