The predictions did reasonably well, but in general I tended to be overconfident in my predictions - that is, events were less likely to occur at the high end, and more likely to occur at the low end. There is no single bad-luck event I can point to. Baltimore winning the Super Bowl (and the AFC, for that matter), Washington winning the NFC East, and Denver winning the AFC West were all events which I viewed as highly unlikely either on (and other than Denver, I kept on viewing it skeptically right up until it happened). A further analysis points to exactly where the pain was.

Almost all of my error was concentrated in events which I predicted would occur between 0-5% of the time. Some of these I was quick to correct (preseason I predicted Atlanta would win the NFC South only 4.8% of the time, but that was up to 92% by week 4). Others it took me awhile to correct (my preseason odds for Washington winning the NFC East were 2.2%, but this was still as low as 3.8% after Week 12). Others I never corrected (in my final simulation after Wild Card weekend, out of 500 runs, Baltimore won the Super Bowl exactly zero times - my computer really hated Baltimore). Despite this late season error, I did get more accurate as the year wore on.

This data will be useful for calibrating my model. It also means that, next season, I should be more accurate. Or maybe next year a mediocre 3-6 team won't suddenly finish the season 7-0 and take the NFC East. (Sorry, still bitter.) (Go Giants.)

The idea was that I picked my 10 favorite plays in June, and then if the line moves in August were favorable, I grabbed them again. These are the plays I end up with.

Atlanta Falcons OVER 9 wins (+105) (June line) - win
Miami Dolphins OVER 7.5 wins (-110) (June line) - loss
Miami Dolphons OVER 6.5 wins (+140) (August line) - win
New Orleans OVER 10 wins (-125) (June line) - loss
New Orleans OVER 10 wins (+125) (August line) - loss
Kansas City UNDER 8 wins (-110) (June line) - win
Tampa Bay UNDER 6 wins (-120) (June line) - loss
Tampa Bay UNDER 6 wins (+105) (August line) - loss
San Fransisco OVER 10 wins (+105) (June line) - push
San Fransisco OVER 10 wins (+110) (August line) - push
Indianapolis UNDER 5.5 wins (-135) (June line) - loss
New York Giants UNDER 9.5 wins (-120) (June line) - win
Denver UNDER 9.5 wins (-120) (June line) - loss
Denver UNDER 9 wins (-110) (August line) - loss
St. Louis UNDER 6 wins (-120) (June line) - loss

This... was a disaster. These plays went 4-9-2 for a value of -4.81 betting units. On average, my preseason predictions were off by +/- 3.1 wins. Since the league wins 8 games on average almost by definition (STUPID TIES notwithstanding), +/- 3 is pretty goddamn terrible. Pointing out that my plays are disastrous might be fun for you, but the idea in making predictions is to not only dance around when they are successful, but acknowledge when they have failed so that future predictions may be improved. Let's consider what, to me, appears to be a rather apparent influence on the success or failure (mostly failure) of my predictions.

Of the 32 NFL teams, 6 began the season with new quarterbacks via either the draft or trade. (Not included on this list are teams that changed quarterback via competition, such as Tennessee or Arizona, because replacing a QB this way is unlikely in my opinion to drastically change the quality of play). 7 teams also had new coaches (I am including New Orleans on this list). There is some overlap here, so this covers a total of 11 NFL teams. Here's the list: DEN, NO, IND, JAX, TB, STL, WAS, MIA, OAK, CLE, and SEA.

Average preseason error for these 11 teams: 3.96 wins
Average preseason error for remaining 21 teams: 2.63 wins

This is too big a difference to ignore. Clearly, my system does a very poor job of considering the impact of changes at the quarterback and head coaching spots. What does my top 10 list of June look like if I exclude these 11 teams?

KC UNDER 8 wins (-110)
NYG UNDER 9.5 wins (-120)
SF OVER 10 wins (+105)
PHI UNDER 10 wins (+105)
NE UNDER 12 wins (-110)
ATL OVER 9 wins (+105)
CHI UNDER 8.5 wins (+105)
GB UNDER 12 wins (-110)
PIT OVER 10 wins (-125)
DET OVER 9.5 wins (+105)

In these 10 bets, I would have gone 5-3-2 for +1.75 BU. Stopping at 10 bets is sort of arbitrary. If I include bets for all 21 teams not included on the list above, and exclude those bets which I calculate have a negative value due to the vig, I would have added the following plays:

MIN OVER 6 wins (+100)
CIN OVER 7.5 wins (-130)
BAL OVER 10 wins (-110)
TEN OVER 7 wins (-130)

These plays bring my record to 8-4-2 for +2.52 BU. That's a pretty nice record, in my opinion. (Based on the August lines, I would have gone 7-5-3 for +2.12 BU - and even more dramatic is that on those 11 excluded teams I would have gone 2-2-7.)

