June 7 show with Jason Been
We plan to talk to Jason about sports betting on golf and the 2012-13 NFL season. However, anything relating to sports betting, except basketball, is open to discussion. As a reminder, Jason is a particular expert on how weather affects, and doesn't affect, sports.
While I consider prop betting to be one of my strong points, it is a topic Jason doesn't care much about. So I could use the help of the forum to come up with some good questions for Jason. Please listen to the Feb 2 show, which may stimulate some ideas. I especially welcome golf questions. Everybody and his brother are talking about the NFL, so I always like to pick up a different rock to see what is under it.
I would be interested in hearing his take on rain vs. snow in football. I have always heard, and believed, that snow has very little effect on the outcome of a game. Unless it is that crazy Buffalo snow, that is a whole different story.
I guess I would also like to hear how they handicap golf tournaments, and for that matter, a NASCAR race. I never have quite understood how the odds are determined on specific competitors vs "the field".
Maybe these aren't the greatest questions, but the best I can think of right now.
Quote: avargovWhy is basketball off limits? Is it because the season is nearly over?
Jason just isn't interested in the sport.
Quote:I would be interested in hearing his take on rain vs. snow in football. I have always heard, and believed, that snow has very little effect on the outcome of a game. Unless it is that crazy Buffalo snow, that is a whole different story.
We talked about this when he was on the show the first time. He would say that snow has very little effect on the game. I suspect he would advise betting the over in those games, because the public incorrectly thinks snow favors a low-scoring game, driving down the line.
Quote:I guess I would also like to hear how they handicap golf tournaments, and for that matter, a NASCAR race. I never have quite understood how the odds are determined on specific competitors vs "the field".
Good question. Even outside the topic of betting, I've always wondered if say a +10 handicap player might be better than a +5, because the +10 handicap was based on tougher courses. Maybe a bad example, but I used to be quite into disk golf, and I thought the par ratings on the east coast courses were more lenient than on the west coast. So, if there were a head to head match up between two equal handicaps, from say California and New York, I would bet on the California player. Perhaps such imbalances could be could be used to find advantage plays in real golf.
Quote: WizardI've always wondered if say a +10 handicap player might be better than a +5, because the +10 handicap was based on tougher courses.
No. Each course is rated on how hard it is. I play two local courses here. One I can sometimes approach 80, and even rarely get into the high 70's. The other, if I get an 89 I consider it a huge success. So my 89 on 'hard course' is equal to, say, my 79 on 'easy course'. I don't know the exact formula, but each course, and actually each different set of tees on each course, has a 'slope' rating.
I think a good question for your guest would be this... How much poorer odds would you get betting on Tiger Woods than the fair handicap odds due to the public overrating him?
By the way, you mean 10 handicap, not +10 handicap. Golfers who are real good and whose handicaps would be 'below zero', I believe, are referred to as 'plus' handicaps. So if a pro were to have a handicap, it might be referred to as +4 or so. 90% sure about this.....
Quote: SOOPOONo. Each course is rated on how hard it is. I play two local courses here. One I can sometimes approach 80, and even rarely get into the high 70's. The other, if I get an 89 I consider it a huge success. So my 89 on 'hard course' is equal to, say, my 79 on 'easy course'. I don't know the exact formula, but each course, and actually each different set of tees on each course, has a 'slope' rating.
I don't dispute that some courses are harder than others. Say course A has a total par of 72, and B 77. So if you shot exactly par at either course it would have the same effect on your handicap. However, my question is whether it is easier to achieve a good score, relative to par, at some courses compared to others.
For example, I suspect that public courses are easier to achieve a good score relative to par than fancy private ones.
Quote:I think a good question for your guest would be this... How much poorer odds would you get betting on Tiger Woods than the fair handicap odds due to the public overrating him?
