FPI's chances to win each game

Gladstone said:

Washington's chances to win each game
09.03 vs. Rutgers: 92.5%
09.10 vs. Idaho: 98.1%
09.17 vs. Portland State: 98.6%
09.24 @ Arizona: 59.7%
09.30 vs. Stanford: 68.6%
10.08 @ Oregon: 57.2%
10.22 vs. Oregon State: 93.7%
10.29 @ Utah: 65.7%
11.05 @ Cal: 70.0%
11.12 vs. USC: 55.0%
11.19 vs. Arizona State: 85.0%
11.25 @ Washington State: 66.8%

doogitup.gif


http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17282481/no-14-washington-huskies

seriously derek pls ban my account if we* don't win 10+ games

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

haie said:

Stopped reading here:

09.24 @ Arizona: 59.7%
09.30 vs. Stanford: 68.6%

I stopped reading here:

09.10 vs. Idaho: 98.1%
09.17 vs. Portland State: 98.6%

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

85% chance to beat ASU, who's beaten us 140041924 times in a row

el oh el

when did FPI hire Chest?

ThomasFremont said:

Tequilla said:

The statistical models are terrible at picking up most of the intangible shit ...

That being said, the numbers in theory are directionally correct ...

At Arizona is considered a tough game because it is on the road early in the year (I agree that the numbers with Stanford should probably be switched here) ...

I'm assuming the Stanford numbers are reflecting the games that Stanford is coming off of + short week + travel/road game

Oregon's backward slide is predicated on 1) how much of a loss VAJ is and 2) the fact that they lost the balance of a poor defense

USC is probably the most talented team in the conference ... their talent is overrated when you factor in everything that goes around it ... their DL is going to kill them this year

ASU will likely out perform expectations this year and they are a mess for statistical models based on the way they play.

The models predict 9-10 wins which seems like a good baseline. However, when you look at the numbers, UW is a favorite in every game and when you really think about the talent in the conference and compare it to UW's, there shouldn't be a game that we go into this year (assuming health in key spots) where we are any worse than a coin flip.

Too many here are too busy thinking about the last 15 years and putting past failures on this team before they've proven anything one way or another. The fact is that if you go by the "expectations" for last season they outperformed. But there are some here that will predict UW to lose game after game as soon as they start winning simply because they won't believe.

@TierbsHsotBoobs @ThomasFremont @RaceBannon @RoadDawg55 you can all go ahead and start downvoting and WTF'ing this shit ... it's what you losers do

Fuck. You.

ThomasFremont said:

Tequilla said:

ThomasFremont said:

Tequilla said:

The statistical models are terrible at picking up most of the intangible shit ...

That being said, the numbers in theory are directionally correct ...

At Arizona is considered a tough game because it is on the road early in the year (I agree that the numbers with Stanford should probably be switched here) ...

I'm assuming the Stanford numbers are reflecting the games that Stanford is coming off of + short week + travel/road game

Oregon's backward slide is predicated on 1) how much of a loss VAJ is and 2) the fact that they lost the balance of a poor defense

USC is probably the most talented team in the conference ... their talent is overrated when you factor in everything that goes around it ... their DL is going to kill them this year

ASU will likely out perform expectations this year and they are a mess for statistical models based on the way they play.

The models predict 9-10 wins which seems like a good baseline. However, when you look at the numbers, UW is a favorite in every game and when you really think about the talent in the conference and compare it to UW's, there shouldn't be a game that we go into this year (assuming health in key spots) where we are any worse than a coin flip.

Too many here are too busy thinking about the last 15 years and putting past failures on this team before they've proven anything one way or another. The fact is that if you go by the "expectations" for last season they outperformed. But there are some here that will predict UW to lose game after game as soon as they start winning simply because they won't believe.

@TierbsHsotBoobs @ThomasFremont @RaceBannon @RoadDawg55 you can all go ahead and start downvoting and WTF'ing this shit ... it's what you losers do

Fuck. You.

Because a team with a Vegas O/U of 4 or 4.5 winning 6 games (7th in a bowl) isn't outperforming expectations

The fact of the matter is that if they go 11-1 this year you'll be pissed because of the game they lost and what that loss might cost them

Stop sucking off Vegas. It makes you sound dumber than usual.

ThomasFremont said:

Tequilla said:

ThomasFremont said:

Tequilla said:

ThomasFremont said:

Tequilla said:

The statistical models are terrible at picking up most of the intangible shit ...

That being said, the numbers in theory are directionally correct ...

At Arizona is considered a tough game because it is on the road early in the year (I agree that the numbers with Stanford should probably be switched here) ...

I'm assuming the Stanford numbers are reflecting the games that Stanford is coming off of + short week + travel/road game

Oregon's backward slide is predicated on 1) how much of a loss VAJ is and 2) the fact that they lost the balance of a poor defense

USC is probably the most talented team in the conference ... their talent is overrated when you factor in everything that goes around it ... their DL is going to kill them this year

ASU will likely out perform expectations this year and they are a mess for statistical models based on the way they play.

The models predict 9-10 wins which seems like a good baseline. However, when you look at the numbers, UW is a favorite in every game and when you really think about the talent in the conference and compare it to UW's, there shouldn't be a game that we go into this year (assuming health in key spots) where we are any worse than a coin flip.

Too many here are too busy thinking about the last 15 years and putting past failures on this team before they've proven anything one way or another. The fact is that if you go by the "expectations" for last season they outperformed. But there are some here that will predict UW to lose game after game as soon as they start winning simply because they won't believe.

@TierbsHsotBoobs @ThomasFremont @RaceBannon @RoadDawg55 you can all go ahead and start downvoting and WTF'ing this shit ... it's what you losers do

Fuck. You.

Because a team with a Vegas O/U of 4 or 4.5 winning 6 games (7th in a bowl) isn't outperforming expectations

The fact of the matter is that if they go 11-1 this year you'll be pissed because of the game they lost and what that loss might cost them

Stop sucking off Vegas. It makes you sound dumber than usual.

So the people that handle sports bets in the billions annually with a total win rate in their books easily in the 9 figure range (and growing each year) clearly have no idea what they are talking about per your fucktarded (as usual) logic

You can see the data here: http://gaming.unlv.edu/reports/longterm_nvgaming.pdf

I don't suck off Vegas ... but I understand how lines are set. They aren't always right ... but their ability to consistently make money year in and year out says that they must know what they are doing.

If you know better, then by all means go down to Vegas and you should have no problem taking advantage of their stupidity and make an easy living.

Clearly not the case.

I never said Vegas wasn't smart or good at making money. So don't twist.

But they don't set lines to be right. They set lines to make a shit ton of money off degenerate fucking gamblers. They don't give a fuck if UW won 2.5 games more than the line they set as long as the count is right at the end of the season.

So when dumb fucks like you or HFNY quote Vegas lines as if they were handed down from Biff Tannen's sports almanac, you look like even bigger dumb fucks than usual.

HTH