1
00:00:00,560 --> 00:00:03,840
Speaker 1: Hello everyone, I'm Matthew Friedman, Matt F. The Oracle. Welcome

2
00:00:03,840 --> 00:00:06,240
Speaker 1: to the Betting Pros Podcast, brought to you by bet MGM,

3
00:00:06,280 --> 00:00:07,880
Speaker 1: where you can get a risk free bet of up

4
00:00:07,880 --> 00:00:09,680
Speaker 1: to one thousand dollars when you use the highly original

5
00:00:09,680 --> 00:00:12,360
Speaker 1: promo code betting Pros. With your first deposit. You're with

6
00:00:12,440 --> 00:00:15,280
Speaker 1: me to talk NFL Week thirteen market movement and power ratings,

7
00:00:15,320 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: as well as some Thursday night football. Is Jim saunis

8
00:00:18,040 --> 00:00:21,239
Speaker 1: at number five. Jim, we're almost in December. It's kind

9
00:00:21,239 --> 00:00:24,520
Speaker 1: of hard to believe that the season is progressed this far,

10
00:00:24,640 --> 00:00:26,720
Speaker 1: but that's the case. And you know, how's it going

11
00:00:26,760 --> 00:00:27,040
Speaker 1: for you?

12
00:00:27,400 --> 00:00:31,319
Speaker 2: It's going okay. I like my numbers are testing pretty well.

13
00:00:31,800 --> 00:00:35,400
Speaker 2: The selection process has been I would say, probably flawed.

14
00:00:35,520 --> 00:00:38,080
Speaker 2: Like I don't know, it's been. It's been an odd year,

15
00:00:38,120 --> 00:00:41,120
Speaker 2: I guess, is what I would say. Like, I feel

16
00:00:41,120 --> 00:00:43,400
Speaker 2: like the process has been good, the results have not

17
00:00:43,520 --> 00:00:46,720
Speaker 2: been as good, So I don't know, honestly. Like you're

18
00:00:46,760 --> 00:00:49,400
Speaker 2: asking how it's gone, my answer is I, frankly don't know.

19
00:00:49,479 --> 00:00:50,720
Speaker 2: I wish I could be more definitive.

20
00:00:50,760 --> 00:00:53,520
Speaker 1: I don't know. Well, okay, this is this is interesting.

21
00:00:54,520 --> 00:00:57,640
Speaker 1: The numbers have been good, but the selection process has

22
00:00:57,800 --> 00:01:01,120
Speaker 1: seemingly been flawed. Yes, can you talk little bit about

23
00:01:01,200 --> 00:01:03,800
Speaker 1: what goes into your selection process? Because I know some

24
00:01:03,880 --> 00:01:07,080
Speaker 1: people like they'll have the model, they're pretty dogmatic with

25
00:01:07,160 --> 00:01:10,360
Speaker 1: the model. If they if the model shows value, they

26
00:01:10,400 --> 00:01:13,000
Speaker 1: bet it. If there's no value based on the model,

27
00:01:13,080 --> 00:01:15,880
Speaker 1: they don't bet it. But it seems like you're using

28
00:01:15,920 --> 00:01:18,480
Speaker 1: the model more as like a filtering system or like

29
00:01:18,600 --> 00:01:21,400
Speaker 1: a starting point. Can you talk about the process a

30
00:01:21,440 --> 00:01:21,840
Speaker 1: little bit.

31
00:01:22,000 --> 00:01:24,000
Speaker 2: It's literally that I use it as a starting point.

32
00:01:24,120 --> 00:01:27,319
Speaker 2: So what I do is I will look at every

33
00:01:27,360 --> 00:01:30,280
Speaker 2: game that needs a certain threshold for a spread perspective,

34
00:01:30,319 --> 00:01:32,520
Speaker 2: and then you know, consider key numbers and stuff like that,

35
00:01:32,560 --> 00:01:34,920
Speaker 2: and then also look at every game that checks a

36
00:01:34,920 --> 00:01:38,759
Speaker 2: box from a moneyline perspective and decide, okay, I'm gonna

37
00:01:38,760 --> 00:01:40,160
Speaker 2: write down theads. And then what I do is I

38
00:01:40,160 --> 00:01:43,120
Speaker 2: have a spreadsheet. Then I check do I agree yes

39
00:01:43,240 --> 00:01:45,920
Speaker 2: or no? And I'll go through each game and like, okay,

40
00:01:46,240 --> 00:01:48,600
Speaker 2: do I think my numbers are under value something? Because

41
00:01:48,640 --> 00:01:50,560
Speaker 2: like there are a lot of situations where like I

42
00:01:50,560 --> 00:01:53,640
Speaker 2: think a certain team may be overvalue by my numbers.

43
00:01:53,640 --> 00:01:56,240
Speaker 2: So when they show value on that team, I might

44
00:01:56,320 --> 00:01:59,200
Speaker 2: not agree enough to actually bet that spread. So I'll

45
00:01:59,200 --> 00:02:01,720
Speaker 2: put down either A if I agree, zero if I don't,

46
00:02:01,760 --> 00:02:03,600
Speaker 2: and then if I agree, i'll bet it. If I don't,

47
00:02:03,600 --> 00:02:05,840
Speaker 2: I won't bet it. And that can change throughout the week.

48
00:02:05,840 --> 00:02:10,080
Speaker 2: You know, stuff changes, like the Titans Packers Thursday night game.

49
00:02:10,639 --> 00:02:12,359
Speaker 2: Initially it was what I didn't agree with because I

50
00:02:12,400 --> 00:02:14,280
Speaker 2: thought Jeffrey Simmons is gonna six he sat at the

51
00:02:14,320 --> 00:02:17,040
Speaker 2: previous game. Then when he was ruled in Thursday morning,

52
00:02:17,080 --> 00:02:18,800
Speaker 2: it's like, Okay, I actually agree with this now, and

53
00:02:18,840 --> 00:02:21,440
Speaker 2: then that can change. But so I write down whether

54
00:02:21,480 --> 00:02:24,720
Speaker 2: I agree or not, and then and then I'll bet

55
00:02:24,760 --> 00:02:27,040
Speaker 2: it if I actually do agree. So it's a process

56
00:02:27,120 --> 00:02:30,280
Speaker 2: of do I show value? Do I agree? And if

57
00:02:30,320 --> 00:02:32,680
Speaker 2: I can check yes on both those flow charts, I'll

58
00:02:32,720 --> 00:02:34,560
Speaker 2: bet it. So I can actually look back and see

59
00:02:35,000 --> 00:02:38,040
Speaker 2: how often if I disagreed with a game with my

60
00:02:38,120 --> 00:02:40,440
Speaker 2: numbers and it's you know, it's actually been a winning bet,

61
00:02:40,600 --> 00:02:42,520
Speaker 2: It's then pretty often this year. So maybe I should

62
00:02:42,520 --> 00:02:45,480
Speaker 2: be more liberal about it and just be like, yeah,

63
00:02:45,520 --> 00:02:47,120
Speaker 2: you know, if it shows value, i'll take it. I've

64
00:02:47,160 --> 00:02:49,480
Speaker 2: not done that yet. I am checking yes for more

65
00:02:49,520 --> 00:02:52,000
Speaker 2: boxes recently. You know saying okay, I agree with this

66
00:02:52,000 --> 00:02:55,160
Speaker 2: more often, but it was an error earlier on this

67
00:02:55,240 --> 00:02:56,960
Speaker 2: year where I don't think I was putting enough faith

68
00:02:56,960 --> 00:02:58,160
Speaker 2: in where it was showing value.

69
00:02:59,040 --> 00:03:01,240
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's interesting. So I'm gonna have a question on

70
00:03:01,639 --> 00:03:05,080
Speaker 1: moneyline versus spread in a little bit. But first I

71
00:03:05,120 --> 00:03:09,120
Speaker 1: want to dig just a little bit more into the

72
00:03:09,120 --> 00:03:12,959
Speaker 1: the process here of kind of using your your lines

73
00:03:13,360 --> 00:03:18,120
Speaker 1: or your your early projections as a filtering system. Yeah,

74
00:03:18,639 --> 00:03:22,280
Speaker 1: why is it that you you have sort of that

75
00:03:22,360 --> 00:03:25,560
Speaker 1: second step. So I'll just kind of say, I'll frame

76
00:03:25,639 --> 00:03:27,920
Speaker 1: this a little bit more. This is the first year

77
00:03:28,040 --> 00:03:31,480
Speaker 1: where I've you know, gone the distance of having power ratings,

78
00:03:31,600 --> 00:03:35,600
Speaker 1: having a model, you know, taking home field advantage here

79
00:03:35,800 --> 00:03:39,120
Speaker 1: versus there into account and trying to quantify all of

80
00:03:39,160 --> 00:03:42,720
Speaker 1: these things that previously it was just sort of like, okay,

81
00:03:42,760 --> 00:03:45,480
Speaker 1: well there are enough sort of like checked boxes on

82
00:03:45,560 --> 00:03:47,960
Speaker 1: this side of the ledger, so I like this bet

83
00:03:48,560 --> 00:03:53,760
Speaker 1: And so forcing myself to go through that process has

84
00:03:53,880 --> 00:03:57,560
Speaker 1: made me much more kind of reliant on the numbers

85
00:03:57,720 --> 00:04:02,400
Speaker 1: or like desirous to bet on the And there have

86
00:04:02,440 --> 00:04:05,600
Speaker 1: been sometimes this year where I've had certain projections and

87
00:04:05,640 --> 00:04:08,320
Speaker 1: I've thought, Okay, I know this is my projection, but

88
00:04:08,400 --> 00:04:11,240
Speaker 1: I don't really trust it, and most of the time,

89
00:04:11,360 --> 00:04:13,600
Speaker 1: like you, I've sort of like checked a box to

90
00:04:13,600 --> 00:04:16,640
Speaker 1: sort of see, like, Okay, I need to circle back

91
00:04:16,680 --> 00:04:18,640
Speaker 1: to this later and see if there are a certain

92
00:04:18,720 --> 00:04:21,440
Speaker 1: number of times when I'm going away from my projections.

93
00:04:21,960 --> 00:04:25,960
Speaker 1: Is this something where I'm making a suboptimal decision? And

94
00:04:26,200 --> 00:04:28,880
Speaker 1: I found that most of the times, at least this year,

95
00:04:28,960 --> 00:04:31,440
Speaker 1: when I've gone against my numbers or haven't made a

96
00:04:31,440 --> 00:04:34,600
Speaker 1: bet because I didn't feel strongly enough about it that

97
00:04:34,640 --> 00:04:37,920
Speaker 1: would have won. Ye, And so yeah, can you talk

98
00:04:37,960 --> 00:04:40,440
Speaker 1: a little bit more about why it is that you

99
00:04:40,560 --> 00:04:43,960
Speaker 1: kind of have this double process and maybe don't trust

100
00:04:44,040 --> 00:04:45,200
Speaker 1: the numbers as much.

101
00:04:45,520 --> 00:04:47,200
Speaker 2: So a lot of us due to back testing, I

102
00:04:47,279 --> 00:04:50,200
Speaker 2: know the areas where my model back tests the worse,

103
00:04:50,480 --> 00:04:53,600
Speaker 2: and so typically that's on like bigger spreads, So like this,

104
00:04:53,880 --> 00:04:56,279
Speaker 2: it has sometimes kind have trouble capturing how bad some

105
00:04:56,320 --> 00:04:58,640
Speaker 2: teams are. So like this week as an example, the

106
00:04:58,680 --> 00:05:01,400
Speaker 2: one money line where I'm trying to value I that

107
00:05:01,440 --> 00:05:04,159
Speaker 2: I don't agree with is the RAMS against Seattle, And

108
00:05:04,160 --> 00:05:07,680
Speaker 2: that's because I feel like it's very possible my numbers

109
00:05:07,680 --> 00:05:10,960
Speaker 2: can encapsulate how bad this current RAMS team is, So

110
00:05:11,360 --> 00:05:13,400
Speaker 2: I'm hesitant to bet that because I think that my

111
00:05:13,480 --> 00:05:16,040
Speaker 2: numbers may be undervaluing it because it might not fully

112
00:05:16,080 --> 00:05:19,599
Speaker 2: capture in how bad they are. Effectively, like I have

113
00:05:19,640 --> 00:05:22,360
Speaker 2: a downward adjustment in for Bryce Perkins or John wolferm

114
00:05:22,400 --> 00:05:24,400
Speaker 2: whatever it. Maybe I've got a downward adjustment in for

115
00:05:24,520 --> 00:05:27,080
Speaker 2: I'm assuming nowhere and Donald at this point. So I

116
00:05:27,120 --> 00:05:29,240
Speaker 2: put that as a I don't agree because I think

117
00:05:29,240 --> 00:05:31,880
Speaker 2: that my model won't encapsulate how bad they are. But

118
00:05:31,880 --> 00:05:34,320
Speaker 2: then I look at, you know, movement, and like there's

119
00:05:34,360 --> 00:05:36,760
Speaker 2: already been some money coming in on the rams. They

120
00:05:36,760 --> 00:05:38,760
Speaker 2: were three to one of the moneyline this morning, they're

121
00:05:38,800 --> 00:05:40,600
Speaker 2: now plus two eighty five. So quick with someone else

122
00:05:40,640 --> 00:05:42,320
Speaker 2: is showing value on the rams and actually taking it,

123
00:05:42,360 --> 00:05:46,039
Speaker 2: I'm not, and I don't think I can like I

124
00:05:46,160 --> 00:05:48,599
Speaker 2: especially once it's moved. It's like okay, well now it's

125
00:05:48,600 --> 00:05:50,360
Speaker 2: no longer it's good to value, and I'm still kind

126
00:05:50,360 --> 00:05:52,320
Speaker 2: of hesitant. I don't want to buy in just because

127
00:05:52,360 --> 00:05:53,840
Speaker 2: the market is saying that the rams are the right

128
00:05:53,880 --> 00:05:58,159
Speaker 2: side here. So it really is like trying to figure

129
00:05:58,200 --> 00:06:00,359
Speaker 2: out where my model is weakest. And I think that

130
00:06:00,720 --> 00:06:02,320
Speaker 2: I thought I had a good grasp on that, Like

131
00:06:02,360 --> 00:06:04,840
Speaker 2: I have all the numbers, so I can check, Okay,

132
00:06:04,880 --> 00:06:07,760
Speaker 2: you know, typically if a team is if I've got

133
00:06:07,800 --> 00:06:10,280
Speaker 2: them at as a five point favorite and they are

134
00:06:10,320 --> 00:06:11,960
Speaker 2: a three and a half way house from they cover,

135
00:06:12,000 --> 00:06:13,880
Speaker 2: I can like look back at that and decide, Okay,

136
00:06:13,960 --> 00:06:16,680
Speaker 2: is this actually worth value and stuff like that. I

137
00:06:16,720 --> 00:06:18,320
Speaker 2: thought that I had a good grasp on that, and

138
00:06:18,360 --> 00:06:20,839
Speaker 2: I think that the performance this year of the ones

139
00:06:20,880 --> 00:06:23,200
Speaker 2: I disagree with is saying maybe I don't have as

140
00:06:23,240 --> 00:06:25,039
Speaker 2: firm of a grasp on that as I thought I did.