Of course, it would be better if my system wasn't so deficient that it can't properly calculate the impact of a new coach or QB. Solving that dilemma will also improve my overall performance because these teams all play each other and interact with each others performance. But reviewing my predictions and identifying deficiencies is an important part of the process.

I was actually on the Seattle bandwagon pretty early. In fact, after week 3 I thought there was value in betting them to win the NFC championship and the Super Bowl. But then they sort of faded, and the computer model put them to the side. At least, that was the case before they ran off 3 straight blowouts and climbed all the way to the top of the rankings.

Okay, so technically they are at the top, but it is very close to a 3-way tie between Seattle, New England, and Denver - all are within a couple of percentage points, which is most certainly within the margin of error. What I find amazing about the computer model's projection is that they are the favorite to win the Super Bowl at this point, even though they are NOT the favorite to win their division (the odds of this happening, which require Arizona to beat San Fransisco along with a Seattle victory this weekend, are only 9%). So, Seattle is even with New England and Denver, even though those teams have a good chance at a first round bye and will play at least 1 game at home in the playoffs.

Poor Houston, on the other hand, has had a rather precipitous fall from the top. While they were never the favorite, they had spent 11 straight weeks in the top 5 (including 5 weeks at number 2) before falling off with 2 losses in their last 3 games. I've seen alot of people walking around town proudly wearing their "Houston Texans AFC South 2012 Division Champion" t-shirts. Wear it proud, Houston: it's looking like that's all you are going to get this year.

First, the teams that are completely done. Zero shot. Mark it down.

PHI, WAS, DAL, CAR, NO, DET, MIN, STL, AZ, MIA, NYJ, BUF, TEN, JAX, CLE, SD, KC, OAK.

That's 18 of the leagues' 32 teams. Some of them haven't officially been eliminated from contention yet (DAL, NO, and WAS are still alive for the NFC wild card, and DAL and WAS could still win the NFC East), but they have been eliminated by sucking. Let's look at the rest of the teams, in increasing likelihood of claiming a title this year.

TIER 4: Technically alive, but on life support

IND, PIT, CIN, TB, SEA, BAL

Atlanta is getting all the press for being a fraudulent 1-loss team, but NOBODY in the league is a bigger phony than the Baltimore Ravens. "Finding a way to win" is a euphemism for "lucky as shit." Remember that.

TIER 3: The Lurkers

NYG, GB

NYG has spent some time in the upper tier this year, but when they lay eggs like they did against WAS this past weekend it is hard to take them seriously. Of course, they did beat Green Bay two weeks ago. The Pack and the Bears have a roughly equal shot at the division title, but Chicago is actually better, so I give them much more chance of actually advancing and winning the Super Bowl.

TIER 2: The Contenders

ATL, CHI, SF, HOU, DEN

4 of 5 have a hammerlock on their respective divisions, with only the NFC North still in question. However, all 5 have some question marks. Atlanta has wins of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 4 points this year. The wins count, but they also point out that their record may outstrip their true talent level. Chicago is 8-4, but 7 of them have come against teams that are already out of the Super Bowl hunt. They are 1-4 against contenders. 3 of those losses have come by at least a touchdown (not counting the overtime Seattle game this past weekend). San Fransisco has somehow embroiled itself in a quarterback controversy with 5 weeks left to go*. Houston and Denver have looked the most impressive, but neither has looked as good as the top team.

(*quick sidebar: if Alex Smith loses his starting job to a concussion injury, the only logical conclusion is for players in the future, specifically San Francisco players, to try and conceal future head injuries for fear of losing their jobs as well. Not only is this bad for player health, but it may turn out to be bad for the team in the long run as well. I do not like the decision by John Harbaugh.)

