Seeing so many 'experts' pick Davidson for the upset .. made me think about our #3 seeding.
By the opponent they gave us, Davidson, they gave us a 3 seed, yet the game more like a 7/10.
Generally speaking, in the first round, the higher your seed, the easier the game, right? That's the whole theory behind having a bracket. Gives everyone a chance to win 5 games, yet as a reward for higher performing teams, they get to play the lower performing teams..
So I looked at the point-spreads for the 1st round. Not only does MU have the toughest 3-seed, as measured by what Vegas thinks, but they have the 10th hardest game out of the 32 higher seeds. :-\
I suppose one could suggest you don't earn a "matchup" you earn a seed. Regardless .. MU's game is an outlier in the table below.
Team Spread Seed
Gonzaga -21.5 1
Louisville -20 1
Indiana -20 1
Florida -20.5 3
Kansas -20 1
Duke -18 2
Syracuse -13.5 4
Ohio State -13.5 2
Georgetown -13 2
Miami (FL) -11.5 2
Michigan -11 4
New Mexico -11 3
Michigan St -10.5 3
Saint Louis -9 4
VCU -7 5
Wisconsin -5 5
Pittsburgh -4.5 8
Arizona -4.5 6
NC State -4.5 8
Marquette -4 3 ***********
N Carolina -3.5 8
Butler -3 6
Oklahoma St -3 5
UNLV -3 5
Missouri -3 9
Creighton -3 7
Minnesota -3 11
San Diego St -2.5 7
Illinois -2 7
Davidson has an RPI of 61 and played the 190th toughest schedule in the nation.
They're 0-3 versus RPI top 50 and 2-1 versus RPI 51-100. Those wins are over Richmond (91) and Montana (74).
Other than the six-point home win over Montana, they're toughest opponent since a Jan. 2 whipping at the hands of Duke was #133 College of Charleston.
15 of their last 20 games have come against opponents with an RPI of 244 or higher. DePaul would be one of the toughest opponents on Davidson's schedule in 2013.
I'm not suggesting this is a can't-lose game for MU. I'm not sure such a thing exists for this MU team. But I fail to see what all the fretting is about.
We could win, we could lose. I wouldn't call that fretting. It is what it is.
The thesis of this thread was .. relatively speaking, our 3 seed is a 4 point favorite amongst many other games that are "easier" according to oddsmakers.
We got a great draw, there is nothing to complain about. I don't think MU would much better than a -4 against anyone this year - have we blown anyone out recently? It's just not our game.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 18, 2013, 10:36:35 AM
We could win, we could lose. I wouldn't call that fretting. It is what it is.
The thesis of this thread was .. relatively speaking, our 3 seed is a 4 point favorite amongst many other games that are "easier" according to oddsmakers.
Lines, as I'm sure you know, aren't established according to who's most likely to win relative to other games.
Point spreads are to drive betting, not predictors of who will win.
The difference in size, athletic ability, and talent between the players on the respective rosters should be sufficient to overcome any of the inherent randomness of a single elimination tournament when you are seeded as highly as #3.
There is a reason why #3 seeds win 85% of their games against the #14 seed opponents. That is a pretty significant win percentage.
It probably will not be easy and if this season has taught us anything it is that it will probably be quite ugly. But make no mistake, MU should win this game.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 18, 2013, 10:42:12 AM
Point spreads are to drive betting, not predictors of who will win.
And yet, betting markets are remarkably good at predicting outcomes.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 18, 2013, 10:41:09 AM
Lines, as I'm sure you know, aren't established according to who's most likely to win relative to other games.
Lines aren't established relatively, no. But the bracket/seeding is doing that quite purposely, or supposedly.
The lines, which as Sugar has pointed out, are remarkably good on predicting the outcome.
#3 MU by 4. #3 MSU by 10.
MU couldn't have asked for a better scenario. If they don't win this game by 10 or more, Buzz hasn't connected with them and we need better players.
Quote from: Warrior's Path on March 18, 2013, 10:49:32 AM
And yet, betting markets are remarkably good at predicting outcomes.