141
00:06:25,480 --> 00:06:28,000
Speaker 1: You know, it's interesting at least you're on the I

142
00:06:28,040 --> 00:06:30,520
Speaker 1: would say, like if you are airing, like if the

143
00:06:30,960 --> 00:06:34,240
Speaker 1: like back testing seeing where you're weaker, at least it's

144
00:06:34,360 --> 00:06:37,599
Speaker 1: on an underdog, which like historically would be the sharper

145
00:06:37,680 --> 00:06:40,720
Speaker 1: side for me. It's a I think it's it's flipped

146
00:06:40,760 --> 00:06:44,400
Speaker 1: a little bit where like I've noticed that I'm probably

147
00:06:44,440 --> 00:06:47,240
Speaker 1: too high on on the Chiefs or like too high

148
00:06:47,279 --> 00:06:52,280
Speaker 1: on teams that are I would say, significantly better and

149
00:06:52,400 --> 00:06:56,160
Speaker 1: probably could cover a number if they really needed to,

150
00:06:56,720 --> 00:06:58,960
Speaker 1: but they don't need to. They just need to win

151
00:06:59,040 --> 00:07:01,719
Speaker 1: the game. And so you know, like there's a difference

152
00:07:01,760 --> 00:07:06,160
Speaker 1: between you know, sort of like projecting EPA and success

153
00:07:06,240 --> 00:07:10,960
Speaker 1: rate in yards per play into a spread and a

154
00:07:11,040 --> 00:07:14,000
Speaker 1: team actually and like a team having the capability of

155
00:07:14,000 --> 00:07:16,840
Speaker 1: covering the spread versus the team filling the urgency to

156
00:07:16,920 --> 00:07:19,440
Speaker 1: cover the spread. So I feel like that is one

157
00:07:19,560 --> 00:07:23,520
Speaker 1: area where I need to make some adjustments in the future,

158
00:07:23,640 --> 00:07:27,240
Speaker 1: and some kind of like manual adjustments now that I've

159
00:07:27,280 --> 00:07:30,080
Speaker 1: probably been a little bit too high on some teams

160
00:07:30,600 --> 00:07:32,040
Speaker 1: based on circumstances.

161
00:07:32,600 --> 00:07:34,600
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think for me, I never really have that

162
00:07:34,640 --> 00:07:37,200
Speaker 2: problem because I like it's so rare. So I have

163
00:07:37,400 --> 00:07:39,280
Speaker 2: like I have my numbers up here. I'll be like

164
00:07:39,360 --> 00:07:42,960
Speaker 2: one hundred and thirty games where I've seen moneyline value

165
00:07:42,960 --> 00:07:44,400
Speaker 2: this year. It just sounds like a lot, and it

166
00:07:44,440 --> 00:07:47,320
Speaker 2: is a lot. It's like ten, that's a lot. So

167
00:07:47,360 --> 00:07:48,800
Speaker 2: there have been a lot of games that are shown

168
00:07:48,840 --> 00:07:52,160
Speaker 2: value this year. One hundred of them been underdogs, So

169
00:07:52,600 --> 00:07:54,320
Speaker 2: it is it's pretty rare for you to show a

170
00:07:54,400 --> 00:07:56,440
Speaker 2: value in a favorite. And you know, this past weekend

171
00:07:56,480 --> 00:07:58,480
Speaker 2: is a bit different. I did show money show value

172
00:07:58,520 --> 00:08:03,960
Speaker 2: on the RAMS, showed you on Miami and Dallas, the Jets,

173
00:08:04,000 --> 00:08:07,560
Speaker 2: Denver Wolf. But like so like last week is a

174
00:08:07,560 --> 00:08:08,760
Speaker 2: little bit different. But for the most part of it

175
00:08:08,840 --> 00:08:10,800
Speaker 2: isition and value on underdogs. I don't typically have to

176
00:08:10,840 --> 00:08:13,240
Speaker 2: worry about that too much. I'm not laying a lot

177
00:08:13,280 --> 00:08:15,960
Speaker 2: of big numbers for the most part. I I if

178
00:08:16,040 --> 00:08:18,360
Speaker 2: there are big numbers, I do tend to to go

179
00:08:18,400 --> 00:08:21,080
Speaker 2: towards the money line versus the spread. That's just kind

180
00:08:21,120 --> 00:08:23,440
Speaker 2: of like a personal preference kind of thing. So I

181
00:08:23,480 --> 00:08:25,160
Speaker 2: actually haven't had that problem for me. It's more so

182
00:08:25,240 --> 00:08:29,240
Speaker 2: showing like value on big underdogs. Like there were times

183
00:08:29,240 --> 00:08:30,920
Speaker 2: that Textans last year where like ten and a half

184
00:08:30,960 --> 00:08:32,960
Speaker 2: point dogs, and it's like showing value. I'm like, I

185
00:08:32,960 --> 00:08:34,719
Speaker 2: really I don't want to do this. That was why

186
00:08:34,720 --> 00:08:36,520
Speaker 2: I had the extra layer of like, okay, do I

187
00:08:36,559 --> 00:08:39,679
Speaker 2: agree with this? And it hasn't hasn't gone great so far,

188
00:08:39,840 --> 00:08:41,559
Speaker 2: So maybe I'm just scarred by the Texans.

189
00:08:41,559 --> 00:08:43,840
Speaker 1: I think, well, at least it's been a little bit

190
00:08:43,880 --> 00:08:46,840
Speaker 1: of the year of the underdog for you. So that's uh.

191
00:08:47,040 --> 00:08:50,520
Speaker 1: I mean, imagine if a whole bunch of favorites were

192
00:08:50,600 --> 00:08:53,600
Speaker 1: hitting and you were still on underdogs and you know

193
00:08:53,679 --> 00:08:56,199
Speaker 1: kind of like quote unquote like picking the wrong games

194
00:08:56,280 --> 00:08:59,880
Speaker 1: out of the system. So at least you know, in

195
00:09:00,120 --> 00:09:02,800
Speaker 1: big picture sense, the macro sense, things are kind of

196
00:09:02,800 --> 00:09:07,440
Speaker 1: going more your direction. You mentioned there the spread versus

197
00:09:07,440 --> 00:09:10,440
Speaker 1: the money line, and I want to ask you about that,

198
00:09:10,960 --> 00:09:14,200
Speaker 1: so I, you know, dug into some numbers, historical numbers,

199
00:09:14,240 --> 00:09:18,880
Speaker 1: and it's it's made the most sense at least in

200
00:09:18,960 --> 00:09:22,440
Speaker 1: terms of like one loss like profit. You know units

201
00:09:22,559 --> 00:09:27,920
Speaker 1: units one. If you like an underdog and the dog

202
00:09:28,040 --> 00:09:31,360
Speaker 1: is less than seven, so six and a half to

203
00:09:31,520 --> 00:09:34,040
Speaker 1: zero or six and a half too point five, it

204
00:09:34,200 --> 00:09:37,040
Speaker 1: historically has been more profitable to bet the money line

205
00:09:37,480 --> 00:09:40,839
Speaker 1: versus the spread, and I think that makes it intuitive sense.

206
00:09:40,920 --> 00:09:44,520
Speaker 1: But of course, you know sometimes it's I want to say,

207
00:09:44,559 --> 00:09:46,440
Speaker 1: it's more fun to bet the spread. But you know,

208
00:09:46,559 --> 00:09:49,240
Speaker 1: like for contests, you know you talk about the spread,

209
00:09:49,240 --> 00:09:52,720
Speaker 1: people just generally talk about the spread versus the money line,

210
00:09:52,760 --> 00:09:54,760
Speaker 1: and so there's always I think this kind of like

211
00:09:55,400 --> 00:09:58,920
Speaker 1: not double talk, but this like translation that happens where

212
00:09:59,160 --> 00:10:01,280
Speaker 1: you're talking about it team you say, Okay, I like

213
00:10:01,360 --> 00:10:03,760
Speaker 1: them at plus three, but when you bet them, you're

214
00:10:03,760 --> 00:10:05,760
Speaker 1: betting them more on the money line, or maybe you're

215
00:10:05,800 --> 00:10:08,520
Speaker 1: splitting it some on the money line, some on the spread.

216
00:10:08,520 --> 00:10:10,439
Speaker 1: But can you talk a little bit more about how

217
00:10:10,480 --> 00:10:12,440
Speaker 1: you viewed the money line versus the spread?

218
00:10:12,679 --> 00:10:15,680
Speaker 2: Yeah, I just want the better value. And so, like

219
00:10:15,720 --> 00:10:17,760
Speaker 2: I have like a money line model, and so I'll

220
00:10:17,840 --> 00:10:19,360
Speaker 2: run it through the money line model, and i can

221
00:10:19,400 --> 00:10:21,840
Speaker 2: see what kind of edge that I've got in that model,

222
00:10:22,160 --> 00:10:24,719
Speaker 2: my the win odds based on my model versus the

223
00:10:24,760 --> 00:10:27,560
Speaker 2: implied win odds at the sports book. And if I've

224
00:10:27,600 --> 00:10:29,840
Speaker 2: got like a decent edge on the money line, I

225
00:10:29,880 --> 00:10:32,640
Speaker 2: will take the money line. I want to take the

226
00:10:32,640 --> 00:10:35,000
Speaker 2: money line more often than not, because the amount of

227
00:10:35,080 --> 00:10:37,240
Speaker 2: edge I'm going to get on a spread, you know,

228
00:10:37,960 --> 00:10:41,240
Speaker 2: like my models may say that they're out of they're

229
00:10:41,240 --> 00:10:43,280
Speaker 2: odds of covering around fifty eight percent, and you know,

230
00:10:43,400 --> 00:10:45,959
Speaker 2: fifty two percent or whatever is like break even sum

231
00:10:46,000 --> 00:10:49,040
Speaker 2: me minus one ten. So you're only going to get

232
00:10:49,240 --> 00:10:51,040
Speaker 2: you know, a couple percentage points every now and then

233
00:10:51,120 --> 00:10:52,920
Speaker 2: I can get a lot bigger than that for a

234
00:10:52,960 --> 00:10:55,319
Speaker 2: money line like this one didn't work out. This law

235
00:10:55,360 --> 00:10:59,839
Speaker 2: process didn't work out. But last week the Lions Bills game,

236
00:11:00,000 --> 00:11:02,760
Speaker 2: it's a good example where I was showing value in

237
00:11:02,840 --> 00:11:05,120
Speaker 2: nine and a half, but there was a much larger

238
00:11:05,200 --> 00:11:07,600
Speaker 2: edge to go at the money line, so I didn't

239
00:11:07,640 --> 00:11:09,320
Speaker 2: bet the spread at all. I went full money line.

240
00:11:09,320 --> 00:11:12,000
Speaker 2: Obviously that lost, so I should have gone spread there.

241
00:11:12,000 --> 00:11:13,560
Speaker 2: I would have won my bet had I gone with

242
00:11:13,559 --> 00:11:15,960
Speaker 2: the spread, but I had a much bigger edge in

243
00:11:16,040 --> 00:11:20,240
Speaker 2: terms of my numbers versus what the market was saying

244
00:11:20,600 --> 00:11:23,040
Speaker 2: by going at the money line. If the if the

245
00:11:23,040 --> 00:11:25,360
Speaker 2: margin is thinner and I can feel good about it,

246
00:11:25,400 --> 00:11:27,080
Speaker 2: I will go towards the spread. You know, I'm not

247
00:11:27,080 --> 00:11:30,320
Speaker 2: always betting money lines with underdogs, but a lot of

248
00:11:30,360 --> 00:11:32,880
Speaker 2: times it does wind up being the money line, like

249
00:11:32,920 --> 00:11:35,800
Speaker 2: the Dolphins in week number thirteen, whatever week this is,

250
00:11:35,840 --> 00:11:38,640
Speaker 2: I can't remember anymore. Week thirteen, I was going to

251
00:11:38,640 --> 00:11:40,240
Speaker 2: take three and a half because it means that I

252
00:11:40,320 --> 00:11:42,640
Speaker 2: get a full win on three as opposed to a

253
00:11:42,679 --> 00:11:46,000
Speaker 2: push if it were on three. It wasn't on me.

254
00:11:46,120 --> 00:11:48,840
Speaker 2: It's a four in most places right now, but you know,

255
00:11:48,920 --> 00:11:51,960
Speaker 2: that's a pretty forgiving number. To get a push on four,

256
00:11:52,280 --> 00:11:54,840
Speaker 2: to get a win on three, that's a forgiving number.

257
00:11:55,160 --> 00:11:57,000
Speaker 2: But the edge was bigger with the money line than

258
00:11:57,040 --> 00:11:58,960
Speaker 2: it was with the spreads. I wound up taking the

259
00:11:58,960 --> 00:12:01,480
Speaker 2: money line. So for me, it really does come down

260
00:12:01,520 --> 00:12:04,280
Speaker 2: to putting faith in my numbers, putting faith in where

261
00:12:04,280 --> 00:12:07,600
Speaker 2: the bigger edge is based on those and taking that route.

