CelticsStrong
Other Discussions => Entertainment => Off Topic => Other Entertainment / Hobbies => Topic started by: Roy Hobbs on March 31, 2009, 02:13:51 PM
-
There should be a section on eBay that allows the auctioning of enticing future bets. For instance, a few weeks before the NBA season, I placed $300 on 15-to-1 odds that Cleveland would win the 2009 NBA title. Those odds have dropped to 2-to-1. Not that I would (after all, Cleveland is going to win the 2009 NBA title), but shouldn't I have the option to sell that $300 ticket on eBay? What if someone bid $1,200 on it (which would be a smart move because, again, Cleveland is going to win the NBA title) and I was guaranteed a $900 return on my investment? Should I take the money? This would be a fun Web site, you have to admit. And if eBay can't do it, then why couldn't the casinos themselves build a Web site that allows people to sell future tickets and get a second cut on the action? It all makes too much sense.
I'm assuming this is another one of Bill's "reverse jinxes"? I know this is fairly minor, and people get way too riled up about Simmons, but I think it's disingenuous for somebody to act like Boston's Superfan #1, and then consistently talk about other teams being superior to the Celts (L.A. last year, Cleveland this year.)
-
He was wrong last year. Hopefully that's all that matters.
-
There should be a section on eBay that allows the auctioning of enticing future bets. For instance, a few weeks before the NBA season, I placed $300 on 15-to-1 odds that Cleveland would win the 2009 NBA title. Those odds have dropped to 2-to-1. Not that I would (after all, Cleveland is going to win the 2009 NBA title), but shouldn't I have the option to sell that $300 ticket on eBay? What if someone bid $1,200 on it (which would be a smart move because, again, Cleveland is going to win the NBA title) and I was guaranteed a $900 return on my investment? Should I take the money? This would be a fun Web site, you have to admit. And if eBay can't do it, then why couldn't the casinos themselves build a Web site that allows people to sell future tickets and get a second cut on the action? It all makes too much sense.
I'm assuming this is another one of Bill's "reverse jinxes"? I know this is fairly minor, and people get way too riled up about Simmons, but I think it's disingenuous for somebody to act like Boston's Superfan #1, and then consistently talk about other teams being superior to the Celts (L.A. last year, Cleveland this year.)
Aside from him picking Cleveland, he has an interesting point about selling those bets...
-
he has been saying all year that the Cavs are going to win it all... i'm thinking part of it has to be the old reverse jinx... and part is that he thinks they have the best odds considering the c's health issues
-
Simmons is an idiot, I was glad to read that he thinks Cleveland's a lock.
Uh, not that I read Bill Simmons anymore...
-
I think you have to separate the gambling aspect from the sports fan aspect here.
15-1 odds on a Cleveland team are pretty enticing odds to jump at. The fact that its dropped to 2-1 makes it even more favorable at the time.
I'm guessing the Celtics odds were much lower than 15-1. As a gambler, taking 15-1 gets you a larger payoff.
It's tough when you have a rooting interest in one team while your gambling interest lies with another but it happens.
-
It's without a doubt his reverse jinx thing. He compared the Pats to the 80's Celts and I don't think he has pumped the hometown team since then. He is still feeling the Celtics.
I also agree with that gambling concept. I like doing similar stuff on the stock market with options. I feel it wouldn't be that hard to implement. They should ultimately allow gambling to be legal in the first place, but that's another issue.
-
I have no problem with it. when making bets, I go with what I think is most likely to happen, not just based on my team.
I would have liked to have seen BC do well in the NCAA tournament, but I had them losing in the first round in every pool I did.
I'd loved to have jumped at the cavs at 15-1 odds. I wonder what the current odds for the C's are - maybe worth a bet.
-
I have a hard time believing that Cleveland was EVER a 15-1 shot to win the title this year. I mean, if every team in the league was a .500 club, they would all be 30-1. Hard to see, especially after how tough they were LAST year, how they ever would have been much worse than a 5-1 or 6-1 shot.
I mean, I kinda figured, at the start of the season...