TIER 1: The Favorite

NE

After some early season stumbles that saw their odds drop, a 6-game winning streak since starting 3-3 has put them back at the top of the league (they were also my preseason favorite to take the title). They are sure to win their division. The only mark against them at this point is that they will have to fight to get a first-round bye.

What strikes me most since the last update is the disappearance of one-time runaway favorite, the Chicago Bears. The reasons for this are pretty straightforward: after spending 4 straight weeks atop the standings, they lost two in a row to the Texans and San Francisco, the last one via blowout. Green Bay, meanwhile, has gone on a 5-game winning streak to pull into a tie for the division lead. Not only is Chicago no longer the Super Bowl favorite, I now have them as a 2-1 underdog to win their division.

That leaves Houston as a narrow favorite, just edging out San Fransisco, for the Super Bowl lead. Houston just keeps winning and winning and winning, and any AFC team looking to knock them off is now likely to have to do it at Reliant Stadium. This stranglehold on the division, home-field advantage, and a first-round bye are what is currently keeping them separate from the rest of the pack of AFC contenders.

Denver, for their part, continue to be a study in how Bayesian statistics works. At the beginning of the season, I rated their chances of winning the Super Bowl at something not exactly equal to, but very close to, 0%. This initial position (bias, if you prefer) against Denver means that it took 8 weeks before I even start considering them as a contender. They have now finally reached a point where they can no longer be ignored.

Last week: 1-4 (20%), Overall: 23-20-2 (53.4%), Fake rank: 225 (out of 745)

Ugh.

To make matters worse, the Giants took a huge hit to their Super Bowl chances by surrendering a 10-point, 4th-quarter lead to the Steelers. They are basically off the board - in 100 simulated runs, they won zero of them. Part of this is because the Bears are basically sucking up all the oxygen in the room - they are winning the NFC in half of my simulated runs, leaving table scraps for Atlanta, San Fransisco, Green Bay, and the Giants to fight over.

On the flip side, a team that has managed to claw back into their division race with a win is San Diego, who spent he last 3 weeks in a freefall after collapsing late against Denver. Their odds of winning the division nearly doubled after their win last week, increasing from 17% to 31%. Still, Denver remains the favorite for the AFC West. That, along with the AFC North, which is basically a coin flip between Baltimore and Pittsburgh right now, are the only divisions that remain meaningfully competitive at this point.

Last week: 3-2 (60%), Overall: 22-16-2 (57.9%), Fake rank: 99 (out of 745)

This week's picks:

AZ +11
MIN +4.5
BUF +10.5
KC +7.5
CAR +3

Yes, I picked Arizona again, even after that abominable performance on Monday night. I also have a terrible track record picking against Houston, but here I am again with Buffalo +10.5. So...3-2 again? I'm happy with 3-2 again.

Am I alone here in not really believing in the Falcons? Nobody from last week's top 5 lost (Houston was on a bye week), but San Fransisco's path to the NFC West became much clearer with losses by both Seattle and Arizona. New England continues to benefit from a weak division. At this point, the odds are being driven by standings, since the following divisions show a winner with 90%+ confidence at this point:

NFC East (Giants win 98% of 100 simulations run)

NFC South (Atlanta, 96%)

NFC North (Chicago, 93%)

NFC West (San Fransisco, 100%)

AFC South (Houston, 100%)

I left New England (89%) and Denver (82%) off this list. The only truly competitive division at this point appears to be the AFC North, with PIttsburgh (37%) and Baltimore (61%) slugging it out.

This is my second year with this model, but it is still a work in progress. Personally, it looks to me like it doesn't respect the... curviness that an NBA season seems to have. Just to make sure I wasn't imagining things, I checked the win totals from the last full season, 2010-2011.

It's a subtle difference, but you can see that my model expects there to be one really good team (the Chicago Bulls, by the way), a couple of awful teams (Charlotte and Brooklyn), and then everybody bunched a little closer than usual. Part of this may be the effect of using some data from a strike-shortened season to do my evaluation. Part of it could be a bad model. Or, it could actually be saying that there is more talent than usual spread out around the league and it will be a closely contended season. That, as they say, is why they play the games.

As for the over/unders, here are my projections, listed in order of how strongly I feel about the bets, strongest first. Note that the site I got my lines from had Dallas and Minnesota currently off the board due to injuries.