262
00:12:07,880 --> 00:12:09,839
Speaker 2: And yeah, it's going to be more volatile to bet

263
00:12:10,800 --> 00:12:13,880
Speaker 2: money lines when I tend to bet more underdogs. But

264
00:12:15,040 --> 00:12:18,040
Speaker 2: I'm okay with that. Volatility is okay if it comes

265
00:12:18,080 --> 00:12:20,439
Speaker 2: with upside, and this does come with upside, So I'm

266
00:12:20,480 --> 00:12:22,880
Speaker 2: okay with that volatility personally because i just want the

267
00:12:22,920 --> 00:12:23,880
Speaker 2: better edge personally.

268
00:12:24,200 --> 00:12:26,920
Speaker 1: Yeah, you mentioned the volatility there, and that's that's right

269
00:12:26,960 --> 00:12:31,319
Speaker 1: where my mind was going. Where it's I think you ultimately,

270
00:12:31,480 --> 00:12:34,160
Speaker 1: at least historically have made more money if you're betting

271
00:12:34,200 --> 00:12:36,680
Speaker 1: the money line. But there are more peaks and valleys,

272
00:12:36,920 --> 00:12:39,080
Speaker 1: you know, so you just have to be like the

273
00:12:39,120 --> 00:12:42,520
Speaker 1: psychological state of being a better like some people don't

274
00:12:42,559 --> 00:12:45,560
Speaker 1: handle losing well, yeah, you know, like it maybe puts

275
00:12:45,559 --> 00:12:47,200
Speaker 1: them on tilt a little bit, and so you just

276
00:12:47,280 --> 00:12:51,480
Speaker 1: have to be mentally comfortable knowing that you're going to

277
00:12:51,520 --> 00:12:55,480
Speaker 1: be losing more bets than you win. Yeah, and you

278
00:12:55,520 --> 00:12:57,840
Speaker 1: have to kind of like quote unquote trust the process.

279
00:12:58,240 --> 00:12:59,960
Speaker 1: And I think it's a little bit harder when you're

280
00:13:00,040 --> 00:13:03,120
Speaker 1: in the middle of losing to trust the process there.

281
00:13:03,520 --> 00:13:07,200
Speaker 1: But yeah, I mean moneyline betting versus spread I do

282
00:13:07,280 --> 00:13:09,560
Speaker 1: think it's I do think it's different. It takes like,

283
00:13:09,760 --> 00:13:12,400
Speaker 1: I think a different kind of mindset and mentality for it.

284
00:13:12,720 --> 00:13:16,200
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it is tough. I think that betting baseball

285
00:13:16,400 --> 00:13:18,080
Speaker 2: kind of ground me into like, Okay, I'm gonna lose

286
00:13:18,120 --> 00:13:21,600
Speaker 2: all bets, like you just kind of accept the fact that, like, yeah,

287
00:13:21,640 --> 00:13:23,319
Speaker 2: I'm gonna lose a lot of bets. But and like

288
00:13:23,360 --> 00:13:25,920
Speaker 2: also I bet a lot in Nascar. You lose a

289
00:13:25,920 --> 00:13:28,600
Speaker 2: lot in Nascar, and you have stretches where you use

290
00:13:28,640 --> 00:13:32,800
Speaker 2: a lot, especially if you like the best market in

291
00:13:32,880 --> 00:13:35,800
Speaker 2: terms of like edge you're gonna get tends to be outrights.

292
00:13:36,200 --> 00:13:39,880
Speaker 2: So it's volatile. You're gonna go on streaks where things

293
00:13:39,880 --> 00:13:42,720
Speaker 2: don't go very well. It can kind of suck. But like,

294
00:13:42,840 --> 00:13:44,959
Speaker 2: I think that that does trans identify for me where

295
00:13:44,960 --> 00:13:48,560
Speaker 2: I'm like, okay, lines didn't win plus three thirty, that's okay,

296
00:13:48,679 --> 00:13:51,040
Speaker 2: you know, they gave me a good sweat, they play well.

297
00:13:51,200 --> 00:13:53,040
Speaker 2: I didn't get CLV, but I felt like it was

298
00:13:53,080 --> 00:13:55,800
Speaker 2: a good bet regardless. So I think that betting other

299
00:13:55,840 --> 00:13:58,439
Speaker 2: sports and bet you know, accepting the fact that I'm

300
00:13:58,440 --> 00:14:01,320
Speaker 2: gonna lose decently often that is made me pretty comfortable

301
00:14:01,320 --> 00:14:02,000
Speaker 2: with playing that way.

302
00:14:02,120 --> 00:14:05,080
Speaker 1: Mm hmm. So one more question here about your model.

303
00:14:05,679 --> 00:14:09,319
Speaker 1: So you mentioned having the money line model, and I'm

304
00:14:09,360 --> 00:14:11,720
Speaker 1: assuming you may be at that point you have the

305
00:14:11,760 --> 00:14:14,760
Speaker 1: money line model and then you convert it into a spread,

306
00:14:15,160 --> 00:14:17,640
Speaker 1: whereas I think a lot of people have a spread

307
00:14:17,679 --> 00:14:20,200
Speaker 1: model and then convert it into a money line. I

308
00:14:20,240 --> 00:14:22,200
Speaker 1: just kind of want to like circle back. Is that?

309
00:14:22,360 --> 00:14:23,640
Speaker 1: What is that? What you do?

310
00:14:23,920 --> 00:14:26,560
Speaker 2: So it's servers, It is a It gives me a

311
00:14:26,720 --> 00:14:30,720
Speaker 2: point differential for each team, and then I can like

312
00:14:31,200 --> 00:14:34,760
Speaker 2: get turn that point differential into a win model or

313
00:14:34,880 --> 00:14:35,720
Speaker 2: win odds.

314
00:14:35,440 --> 00:14:36,000
Speaker 1: Based on that.

315
00:14:36,120 --> 00:14:39,560
Speaker 2: So it's based on back testing the model. That's how

316
00:14:39,560 --> 00:14:41,880
Speaker 2: it converts there. So it does begin with a number,

317
00:14:42,080 --> 00:14:44,520
Speaker 2: a point differential based on home field stuff like that,

318
00:14:44,720 --> 00:14:46,560
Speaker 2: and then it converts that into win odds based on

319
00:14:46,600 --> 00:14:47,160
Speaker 2: back testing.

320
00:14:47,440 --> 00:14:50,120
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, so you know, let's talk about some

321
00:14:50,160 --> 00:14:53,560
Speaker 1: of the power ratings here. I thought week twelve was

322
00:14:54,400 --> 00:14:58,080
Speaker 1: really interesting, and you know Week thirteen is going to

323
00:14:58,160 --> 00:15:01,640
Speaker 1: be incredibly interesting that we have the return of Deshaun

324
00:15:01,680 --> 00:15:04,960
Speaker 1: Watson and you know, that's obviously a big move up

325
00:15:05,120 --> 00:15:08,680
Speaker 1: for the Browns in the power ratings. I've bumped them

326
00:15:08,760 --> 00:15:12,520
Speaker 1: up a whole four points with the move, and honestly

327
00:15:12,600 --> 00:15:15,640
Speaker 1: that might be too much. With the move from Jacoby

328
00:15:15,680 --> 00:15:18,760
Speaker 1: Brissett to Deshaun Watson, especially considering that Watson is not

329
00:15:18,800 --> 00:15:20,880
Speaker 1: that he just hasn't played any this year, he also

330
00:15:20,920 --> 00:15:24,480
Speaker 1: didn't play any last year, so there could be significant rust.

331
00:15:24,920 --> 00:15:28,240
Speaker 1: Keeping in mind totally new environment for him, new city,

332
00:15:28,640 --> 00:15:32,960
Speaker 1: new team, new offensive system, all of that. So you know,

333
00:15:33,040 --> 00:15:37,800
Speaker 1: there it's not an insignificant assumption that he's four points

334
00:15:37,840 --> 00:15:40,960
Speaker 1: better than Jacoby Brissett. But that's the assumption that I've

335
00:15:41,080 --> 00:15:44,440
Speaker 1: made here. So obviously, the Browns a massive move up

336
00:15:44,800 --> 00:15:47,400
Speaker 1: in the power ratings week over week. And then I

337
00:15:47,440 --> 00:15:52,280
Speaker 1: would also say here the Jets. You know, their defense

338
00:15:52,400 --> 00:15:55,280
Speaker 1: is strong. They had a really good win. I mean

339
00:15:55,320 --> 00:15:58,520
Speaker 1: it's against you know, like a second string, you know,

340
00:15:58,800 --> 00:16:03,480
Speaker 1: quarterback whatever, but you know, they looked functional in a

341
00:16:03,480 --> 00:16:06,520
Speaker 1: way that they hadn't looked functional for the past couple

342
00:16:06,560 --> 00:16:11,840
Speaker 1: of months. And so with Mike White as a functional quarterback,

343
00:16:12,400 --> 00:16:15,200
Speaker 1: I gave a pretty decent bump to the Jets. Not

344
00:16:15,280 --> 00:16:18,000
Speaker 1: a whole point, but you know, three quarters of a

345
00:16:18,040 --> 00:16:21,840
Speaker 1: point for the Jets. And the power ratings. What are

346
00:16:22,000 --> 00:16:25,320
Speaker 1: the teams that have moved up for you recently?

347
00:16:25,560 --> 00:16:27,880
Speaker 2: Yeah, the Browns are the obvious one because their offense

348
00:16:27,960 --> 00:16:30,960
Speaker 2: was very efficient, which Cob Presett, which was shocking to me,

349
00:16:31,120 --> 00:16:33,800
Speaker 2: like I had a pretty low prior on him coming

350
00:16:33,840 --> 00:16:36,000
Speaker 2: into the year, slow progression of like, oh wow, this

351
00:16:36,080 --> 00:16:38,640
Speaker 2: is actually like this is actually happening. So if you

352
00:16:38,720 --> 00:16:42,440
Speaker 2: have a good infrastructure around around Deshaun Watson, that implies

353
00:16:42,440 --> 00:16:44,800
Speaker 2: that they're probably gonna play pretty well. So obviously it's

354
00:16:44,800 --> 00:16:46,640
Speaker 2: the same thing there. Other one that I thought was

355
00:16:46,840 --> 00:16:52,000
Speaker 2: noteworthy last week was the Patriots because they were bottom five,

356
00:16:52,080 --> 00:16:56,000
Speaker 2: bottom like three offense for me before that Vikings game,

357
00:16:56,440 --> 00:16:59,760
Speaker 2: and they played pretty well there despite not having David Andrews.

358
00:17:00,160 --> 00:17:02,920
Speaker 2: So I thought that was really encouraging see that happening.

359
00:17:02,920 --> 00:17:06,360
Speaker 2: Because their defense is very good. That's never been a concern.

360
00:17:06,400 --> 00:17:09,880
Speaker 2: They've been a top five defense for the entire year.

361
00:17:09,920 --> 00:17:12,919
Speaker 2: But to see their offense finally show some life. I

362
00:17:12,920 --> 00:17:15,840
Speaker 2: know the Vikings aren't like a tremendous defense, but they

363
00:17:15,840 --> 00:17:19,480
Speaker 2: are a very good rush defense. They're decent against the pass,

364
00:17:19,520 --> 00:17:22,560
Speaker 2: So to see mac Jones flashing competency, I thought that

365
00:17:22,720 --> 00:17:25,440
Speaker 2: was really encouraging and did shift my view of the

366
00:17:25,440 --> 00:17:29,040
Speaker 2: Patriots a decent amount. Although it's the Panthers because going

367
00:17:29,119 --> 00:17:32,480
Speaker 2: from like thirty first, where you're an outlier and how

368
00:17:32,480 --> 00:17:36,000
Speaker 2: bad you are to being now twenty ninth. You know,

369
00:17:36,040 --> 00:17:38,320
Speaker 2: it's not like a huge move in terms of like

370
00:17:38,720 --> 00:17:42,520
Speaker 2: actual movement, but the actual like their rating around them

371
00:17:42,600 --> 00:17:45,120
Speaker 2: did get a lot better with San Darno being in there.

372
00:17:45,400 --> 00:17:48,919
Speaker 2: So yeah, it's against Denver. Yeah, Donald wasn't like amazing

373
00:17:49,000 --> 00:17:52,919
Speaker 2: or anything, but like being competent on that team is

374
00:17:52,960 --> 00:17:55,439
Speaker 2: worth quite a bit. So the ones for me that

375
00:17:55,440 --> 00:17:58,920
Speaker 2: got the biggest boost the Browns, the Patriots, and the Panthers.

376
00:17:58,960 --> 00:18:01,600
Speaker 1: It's interesting to talk talk about the Panthers there because

377
00:18:01,880 --> 00:18:05,679
Speaker 1: this this week with the return of Deshaun Watson, and

378
00:18:05,720 --> 00:18:09,200
Speaker 1: if you put all of your ratings net to zero,

379
00:18:09,840 --> 00:18:12,399
Speaker 1: and if you're moving the Browns up four points, that

380
00:18:12,520 --> 00:18:14,879
Speaker 1: means you have to move some of the other teams down.

381
00:18:15,760 --> 00:18:18,840
Speaker 1: And so ordinarily, based on what we saw out of

382
00:18:18,840 --> 00:18:21,919
Speaker 1: Sam Donald, I would have bumped the Panthers up. I

383
00:18:22,040 --> 00:18:25,040
Speaker 1: just didn't bump them down this week as a way

384
00:18:25,080 --> 00:18:26,480
Speaker 1: of kind of it's.

385
00:18:26,400 --> 00:18:28,800
Speaker 2: A net up then relative to teams that are not

386
00:18:28,840 --> 00:18:29,720
Speaker 2: the Browns.

387
00:18:29,920 --> 00:18:34,959
Speaker 1: Yes, yeah, exactly so. They Yeah, they are intriguing. You know.