Boston: 25% shot at winning (4-1)
Cleveland: ~20% (5-1)
Lakers: ~15% (about 6-1)
Spurs: ~15% (about 6-1)
Everyone else: 25%
I mean, tell me if I'm misinterpreting the gambling lines, but doesn't 15-1 odds imply that Cleveland's only supposed to have a 7% chance of winning the title? When were the odds EVER that low?
-
Meh, there's a difference between being a fan and being rational. As a fan, you rabidly root for your team to do as well as they possibly can, but as a rational person sometimes you understand that's it's unlikely.
I desperately want the Celtics to win another ring this year, but if you put a gun to my head/made me wager a substantial amount on Cavs or Celts, well...I think I'd have to pick the other guys.
I have a hard time believing that Cleveland was EVER a 15-1 shot to win the title this year.
<snip>
I mean, tell me if I'm misinterpreting the gambling lines, but doesn't 15-1 odds imply that Cleveland's only supposed to have a 7% chance of winning the title? When were the odds EVER that low?
Gambling odds aren't supposed to be measures of objective likelihood, they're designed to generate bets in a way that favors the bookie's bottom line. This is a key difference - objectively, yeah, the Cavs had to be better than 15-1, but subjectively, there are a lot of folks that weren't big on them, not to mention a ton of Laker fans (probably some Celtic fans too) skewing the odds.
-
Meh, there's a difference between being a fan and being rational. As a fan, you rabidly root for your team to do as well as they possibly can, but as a rational person sometimes you understand that's it's unlikely.
I desperately want the Celtics to win another ring this year, but if you put a gun to my head/made me wager a substantial amount on Cavs or Celts, well...I think I'd have to pick the other guys.
I have a hard time believing that Cleveland was EVER a 15-1 shot to win the title this year.
<snip>
I mean, tell me if I'm misinterpreting the gambling lines, but doesn't 15-1 odds imply that Cleveland's only supposed to have a 7% chance of winning the title? When were the odds EVER that low?
Gambling odds aren't supposed to be measures of objective likelihood, they're designed to generate bets in a way that favors the bookie's bottom line. This is a key difference - objectively, yeah, the Cavs had to be better than 15-1, but subjectively, there are a lot of folks that weren't big on them, not to mention a ton of Laker fans (probably some Celtic fans too) skewing the odds.
It still doesn't make sense to me that they're going to be THAT far out of whack. Markets are too efficient; if you're telling me that Cleveland is THAT much of an underdog, I'm going to be betting the farm on that until the odds are more realistic (the collective "I" representing the gambling community)
I know that there's a bias even with gamblers towards Boston, LA, the other flashy teams... but it's not like LeBron isn't considered by many/most to be the best player in the game, and it wasn't like no one watched the seven-game series against us.
I'm calling BS on Simmons' recollection of 15-1 odds.
-
i will just relish at the thought of him blowing his money on the cavs....c'mon celts, stick it to the man, lol ;D
-
don't worry, if clevland doesn't win or we beat them, he'll just put out his lame ass "reverse jinx" line like he did last year when he thought we wouldn't make then win the finals.
Simmons isn't a fan anymore. I'm sure he enjoyed it when they won, and i liked his article about it, but he's "boston sports guy" no longer. now he just writes about the flavor of the month, like all the WWL contributers.
-
It still doesn't make sense to me that they're going to be THAT far out of whack. Markets are too efficient; if you're telling me that Cleveland is THAT much of an underdog, I'm going to be betting the farm on that until the odds are more realistic (the collective "I" representing the gambling community)
I know that there's a bias even with gamblers towards Boston, LA, the other flashy teams... but it's not like LeBron isn't considered by many/most to be the best player in the game, and it wasn't like no one watched the seven-game series against us.
I'm calling BS on Simmons' recollection of 15-1 odds.
I think the last 6 months have shown that markets aren't quite as efficient as they advertise. ;) And anyway, the efficiency would be shown in the shift from 15-1 to 2-1 odds over the course of the season. Google stock was pretty cheap for the first few minutes of its IPO, if I recall.