Brooklyn UNDER 44.5 +110
Houston OVER 30.5 +110
Philly OVER 46.5 +100
Denver UNDER 50.5 +105
Atlanta OVER 42.5 -120
L.A. Lakers UNDER 57.5 -120
Miami UNDER 60.5 -105
Orlando OVER 23.5 +100
OKC UNDER 60.5 -130
Portland OVER 33.5 -110
Chicago OVER 47.5 -135
Boston UNDER 50.5 -110
Toronto OVER 33.5 -140
Washington OVER 27.5 -115
Phoenix OVER 33.5 -110
Memphis UNDER 48.5 -115
Charlotte UNDER 19.5 -120 (I really can't believe I'm taking under on this number)
Indiana OVER 51.5 -115
Milwaukee OVER 36.5 -135
Detroit OVER 31.5 -125
L.A. Clippers UNDER 49.5 -115
Sacramento UNDER 30.5 -105
San Antonio UNDER 55.5 +110
Utah UNDER 42.5 +105

Based on the juice, I've taken an unpopular opinion on Brooklyn, Houston, Philly, Denver, San Antonio, and Utah. I've taken a VERY popular opinion on Milwaukee, Toronto, Chicago, and OKC.

Again, the point here is not to actually bet these lines - it is for me to make a public prediction which I can evaluate at the end of the year to see if I am doing a good job of handicapping these teams.

Last week: 1-3-1 (25%), Overall: 19-14-2 (57.6%), Fake rank: 154 (out of 745)

This week's picks:

JAX +14

TB +6.5

AZ +6.5

IND +3.5

SEA +2

A new challenger has emerged!

Making their first appearance on the big board are the Chicago Bears, who ROCKET to the #1 spot. This despite 3 of the teams they jumped ahead of winning, and another having a bye week (and still being 6-0). So what's going on here? Is my model whacked?

Well, that's always one possible answer. To consider other possible answers to the question, I ran two versions of my model this week. In addition to the final one, I ran one before the Monday night game, so I could separate out how the Bears performance in that game impacted their standings, vs. what was happening around them in the league. To facilitate this, here is a detailed chart of Chicago's progress.

Let's start by looking at their week-to-week win projections. Chicago's stock has been rising steadily ever since their week 2 loss to Green Bay. This building process is important. Much of sports analysis seems to take place in a vacuum. To use their week 2 opponent as a particularly illustrative example, one week, the Green Bay Packers are losing at Seattle on a bogus official's call, and the punditry is asking what has "happened" to Aaron Rodgers and the Packers. Then the reigning MVP throws 9 TDs and 0 INTs in his next two games, and the story is, do the Packers have their groove back? Both statements were dumb.

Instead, each piece of new information should build upon itself. Based on the Packers recent track record, a couple of early season wins should not be looked upon as the new normal, but as a bump in the road. Even the Saints 0-4 start may have less to do with Bountygate as it did with fluky luck.

That being said, we are now nearly halfway through the season, and your record at this point matters. The Saints are 4 games behind the Falcons with 9 left to play. Thus, their odds to win the division are only 3%. The Packers are trailing the division leading Bears AND the Vikings, leaving only a 7% slice of the division pie for them.

Getting back to my main point: each new data point should move the needle, but by how much? How much data does it take to convince us that what we are seeing is real?

In the case of the Bears, the answer was "alot". But once the model is convinced, each new datapoint will go a long ways towards convincing it that what it is seeing is real. Last week, the Bears were projected to win 10.6 games on average. After everybody else had played, but before the Monday night game, this number was 12.2. After the Monday night game, this increased to 13.2.

Why did they go from 10.6 to 12.2 before they even played? Let's look at their schedule moving forward: Carolina, Tennessee, Houston, San Fransisco, Minnesota, Seattle, Minnesota again, Green Bay, Arizona, Detroit. Collectively, these teams went 6-3 (excluding Detroit). But that doesn't tell the whole story. Only one team (Houston) looked truly impressive in victory. Everybody else either lost, or won by a touchdown or less. After putting a win in the books and Detroit looking pathetic, they gained another game in their expected outcome. Out of the 2.6 win increase modeled for Chicago, only 1.0 had anything to do with their performance Monday night. The other 1.6 had to do with what the rest of their future opponents did, which, other than the Texans, was be mostly mediocre.