388
00:18:35,280 --> 00:18:39,720
Speaker 1: As a dj more investor, I hope that everything continues

389
00:18:39,760 --> 00:18:43,040
Speaker 1: to work out with with Sam Donald there and I

390
00:18:43,080 --> 00:18:46,560
Speaker 1: mean their quarterback situation, their coaching situation. It's a it

391
00:18:46,600 --> 00:18:50,399
Speaker 1: feels like long term, a big mess, but maybe they

392
00:18:50,880 --> 00:18:53,159
Speaker 1: can get something going for the rest of the season.

393
00:18:53,200 --> 00:18:57,359
Speaker 1: Here a team that moves down pretty significant for me,

394
00:18:57,680 --> 00:19:02,520
Speaker 1: the Bears. And it's not just the Justin Fields situation,

395
00:19:02,640 --> 00:19:04,919
Speaker 1: although that's that's certainly a part of it. And I

396
00:19:04,920 --> 00:19:08,200
Speaker 1: think there's a chance that he misses misses this week.

397
00:19:08,240 --> 00:19:11,360
Speaker 1: But you know, there are a number of guys who

398
00:19:11,400 --> 00:19:15,359
Speaker 1: suffered injuries in this last game. So obviously Darnell Mooney

399
00:19:15,680 --> 00:19:19,960
Speaker 1: out for the year, Riley Reef right tackle, He's suffered

400
00:19:19,960 --> 00:19:23,240
Speaker 1: a shoulder injury. Eddie Jackson left the game with the

401
00:19:23,280 --> 00:19:25,880
Speaker 1: foot injury. Like, not all of these guys are going

402
00:19:25,920 --> 00:19:29,080
Speaker 1: to be healthy for it this week, and even if

403
00:19:29,119 --> 00:19:32,359
Speaker 1: some of them do return, it's just like this team,

404
00:19:32,840 --> 00:19:35,240
Speaker 1: they are incentivized to lose, and they don't have many

405
00:19:35,280 --> 00:19:37,920
Speaker 1: good players at this point. So they are a team

406
00:19:38,520 --> 00:19:41,880
Speaker 1: that I moved pretty significantly down the ratings. I wonder

407
00:19:41,880 --> 00:19:43,480
Speaker 1: if you have any thoughts on them, And then I

408
00:19:43,560 --> 00:19:46,640
Speaker 1: also know that you moved the Buccaneers down your rankings

409
00:19:46,720 --> 00:19:47,200
Speaker 1: quite a bit.

410
00:19:47,480 --> 00:19:51,480
Speaker 2: Yeah, the Bears, it was the injuries, and like Mike

411
00:19:51,520 --> 00:19:54,160
Speaker 2: White can be competent, Mike White can be fun. Mike

412
00:19:54,240 --> 00:19:57,639
Speaker 2: White should not be shredding you in the rain like

413
00:19:58,200 --> 00:20:01,320
Speaker 2: ten mile per wins or so that shouldn't happen. I

414
00:20:01,400 --> 00:20:03,720
Speaker 2: know that, like Gara Wilson's a very good football player

415
00:20:03,720 --> 00:20:06,199
Speaker 2: and stuff like that, but like that shouldn't happen. So

416
00:20:06,800 --> 00:20:10,000
Speaker 2: I think moving the Bears down justifiable. I already had

417
00:20:10,160 --> 00:20:12,200
Speaker 2: like they were already. I think they're now thirty first,

418
00:20:12,400 --> 00:20:14,080
Speaker 2: like they were already kind of lose. It's hard for

419
00:20:14,119 --> 00:20:15,399
Speaker 2: me to move them much more down and they kind

420
00:20:15,440 --> 00:20:17,800
Speaker 2: of get manually adjusted down because of the fence they

421
00:20:17,800 --> 00:20:19,880
Speaker 2: gave up. But that was that was real bad as

422
00:20:19,880 --> 00:20:23,800
Speaker 2: far as bucks go. I thought that was that Sunday

423
00:20:24,000 --> 00:20:26,360
Speaker 2: they were playing in twelve mile pri wins and that's

424
00:20:26,480 --> 00:20:28,840
Speaker 2: very noteworthy. That does matter quite a bit. But like

425
00:20:29,520 --> 00:20:31,480
Speaker 2: I thought, that was the worst showing of the year,

426
00:20:31,520 --> 00:20:33,399
Speaker 2: at least on offense. And I don't know if that's

427
00:20:33,440 --> 00:20:36,440
Speaker 2: like a hot take, but I thought it was because

428
00:20:36,440 --> 00:20:38,679
Speaker 2: what they've been able to do this year for the

429
00:20:38,680 --> 00:20:41,600
Speaker 2: most part, they have still been an efficient team on

430
00:20:41,680 --> 00:20:44,040
Speaker 2: early downs, specifically through the air, like the early down

431
00:20:44,040 --> 00:20:47,040
Speaker 2: passing efficiency for the whole year is pretty good. Still,

432
00:20:47,040 --> 00:20:49,760
Speaker 2: they struggled on late downs. They've been hideous running the ball.

433
00:20:50,160 --> 00:20:52,840
Speaker 2: Those two things are you know, that's that's an issue

434
00:20:52,840 --> 00:20:55,600
Speaker 2: for sure, but late downs can sometimes kind of be fluky.

435
00:20:56,000 --> 00:20:58,399
Speaker 2: But their early down passing efficiency was still there. It

436
00:20:58,440 --> 00:21:01,200
Speaker 2: was not there on Sunday. They were at zero point

437
00:21:01,240 --> 00:21:05,000
Speaker 2: one four epa per dropback below expectation in that game

438
00:21:05,000 --> 00:21:08,760
Speaker 2: against Cleveland on early downs. That was their worst showing

439
00:21:08,920 --> 00:21:12,520
Speaker 2: since Week three, tied Week three, and it was their

440
00:21:12,520 --> 00:21:13,960
Speaker 2: second word showing of the year. The worst one was

441
00:21:13,960 --> 00:21:17,960
Speaker 2: against New Orleans in Week two. So just a really

442
00:21:17,960 --> 00:21:20,080
Speaker 2: bad showing. I was kind of hoping they might show

443
00:21:20,160 --> 00:21:23,320
Speaker 2: some progress. They had been I thought okay at times

444
00:21:23,480 --> 00:21:26,800
Speaker 2: before thereby they come out of the by really not

445
00:21:26,840 --> 00:21:28,880
Speaker 2: looking good. Not Tristan Wurst is banged up. I think

446
00:21:28,880 --> 00:21:30,400
Speaker 2: you had a bump them down for that as well.

447
00:21:30,520 --> 00:21:34,320
Speaker 2: So I thought that was arguably their worst showing of

448
00:21:34,359 --> 00:21:35,440
Speaker 2: the entire year on Sunday.

449
00:21:36,040 --> 00:21:40,200
Speaker 1: Yeah, Tampa Bay is one of those teams where I

450
00:21:40,960 --> 00:21:44,119
Speaker 1: think I'm just too high on them. And some of

451
00:21:44,160 --> 00:21:48,400
Speaker 1: it is the coaching right, like the decision making that

452
00:21:48,440 --> 00:21:51,760
Speaker 1: they have both you know, on the offensive side of

453
00:21:51,760 --> 00:21:53,720
Speaker 1: the ball. In terms of Okay, we're gonna run on

454
00:21:53,800 --> 00:21:56,640
Speaker 1: first down. Yeah, you know, like we're gonna do suboptimal

455
00:21:56,760 --> 00:21:59,639
Speaker 1: things in terms of how we sequence our plays and

456
00:21:59,640 --> 00:22:02,280
Speaker 1: then all so decision making in terms of when you're

457
00:22:02,280 --> 00:22:05,119
Speaker 1: going for it on fourth down, when you're calling time outs,

458
00:22:05,400 --> 00:22:08,560
Speaker 1: things like that. Uh. And I don't think I am

459
00:22:08,760 --> 00:22:13,760
Speaker 1: down grading the Buccaneers enough based on those factors, because

460
00:22:13,800 --> 00:22:17,200
Speaker 1: that's like that stuff is sort of different, uh than

461
00:22:17,760 --> 00:22:20,920
Speaker 1: looking at EPA or success rate, you know, like that's

462
00:22:20,960 --> 00:22:23,840
Speaker 1: something that sometimes isn't caught up in the numbers and

463
00:22:23,880 --> 00:22:26,400
Speaker 1: it's hard to account for those things sometimes in models.

464
00:22:27,040 --> 00:22:30,439
Speaker 1: But I think, uh, yeah, I can see it the Buccaneers,

465
00:22:30,560 --> 00:22:34,480
Speaker 1: like increasingly it seems like this is not not the

466
00:22:34,560 --> 00:22:36,800
Speaker 1: year for them, and somehow, just because of the division

467
00:22:36,840 --> 00:22:38,879
Speaker 1: that they are in, yeah, they're gonna end up making

468
00:22:38,920 --> 00:22:41,400
Speaker 1: the playoffs and you know, who knows if things come

469
00:22:41,400 --> 00:22:44,320
Speaker 1: together right, Yeah, maybe they maybe they win a game

470
00:22:44,359 --> 00:22:45,040
Speaker 1: in the playoffs.

471
00:22:45,160 --> 00:22:48,120
Speaker 2: But like I'm downgrading them, but that doesn't mean I'm

472
00:22:48,160 --> 00:22:52,119
Speaker 2: like writing them off. Like it's still I grew up

473
00:22:52,160 --> 00:22:53,720
Speaker 2: a Jets fan. I know what can happen if you

474
00:22:53,720 --> 00:22:55,159
Speaker 2: write off Tom Brady. I'm not going to do that.

475
00:22:55,280 --> 00:22:57,760
Speaker 2: So I'm downgrading them, but I'm not writing them off.

476
00:22:58,280 --> 00:23:00,480
Speaker 1: Yeah, So I have a pros. So it's where I

477
00:23:00,520 --> 00:23:05,639
Speaker 1: have my kind of like situation or like weak agnostic

478
00:23:07,160 --> 00:23:09,680
Speaker 1: power ratings, and then on top of that I layer

479
00:23:09,720 --> 00:23:13,800
Speaker 1: in like short term injury discounts. Yeah. And so I

480
00:23:13,880 --> 00:23:17,920
Speaker 1: still have the Buccaneers at Man, this just feels too high.

481
00:23:17,960 --> 00:23:20,639
Speaker 1: But I still have them at number ten in my

482
00:23:21,040 --> 00:23:24,960
Speaker 1: rankings as one point five points better than an average

483
00:23:24,960 --> 00:23:27,879
Speaker 1: team on a neutral field. That just that feels a

484
00:23:27,880 --> 00:23:28,760
Speaker 1: little bit too high to me.

485
00:23:29,119 --> 00:23:31,600
Speaker 2: They are exactly tenth for me in my This is

486
00:23:31,640 --> 00:23:34,199
Speaker 2: one just for this is weird for week thirteenth. That's

487
00:23:34,200 --> 00:23:37,159
Speaker 2: account of for wor worse being out they are. I

488
00:23:37,200 --> 00:23:40,760
Speaker 2: have two separate models. I got annoyed with how high

489
00:23:40,800 --> 00:23:42,400
Speaker 2: the charges were in one of mine, so I actually

490
00:23:42,440 --> 00:23:45,080
Speaker 2: created another model just to make them look worse because

491
00:23:45,080 --> 00:23:49,000
Speaker 2: they're so annoying. So the model I trust more, which

492
00:23:49,040 --> 00:23:51,919
Speaker 2: is the anti chargers one has the Bucks in tenth.

493
00:23:52,119 --> 00:23:54,840
Speaker 2: The traditional one that I have back testing on, I

494
00:23:55,040 --> 00:23:57,399
Speaker 2: you know, I guess I kind of like I know

495
00:23:57,800 --> 00:24:00,840
Speaker 2: I have more data on that. One has Tampa Bay twelfth,

496
00:24:01,240 --> 00:24:03,480
Speaker 2: So tenth or twelfth depending on the model. After a

497
00:24:03,520 --> 00:24:05,960
Speaker 2: bump down for worse. Their defense is a big part

498
00:24:06,000 --> 00:24:08,560
Speaker 2: of that because they're still very good there. Yeah, but yeah,

499
00:24:09,000 --> 00:24:10,760
Speaker 2: it's kind of hard to put them lower than that

500
00:24:10,800 --> 00:24:12,480
Speaker 2: just because there are a lot of bad teams. I

501
00:24:12,520 --> 00:24:13,600
Speaker 2: think that's the main issue.

502
00:24:13,840 --> 00:24:17,080
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I would be fine if I had,

503
00:24:17,400 --> 00:24:20,520
Speaker 1: I guess in theory high I don't know, Minnesota maybe

504
00:24:20,560 --> 00:24:23,280
Speaker 1: ahead of Tampa Bay, Tennessee maybe ahead of Tampa Bay.

505
00:24:23,280 --> 00:24:25,160
Speaker 1: I think you could you can make the argument there

506
00:24:25,200 --> 00:24:26,719
Speaker 1: and I don't. I don't have them there yet. But

507
00:24:27,160 --> 00:24:30,119
Speaker 1: you know, looking at the teams that I have ahead

508
00:24:30,119 --> 00:24:32,800
Speaker 1: of Tampa Bay, I'm pretty comfortable with them. And at

509
00:24:32,840 --> 00:24:35,480
Speaker 1: the top, you know, you have the Chiefs, you have

510
00:24:35,560 --> 00:24:38,520
Speaker 1: the Bills, and you know, maybe people will have that flipped,

511
00:24:38,520 --> 00:24:41,399
Speaker 1: but I have the Chiefs barely ahead of the Bills,

512
00:24:41,920 --> 00:24:44,840
Speaker 1: and then there's a tier break for me. And I'd

513
00:24:44,880 --> 00:24:46,919
Speaker 1: like to get your thoughts on some of these teams,

514
00:24:46,960 --> 00:24:51,359
Speaker 1: like after those top two, because you'll have this triumvirate

515
00:24:51,440 --> 00:24:54,240
Speaker 1: of teams at the top of the NFC and a

516
00:24:54,240 --> 00:24:57,280
Speaker 1: lot of power ratings. The Cowboys, the forty nine Ers,

517
00:24:57,400 --> 00:25:00,679
Speaker 1: the Eagles, those are teams three through five for me

518
00:25:01,080 --> 00:25:04,440
Speaker 1: pretty much grouped together and then after them, I have

519
00:25:04,680 --> 00:25:09,199
Speaker 1: Cincinnati in Miami and then Baltimore is not all that

520
00:25:09,320 --> 00:25:13,600
Speaker 1: far behind Cincinnati in Miami. But how do you think

521
00:25:13,680 --> 00:25:18,800
Speaker 1: about those two different groups of teams the top of

522
00:25:18,840 --> 00:25:21,440
Speaker 1: the NFC, and then I'd say like the second class

523
00:25:21,520 --> 00:25:22,160
Speaker 1: of the AFC.