True, but the opening line set in Vegas and the final line determined by the betting market are not the same thing.
The MU line already has moved .5 - 1 point in less than 18 hours.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 18, 2013, 11:12:25 AM
True, but the opening line set in Vegas and the final line determined by the betting market are not the same thing.
The MU line already has moved .5 - 1 point in less than 18 hours.
How does that do anything but further substantiate the point?
To clarify, #mubb has a tougher 3-14 matchup than the other teams, but part of that is because MU is overseeded and Davidson is underseeded.
It's definitely a winnable set of games. Feels like a Holy Cross kind of game to me.
MU's path to the Sweet 16 is blocked by Davidson and Butler/Bucknell. Are you kidding me? The way this board is reacting, you'd think we started with a rematch against Florida and had Duke in the second round in Greensboro.
If MU can't get by Davidson, it's totally on them.
Quote from: Groin_pull on March 18, 2013, 11:19:16 AM
MU's path to the Sweet 16 is blocked by Davidson and Butler/Bucknell. Are you kidding me? The way this board is reacting, you'd think we started with a rematch against Florida and had Duke in the second round in Greensboro.
If MU can't get by Davidson, it's totally on them.
Yup. But I'll still be worried and paranoid about this game until the final buzzer.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 18, 2013, 10:55:27 AM
Lines aren't established relatively, no. But the bracket/seeding is doing that quite purposely, or supposedly.
The lines, which as Sugar has pointed out, are remarkably good on predicting the outcome.
#3 MU by 4. #3 MSU by 10.
Remember, most thought that we would be a 4 seed. It just makes sense that the last 3 seed (us) would get the top ranked 14 seed, right? Still, I get your point a six point difference between our game and Michigan State's is far more than them being the fist 3 seed and us the last 3 seed would suggest. What it really suggests is that Davidson is underseeded.
There are no cupcakes in the NCAA tourney. MU will have to show up to win this game. If they lay an egg, they will be done.
That being said, this is a great draw. Take care of business and a rematch with Butler to get to the Sweet 16. Nothing to complain about.
Quote from: Warrior's Path on March 18, 2013, 11:18:21 AM
How does that do anything but further substantiate the point?
The point is whether MU should be worried because the Vegas opening line - which is set to attract betters, not predict an outcome - is closer for their game than some others. I'm saying no. Do you agree or disagree?
Also, where's the data for your statement that betting markers are "remarkably accurate" for predicting outcomes. Not saying that's wrong, just would like to see the numbers.
Here's one relevant study I've found so far:
"The only evidence that we have about experts is that the bookmakers' opening line is less accurate than the final spread."
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=betting+markets+accuracy+ncaa+basketball&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CGQQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gwu.edu%2F~forcpgm%2FSports_paper_GW1.pdf&ei=Fz9HUckprbTgA9GagbgC&usg=AFQjCNECtqahcSrbKkRJqtJOgzKmpYAuiw&bvm=bv.43828540,d.dmg&cad=rja
Quote from: Pakuni on March 18, 2013, 10:29:33 AM
Davidson has an RPI of 61 and played the 190th toughest schedule in the nation.
They're 0-3 versus RPI top 50 and 2-1 versus RPI 51-100. Those wins are over Richmond (91) and Montana (74).
Other than the six-point home win over Montana, they're toughest opponent since a Jan. 2 whipping at the hands of Duke was #133 College of Charleston.
15 of their last 20 games have come against opponents with an RPI of 244 or higher. DePaul would be one of the toughest opponents on Davidson's schedule in 2013.
I'm not suggesting this is a can't-lose game for MU. I'm not sure such a thing exists for this MU team. But I fail to see what all the fretting is about.
About the Montana win... Davidson beat them at home and had to go to overtime in order to do it. Richmond was a six point win on the road.
Our concern is simply because we have seen how good and how bad MU can me and we fear that the bad MU shows up. If MU plays well, they win.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 18, 2013, 11:29:09 AM
The point is whether MU should be worried because the Vegas opening line - which is set to attract betters, not predict an outcome - is closer for their game than some others. I'm saying no. Do you agree or disagree?