This jump from 10.6 to 13.2 basically explains everything else. They went from being projected as the 4th best team in the league to the best. This gives them, on average, better playoff position, more bye weeks, and more home games, in addition to the model just thinking they are better to begin with.

On the one hand, the model's change in opinion regarding Chicago was very drastic this week. On the other, it took several wins in a row before the needle moved on Chicago at all, meaning it wasn't REALLY that drastic. The initial skepticism it had regarding Chicago meant that it took a few weeks to catch up to what somebody with a stronger starting opinion about Chicago might have already thought.

We started with a freeroll $10 bet on the Yankees to win the World Series at 7/1. When the decisive game between Baltimore and New York came in round 1, I hedged my bet with a $8.83 play on Baltimore that lost. Then, before the ALCS started, I further hedged with a $19.29 play on Detroit at +105 to win the series.

With three consecutive losses, the value of my Yankees World Series proposition has significantly deteriorated, while my Detroit play looks smart. I currently calculate that the Yankees, from their current position, have a 4.5% chance of winning the World Series. Detroit, for their part, as a 91.5% chance of winning the ALCS.

(If you think that my odds are too high... well, they might be. The team leading a 4-game series 3-0 has won 30 out of 31 times, and yes I know what the one goddamn exception is jesus christ. That means the team down 3-0 has only won 3.2% of the time, yet I have them at a 4.5% chance to not only win this series, but the one after that as well. In all likelihood, the Yankees will lose this series, but I think that in general they are of a better caliber than the typical team that goes down 3-0 in a playoff series. Moving on.)

If the Yankees win tonight, those numbers change. The Yankees World Series odds improve to 8.3%, and Detroit's ALCS odds degrade to 84.3%. Now, keep in mind that I already hedged this Yankees bet with a $8.83 play on Baltimore, so some of the value has already been soaked up. With all that in mind... how much should I bet on the Yankees tonight?

Current value of my Yankees World Series ticket: ($70 x 4.5%) - $19.29 - $8.83 = -$24.96

Value if the Yankees win tonight: ($70 x 8.3%) - $19.29 - $8.83 = -$22.31

Current value of Tigers wager: ($19.29 x (105/100) x 91.5%) - $8.83 = $9.70
Value if the Yankees win tonight: ($19.29 x (105/100) x 84.3%) - $8.83 = $7.43

If I bet $Z on the Yankees at current price of -118, and they win, the total value of that win is:

(post-win WS value - current WS value) + wager winnings - (post-win ALCS value - current ALCS value) = -$22.31 - (-$24.96) + $Z x (100/118) + $7.43 - $9.70 = 0.85Z + $0.38

If they lose, then I am done and cash out with:

Detroit ALCS winnings - Baltimore hedge losses - Yankees hedge losses = $19.29 x (105/100) - $8.83 - $Z = $11.42 - Z

Finally, I have to take into account what I think the odds of the Yankees winning tonight is. I have them at 55% odds to win tonight. Let's bring it on home:

.55 x (0.85Z + 0.38) = 0.45 (11.42 - Z)
Z = $5.36

I should bet $5.36 on the Yankees tonight to maximize my potential profit.

If the Yankees win, I'll have the chance to do the same thing tomorrow night. I'm going to save the math until then, because I'm an optimist (yes, this means I'm optimistic about getting to do more math).

Yesterday, I talked about how I had $10 on the Yankees at 7/1 to win the World Series (I should have mentioned that this was actually a freeroll bet, so I didn't actually RISK the $10 - this would have changed the math). I hedged this bet with a $8.83 play on the Orioles at +180. Now we come to the ALCS.

To win my world series bet, two things need to happen:

- The Yankees have to win the ALCS against the Tigers

- The Yankees have to win the World Series against the national league opponent

The odds of the Yankees beating the Tigers are, in my opinion, 56%. The odds of them beating their national league opponent have gone up slightly since yesterday because the Nationals were a more formidable opponent than the Cards, so those odds are up to 53% (from 52% yesterday). That puts their World Series odds right now at 29%.

The Tigers, on the other hand, have a 44% chance of beating the Yankees. The odds were posted this morning for the ALCS as Tigers +105.

As I did yesterday, I have to figure out how much the value of my Yankee bet increases if they beat the Tigers. Since I figure they have a 53% chance of beating the national league representative, the Yankees World Series bet is worth (0.53) x $70 - $8.83 = $28.27, conditional upon them beating the Tigers.