524
00:25:22,640 --> 00:25:25,159
Speaker 2: So there is one team I'm lower on, which is

525
00:25:25,200 --> 00:25:28,480
Speaker 2: the Eagles. And I don't agree necessarily with my numbers

526
00:25:28,480 --> 00:25:31,920
Speaker 2: on this one because I like watching Jalen Hurts. I

527
00:25:31,920 --> 00:25:34,160
Speaker 2: think that's it. They're a fun team to watch, so

528
00:25:34,240 --> 00:25:36,159
Speaker 2: I feel weird being lower on them. But if you

529
00:25:36,200 --> 00:25:39,119
Speaker 2: adjust to the teams they played, they're early down. Passing

530
00:25:39,160 --> 00:25:42,560
Speaker 2: efficiency is actually below average, which was surprising to me,

531
00:25:43,520 --> 00:25:47,080
Speaker 2: and that's without a big adjustment down for Dallas Goddard,

532
00:25:47,119 --> 00:25:48,919
Speaker 2: Like it's a little bit in there, but it's not

533
00:25:49,000 --> 00:25:52,639
Speaker 2: a huge adjustment in there. So they're actually seventh for

534
00:25:52,760 --> 00:25:55,600
Speaker 2: me based on just my numbers. The team I'm higher

535
00:25:55,640 --> 00:25:57,960
Speaker 2: on is the Raven So you alluded to them, And

536
00:25:58,240 --> 00:26:00,960
Speaker 2: it's very frustrating because they they keep playing in wind

537
00:26:01,400 --> 00:26:03,679
Speaker 2: I haven't gotten to get like a good read on

538
00:26:03,760 --> 00:26:06,000
Speaker 2: them yet. They have all this stupid stuff like Ronnie

539
00:26:06,000 --> 00:26:09,360
Speaker 2: Stanley missing games. I have a downward adjustment in there,

540
00:26:09,400 --> 00:26:12,200
Speaker 2: for we're shot Bateman being out and they're still freaking fifth,

541
00:26:12,200 --> 00:26:14,399
Speaker 2: and it tries me nuts. Like I still bet the

542
00:26:14,480 --> 00:26:16,959
Speaker 2: Jags this past week, you know that, Like it's still

543
00:26:17,200 --> 00:26:19,720
Speaker 2: allowed me to do that, but like they're still fifth,

544
00:26:19,920 --> 00:26:22,760
Speaker 2: and it's like I want to get them out of there,

545
00:26:22,760 --> 00:26:25,760
Speaker 2: but I can't make them any lower because they're insanely

546
00:26:25,840 --> 00:26:27,960
Speaker 2: good and early downs and that's that's a big part

547
00:26:27,960 --> 00:26:30,720
Speaker 2: of the model is early down efficiency. They're early on

548
00:26:30,840 --> 00:26:35,359
Speaker 2: rushing efficiency is second best behind Philadelphia. Early down passing

549
00:26:35,359 --> 00:26:38,919
Speaker 2: efficiency is up there. Laid down success rate is a

550
00:26:38,920 --> 00:26:40,679
Speaker 2: bit lower. That's more middle of the pack, and the

551
00:26:40,720 --> 00:26:43,800
Speaker 2: defense has been it's been good but not great by

552
00:26:43,800 --> 00:26:46,679
Speaker 2: any means. So I want to get them lower than fifth.

553
00:26:46,720 --> 00:26:51,320
Speaker 2: But like Cincinnati sixth, I probably would hand frank Cincinnati

554
00:26:51,320 --> 00:26:53,840
Speaker 2: above Baltimore if I were doing it by hand versus

555
00:26:53,840 --> 00:26:56,400
Speaker 2: doing it by a model. Miami is below them. I'd

556
00:26:56,400 --> 00:26:58,960
Speaker 2: probably go Baltimore over Miami at there to play again

557
00:26:59,040 --> 00:27:01,400
Speaker 2: because I have a lot more faith in Baltimore's defense

558
00:27:01,680 --> 00:27:04,560
Speaker 2: than Miami's. Just by the way that game went. I'd

559
00:27:04,560 --> 00:27:06,919
Speaker 2: probably hand rake Philadelphia above them as well. So if

560
00:27:06,920 --> 00:27:08,960
Speaker 2: I were hand ranking it, I'd probably put Baltimore lower,

561
00:27:08,960 --> 00:27:11,360
Speaker 2: but I just like I physically can't get them any lower,

562
00:27:11,400 --> 00:27:12,919
Speaker 2: which is very, very annoying to me.

563
00:27:13,320 --> 00:27:16,000
Speaker 1: M hmm. Yeah, I have Miami just a quarter of

564
00:27:16,040 --> 00:27:19,879
Speaker 1: a point better than Baltimore. I'm curious, and I do

565
00:27:19,960 --> 00:27:23,399
Speaker 1: have like a slight tier between Dallas and San Francisco,

566
00:27:23,520 --> 00:27:26,840
Speaker 1: who I have tied basically at number three and four

567
00:27:27,359 --> 00:27:30,760
Speaker 1: in Philadelphia. At number five, I have Dallas in San

568
00:27:30,760 --> 00:27:34,480
Speaker 1: Francisco is three quarters of a point better than Philadelphia.

569
00:27:35,119 --> 00:27:37,560
Speaker 1: It sounds like the Cowboys and the forty nine ers

570
00:27:37,600 --> 00:27:40,320
Speaker 1: are the top two teams for you in the NFC.

571
00:27:41,160 --> 00:27:43,200
Speaker 1: How do you stack them? How do you compare them?

572
00:27:43,400 --> 00:27:46,040
Speaker 2: Dallas is one. I feel pretty good about that, Like

573
00:27:46,080 --> 00:27:49,880
Speaker 2: that defense is sick. They're awesome. They've been awesome all year.

574
00:27:49,920 --> 00:27:51,760
Speaker 2: I know they're struggling against the rush a little bit,

575
00:27:51,760 --> 00:27:55,760
Speaker 2: which could be troublesome, specifically against either Philly or San Francisco,

576
00:27:55,800 --> 00:27:58,280
Speaker 2: but like in a vacuum, like they're I think they're

577
00:27:58,320 --> 00:28:00,480
Speaker 2: the best team in the NFC because DA has been

578
00:28:00,720 --> 00:28:03,840
Speaker 2: just flamethrowing since he came back. He's had some bad picks,

579
00:28:04,200 --> 00:28:06,199
Speaker 2: but like we can kind of have like negative highlight

580
00:28:06,240 --> 00:28:08,840
Speaker 2: bias in our minds where we remember that awful pick

581
00:28:08,880 --> 00:28:11,680
Speaker 2: against Green Bay. That's annoying. A couple bad picks again

582
00:28:11,880 --> 00:28:14,880
Speaker 2: on Thanksgiving, but like the overall body of work, even

583
00:28:14,920 --> 00:28:18,600
Speaker 2: including the picks, has been unfreaking real. So I'll put

584
00:28:18,680 --> 00:28:20,520
Speaker 2: Dallas up there, and I do agree with that one

585
00:28:20,600 --> 00:28:24,800
Speaker 2: pretty confidently, putting Dallas first. San Francisco they're a hard

586
00:28:24,800 --> 00:28:27,879
Speaker 2: one for me to like fully grasp because when I

587
00:28:27,880 --> 00:28:32,480
Speaker 2: look at their numbers post McCaffrey trade, like they're really good,

588
00:28:32,800 --> 00:28:35,720
Speaker 2: and it's like, do I actually think that Jimmy Garoppolo

589
00:28:35,760 --> 00:28:39,000
Speaker 2: is going to have a you know, forty eight percent

590
00:28:39,080 --> 00:28:42,640
Speaker 2: six adjustice success right in late downs. It's kind of

591
00:28:42,720 --> 00:28:45,040
Speaker 2: like that again, negative highlight bias. This time I'm not

592
00:28:45,080 --> 00:28:47,320
Speaker 2: accounting for it enough, Like maybe I'm like using my

593
00:28:47,320 --> 00:28:48,760
Speaker 2: own bias here. I'm like, I don't know if I

594
00:28:48,760 --> 00:28:51,560
Speaker 2: actually want to like follow that too much. So San

595
00:28:51,600 --> 00:28:54,080
Speaker 2: Francisco could be higher than there are. They're four to me,

596
00:28:54,120 --> 00:28:55,840
Speaker 2: but I have the same order except I had the

597
00:28:55,960 --> 00:28:58,560
Speaker 2: bills and chief flipped. I kind of disagree that one too,

598
00:28:59,360 --> 00:29:02,840
Speaker 2: and then Dallas and then San Francisco. I agree with

599
00:29:02,880 --> 00:29:06,160
Speaker 2: that ranking since San Francisco could be higher if I

600
00:29:06,240 --> 00:29:09,680
Speaker 2: were to put you know, just like fully trust there

601
00:29:09,720 --> 00:29:12,760
Speaker 2: split with with McCaffrey. I don't trust it yet because

602
00:29:12,760 --> 00:29:15,880
Speaker 2: I don't trust Garoppolo. But maybe that's just like again

603
00:29:15,960 --> 00:29:17,400
Speaker 2: negative highlight bias on my part.

604
00:29:18,240 --> 00:29:22,640
Speaker 1: Yeah, the Garoppolo thing, you know, and Kevin Cole, I

605
00:29:22,680 --> 00:29:25,800
Speaker 1: think is you know, a PFF like a Garoppolo apologist.

606
00:29:25,880 --> 00:29:28,160
Speaker 1: And I feel like I'm closer to that than not.

607
00:29:28,320 --> 00:29:30,560
Speaker 1: But I feel dirty about it. It's not like I

608
00:29:30,560 --> 00:29:34,600
Speaker 1: think he's he's great, but you know, he's number four

609
00:29:35,000 --> 00:29:40,560
Speaker 1: in composite EPA and completion percentage over expectation since twenty

610
00:29:40,680 --> 00:29:44,080
Speaker 1: and seventeen, you know, like since joining the forty nine ers,

611
00:29:44,120 --> 00:29:46,560
Speaker 1: Like that's that's pretty good. And the guy's like he's

612
00:29:46,600 --> 00:29:50,080
Speaker 1: up there with it's it's Mahomes and it's Drew Brees

613
00:29:50,120 --> 00:29:52,840
Speaker 1: and Deshaun Watson, and he's just ahead of Joe Burrow,

614
00:29:53,000 --> 00:29:55,640
Speaker 1: like it's you know, like it's a legit list. And

615
00:29:55,640 --> 00:29:58,000
Speaker 1: and that's not to say that he is in the

616
00:29:58,040 --> 00:30:02,120
Speaker 1: caliber of those quarters. It's just to say that within

617
00:30:02,160 --> 00:30:05,600
Speaker 1: the confines of the Shanahan system and what he's asked

618
00:30:05,640 --> 00:30:09,240
Speaker 1: to do in it on a per play basis, he

619
00:30:09,320 --> 00:30:12,680
Speaker 1: has been historically efficient, right, Like you know, that's the

620
00:30:12,720 --> 00:30:16,040
Speaker 1: way of contextualizing it, but it's not. But you do

621
00:30:16,120 --> 00:30:18,480
Speaker 1: have to acknowledge the limitations that he.

622
00:30:18,560 --> 00:30:21,080
Speaker 2: Has, right, And I'm projecting efficiency, So that's all I

623
00:30:21,080 --> 00:30:23,480
Speaker 2: care about is with what he's done, So like I should,

624
00:30:23,720 --> 00:30:25,320
Speaker 2: I should have more faith in it, and they are

625
00:30:25,400 --> 00:30:27,640
Speaker 2: fourth from me. It's just like I just get I

626
00:30:27,840 --> 00:30:30,719
Speaker 2: just get weird vibes and like, ah, can I actually

627
00:30:30,720 --> 00:30:34,200
Speaker 2: do this? And like I should, and they are up there,

628
00:30:34,240 --> 00:30:37,880
Speaker 2: but it's like I can't. I can't go as aggressive

629
00:30:37,920 --> 00:30:40,240
Speaker 2: and manually adjusting them as maybe I should, because like

630
00:30:40,280 --> 00:30:42,880
Speaker 2: there's like that he could he can implode at any moment,

631
00:30:42,920 --> 00:30:45,560
Speaker 2: because I've seen a lot. But yeah, I think that,

632
00:30:45,680 --> 00:30:48,640
Speaker 2: like if you're talking about the twenty seventeen stat that

633
00:30:48,760 --> 00:30:51,600
Speaker 2: was before they had like elite personnel too, so it's

634
00:30:51,600 --> 00:30:54,360
Speaker 2: not just the elite personnel propping up that's a big

635
00:30:54,400 --> 00:30:56,840
Speaker 2: part of the sample. But I think it's important note that,

636
00:30:56,920 --> 00:31:00,560
Speaker 2: like he was efficient before all this happened.

637
00:31:00,320 --> 00:31:03,719
Speaker 1: To Yeah, it's yeah, good observation there. This is you know,

638
00:31:03,800 --> 00:31:07,360
Speaker 1: some of this is pre Debo, pre Kittle, pre Ayuke.

639
00:31:09,120 --> 00:31:09,800
Speaker 2: Back in the day.

640
00:31:10,360 --> 00:31:13,520
Speaker 1: Yeah, Oh man, that's a that's a painful group of

641
00:31:13,520 --> 00:31:15,440
Speaker 1: wide receivers saying to work with for a little bit.

