For what its worth, I think the Celtics are a much better bet than the longshot Thunder. In a post-2016 (Warriors lose to Cavs/Hillary to Trump) world, it seems as if a lot of people are hesitant to just roll with the data/consensus at the risk of being burned.
Draftkings has Celtics winning at +145 (implied odds 40.82%).
With a bankroll of $100, here's what Kelly Criterion says to bet on the Celtics according to their titles odds given by six different popular models.
Basketball Reference: $42.55
Neil Paine's ELO: $19.45
ESPN BPI: $19.17
Numberfire: $42.55
EPM: $12.55
Playoffstatus: $23.96
Compared to the Thunder at +1600 (5.88% implied odds).
Basketball Reference: $9.79
Neil Paine's ELO: $1.11
ESPN BPI: $0.58
Numberfire: $8.84
EPM: $12.60
Playoffstatus: $8.94
I think because the Celtics at +145 seems so ridiculously in their favor, it feels like a bad bet. The Thunder have an MVP candidate and a one seed, and are still given what looks like longshot odds! But the Thunder even with 16-1 odds are a riskier bet according to five of the six models (EPM- the lowest on the Celtics, and highest on OKC- still has them about even). Nate's odds, granted, were better, but I think for any jabroni jumping on the +1600 Thunder (my friend who listened to this pod with me), the Celtics are a better bet. (Go Celtics)
Ummm Neil...dummy, the purpose of the season is to sell tickets and make money, not "determine which teams are the best for playoff seedings".
I never understand how what the basketball analytics community can be so stupid about the core economic facts of the thing it is obsessed with. I swear the willful blindness on this issue from the "less games" crowd is maddening.
The Neil Bulletin would be *much* more creative, Neil!
Paine Points
How do you get the episode into Overcast?
The Paine Reliever
The Paine Killer
The Paine Cake
For what its worth, I think the Celtics are a much better bet than the longshot Thunder. In a post-2016 (Warriors lose to Cavs/Hillary to Trump) world, it seems as if a lot of people are hesitant to just roll with the data/consensus at the risk of being burned.
Draftkings has Celtics winning at +145 (implied odds 40.82%).
With a bankroll of $100, here's what Kelly Criterion says to bet on the Celtics according to their titles odds given by six different popular models.
Basketball Reference: $42.55
Neil Paine's ELO: $19.45
ESPN BPI: $19.17
Numberfire: $42.55
EPM: $12.55
Playoffstatus: $23.96
Compared to the Thunder at +1600 (5.88% implied odds).
Basketball Reference: $9.79
Neil Paine's ELO: $1.11
ESPN BPI: $0.58
Numberfire: $8.84
EPM: $12.60
Playoffstatus: $8.94
I think because the Celtics at +145 seems so ridiculously in their favor, it feels like a bad bet. The Thunder have an MVP candidate and a one seed, and are still given what looks like longshot odds! But the Thunder even with 16-1 odds are a riskier bet according to five of the six models (EPM- the lowest on the Celtics, and highest on OKC- still has them about even). Nate's odds, granted, were better, but I think for any jabroni jumping on the +1600 Thunder (my friend who listened to this pod with me), the Celtics are a better bet. (Go Celtics)
House of Paine
Ummm Neil...dummy, the purpose of the season is to sell tickets and make money, not "determine which teams are the best for playoff seedings".
I never understand how what the basketball analytics community can be so stupid about the core economic facts of the thing it is obsessed with. I swear the willful blindness on this issue from the "less games" crowd is maddening.
Both Neil & Nate pop up in this Atlantic article (though few here likely need any introduction to Elo ratings) https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/04/elo-ratings-are-everywhere/678129/?utm_source=apple_news
Words of Paine
World of Paine