Now let's put it all together. If the Yankees beat the Tigers, AND I have hedged my Yankees bet with a wager of Y, the value of my Yankees world series bet is $28.27-Y. There is a 56% chance of this happening, or 0.56 x (28.27 - Y). Conversely, if the Tigers win, I will pick up 1.04 x Y. In this case I also need to cover for my lost Baltimore hedge. There is a 44% chance of this happening. This side of the wager is worth 0.44 x (1.04 Y - 8.83). Solving for Y yields a proper hedge of $19.29 on the Tigers.

Let's take a moment to look ahead to the World Series. If the Yankees are in it, I will have spent $28.12 hedging my bet. There is still plenty of value in my $70 bet to come out with a positive advantage.

There may also be some additional opportunities to hedge later in the series once one team or the other reaches a 3 game lead in the series. Basically, at that point I will be making a sports credit default swap. 

The idea about hedging is to have two bets that, together, have a positive outcome - a no-lose situation. Imagine that one sports book had the Yankees at +150, and another had Baltimore at +150. If you made both bets, you would guarantee 0.50 BU of profit no matter who won. The idea is roughly the same.

However, we can refine this by taking into account the odds of each outcome. Currently, I have a bet that pays me $70 if the Yankees win the World Series. However, to get there, three things have to happen:

- they have to beat the Orioles tonight

- they have to beat the Tigers in the ALCS

- they have to beat the national league team in the World Series

If we roughly figured that the odds of each event happening was 50/50, then the odds of them currently winning the world series would be 1/8 (1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/8). My computer model that I use to guide my sports betting tells a slightly different story for each of those events:

- Yankees beat the Orioles tonight 58% of the time

- Yankees beat the Tigers 56% of the time

- Yankees beat the national league team 52% of the time (to do this one, I have to run through the odds of each national league team making the World Series, and then compare each one against the Yankees - spreadsheets are fun)

Taken together, this represents a 17% chance that the Yankees win the World Series from where things stand right now. A 17% chance of winning $70 is worth $11.90. In other words, if somebody offered me $11.90 or more in exchange for my Yankees 7/1 ticket, I should take it - if they offered me less, I should tell them to shove it (quick tangent: this is basically how that game show Deal or No Deal works - they have rednecks on because they can't possibly do this much math).

So how much do I bet on Baltimore tonight to hedge my bet? It's a little bit complicated by the fact that it's not a perfect hedge: the Yankees could win tonight but then lose in the ALCS or World Series, leaving both bets as losers. However, those future contests will also represent future chances to hedge and cover this loss as well.

Since I said that the Yankees have a 58% of winning tonight, that implies Baltimore has a 42% chance of winning tonight. The current moneyline is Baltimore +180. If I bet on Baltimore and the win, I get 1.8X (X being my bet size). If the Yankees win, then I need to deduct X from the expected value of my World Series bet. However, that also implies that they have already won tonight, so the odds of the ticket winning and that point increase to 29%, and the value of my World Series ticket becomes $20.40 - X. Still with me? 

So, I have a 42% chance of winning 1.8X, and a 58% chance of holding a ticket worth $20.40 - X. The expected value of the first position is 1.8X x 0.42 = 0.756X. The expected value of the second position is (20.40 - X) x 0.58 = 11.8 - 0.58X. My position is maximized when these two positions are equal, i.e. 11.8 - 0.58X = 0.756X. Solving for X tells me I should bet $8.83 on the Orioles tonight.

Now, lets say the Yankees win. Can I continue to hedge? I sure can. There is no line yet because the team to face them hasn't won, but let's say the Tigers are +100 to win a series against the Yankees. I already said I thought the Yankees would win that series 56% of the time. I can essentially do the same exercise, except now I have to take into account that my Yankees position is worth slightly less because of the hedge against the Orioles. Here's hoping I get a chance to do that math after tonight.  

Then I said: "And out of 745, I would currently be tied for 50th! That's in the top 7% of all entries!"

Blank stare, followed by: "so you AREN'T in the top 20."

Goddammit.