The point isn't about "MU being worried" .. and let's try to get past the concept of what the opening line is vs. what it ends up as. The betting line is the market's way of showing who is favored to win, and by how much.
The point was as simple as the first post. MU's 3 seed game is the hardest of the 3 seeds, and 10th hardest of all 32 higher-seeded games.
Whether we're worried or not is .. irrelevant to this thread.
I'm more "worried" about MU losing than 3-seed MSU losing. As is the market.
--
LittleMurs is correct. We're probably overseeded at 3, Davidson is underseeded at 14. The betting line/market suggests this is closer to a 7/10 game.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 18, 2013, 11:36:05 AM
The point isn't about "MU being worried" .. and let's try to get past the concept of what the opening line is vs. what it ends up as. The betting line is the market's way of showing who is favored to win, and by how much.
The point was as simple as the first post. MU's 3 seed game is the hardest of the 3 seeds, and 10th hardest of all 32 higher-seeded games.
Whether we're worried or not is .. irrelevant to this thread.
I'm more "worried" about MU losing than 3-seed MSU losing. As is the market.
So you create this post based on the opening line and then suggest we should get past the concept of the opening line?
I'll just suggest that a review of the opening line relative to similarly seeded matchups is perhaps not the best or most accurate way to determine the difficulty of a contest.
And that the market doesn't worry who wins or loses, nor is it a reflection of that.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 18, 2013, 10:42:12 AM
Point spreads are to drive betting, not predictors of who will win.
Huh? Bettors are going to bet, the line is developed for Vegas to at least break even so thy can collect the 10%. Of course the spreads are predicting who's going to win, that's why they have "money line" bets. The higher the spread the more money you risk betting a team to just win.
I encourage you to compare Kenpom predictions to Vegas lines. They are within a point or two 95% of the time.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on March 18, 2013, 11:45:03 AM
Huh? Bettors are going to bet, the line is developed for Vegas to at least break even so thy can collect the 10%. Of course the spreads are predicting who's going to win, that's why they have "money line" bets. The higher the spread the more money you risk betting a team to just win.
I encourage you to compare Kenpom predictions to Vegas lines. They are within a point or two 95% of the time.
So, in this particular case, what is happening? Does Kenpom have a prediction up yet?
I think MU has a great opening weekend draw. Thought getting to second weekend was longshot prior to bids being announced. S16 is definitely there to be had and honestly would be disappointed if it does not happen. Over past month I think I have changed my expectations for the fella's up and down about ten times. Crazy season...did not see a 3 seed happening.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 18, 2013, 11:29:09 AM
The point is whether MU should be worried because the Vegas opening line - which is set to attract betters, not predict an outcome - is closer for their game than some others. I'm saying no. Do you agree or disagree?
Also, where's the data for your statement that betting markers are "remarkably accurate" for predicting outcomes. Not saying that's wrong, just would like to see the numbers.
Here's one relevant study I've found so far:
"The only evidence that we have about experts is that the bookmakers' opening line is less accurate than the final spread."
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=betting+markets+accuracy+ncaa+basketball&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CGQQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gwu.edu%2F~forcpgm%2FSports_paper_GW1.pdf&ei=Fz9HUckprbTgA9GagbgC&usg=AFQjCNECtqahcSrbKkRJqtJOgzKmpYAuiw&bvm=bv.43828540,d.dmg&cad=rja
Well, I was discussing the point of "are betting markets good predictors of outcomes?"
Thanks for challenging the statement and providing some information. I'm bored at work today, so it was kind of fun to dig into the studies and see the results. Honestly, I'm a big efficient markets guy, but I didn't have any supporting data tied to gambling markets or predicting outcomes until you questioned it.
However, the very paper you shared actually helped support the point I was making (emphasis mine):
QuoteD. MOST IMPORTANT RESULT
There is no evidence that either statistical systems or experts consistently outperform the market. This is not only agrees with the findings about economic efficiency but also with the evidence that prediction models, in general, are the most accurate predictors in other fields. The market price is the best predictor of the event because the market aggregates all the information that is relevant to the event. ( Wolfers and Zitzwitz, 2004).
