Fwd: [personal] [Husker] NU Basketball Big 12 second half

[NUStLNorris at aol.com]

In a message dated 2/7/2006 8:38:18 AM Central Standard Time,  
reich at inetnebr.com writes:

You are  factually incorrect to state that Sagarin's ratings are
meaningless.   Can you point to one demonstration of a superior method
for predicting  outcomes?  No, you can't.  They are as meaningful in
terms of  prediction as one can find.  That they are imperfect does
not render  them "meaningless".  (And, the fact that he would or wouldn't
bet his  own money has nothing to do with their quality.)  Similarly,
the Vegas  line is a good predictor of outcomes, although I believe
that it is pretty  well established that good computer programs can
outperform the Vegas line  (because the Vegas line aims not to be a
good predictor, but to even money  on both sides of the line).  If you
were merely trying to use  hyperbole to say every game might not turn
out just as Sagarin predicted,  no one will disagree that computer
ratings are imperfect, but to say that  computer ratings are meaningless
is ridiculous.
 
Yes, I can.  Point spreads -- people putting their money behind  their 
projections.  Yes, it's got to do with balancing the wagering, but  opening line has 
a lot to do with projected outcomes.  Vegas' line aims NOT  to be a good 
predictor?  Can't agree with that.  The opening line  would move more if it wasn't 
meant to be a good predictor.  The fact that  he "would or wouldn't bet his 
own money" has EVERYTHING to do with their  quality.  Anybody can throw numbers 
out there.  If we disagree on  that, so be it.  
 
Dave Norris