Last week: 3-2 (60%), Overall: 15-9-1 (64.6%), Fake rank: 50 (out of 745)

This week's picks:

IND +3
KC +3.5
NYG +4.5
OAK +8.5
BUF +4.5

New England retains the top spot after taking care of business in Denver. Philly loses to Pittsburgh, but still leapfrogs San Diego after their loss to New Orleans. And Atlanta finally appears on the list after a 5-0 start.

After running this model for a month now, I'm noticing that it takes some pretty wild changes week to week on Super Bowl odds. This is because it is a highly dynamic model that is sensitive to changes in the initial conditions.

The way each model run starts is by simulating each game of the season, and predicting winners and losers. It then seeds everybody based on NFL playoff tiebreaker rules and plays out the playoff brackets to determine a Super Bowl winner. So not only does this model tell me Super Bowl winner odds, but season win totals, division winners, and conference winners as well. Let's look at how our front runner, New England, has changed over the course of the season in each of these categories.

Starting with our win predictions, we see that in the preseason the model thought New England would win an average of 13.7 games this year. After 5 games and a 3-2 start, this has dropped to 11.8. However, their division odds have actually INCREASED from the preseason. They started at 91%, and have gone up to 95%. Why have they gone up if their expected win total has dropped?

This is where the importance of a dynamic model comes in. Division odds are not just a function of New England's performance, but the performance of the three other teams in the division as well. Pre-season, I was very bullish on Miami: the model predicted 10.7 wins for them. Now, they still figure to finish in 2nd place in the division, but their expected win total is down to 7.6. This drop by their nearest competitor has allowed New England to stay strong in the division.

This dynamic plays out on a larger scale at the conference and Super Bowl level. Relatively small changes in the initial conditions week to week play out as significant swings at the Super Bowl level.

The second part of judging a forecast is to look back at how it has done. At the end of the season, I will have made 18 predictions for each team (1 per week plus 1 preseason) that can be tested. However, because there are many more results than predictions, it may take a few years before I can have any confidence that this method is accurate predicting outcomes - and more importantly, how that level of confidence changes as we get closer and closer to the end of the season.

Last week: 4-1, overall: 12-7-1, Fake rank: 67 (out of 744), top 9%

This week's card:

SEA +3

BUF +9.5

IND +7

JAX +6

NYJ +8

Here is the updated Super Bowl odds graph, including some new faces to the top 5. However, NE and SD have firmly planted themselves as the favorites. I join the rest of the world by welcoming the Houston Texans into my top 5. My computer finally thinks Arizona is for real (probably just in time for them to crash back to earth). And Philly is one of 5 teams that has at least a 75% chance of winning their division after skating by the Giants on Sunday night (the other 4: SD, HOU, NE, and ATL).

Now that a quarter of the season is done, I'm going to evaluate some of my preseason over-under win total bets. As a reminder, here are those bets.

Atlanta OVER 9 wins
KC UNDER 9 wins
SF OVER 10 wins
Indy UNDER 5.5 wins
NYG UNDER 9.5 wins
STL UNDER 6 wins
Miami OVER 7.5 wins
NO OVER 10 wins
TB UNDER 6 wins
Denver UNDER 9.5 wins

TEAR THAT TICKET UP
NO over 10 wins: for some reason (namely that it is retarded), my computer still has the Saints winning an average of 8.4 games this year. However, out of 100 simulations, they hit 11 or more wins only 8 times (they hit 10 for a push another 20 times). That means that my computer, which LOVED the saints, says I lose this 72% of the time. In other words: it is over.

SPEND THAT MONEY NOW
ATL over 9 wins: my computer has them at an average of 11.5 victories. They clear the 9 win hurdle 90% of the time, and push another 8%.

KC under 9 wins: this may be the easiest money I ever make gambling. KC fails to get to 9 wins 91% of the time, and pushes another 7%.

TB under 6 wins: or maybe this is the easiest money I ever make? TB comes short of 6 wins 95% of the time, and pushes another 5%. Or, in other words: out of 100 simulations, TB cleared the 6 win hurdle zero times.

TOO SOON TO TELL
DEN, at 2-2, projects for 6.4 wins, but the model may still be underestimating Manning's influence. IND has only played 3 games, so the 6.4 win projection is not as strong as some of the others. NYG, SF, and MIA are all currently project to be within a half-game of their totals (although MIA, frustratingly, is a couple of missed field goals away from 3-1 right now, and probably won't make it, if I am being honest with myself).