642
00:31:15,680 --> 00:31:18,400
Speaker 1: All right, let's let's talk about some of these Week

643
00:31:18,480 --> 00:31:20,920
Speaker 1: thirteen lines. And you know we're not going to hit

644
00:31:20,960 --> 00:31:23,360
Speaker 1: on all of them here, but you know, I think

645
00:31:23,400 --> 00:31:26,400
Speaker 1: it's always an interesting exercise to look at some of

646
00:31:26,400 --> 00:31:29,880
Speaker 1: these lines, see where they were in the off season market,

647
00:31:30,520 --> 00:31:34,000
Speaker 1: even the look ahead market last Thursday, and see, you

648
00:31:34,040 --> 00:31:37,400
Speaker 1: know where we've seen movement here. And you know, one

649
00:31:37,400 --> 00:31:39,400
Speaker 1: of the games I want to touch on here, I

650
00:31:39,440 --> 00:31:42,160
Speaker 1: can't help but talk about this just because Denver has

651
00:31:42,200 --> 00:31:47,480
Speaker 1: been so so disappointing, uh in comparison to their preseason expectations.

652
00:31:47,480 --> 00:31:52,600
Speaker 1: But you know, Baltimore hosting Denver. In the off season market,

653
00:31:52,640 --> 00:31:55,720
Speaker 1: this number was around uh, you know, Baltimore favored by

654
00:31:55,760 --> 00:31:58,360
Speaker 1: one one and a half points, and the look ahead

655
00:31:58,400 --> 00:32:01,840
Speaker 1: market last Thursday it was six and a half. And

656
00:32:01,920 --> 00:32:05,000
Speaker 1: now I'm looking at the odds page here that we

657
00:32:05,080 --> 00:32:09,080
Speaker 1: have at betting Pros, and this number is eight at

658
00:32:09,160 --> 00:32:11,000
Speaker 1: bet mgm. By the way, bet mgm, where you can

659
00:32:11,000 --> 00:32:12,600
Speaker 1: get the risk free bet of up to one thousand

660
00:32:12,640 --> 00:32:15,160
Speaker 1: dollars with the highly original promo code betting Pros with

661
00:32:15,200 --> 00:32:17,840
Speaker 1: your first deposit. This number is now eight, and so

662
00:32:17,920 --> 00:32:20,880
Speaker 1: it has moved significantly, and I mean, I gotta be honest,

663
00:32:21,080 --> 00:32:23,720
Speaker 1: I don't know if it's moved far enough given how

664
00:32:23,840 --> 00:32:27,240
Speaker 1: bad Denver is. The thing is, they do have that defense,

665
00:32:27,480 --> 00:32:29,840
Speaker 1: one of the best defenses in the league. But their offense,

666
00:32:30,320 --> 00:32:32,640
Speaker 1: if it's not the worst offense in the league, it's

667
00:32:32,640 --> 00:32:35,920
Speaker 1: certainly bottom three. And I think there's room for it

668
00:32:35,960 --> 00:32:38,280
Speaker 1: to get worse. I mean, there's always room for it

669
00:32:38,280 --> 00:32:40,120
Speaker 1: to get better in theory, but there's also room for

670
00:32:40,120 --> 00:32:42,880
Speaker 1: it to get worse. So what do you make of

671
00:32:42,920 --> 00:32:44,680
Speaker 1: this line movement that we've seen so far, with this

672
00:32:44,760 --> 00:32:46,040
Speaker 1: number getting all the way to eight.

673
00:32:47,120 --> 00:32:50,640
Speaker 2: Justified? I think that that's the word that I would use, because,

674
00:32:50,720 --> 00:32:53,840
Speaker 2: like you know, we're we're getting reaction to what we

675
00:32:53,880 --> 00:32:56,080
Speaker 2: saw this past weekend. Obviously, Baltimore didn't play great, but

676
00:32:56,160 --> 00:33:02,800
Speaker 2: like Denver was the openest favorites against Carolina, that number shortened.

677
00:33:02,840 --> 00:33:04,400
Speaker 2: I think they closed the minus won sixteen in the

678
00:33:04,400 --> 00:33:08,360
Speaker 2: money line against against Carolina and then they lost in

679
00:33:09,000 --> 00:33:13,880
Speaker 2: pretty spectacular fashion. So if we don't assume that Jerry

680
00:33:13,920 --> 00:33:16,560
Speaker 2: Judy is back this week, like, how are they moving

681
00:33:16,600 --> 00:33:19,600
Speaker 2: the ball against a Baltimore defense, and I think is

682
00:33:19,640 --> 00:33:23,760
Speaker 2: pretty good, So I would say that it's justified where

683
00:33:23,760 --> 00:33:25,880
Speaker 2: it's currently at right now. With that said, like my

684
00:33:26,000 --> 00:33:27,880
Speaker 2: numbers do say that like it's it should be a

685
00:33:27,920 --> 00:33:31,200
Speaker 2: bit short than this. My one model has at six

686
00:33:31,240 --> 00:33:35,959
Speaker 2: point one two. The other one has Denver being underdogs

687
00:33:35,960 --> 00:33:38,000
Speaker 2: by a little bit less a little bit more than that,

688
00:33:38,160 --> 00:33:41,080
Speaker 2: so it says it's probably a little bit hefty. But

689
00:33:41,320 --> 00:33:43,160
Speaker 2: with that said, I'm not betting it. I think that

690
00:33:43,200 --> 00:33:47,840
Speaker 2: it's justified. Bad vibes. I bet too much on the

691
00:33:47,880 --> 00:33:50,080
Speaker 2: Cardinals early on this year and a couple of times

692
00:33:50,080 --> 00:33:52,600
Speaker 2: in the Broncos. I can't handle any more bad vibes.

693
00:33:52,600 --> 00:33:55,160
Speaker 2: I bet them the Jets against the Patriots that punner

694
00:33:55,200 --> 00:33:57,640
Speaker 2: turn touchdown, so bad vibes. I can't. I can't do

695
00:33:57,680 --> 00:33:58,160
Speaker 2: it anymore.

696
00:33:58,560 --> 00:34:02,400
Speaker 1: Yeah, you asked the question. They move the ball Latavius Murray,

697
00:34:02,560 --> 00:34:05,240
Speaker 1: you know, like the forty year old body of Latavious

698
00:34:05,240 --> 00:34:09,760
Speaker 1: revenge gashtag revenge game exactly, revenge game against against the Ravens.

699
00:34:09,760 --> 00:34:12,839
Speaker 1: That's that's how they look to move the ball. You

700
00:34:12,880 --> 00:34:14,759
Speaker 1: mentioned the Jets, and you know we talked about them

701
00:34:14,800 --> 00:34:17,520
Speaker 1: earlier as a team that I've moved up the rankings here.

702
00:34:17,920 --> 00:34:21,239
Speaker 1: You know, if you look at this game against Minnesota,

703
00:34:21,840 --> 00:34:24,920
Speaker 1: five and a half was the line in the the

704
00:34:25,040 --> 00:34:27,920
Speaker 1: offseason look ahead market. It was three and a half,

705
00:34:28,960 --> 00:34:31,440
Speaker 1: and then three and a half of the look ahead

706
00:34:31,680 --> 00:34:36,000
Speaker 1: last Thursday. Four. It's it's moved around a little bit here.

707
00:34:36,160 --> 00:34:39,000
Speaker 1: I mean, this could get closer to three here. Talk

708
00:34:39,040 --> 00:34:43,080
Speaker 1: to me about the Jets here, and I think you're

709
00:34:43,080 --> 00:34:43,960
Speaker 1: on the money line.

710
00:34:44,080 --> 00:34:46,160
Speaker 2: I am so. I took the Jets when they were

711
00:34:46,160 --> 00:34:48,440
Speaker 2: plus one forty it's plus one thirty four now. The

712
00:34:48,480 --> 00:34:50,840
Speaker 2: reason I did so, and it's it's you mentioned bumping

713
00:34:50,840 --> 00:34:55,400
Speaker 2: them up for Mike White. I didn't because he's still, like,

714
00:34:55,520 --> 00:34:57,080
Speaker 2: you know, a guy who was a third stringer coming

715
00:34:57,120 --> 00:34:59,080
Speaker 2: in the year. But my numbers are so high in

716
00:34:59,080 --> 00:35:02,399
Speaker 2: the Jets to begin with, and like it, I didn't

717
00:35:02,440 --> 00:35:04,840
Speaker 2: need to bump them to be on them at this number.

718
00:35:05,280 --> 00:35:08,520
Speaker 2: So I have again two separate models. One of them

719
00:35:09,560 --> 00:35:11,120
Speaker 2: I don't know. One of them hasn't favored in this game.

720
00:35:11,120 --> 00:35:12,239
Speaker 2: I don't know if I agree with that. That might

721
00:35:12,280 --> 00:35:14,600
Speaker 2: be a little bit ambitious. But the other one has

722
00:35:14,640 --> 00:35:17,520
Speaker 2: the vikings by one point two to three points, you know,

723
00:35:18,440 --> 00:35:21,480
Speaker 2: with the with the moneyline being plus one thirty four.

724
00:35:22,080 --> 00:35:25,359
Speaker 2: I'm okay buying into the Jets based on what that

725
00:35:25,440 --> 00:35:28,960
Speaker 2: model is saying and ignoring the more aggressive model, well,

726
00:35:28,960 --> 00:35:31,759
Speaker 2: knowing the more aggressive models like, actually, there's even more

727
00:35:31,840 --> 00:35:35,040
Speaker 2: value here. So I bet the Jets based on the

728
00:35:35,080 --> 00:35:38,120
Speaker 2: model that's more conservative with them knowing that the more

729
00:35:38,120 --> 00:35:41,080
Speaker 2: aggressive one said that is even better value because again,

730
00:35:41,120 --> 00:35:44,240
Speaker 2: like they're early down efficiency like once you adjust for opponent. Actually,

731
00:35:44,360 --> 00:35:47,440
Speaker 2: wasn't that bad when Zach Wilson got benched. I know,

732
00:35:47,520 --> 00:35:49,960
Speaker 2: it's like weird to say, and they're like at the

733
00:35:50,000 --> 00:35:52,400
Speaker 2: eye test is like, I don't know about that, but

734
00:35:52,560 --> 00:35:55,879
Speaker 2: like they just imploded on laid downs and I try to,

735
00:35:55,920 --> 00:35:59,200
Speaker 2: you know, account for the flukiness the spikes that can

736
00:35:59,239 --> 00:36:01,279
Speaker 2: come with that kind of thing, and so like they

737
00:36:01,280 --> 00:36:03,200
Speaker 2: were actually pretty good to begin with, so I didn't

738
00:36:03,200 --> 00:36:05,160
Speaker 2: bump them up. They were already values to me. So

739
00:36:05,160 --> 00:36:06,959
Speaker 2: I did take the money line plus one thirty four.

740
00:36:08,480 --> 00:36:12,040
Speaker 2: I'll we'll see if I regret putting money on Mike

741
00:36:12,080 --> 00:36:14,080
Speaker 2: White to win a football game against team that's, you know,

742
00:36:14,239 --> 00:36:17,120
Speaker 2: whatever ten and nine and two or whatever they are.

743
00:36:17,200 --> 00:36:19,800
Speaker 2: But I think that's the right way to go here.

744
00:36:21,000 --> 00:36:23,600
Speaker 1: Yeah, So I'm going to see if I can remember

745
00:36:24,360 --> 00:36:27,000
Speaker 1: this correctly, and I'm gonna say the way I am

746
00:36:27,040 --> 00:36:30,279
Speaker 1: talking about this, it's probably a little bit incorrect. But

747
00:36:31,440 --> 00:36:35,920
Speaker 1: the Patriots, I believed against the Jets. Two games against

748
00:36:35,920 --> 00:36:39,040
Speaker 1: the Jets this year, they closed as three point favorites

749
00:36:39,560 --> 00:36:43,799
Speaker 1: in both games, won both games, covered both games. And

750
00:36:43,840 --> 00:36:51,839
Speaker 1: then last week Thanksgiving against the against the Vikings, they

751
00:36:51,880 --> 00:36:53,759
Speaker 1: were what was the number was that?

752
00:36:55,120 --> 00:36:55,879
Speaker 2: Was that two and a half?

753
00:36:57,200 --> 00:36:59,799
Speaker 1: Yeah, it closed it two and a half. And so

754
00:37:00,000 --> 00:37:03,279
Speaker 1: so the number of three right now, I mean, I

755
00:37:03,280 --> 00:37:05,560
Speaker 1: know it's on the key number, but not all that

756
00:37:05,760 --> 00:37:09,160
Speaker 1: far from the two and a half that we saw

757
00:37:09,440 --> 00:37:13,239
Speaker 1: last week. It feels a little bit short to me.

758
00:37:14,160 --> 00:37:17,000
Speaker 2: Yeah, I can understand that for sure. I think that

759
00:37:17,719 --> 00:37:19,720
Speaker 2: part of it, though, is I thought that New England

760
00:37:19,760 --> 00:37:23,280
Speaker 2: was overvalued in both those games. Obviously, the Jets didn't

761
00:37:23,560 --> 00:37:25,520
Speaker 2: cover in either, so maybe I was wrong in that,

762
00:37:26,120 --> 00:37:28,239
Speaker 2: but I did think the Patriots were a bit overvalued

763
00:37:28,239 --> 00:37:31,000
Speaker 2: in that game those In both those games, I actually

764
00:37:31,040 --> 00:37:34,239
Speaker 2: bet the Jets in both those didn't go well. You know,

765
00:37:34,440 --> 00:37:36,239
Speaker 2: here we are and I'm betting the Jets again. Maybe

766
00:37:36,239 --> 00:37:39,440
Speaker 2: it won't go well again. But I thought that they

767
00:37:39,480 --> 00:37:41,800
Speaker 2: were overvalued in both those and so As a result,

768
00:37:42,040 --> 00:37:45,239
Speaker 2: I guess I didn't care too much about the transitive

769
00:37:45,280 --> 00:37:48,839
Speaker 2: property of those The Jets closed at plus one thirty

770
00:37:48,840 --> 00:37:50,439
Speaker 2: four in the money line for the Week eight game.