My opinion is to beg against the big name in any sport. I think Jason would say the same thing. I plan to ask him about this in celebrity golf tournaments. I recall him saying that betting against Donald Trump is a great bet, because he is a big name and always bragging what a good golfer he is. In reality, his ability does not match the hype.
Quote:By the way, you mean 10 handicap, not +10 handicap. Golfers who are real good and whose handicaps would be 'below zero', I believe, are referred to as 'plus' handicaps. So if a pro were to have a handicap, it might be referred to as +4 or so. 90% sure about this.....
Thanks. That sure is confusing, but I do like to be correct in my terminology.
Quote: WizardI don't dispute that some courses are harder than others. Say course A has a total par of 72, and B 77. So if you shot exactly par at either course it would have the same effect on your handicap. However, my question is whether it is easier to achieve a good score, relative to par, at some courses compared to others.
I guess you didn't understand my answer.... Both courses I play are par 72... But since one is harder, a 79 on the easy one will do the same thing for your handicap as an 89 on the harder one. I shot an 83 yesterday on a very easy course. My guess is that same level of skill gets me a 100+ at Augusta. Both are par 72 courses.
Quote: SOOPOOI guess you didn't understand my answer.... Both courses I play are par 72... But since one is harder, a 79 on the easy one will do the same thing for your handicap as an 89 on the harder one. I shot an 83 yesterday on a very easy course. My guess is that same level of skill gets me a 100+ at Augusta. Both are par 72 courses.
Thanks. I think I get it now. So, for purposes of handicapping some organization gives the whole golf course a level of difficulty rating. So, do they do a good job of it? Or do you think some courses they may have been too tough or lenient with. Do you think whatever this organziation is called, it fairly balances courses that reward distance and those that reward accuracy?
Quote: SOOPOOI guess you didn't understand my answer.... Both courses I play are par 72... But since one is harder, a 79 on the easy one will do the same thing for your handicap as an 89 on the harder one. I shot an 83 yesterday on a very easy course. My guess is that same level of skill gets me a 100+ at Augusta. Both are par 72 courses.
I don't know if this has any bearing on this conversation but I didn't know pro golfers had a rating. I thought they were just considered "scratch" golfers. As for myself, I have to establish a handicap on any course that I play at and they are almost all different. I may have a handicap of 4 on one par 72 course but an 8 on one across town.
And on the subject of sports betting, what are the best sources for studying this? I've always been intrigued but never really understood it.
Quote: texasplumrI don't know if this has any bearing on this conversation but I didn't know pro golfers had a rating. I thought they were just considered "scratch" golfers. As for myself, I have to establish a handicap on any course that I play at and they are almost all different. I may have a handicap of 4 on one par 72 course but an 8 on one across town.
And on the subject of sports betting, what are the best sources for studying this? I've always been intrigued but never really understood it.
Pro golfers do not technically have a handicap. But if they did, it would be called +4 or so. Top amateurs do have handicaps that are like that.
Sorry to inform you, texasplumr, you have the same handicap wherever you play. You may be expected to do 4 strokes better on the easier course, but your handicap is your handicap. If it is a 'real' USGA handicap, that is. Your golf course may make up something for the local players, but that would not translate when you play on any other course. That is how the 'slope' system comes into play.
One other thing, for those who care..... A handicap is NOT your average number of strokes over par. It is skewed by not counting many of your bad rounds, over the last 20? or so rounds. Someone with better internet skills than I have can find a link, I hope....
Quote: SOOPOOOne other thing, for those who care..... A handicap is NOT your average number of strokes over par. It is skewed by not counting many of your bad rounds, over the last 20? or so rounds. Someone with better internet skills than I have can find a link, I hope....
On a related question, I suppose that golfers with an official handicap report their scores to the USGA somehow. Suppose such a golfer has a terrible day, which he would prefer to not depress his handicap. Is reporting the score:
A) Absolutely mandatory.
B) Completely optional.
C) Supposed to be mandatory, but a frequently broken rule.
D) None of the above.