From another paper (emphasis mine - and that's a lot of papers confirming the same result)
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/trevon/pdf/BettingMarketPaper_01-11-12.pdf (http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/trevon/pdf/BettingMarketPaper_01-11-12.pdf)
QuoteStatistically, existing studies usually regress the betting line on the actual game outcome and find that the relationship is quite strong, betting lines are well correlated with actual margins of victory [Zuber et. al 1985, Gandar et. al 1988, Sauer et. al 1988, Golec and Tanarkin 1991, Dare and McDonald 1996, Dare and Holland 2004, Sinkey 2011]
Other points, from that same paper
QuoteIn particular, Logan and Sinkey [2011] find that betting houses overprice favorites who "beat the spread" in their previous contest. Similarly, Levitt [2004] shows that betting houses attempt to manipulate bettors to have skewed distributions of wagers. While the betting house incurs substantial risk in this situation, the payoffs may be substantial. In general, the research to date has shown that the primary function of the betting house is not to accurately predict the outcome of a given contest.
In other words, if a team does well against the spread or if that fanbase is known to bet heavy, then it skews the lines. Neither applies to MU. Also, I am not disputing that although the market IS the most efficient way to predict the final margin, it is not the goal of the casino.
Note: the article spends a lot of time focusing on O/U, which it says is NOT predictive.----
Now, as to whether MU should be worried because our line is a lot closer than other lines for similar seeds, I guess it depends. It certainly makes me a little more nervous, but I'm also a big ol' Eeyore when it comes to #mubb. Marquette should win, but I bet it'll be closer than we'd all like.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 18, 2013, 11:41:05 AM
So you create this post based on the opening line and then suggest we should get past the concept of the opening line?
I didn't pick "opening line" .. I picked whatever was current at around 9am. For all you and I know, money has already flowed in and moved the lines. -- Regardless, have any of the opening lines moved more than a point or so? I don't have access to that, but I'll bet not.
Regardless, it's a silly argument. The debate isn't about Vegas' experts setting a line versus how the betting public move it. Not sure why you are being obtuse about it. According to opening or 9am odds, MU has the 10th toughest game. I imagine that'll be damn close to what it is on Thursday. Why argue about that detail?
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 18, 2013, 01:01:41 PM
I didn't pick "opening line" .. I picked whatever was current at around 9am. For all you and I know, money has already flowed in and moved the lines. -- Regardless, have any of the opening lines moved more than a point or so? I don't have access to that, but I'll bet not.
By the way, from the same GWU paper that Pakuni linked. Again, emphasis mine.
QuoteThe evidence is that the opening line that is established by the bookmakers is somewhat less accurate than the closing line established by the betting market. ( Gandar, et al., 1998). This indicates that experts are not as accurate as the market is in forecasting the winning margins.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 18, 2013, 01:01:41 PM
Regardless, it's a silly argument. The debate isn't about Vegas' experts setting a line versus how the betting public move it. Not sure why you are being obtuse about it. According to opening or 9am odds, MU has the 10th toughest game. I imagine that'll be damn close to what it is on Thursday. Why argue about that detail?
Here's what you're getting wrong ... you're using the line incorrectly to determine the "toughness" of the game. That's not what the line does or is intended to measure.
Hopefully I was less obtuse for you.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 18, 2013, 01:28:03 PM
Here's what you're getting wrong ... you're using the line incorrectly to determine the "toughness" of the game. That's not what the line does or is intended to measure.
Yet measure/indicate it, it does. Or do you not think (predict) a favorite with a 20 point line is going to have an easier time of it than a favorite with a 4 point line?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 18, 2013, 10:42:12 AM
Point spreads are to drive betting, not predictors of who will win.
yeah they are...and it takes big $$$ to move a line
Quote from: tower912 on March 18, 2013, 11:32:22 AM
Our concern is simply because we have seen how good and how bad MU can me and we fear that the bad MU shows up. If MU plays well, they win.