771
00:37:50,680 --> 00:37:55,040
Speaker 2: They were plus one fifty four at home in Week eleven,

772
00:37:55,520 --> 00:37:59,480
Speaker 2: So yeah, they actually got worse despite being at home

773
00:37:59,480 --> 00:38:01,800
Speaker 2: for the second which is not ideal. But yeah, I

774
00:38:01,800 --> 00:38:05,359
Speaker 2: think that, like I think that those numbers, even though

775
00:38:05,400 --> 00:38:08,840
Speaker 2: they didn't they didn't work, and the one emphatically didn't

776
00:38:08,880 --> 00:38:12,480
Speaker 2: work the first game. I still feel like the Patriots

777
00:38:12,520 --> 00:38:14,280
Speaker 2: might have been a bit over value in those two games.

778
00:38:14,600 --> 00:38:17,400
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's possible. And I mean again the addition of

779
00:38:17,400 --> 00:38:21,120
Speaker 1: of Mike White, like, yeah, you know, it's you know,

780
00:38:21,400 --> 00:38:25,360
Speaker 1: it's a different team in theory, it's it's a different team. Yeah,

781
00:38:26,080 --> 00:38:29,200
Speaker 1: all right. One one game I have to look at

782
00:38:29,840 --> 00:38:33,440
Speaker 1: is this this Rams game. I mean, my my goodness,

783
00:38:33,800 --> 00:38:36,920
Speaker 1: this number was ten. In the opposite direction, the Rams

784
00:38:36,960 --> 00:38:39,480
Speaker 1: at home in the off season market were favored by

785
00:38:39,480 --> 00:38:40,000
Speaker 1: ten points.

786
00:38:40,520 --> 00:38:40,600
Speaker 2: Uh.

787
00:38:40,760 --> 00:38:43,440
Speaker 1: In the look ahead market this was three. Uh. It

788
00:38:43,520 --> 00:38:47,040
Speaker 1: was four and a half when the early lines were

789
00:38:47,040 --> 00:38:50,759
Speaker 1: released on Sunday, and as of recording, it has gone

790
00:38:51,000 --> 00:38:55,320
Speaker 1: all the way up to eight. I mean, my my goodness.

791
00:38:55,640 --> 00:38:57,799
Speaker 1: By the way. I bet this early on Monday at

792
00:38:57,840 --> 00:38:59,440
Speaker 1: minus four and a half, and I logged it in

793
00:38:59,440 --> 00:39:02,279
Speaker 1: the Betting for which now gives me the opportunity to

794
00:39:02,320 --> 00:39:04,120
Speaker 1: remind you that in the Betting pros app, you can

795
00:39:04,160 --> 00:39:06,040
Speaker 1: sync up with sports books. You can get free betting

796
00:39:06,120 --> 00:39:09,400
Speaker 1: advice and picks. You can track different experts, track line movement,

797
00:39:09,440 --> 00:39:12,240
Speaker 1: track your own bets, and you can get sports betting alerts.

798
00:39:12,520 --> 00:39:14,640
Speaker 1: And we monitor all the major sports books so you

799
00:39:14,640 --> 00:39:16,719
Speaker 1: can see which book is offering the best line on

800
00:39:16,760 --> 00:39:18,719
Speaker 1: a bet at any given moment. So download the app

801
00:39:18,760 --> 00:39:21,839
Speaker 1: today in the Apple or Google Play. Stoor. I mean

802
00:39:21,840 --> 00:39:25,439
Speaker 1: the rams, what do you make of the descent into

803
00:39:25,480 --> 00:39:27,600
Speaker 1: hell that we have seen for this organization?

804
00:39:28,040 --> 00:39:31,000
Speaker 2: It's been exactly that, And now you take Aaron Donald out,

805
00:39:31,040 --> 00:39:33,520
Speaker 2: It's like, okay, if I assuming this is this week

806
00:39:33,560 --> 00:39:36,480
Speaker 2: with that, with that ankle injury, Like how much is that?

807
00:39:36,920 --> 00:39:39,520
Speaker 2: How much is that worth? Probably a lot, honestly, Like

808
00:39:39,600 --> 00:39:41,640
Speaker 2: you know, it's not worth a three point it's moved

809
00:39:41,960 --> 00:39:44,840
Speaker 2: since Monday, But you're kind of just stacking stuff. And

810
00:39:44,880 --> 00:39:48,600
Speaker 2: I think the idea of cluster injuries is key because

811
00:39:49,800 --> 00:39:53,320
Speaker 2: there's no Matthew Stafford, potentially no John Walford again, there's

812
00:39:53,360 --> 00:39:56,719
Speaker 2: no Cooper cup Alan Robinson if that matters. I don't know.

813
00:39:57,160 --> 00:40:00,359
Speaker 2: The entire offensive line is gone, so you to get

814
00:40:00,400 --> 00:40:04,720
Speaker 2: like this like cascade effect of this avalanche effect of like, okay,

815
00:40:04,760 --> 00:40:08,520
Speaker 2: you take out the most every most impactful piece except

816
00:40:08,560 --> 00:40:11,759
Speaker 2: for Jalen Ramsey, how do you fully account for that?

817
00:40:11,800 --> 00:40:14,240
Speaker 2: And that's why I haven't taken that, despite my numbers

818
00:40:14,280 --> 00:40:16,440
Speaker 2: being closer to where this the look ahead was, or

819
00:40:16,600 --> 00:40:19,920
Speaker 2: the four and a half number was, I just like,

820
00:40:20,000 --> 00:40:22,479
Speaker 2: I just I don't know. I feel like it's more

821
00:40:22,680 --> 00:40:27,600
Speaker 2: likely that I am undervaluing the the value of those

822
00:40:27,640 --> 00:40:32,240
Speaker 2: guys than I'm overvaluing it. So that's why I'm skewing

823
00:40:32,320 --> 00:40:35,640
Speaker 2: towards despite showing value, not betting it because I disagree.

824
00:40:35,800 --> 00:40:38,480
Speaker 2: I feel like I'm probably under accounting for this stuff,

825
00:40:38,520 --> 00:40:40,479
Speaker 2: and it is a manual adjustments. I could adjust more,

826
00:40:41,320 --> 00:40:42,840
Speaker 2: but it's like I don't know if I can actually

827
00:40:42,960 --> 00:40:47,280
Speaker 2: project them to be worse passing physically, So I'm showing

828
00:40:47,360 --> 00:40:49,600
Speaker 2: value on the RAMS side. I refuse to bet it.

829
00:40:49,640 --> 00:40:52,120
Speaker 2: I will not bet it unless it gets to something crazy.

830
00:40:52,200 --> 00:40:53,879
Speaker 2: You know, it's come back seven and a half, so

831
00:40:54,360 --> 00:40:57,040
Speaker 2: that that tells me we're probably gonna be steading out

832
00:40:57,080 --> 00:40:59,360
Speaker 2: around there. But it's it's like when you cluster so

833
00:40:59,400 --> 00:41:03,239
Speaker 2: many impactful and just together, it's hard to grasp how

834
00:41:03,320 --> 00:41:04,799
Speaker 2: much value that may be worth.

835
00:41:05,600 --> 00:41:08,520
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean when your your defense is the best

836
00:41:08,520 --> 00:41:11,239
Speaker 1: part of your team because your offense is absolutely dead

837
00:41:11,320 --> 00:41:14,080
Speaker 1: and your defense is anchored, you know, by two guys

838
00:41:14,080 --> 00:41:16,319
Speaker 1: and a stars and scrubs approach, and one of your

839
00:41:16,320 --> 00:41:20,040
Speaker 1: stars is gone right, it's you know, it's not very good,

840
00:41:20,600 --> 00:41:24,080
Speaker 1: all right. One one game that I know you are

841
00:41:24,080 --> 00:41:27,360
Speaker 1: looking on and you're betting on the Chargers money line

842
00:41:28,440 --> 00:41:31,000
Speaker 1: going against the Raiders. By the way, speaking of the Raiders,

843
00:41:31,120 --> 00:41:33,400
Speaker 1: gonna do another plug here, we are giving away a

844
00:41:33,480 --> 00:41:37,839
Speaker 1: free signed Josh Jacobs Raiders jersey from Pristine Auction Josh

845
00:41:37,960 --> 00:41:43,120
Speaker 1: Jacobs absolute monster, regret of my my fantasy preseason and

846
00:41:43,160 --> 00:41:45,319
Speaker 1: being like, hey, Josh Jacobs, not so sure about that

847
00:41:45,360 --> 00:41:48,399
Speaker 1: guy anyway. If you want a chance to win this

848
00:41:48,600 --> 00:41:51,359
Speaker 1: free signed Josh Jacobs jersey, subscribe to the Betting Pros

849
00:41:51,360 --> 00:41:53,680
Speaker 1: YouTube channel right now and comment below on the video.

850
00:41:53,719 --> 00:41:55,400
Speaker 1: We will announce a winner on the channel in a

851
00:41:55,440 --> 00:41:58,879
Speaker 1: future episode, So turn on your notifications. The money line

852
00:41:58,920 --> 00:42:01,680
Speaker 1: here for you the Chargers. This was one thirty five.

853
00:42:01,719 --> 00:42:04,319
Speaker 1: Minus one thirty five is moved to minus one twenty six.

854
00:42:04,800 --> 00:42:06,560
Speaker 1: Talk to me about what you were seeing here with

855
00:42:06,640 --> 00:42:08,920
Speaker 1: the Chargers against the Raiders.

856
00:42:09,040 --> 00:42:11,279
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I've not betting this one yet. I'm more

857
00:42:11,560 --> 00:42:14,839
Speaker 2: marking it as one to monitor because the vibes are

858
00:42:14,840 --> 00:42:17,759
Speaker 2: on the Raiders are very good, and you can sometimes

859
00:42:17,800 --> 00:42:19,680
Speaker 2: like you shouldn't use vibes to bet, but you can

860
00:42:19,840 --> 00:42:23,319
Speaker 2: use vibes to try to predict where a market will go.

861
00:42:23,680 --> 00:42:25,480
Speaker 2: So this has already gone from minus one thirty five

862
00:42:25,520 --> 00:42:27,680
Speaker 2: for the Chargers now to minus one twenty six. It's

863
00:42:27,719 --> 00:42:30,240
Speaker 2: held steady at minus one twenty six for a while now,

864
00:42:30,719 --> 00:42:34,520
Speaker 2: and maybe that means that it sticks there and doesn't move.

865
00:42:35,200 --> 00:42:37,640
Speaker 2: If it were to move more, I could see myself

866
00:42:37,640 --> 00:42:40,120
Speaker 2: buying it to the Charges. And again, I specifically built

867
00:42:40,120 --> 00:42:42,680
Speaker 2: a model to get myself to stop betting this stupid, stupid,

868
00:42:42,680 --> 00:42:45,759
Speaker 2: stupid team. So like, I don't want to bet them,

869
00:42:45,960 --> 00:42:48,520
Speaker 2: and I'm trying not to, but if it were to

870
00:42:48,600 --> 00:42:51,440
Speaker 2: move more, I could see they're being value here. The

871
00:42:51,480 --> 00:42:54,880
Speaker 2: model I built to downgrade the stupid team hasn't favored

872
00:42:54,880 --> 00:42:56,799
Speaker 2: by one point five to five. Now, that's not going

873
00:42:56,880 --> 00:42:59,800
Speaker 2: to get me to show value at minus one twenty six.

874
00:43:00,400 --> 00:43:02,840
Speaker 2: But if that minus one twenty six were to come down,

875
00:43:03,200 --> 00:43:06,680
Speaker 2: I could have some interest there, So I want to

876
00:43:06,760 --> 00:43:08,480
Speaker 2: keep tabs on that one. We haven't seen a ton

877
00:43:08,520 --> 00:43:10,400
Speaker 2: of big moves this year. We've seen some moves like

878
00:43:10,680 --> 00:43:14,080
Speaker 2: the Washington Chicago Thursday night game. We saw a pretty

879
00:43:14,080 --> 00:43:16,839
Speaker 2: big move there that Tom. There was a game where

880
00:43:16,840 --> 00:43:20,080
Speaker 2: Tom Brady was like an underdog and then eventually while

881
00:43:20,200 --> 00:43:22,400
Speaker 2: they close his favorites there. There have been some games

882
00:43:22,400 --> 00:43:28,439
Speaker 2: this year where we've seen significant moves around zero, and

883
00:43:28,640 --> 00:43:30,800
Speaker 2: I wouldn't be shocked if this is one just because

884
00:43:31,040 --> 00:43:34,040
Speaker 2: people talk themselves to Josh Jacobs against Chargers justifiably, so

885
00:43:34,120 --> 00:43:37,400
Speaker 2: that's actually legit concern. I could see this one moving

886
00:43:37,840 --> 00:43:40,239
Speaker 2: to where the Raiders maybe they go from plus one

887
00:43:40,239 --> 00:43:42,520
Speaker 2: away to minus one awaight, it's minus one await both sides,

888
00:43:42,560 --> 00:43:45,279
Speaker 2: something like that. If that gets there, I'll probably buy

889
00:43:45,320 --> 00:43:48,080
Speaker 2: into the Chargers. I'm not there now, but I do

890
00:43:48,120 --> 00:43:50,560
Speaker 2: think that it's worth monitoring to see if it gets there,

891
00:43:51,120 --> 00:43:53,000
Speaker 2: given the sentiment and given the way things have move

892
00:43:53,040 --> 00:43:53,640
Speaker 2: in recently.

893
00:43:54,719 --> 00:43:58,600
Speaker 1: All Right, one more game here to talk about. Thursday

894
00:43:58,640 --> 00:44:01,759
Speaker 1: Night football. We have the Bills on the road at

895
00:44:01,800 --> 00:44:05,320
Speaker 1: the Patriots the Bills. Looking at it now, this number

896
00:44:05,480 --> 00:44:07,400
Speaker 1: was five and a half. It has moved down to

897
00:44:07,560 --> 00:44:11,680
Speaker 1: four and a half. And let me see, was in

898
00:44:11,719 --> 00:44:14,440
Speaker 1: the look ahead market it was forty five and a

899
00:44:14,440 --> 00:44:17,239
Speaker 1: half where I took the under there because that just

900
00:44:17,560 --> 00:44:19,359
Speaker 1: you know, on his face, that just fell too high.