Simmons might be misremembering it or flatout making it up, but I doubt it - first, if he placed the bet, he's got the receipt, and second, if the odds never existed at any major sports book some blogger will prove it by the end of the day, and Simmons knows it. Instant factchecking makes it very hard to BS something easily verifiable like that.
Instead, it's possible those odds were pre-Mo Williams; they seem more reasonable then.
-
he's a fan... he tried the reverse jinx last year too.
But I'm kinda sharing his sentiment until I hear the truth about KG's injury.
-
im torn on wether to chastize him for not bleeding green.
On the one hand he is a full time employee of ESPN and has to be a little objective especially in what he writes on page 2.
On the other hand I also feel like the Cavs are the fvorites right now, does that make me a bad Celtics fan?
Because i know [dang] well that i bleed green
-
There should be a section on eBay that allows the auctioning of enticing future bets. For instance, a few weeks before the NBA season, I placed $300 on 15-to-1 odds that Cleveland would win the 2009 NBA title. Those odds have dropped to 2-to-1. Not that I would (after all, Cleveland is going to win the 2009 NBA title), but shouldn't I have the option to sell that $300 ticket on eBay? What if someone bid $1,200 on it (which would be a smart move because, again, Cleveland is going to win the NBA title) and I was guaranteed a $900 return on my investment? Should I take the money? This would be a fun Web site, you have to admit. And if eBay can't do it, then why couldn't the casinos themselves build a Web site that allows people to sell future tickets and get a second cut on the action? It all makes too much sense.
I'm assuming this is another one of Bill's "reverse jinxes"? I know this is fairly minor, and people get way too riled up about Simmons, but I think it's disingenuous for somebody to act like Boston's Superfan #1, and then consistently talk about other teams being superior to the Celts (L.A. last year, Cleveland this year.)
Picking the Lakers last year was more egregious than picking the Cavs this year (not because I hate the Lakers). Any true Celtics homer had a legitimate case for the C's to win the title last year. This year, the Cavs are on a tear and Boston is hurt - big time. So, I don't think it's unreasonable at all. (That said, I'm one of the few people who has actually stated on Celticsblog a belief that we could give Cleveland a run for their money without KG.)
I'll take my lickings for this next comment, but I feel like Celticsblog (as an entity) is still fighting its own inferiority complex. Personally, I get tired of commentaries and questioning of Bill Simmons' loyalty, as well as the canned rebuttals to various articles written in the Globe and/or Herald that seem to be an attempt to establish the relevancy of Celticsblog. I don't think it's necessary. Celticsblog is legit. I love it. I've followed it for however long now (4-5 years) and I'm still here. But I think Celticsblog needs to act more like the relevant player it is in the world of Celtics coverage and less like the kid brother.
-
he's a fan... he tried the reverse jinx last year too.
But I'm kinda sharing his sentiment until I hear the truth about KG's injury.
im going to start telling people everything im wrong about is a reverse jinx from now on, we'll see how many suckers i can find.
-
He's as much a fan as any of us, but he says things he ends up regretting. Early in the season he was saying on his podcast that Boston was a lock to win over 70 games....
and now we are limping into the playoffs with the 4th best record in the league. I promise you he wants the Celtics to win... he just doesn't want to make a prediction.
-
There should be a section on eBay that allows the auctioning of enticing future bets. For instance, a few weeks before the NBA season, I placed $300 on 15-to-1 odds that Cleveland would win the 2009 NBA title. Those odds have dropped to 2-to-1. Not that I would (after all, Cleveland is going to win the 2009 NBA title), but shouldn't I have the option to sell that $300 ticket on eBay? What if someone bid $1,200 on it (which would be a smart move because, again, Cleveland is going to win the NBA title) and I was guaranteed a $900 return on my investment? Should I take the money? This would be a fun Web site, you have to admit. And if eBay can't do it, then why couldn't the casinos themselves build a Web site that allows people to sell future tickets and get a second cut on the action? It all makes too much sense.