If bad MU shows up it doesn't matter who they play, they won't win.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 18, 2013, 11:41:05 AM
So you create this post based on the opening line and then suggest we should get past the concept of the opening line?
I'll just suggest that a review of the opening line relative to similarly seeded matchups is perhaps not the best or most accurate way to determine the difficulty of a contest.
And that the market doesn't worry who wins or loses, nor is it a reflection of that.
You keep referring to "opening line" like it's going to change dramatically. It almost assuredly isn't. And it IS a predictor. A 4 point favorite will be about a 2-1 favorite on the money line. A 12 point favorite (like 4 seeded Michigan) will be 5 or 6 - 1. Vegas affords you the opportunity to put you're money where your mouth is, and if you really think MU is as likely to win as the other 3s (or even 4s) they'll pay you for it.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 18, 2013, 02:53:01 PM
You keep referring to "opening line" like it's going to change dramatically. It almost assuredly isn't. And it IS a predictor. A 4 point favorite will be about a 2-1 favorite on the money line. A 12 point favorite (like 4 seeded Michigan) will be 5 or 6 - 1. Vegas affords you the opportunity to put you're money where your mouth is, and if you really think MU is as likely to win as the other 3s (or even 4s) they'll pay you for it.
You're missing the point.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 18, 2013, 03:06:52 PM
You're missing the point.
I definitely am. Here's my point: A 4 point favorite has approximately a 1 in 3 chance of losing, much greater than a double digit favorite (like the other 3 seeds and even 4 seeds). That's because either 1) MU's power ranking is lower than the other 3s and 4s, 2) Davidson's is higher than the other 14s (and 13s) or 3) A combination of both. In this case it's 3.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 18, 2013, 04:55:30 PM
I definitely am. Here's my point: A 4 point favorite has approximately a 1 in 3 chance of losing, much greater than a double digit favorite (like the other 3 seeds and even 4 seeds). That's because either 1) MU's power ranking is lower than the other 3s and 4s, 2) Davidson's is higher than the other 14s (and 13s) or 3) A combination of both. In this case it's 3.
Really?
I'd love to see the data set from which you're drawing the conclusion that a 4-point favorite has a 1 in 3 chance of losing.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 18, 2013, 04:58:08 PM
Really?
I'd love to see the data set from which you're drawing the conclusion that a 4-point favorite has a 1 in 3 chance of losing.
A four point favorite will be approximately 2 to 1 on the money line.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 18, 2013, 05:22:10 PM
A four point favorite will be approximately 2 to 1 on the money line.
1. That's very different from what you previously wrote.
2. None of the money lines of games in the neighborhood of four-point spreads currently reflect that.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 18, 2013, 04:58:08 PM
Really?
I'd love to see the data set from which you're drawing the conclusion that a 4-point favorite has a 1 in 3 chance of losing.
The average of the money lines in Vegas I can find is MU - 1.65, Davidson + 1.45. That means that according to Vegas, for every 10 times Davidson would win, Marquette would win 15.5 times, or well less than 2 out of 3 (slightly more than 61%). If you think they're way off base on setting the line, you can go there and get legally, filthy rich, but it's been my experience that most things that look too good to be true aren't.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 18, 2013, 05:34:41 PM
1. That's very different from what you previously wrote.
2. None of the money lines of games in the neighborhood of four-point spreads currently reflect that.
1. How so?
2. Please give examples, MU is currently considerably LESS than a 2-1 favorite on the money line, not surprising as many have the game at 3 or 3.5.
And for what it's worth, Nate Silver gives us a 65.8% chance of winning, Davidson 34.2%. So he too has us losing slightly more than once in every three games.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on March 18, 2013, 11:00:40 AM
MU couldn't have asked for a better scenario. If they don't win this game by 10 or more, Buzz hasn't connected with them and we need better players.
The difference as in most games where there is a big difference in seeding is that if we play well, we won't lose. Davidson COULD play well and lose.