901
00:44:19,440 --> 00:44:21,719
Speaker 1: And it has moved down to forty three and a half. Now.

902
00:44:21,760 --> 00:44:25,240
Speaker 1: I don't know if you have any opinions on these

903
00:44:25,280 --> 00:44:28,400
Speaker 1: two teams, you know, kind of big picture in general

904
00:44:28,960 --> 00:44:31,640
Speaker 1: and what we might see out of this divisional matchup.

905
00:44:31,719 --> 00:44:34,239
Speaker 1: But how are you viewing this game?

906
00:44:34,480 --> 00:44:37,080
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I'm probably gonna want up taking the Bills eventually.

907
00:44:37,280 --> 00:44:39,040
Speaker 2: I've not yet because we saw it move to four

908
00:44:39,080 --> 00:44:41,040
Speaker 2: and a half. It's minus one fifteen and four and

909
00:44:41,040 --> 00:44:43,640
Speaker 2: a half right now. If it's staves minus one fifteen,

910
00:44:43,680 --> 00:44:45,680
Speaker 2: implying that we're not going to get it at you know,

911
00:44:45,719 --> 00:44:47,239
Speaker 2: get it down to minus one tennis something like that,

912
00:44:47,239 --> 00:44:49,399
Speaker 2: I'll probably want up taking that. I have not yet.

913
00:44:49,440 --> 00:44:50,920
Speaker 2: I had the Bills fair by six and a half

914
00:44:50,960 --> 00:44:53,799
Speaker 2: in this game because again, like I said, they are

915
00:44:53,840 --> 00:44:56,719
Speaker 2: still tops in my power rankings because the defense is

916
00:44:56,800 --> 00:44:59,240
Speaker 2: very good and that kind of negates the key advantage

917
00:44:59,320 --> 00:45:01,799
Speaker 2: that New England as typically is that their defense is

918
00:45:01,840 --> 00:45:05,399
Speaker 2: so good. Obviously, the Bills defense has not been as

919
00:45:05,440 --> 00:45:08,600
Speaker 2: good recently because of the injuries they've had and stuff

920
00:45:08,640 --> 00:45:10,160
Speaker 2: like that. But they are getting some guys back, like

921
00:45:10,200 --> 00:45:13,040
Speaker 2: Plawyers back and stuff like that, so they're slowly getting

922
00:45:13,040 --> 00:45:15,359
Speaker 2: it a little bit healthier. This offense is much better

923
00:45:15,880 --> 00:45:18,279
Speaker 2: than New England, so I'm probably gonna get to four

924
00:45:18,280 --> 00:45:20,640
Speaker 2: and a half. I just want to see if we

925
00:45:20,680 --> 00:45:24,040
Speaker 2: can get it at not minus one point fifteen, So

926
00:45:24,080 --> 00:45:25,520
Speaker 2: I want to keep an eye on that market. I'm

927
00:45:25,560 --> 00:45:27,560
Speaker 2: gonna bet the Bills. I'm pretty sure at some point.

928
00:45:27,560 --> 00:45:29,759
Speaker 2: I just haven't gotten there yet because I want to

929
00:45:29,800 --> 00:45:32,960
Speaker 2: see if the market continues to go in the Patriots favor.

930
00:45:33,200 --> 00:45:35,200
Speaker 2: I think the Bills are undervalued here and I probably

931
00:45:35,239 --> 00:45:36,920
Speaker 2: will get there. Just want to see if I can

932
00:45:36,960 --> 00:45:39,319
Speaker 2: get a better number before I actually do dive in.

933
00:45:39,719 --> 00:45:42,480
Speaker 1: Yeah, to your point about this team getting healthier. A

934
00:45:42,560 --> 00:45:45,520
Speaker 1: number of players who set out the Thanksgiving Game.

935
00:45:45,680 --> 00:45:48,120
Speaker 2: Mitch more sarch Center was one too. He was full

936
00:45:48,160 --> 00:45:49,759
Speaker 2: on Monday, and that was part of the reason why

937
00:45:49,800 --> 00:45:51,960
Speaker 2: I was on the Lions. With his likely being out

938
00:45:52,000 --> 00:45:55,040
Speaker 2: and eventually being out. I think that that that's a

939
00:45:55,040 --> 00:45:58,279
Speaker 2: pretty big because like left tackles important, center is like

940
00:45:58,360 --> 00:46:01,200
Speaker 2: a force multiplier for the entire offensive line, So having

941
00:46:01,239 --> 00:46:05,000
Speaker 2: him out on a below average offensive line that did

942
00:46:05,040 --> 00:46:07,120
Speaker 2: matter a lot to Me's that getting back matters a lot.

943
00:46:07,000 --> 00:46:10,799
Speaker 1: Too, Yeah, absolutely so, as you mentioned, back to back

944
00:46:10,960 --> 00:46:13,960
Speaker 1: full practices for a number of guys who are out

945
00:46:14,040 --> 00:46:17,680
Speaker 1: on Thanksgiving, including center Mitch Morse, but then also off

946
00:46:17,719 --> 00:46:20,959
Speaker 1: wall linebackers remained Edmonds and then two edge rushers aj

947
00:46:21,080 --> 00:46:26,560
Speaker 1: Epineesa and Greg Russo. Both of those guys out before

948
00:46:27,040 --> 00:46:30,080
Speaker 1: looks like almost certain that they will be returning this game.

949
00:46:30,120 --> 00:46:31,560
Speaker 1: I one thing I will want to keep an eye

950
00:46:31,600 --> 00:46:35,080
Speaker 1: on is Deon Dawkins, who has missed back to back

951
00:46:35,120 --> 00:46:37,920
Speaker 1: practices with an ankle injury. That wasn't one that I

952
00:46:37,960 --> 00:46:42,000
Speaker 1: was like really like cognizant of entering the week. I'm

953
00:46:42,040 --> 00:46:45,040
Speaker 1: imagining he's going to be fine, Like I haven't really

954
00:46:45,080 --> 00:46:47,560
Speaker 1: seen anything saying like there's a real chance he's going

955
00:46:47,600 --> 00:46:50,080
Speaker 1: to miss this game. But he's someone I'm gonna want

956
00:46:50,080 --> 00:46:50,719
Speaker 1: to keep an eye on.

957
00:46:51,400 --> 00:46:54,800
Speaker 2: Yeah, he did leave really on Thanksgiving, Okay, I'm not sure.

958
00:46:56,400 --> 00:46:58,880
Speaker 2: Like you can sometimes see guys sit and be okay,

959
00:46:58,960 --> 00:47:01,120
Speaker 2: and especially like an ankle thing. It hasn't seemed like

960
00:47:01,120 --> 00:47:03,239
Speaker 2: it's Benchi bats. I'm also assuming that he does wind

961
00:47:03,280 --> 00:47:05,600
Speaker 2: up playing, but he didn't come back in that game,

962
00:47:05,600 --> 00:47:07,680
Speaker 2: so I wouldn't be shocked if he sat, and that

963
00:47:07,680 --> 00:47:10,000
Speaker 2: would be a downgrade for them. Maybe that keeps me

964
00:47:10,040 --> 00:47:12,200
Speaker 2: off of taking the four and a half. But I'm

965
00:47:12,280 --> 00:47:15,759
Speaker 2: kind of on your your side there. I'm assuming he

966
00:47:15,800 --> 00:47:16,800
Speaker 2: does still wind up playing.

967
00:47:17,880 --> 00:47:20,560
Speaker 1: Yeah, so I have this in terms of the projections,

968
00:47:20,680 --> 00:47:23,840
Speaker 1: I have this at four point seventy five, so you know,

969
00:47:23,960 --> 00:47:27,480
Speaker 1: in theory, you know, I'm basically just kind of right

970
00:47:27,520 --> 00:47:30,280
Speaker 1: where right where the market is not seeing any value

971
00:47:30,320 --> 00:47:34,160
Speaker 1: on the side there. And and for the total, let

972
00:47:34,160 --> 00:47:36,880
Speaker 1: me see, the number is now forty three and a half.

973
00:47:37,000 --> 00:47:40,040
Speaker 1: I haven't projected at forty two point seven, so you know,

974
00:47:40,200 --> 00:47:42,160
Speaker 1: maybe a little bit of value on the under here.

975
00:47:42,239 --> 00:47:45,400
Speaker 1: But this is probably a game I think more for

976
00:47:45,560 --> 00:47:50,040
Speaker 1: watching than necessarily for betting at this point in the

977
00:47:50,080 --> 00:47:53,080
Speaker 1: market cycle. All right, Jim, awesome to have you on

978
00:47:53,120 --> 00:47:57,120
Speaker 1: the show. It really enjoyed the conversation. Tell people where

979
00:47:57,120 --> 00:47:59,040
Speaker 1: to follow you on social and where to find your work.

980
00:47:59,280 --> 00:48:01,960
Speaker 2: Yeah, we have aily betting show called Covering the Spread

981
00:48:02,600 --> 00:48:04,880
Speaker 2: talk a lot of football there, talking World Cup, talking

982
00:48:04,880 --> 00:48:08,400
Speaker 2: college football, for the conference championships that goes up every weekday.

983
00:48:08,680 --> 00:48:11,080
Speaker 2: Just search for covering the spread wherever you get your podcasts.

984
00:48:11,080 --> 00:48:14,840
Speaker 2: Our DFS shows are under the number fire Daily Fantasy

985
00:48:14,880 --> 00:48:17,120
Speaker 2: podcast feed, and then all my other work is up

986
00:48:17,120 --> 00:48:19,920
Speaker 2: at number five. And I'm on Twitter at jim sonis.

987
00:48:19,600 --> 00:48:23,360
Speaker 1: All right, So, Jim you talked about college football looking

988
00:48:23,400 --> 00:48:25,759
Speaker 1: at the conference championships. I don't know if you can see.

989
00:48:25,800 --> 00:48:27,839
Speaker 1: I'll scooch down a little bit right there. I've got

990
00:48:27,840 --> 00:48:32,680
Speaker 1: the TCU love it ahead, talk to me about TCU.

991
00:48:33,080 --> 00:48:36,040
Speaker 1: They do they cover this? Not a question if they win,

992
00:48:36,239 --> 00:48:39,279
Speaker 1: because they're winning this game to cover this game.

993
00:48:39,880 --> 00:48:41,919
Speaker 2: Uh. So I don't have my own college football number.

994
00:48:41,960 --> 00:48:44,200
Speaker 2: I asked questions I played point guard on the college

995
00:48:44,239 --> 00:48:47,480
Speaker 2: football one because I don't have my own numbers. I

996
00:48:47,480 --> 00:48:49,120
Speaker 2: I don't roo for a good college team, so I

997
00:48:49,360 --> 00:48:53,880
Speaker 2: have never built numbers there. I'm gonna say sure, because

998
00:48:53,920 --> 00:48:56,800
Speaker 2: it seems like TCU has always been under vel like

999
00:48:56,840 --> 00:48:59,520
Speaker 2: we've always been saying okay, like you know, Baylor is

1000
00:48:59,520 --> 00:49:02,320
Speaker 2: Gonnapolo and they covered Baylor covered, so that's that's something

1001
00:49:02,360 --> 00:49:04,839
Speaker 2: for sure. But then like they kicked the heck out

1002
00:49:04,880 --> 00:49:07,040
Speaker 2: of Iowa State last night so or last week. So

1003
00:49:07,719 --> 00:49:11,000
Speaker 2: I'll say they cover just just for funzies. I like

1004
00:49:11,040 --> 00:49:13,480
Speaker 2: a purple team too, so got to ride at the purple.

1005
00:49:13,760 --> 00:49:15,839
Speaker 2: That is the most in depth NOUSI Sidon can give

1006
00:49:15,880 --> 00:49:18,120
Speaker 2: a college football again. I'm just I asked questions while

1007
00:49:18,120 --> 00:49:18,480
Speaker 2: I'm that one.

1008
00:49:18,520 --> 00:49:20,560
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, what is what's your purple team?

1009
00:49:21,000 --> 00:49:24,480
Speaker 2: Northwestern one and eleven? Go cats? You know they I

1010
00:49:24,560 --> 00:49:26,319
Speaker 2: was in Ireland for their win, so I got to,

1011
00:49:26,480 --> 00:49:29,200
Speaker 2: you know, after that win, I was like, Okay, cool,

1012
00:49:29,200 --> 00:49:31,080
Speaker 2: they can lose every other game this year, I'll be happy.

1013
00:49:31,520 --> 00:49:33,840
Speaker 2: I didn't think they would actually test that theory, and

1014
00:49:33,880 --> 00:49:35,880
Speaker 2: they did, but it was still, you know, I just

1015
00:49:35,920 --> 00:49:38,680
Speaker 2: got to not invest in them this year, which is

1016
00:49:38,760 --> 00:49:39,280
Speaker 2: very helpful.

1017
00:49:39,480 --> 00:49:42,800
Speaker 1: At least you got that one, that one win. Yeah, exactly,

1018
00:49:43,360 --> 00:49:46,720
Speaker 1: all right, Jim, awesome, thanks for all show. That's Jim Saunas.

1019
00:49:46,760 --> 00:49:49,600
Speaker 1: I'm Matthew Freeman Matt fi Orcle. Check out Betting Pros

1020
00:49:49,640 --> 00:49:52,880
Speaker 1: and Fantasy Pros for all my work best bets, player props,

1021
00:49:52,960 --> 00:49:56,200
Speaker 1: fantasy favorites, player projections and brankings and more. That's going

1022
00:49:56,239 --> 00:49:58,560
Speaker 1: to do it for this week thirteen. Market movement and

1023
00:49:58,640 --> 00:50:01,000
Speaker 1: Power Ratings edition of The Betty prospod. If you'd like

1024
00:50:01,040 --> 00:50:03,720
Speaker 1: the show, please rate and review on your favorite podcast app.

1025
00:50:03,880 --> 00:50:20,040
Speaker 1: Thanks for tuning in, good luck, and see you next episode.