The things that we most like to argue about are those that are most inherently arguable ...
As you may have noticed by now, I’m like that: clueless about most subjects that most people are most desperate to discuss. Who will win the Super Bowl? Will the stock market go up or down tomorrow? Will the health bill pass? Which party will win the next election?
Don’t ask me.
Those questions concern competitive institutions that are structured in ways that make their outcomes hard to foresee … and therefore captivating.
Paradoxically, that means that my being profoundly ignorant about these concerns wouldn’t keep me from making quick predictions that would be almost as accurate as if I did nothing else but study the subject.
Who will win the Super Bowl? Well, two minutes on Google leads me to a betting site that says the New Orleans Saints are +360, while the Indianapolis Colts are +385. (I don’t even know what those numbers are supposed to mean.) Here’s another site that has the Colts at 3:1 and the Saints at 4:1, which at least I understand.
So, there you have my fearless forecast: the Saints will meet the Colts in the 2010 Super Bowl, and one of them will win.
You heard it here first.My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
February 6, 2010
My November 18 Super Bowl Prediction
I wrote in Taki's Magazine last November:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
39 comments:
I bet big money on the Colts at -3.5.
I don't consider it "gambling" though because the Colts' are obviously going to win big.
Congratulations on fearlessly predicting that the best two teams in the NFL would meet in the super bowl. Perhaps for your next trick you could predict that ethnic groups which have historically performed badly on intelligence tests will continue to perform badly on intelligence tests.
Well, to make this more appealing to an HBD crowd, one could note that the hype surrounding the game is definitely pushing NO as the "black" team and IN as the "white" team.
Personally, I couldn't care less, except that:
A) I witnessed the NO defense intentionally trying to injure Favre last week [with some really bush league cheap shots], and
B) BHOJr is rooting for NO.
So this weekend, let's bring home a few more pieces of hardware for the greater Archie Manning household.
bread and circuses
impressive... minnesota was better though
Dan in DC
Uncanny.
Colts.
"Perhaps for your next trick you could predict that ethnic groups which have historically performed badly on intelligence tests will continue to perform badly on intelligence tests."
Hey, that's my whole act!
The drunkest place I've ever seen was Madison, WI on a Saturday night in 1986: U. of Wisconsin students.
I witnessed the NO defense intentionally trying to injure Favre last week [with some really bush league cheap shots], and
Didn't take long for the NO D to go after Warner on that possession change, either. Like, .5 seconds.
The whole game rests on whether the Colts offensive line can protect Manning in the pocket. My bet is they can and that'll give him time to pick apart the Saints' secondary.
The Drunkest place I ever saw was on the sidewalks of London on a Saturday night in the merry month of May. There were staggering numbers of young, mostly white, groups, couples mostly,reeling down the sidewalks starting around 8 o'clock in the evening in every block in the Theatre district, with their drinks in their hands and peaceful good-cheer on their faces. There were police posted everywhere whose attitude was to let them have their fun as long as they behaved peacably, which everyone seemed to be doing.
"The drunkest place I've ever seen was Madison, WI "
I reckon you never made it to Osh Kosh. But really you can't go wrong in any of the college towns in the great hard drinkin' state of Wisconsin.
Ah, good times, good times... :-)
Anonymous said...
bread and circuses.
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
This is only the circus. All the bread went to the banksters.
Well, it simply meant that in November -- at a time when there were a number of teams that might become Super Bowl Champs -- assuming that you chose the Super Bowl winner correctly then, you could have won $360 for every $100 that you bet on the Saints and $385 for every $100 that you bet on the Colts.
I just went to the same site and it now has the Colts at -210 and the Saints at +175, which means that if you're willing to take the Saints without also receiving the 4 point spread, you can win $175 for every $100 that you bet, if the Saints win outright.
But if you take the Colts without also giving up the 4 point spread, you've got to be willing to risk $210 on their behalf, just to win $100.
Note that if you do choose to take the Colts and give up the points or the Saints and receive the points, the numbers are -130 and +110.
This means that you've got to be willing to risk $130 to win $100 (if you bet on the Colts) or be willing to risk $100 to win $110 (if you bet on the Saints).
As I'm sure that you aware, the market is at work here as rigorously as it is on the Exchange.
The house looks upon this as a conservative investment and is trying to obtain roughly equal numbers of bettors for all sides so that regardless of the result, it can pocket the "vigorish".
A German aquaintance once told me that he feigns interest in football (i.e. soccer) so that he has a topic of conversation with "the common people".
Steve's prediction actually carries more risk than you first thought, anon. This is the first Super Bowl since Buffalo/Dallas 1993 that features two #1 seeds.
"Steve's prediction actually carries more risk than you first thought, anon."
Well, if I'd known that, I probably wouldn't have made the prediction. So, that's just more evidence for the utility of ignorance!
Colts win. Saints shouldn't even be there as Vikings were superior team in every single way but biased judging
' competitive institutions that are structured in ways that make their outcomes hard to foresee … and therefore captivating"
not to mention give otherwise high iq americans something to endlessly analyze and ponder rather than tackle the serious issues confronting us.