I'm assuming this is another one of Bill's "reverse jinxes"? I know this is fairly minor, and people get way too riled up about Simmons, but I think it's disingenuous for somebody to act like Boston's Superfan #1, and then consistently talk about other teams being superior to the Celts (L.A. last year, Cleveland this year.)
Roy, nice job catching this. It was just about time for a Hate Bill Simmons thread (and getting close to a Love Gerald Green thread). I'm ready to pile on Mr. BS... let the fun begin!
-
Hey, it's part of Simmons shtick isn't it?
-
dear Bill, 2 points
a. When a pessimist takes this position, he's allowed to say "either I'm right or I'm pleasantly surprised." You are just being smarmy. Quit it please.
b. Regarding your bets idea, it is called the Stock Market (options trading, shorting stocks, etc.). Same exact idea without the sports.
-
Wow... I'm shocked to see this posted by Roy..
First, bleeding green doesn't mean you lie to yourself or others. If you think another team has a better chance, and its in the context of a conversation (or article), then you say it (or write it). "Bleeding Green" is routing for the Celtics through thick and thin. Bill Simmons routes for the Celtics, whether you like him as a fan or not is irrelevant.
Second, he went out of his way last year to say the Lakers were going to win... only to follow it up with "of course I said they were going to win. I'm so burnt from my jinxing the Pats, that I don't want to do the same to the Celtics.. *hint hint*". He openly pulled for the Celtics, before they made it to the finals.
Lastly, I don't let Bill Simmons speak for myself as a Boston fan. It's his job to make predictions and analyze the NBA in a manner that is appealing to a national audience. He's at least better than reading Bob Ryan or Dan Shaugnessy who are bleeding potato chips from having sat on the couch in lieu of writing articles.
-
I have a hard time believing that Cleveland was EVER a 15-1 shot to win the title this year. I mean, if every team in the league was a .500 club, they would all be 30-1. Hard to see, especially after how tough they were LAST year, how they ever would have been much worse than a 5-1 or 6-1 shot.
I mean, I kinda figured, at the start of the season...
Boston: 25% shot at winning (4-1)
Cleveland: ~20% (5-1)
Lakers: ~15% (about 6-1)
Spurs: ~15% (about 6-1)
Everyone else: 25%
I mean, tell me if I'm misinterpreting the gambling lines, but doesn't 15-1 odds imply that Cleveland's only supposed to have a 7% chance of winning the title? When were the odds EVER that low?
Cleveland was 45-37 last year, the year they went to the finals they were 50-32. They changed their roster, they didn't do all that well last year, and there changes were unknown, why would you expect the Cavs to be anything more than 15-1 (well I could see them as high as 12-1) beginning in the season. Also Boston won the title and they are from Boston (fan favorite) so they're odds would be good same goes for the Lakers (they got Bynum and fan favorite). So they're odds wouldn't show good value. Cleveland is a small market team, who only won 45 games last year.
Also at the begining of the year Detroit was the same, and could easily be a contender, the Magic were still there. So it wasn't a sure lock that Cleveland would be on this kind of win pace.
-
b. Regarding your bets idea, it is called the Stock Market (options trading, shorting stocks, etc.). Same exact idea without the sports.
Jeff,
I'm assuming he is, as most people are, aware of the financial sector's options. My guess is he was trying to relate/explain that principle to sports betting in a simple manner. His point that it does not exist in sports betting is still valid, and its the first I've ever seen it brought up.
-
Hold on guys- just the other day everyone here(well, at least the first fifteen or twenty that I read), felt the C's have zero chance to win it all without KG.
I'd like some action on that- if you're so sure of it, just give me 100-1 odds and I'll invest a hundred on the C's chances even without Garnett.
Nobody seems to be talking that much about Leon, but if Leon can come back full strength I give the C's a shot even without KG. Maybe a 20-1 chance, but it would be possible.
But it does seem like it's the Cav's year, especially now that they'll have home court(and a three man advantage?) in the playoffs.
-
b. Regarding your bets idea, it is called the Stock Market (options trading, shorting stocks, etc.). Same exact idea without the sports.