Quote: WizardThanks. I think I get it now. So, for purposes of handicapping some organization gives the whole golf course a level of difficulty rating. So, do they do a good job of it? Or do you think some courses they may have been too tough or lenient with. Do you think whatever this organziation is called, it fairly balances courses that reward distance and those that reward accuracy?
I have been asked for my "USGA" handicap, so I think that is the recognized body in the USA. I do not have a legal USGA handicap, so I don't pay much attention to the slope ratings, but the few times I have, they seem reasonable. For what it is worth, when I play with my friends, we agree on certain rules that are not consistent with turning in an honest score. We play lost balls and out of bounds as if they were lateral hazards. This speeds up the game considerably, as we don't want to take the legal 5 minutes you are allowed to look for a ball, then go back and re-hit from the original place. We 'give' putts that are close to the hole. Since these are illegal by official USGA rules, I can never turn in a truly honest score. So I tell people I am 'about a 15', as I seem to do as well as those that are 15's.
Quote: SOOPOOPro golfers do not technically have a handicap. But if they did, it would be called +4 or so. Top amateurs do have handicaps that are like that.
Sorry to inform you, texasplumr, you have the same handicap wherever you play. You may be expected to do 4 strokes better on the easier course, but your handicap is your handicap. If it is a 'real' USGA handicap, that is. Your golf course may make up something for the local players, but that would not translate when you play on any other course. That is how the 'slope' system comes into play.
One other thing, for those who care..... A handicap is NOT your average number of strokes over par. It is skewed by not counting many of your bad rounds, over the last 20? or so rounds. Someone with better internet skills than I have can find a link, I hope....
You are correct. To play in tournaments at the local courses they require a course handicap. At least, they do here. The USGA handicap is totally different, like you said. And I have no idea exactly how it is figured. They will accept the USGA handicap if you aren't from here but if you're local you have to use the course handicap.
Quote: WizardOn a related question, I suppose that golfers with an official handicap report their scores to the USGA somehow. Suppose such a golfer has a terrible day, which he would prefer to not depress his handicap. Is reporting the score:
A) Absolutely mandatory.
B) Completely optional.
C) Supposed to be mandatory, but a frequently broken rule.
D) None of the above.
It's always been A at the clubs I've belonged to but many are closer to C and not in the way you think. Some turn in more high scores to enable them to net better in tournaments.
Wizard it wouldnt be to your advantage to throw out your terrible rounds score. It would be to your disadvantage.
Quote: texasplumrAnd on the subject of sports betting, what are the best sources for studying this? I've always been intrigued but never really understood it.
I asked the same question a while back, both here and at bj21.com green chip. I got a bunch of responses and ended up buying 3 books from Amazon: Sharp Sports Betting by Wong, Weighing the Odds in Sports Betting by King Yao, and Conquering Risk: Attacking Vegas and Wall Street by Elihu D. Feustel.
FTR, Wong recommended King Yao's book (and I believe vice versa as King Yao participates at green chip - not 100% sure on that one though).
All 3 books are still in the Amazon shrink wrap as I didn't put aside time to read them, and then Bovada stopped doing business in Washington State, so I have less interest now.
Also, what is his favorite casino sport's book, and why?
Quote: WizardJason just isn't interested in (basketball).
I like him already ;)
Since golf's been covered, how about NASCAR? Unlike a team vs team event, you have a good 10 different people that are likely to win, another 5 or so that have a good chance, and another 5 to 10 on top of that that could squeeze into winners circle. On Superspeedways, all 43 entrants have a legitimate chance to win. How does one look at that? Is it simply team strength? Do they look at "hot streaks"? Does past history play into it?
When I bet on the Daytona 500, I couldn't really make it out. Sure, there was the obvious, like recent champion contenders being around 5:1. But some of the odds given were real head scratchers to me. I saw strong cars and strong teams that had momentum coming in at 12:1 and even 20:1. It just didn't make sense. If he had a word, I'd be interested.