I honestly thing the day after the superbowl should be a holiday.. far more fitting than any holiday we really 'celebrate' - a day for fat, mind numb americans to sleep off their hangovers.
Cartoonist Steve Pastis has got you beat. He predicted that the Colts would win this year's Super Bowl back in 2006.
As some announcer used to say,"the IRONY.." as Archie Manning played so gamely for the Saints and they wasted his time and talents and never won. Now they are poised on the precipice-and who is coming there to shatter their dreams but Archie's son? Its been said of Peyton that he studies the films of his opponents relentlessly til he reaches an 'aha' moment--sort of like I guess when levitt realized abortion cuts crime:)-where he 'gets' it. Whatever knowledge of plays,player strengths,weaknessess and tendencies etc he needs to know has congealed into a general plan to thwart the defense at every turn.So the question is when did he achieve the aha moment re the Saints? The sooner he did it,the better their chances! I'd say early this week,Wednesday evening. Colts rule! BTW Archies dad killed himself.Who found him,shot? Archie. I wonder if some kind of depression or bipolar stuff runs in the family. Ted Turners dad offed himself,and look at him!After today we turn to the Brett Favre watch.Pants on the ground...Last thought:NO is finally beginning to remove the detritus of Katrina that has so marred their landscape. Nagin is gone!The new mayor is white! Lets hope he's a good one.
Team with more blacks in the starting line-up will win.
Just found another Google predictive spelling failure: you would think you would get "superbowl abortion ad" eventually, but you do not.
Okay, now The Who is performing.
Fat old men jumping about, singing about Teenage Wasteland.
This is painful.
Concerning the racial aspect, someone at Castefootball did a study on the effect of white players starting and wins, and there was a positive coefficient for white players of something like .26
Hope I die before I get old.
"Curvaceous Carbon-based Life Form said...
Okay, now The Who is performing.
Fat old men jumping about, singing about Teenage Wasteland.
This is painful."
"Steve Sailer said...
Hope I die before I get old."
You got that right. The Bridgestone half-time show? It should have been sponsored by Geritol. Pete Townsend looked like somebody's old pappy in a hipsters outfit. And Roger Daltry could be inducted into the "Men who look like old lesbians" hall of fame.
I wonder what bunch of old geezers from the 70s they'll get for next years show?
Is the problem with the half time show that the big younger musical stars these days, like Beyonce, are mostly women and they want male stars?
Steve, more like they want the Boomers' retirement cash I guess. Boomers love themselves beyond measure and never grew up so they like to see some old hippy prancing around like he's still got it.
Talk about old - Letterman and Oprah and Leno each had about a pound of theatrical makeup caked to their faces, and yet they still looked like the geezers that they are.
And I noticed in another commercial that even Charlie Sheen - still a relatively youthful 44 - is starting to get "turkey neck".
Were The Who lip-synching?
They sounded so good for old guys, and the TV was so studiously avoiding any close-up shots of them, that my lip-synching-dar started to beep.
If they wanted an old band who can still rock the house down, the Scorpions are still around and they've still got it. Retiring after their next tour though.
No sixty year old man should be able to sing like Klaus Meine.
peyton manning choked again. i thought he was over that, but he's not. he should not have won MVP in 2009 either. brees, favre, rivers, rodgers, and roethlisberger outplayed him. he also should not have won MVP in 08. rivers and brees played better that year too.
6 foot tall drew brees is the superbowl MVP. he also tied tom brady for the superbowl record for completions with 32. 6 feet tall is tall enough to play quarterback in the NFL, per another discussion on steve's blog last year.
other silly, goofy arguments that "player X is not Y enough" will come up during the NFL combine, they always do. in particular, one player routinely becomes dramatically superior to another by being 0.2 seconds faster in an artificial track sprint.
Colts win. Saints shouldn't even be there as Vikings were superior team in every single way but biased judging --Max
Er, why is taking notice that 12 > 11 "biased"? Sounds like reality-based-community officiating to me. At the very point they had the game sewn up, they suddenly think they're the Manitoba Vikings.
Yes, it did look funny that every one of the close calls near the end of that game went the Saints' way. That might be ascribed to the very biased noise reverberating within the Superdome. An unfair advantage, to be sure.
Of course, scrupulously fair Minnesotans would never, ever build a roof over a field in order to manipulate decibel levels to their advantage. That would be despicable, wouldn't it?
Jody, you may have to stop posting-
Manning had an incredible year and deserved every single vote for MVP, Roethlisberger outplayed him??? Almost too stupid for a rebuttal...
Peyton had an average SB- did he choke....Reggie Wayne doesn't make a hard slant and gets undercut by CB for pick six and then drops td on goal line.
You don't know the game, Jody.
Dan in DC
Were The Who lip-synching?
They sounded so good for old guys, and the TV was so studiously avoiding any close-up shots of them, that my lip-synching-dar started to beep.
I was wondering the same thing. The lead guitar player's hands seemed way off the notes but what do I know.
Was I right? Did the team with more starting black players win?
Was my post on Peyton Manning the player-coach too inflammatory even for iSteve?
Just curious.
Post a Comment