Jeff,
I'm assuming he is, as most people are, aware of the financial sector's options. My guess is he was trying to relate/explain that principle to sports betting in a simple manner. His point that it does not exist in sports betting is still valid, and its the first I've ever seen it brought up.
don't mind me, I'm just in a bad mood :-X
-
Hold on guys- just the other day everyone here(well, at least the first fifteen or twenty that I read), felt the C's have zero chance to win it all without KG.
I'd like some action on that- if you're so sure of it, just give me 100-1 odds and I'll invest a hundred on the C's chances even without Garnett.
Nobody seems to be talking that much about Leon, but if Leon can come back full strength I give the C's a shot even without KG. Maybe a 20-1 chance, but it would be possible.
But it does seem like it's the Cav's year, especially now that they'll have home court(and a three man advantage?) in the playoffs.
I was the one who started that other thread and I too found it hard to believe that so many people are willing to write this team off without KG. Sure, the odds drop, but they're not zero.
-
Look, the guy saw 15-1 odds and intelligently jumped on them. No reason to hammer on him for it. The Bird, you said you thought going into the season the odds to win should have been about 4-1 for the Celtics (25% chance), 5-1 for Cleveland (20%), et al. That's your rationale for why you don't believe the 15-1 odds ever existed. Well, Simmons is right. Check out this article from June 20, 2008:
http://www.hoopsavenue.com/2008/06/2009-nba-finals-odds/
Given those odds (Boston at 7-2, Cleveland at 16-1), if you thought Boston had a 25% chance to win the title and Cleveland had a 20% chance, your expected values for $50 bets on each team would have been $43.75 for the Celtics (25% chance to win $175) or $160 for the Cavs (20% chance to win $800). It's not even close which one a rational person would pick. The expected value is just far higher. It's a no brainer, even for a Celtics diehard. In fact, even if you thought the Celtics had a 50% chance to win it all and Cleveland the same 20%, the expected value would still point toward Cleveland ($160 to $87.50).
Remember, Vegas doesn't base odds on who it actually thinks will win (that will influence the lines, but not control them), it bases odds on who the public thinks will win and who they will bet on. Vegas plays for the long run, they want roughly equal action on all teams so they guarantee a profit (both by selling more than they pay out AND by picking up a lot of commissions).
At the end of last season and going into this one, most people thought Boston, LA, Detroit, San Antonio, probably New Orleans and maybe a few others would be better than Cleveland. Remember, Cleveland had fewer than 50 wins last year and a negative point differential. There wasn't much reason to believe they'd get significantly better (Mo Williams didn't seem like that big an upgrade), and most of their surrounding players were just getting older (Ilgauskas, Wallace, Szczerbiak) not better. They were not an appealing pick from an average person's perspective, at least not as appealing as New Orleans, Orlando and Utah - three young up and coming teams who had better records last year than Cleveland - San Antonio (healthier, bounce back year) and Houston (Artest addition and healthier) or Boston and LA. More money was going on those teams - odds are just shifted to get more money on other teams, like Cleveland.
Factor in that much Vegas action involves teams from California (particularly LA, since that's the bulk of who goes to Vegas), New York and Boston (East coast media hype), so those teams will have much lower odds than one might expect. But they still get more action because so many people from those towns go to Vegas and drop bets. That's a big reason teams from secondary markets, like Cleveland, get higher odds. It's not because they're worse or because Vegas thinks they're worse; it's just because fewer people bet on them so Vegas needs to bring more action that way.
Simmons jumped on what many of us noticed from the Celtics' playoff series against the Cavs last year - the Cavs were the biggest threat to our title run last season, and it stood to reason that with another year of Lebron developing, they'd only be better this season. The general public didn't jump on it, but wily NBA observers, such as Simmons and many of us here, would/should/could have. The Bird, you said yourself you saw them as the second contender for the title going into the season. Again, looking at the numbers above, it would have been rational for you to put money on Cleveland - far more rational than to put money on the Celtics (with your numbers, you'd expect to lose $6.25 betting on Boston but gain $110 betting on Cleveland).
As to Simmons' belief that he should be permitted to sell his ticket, it could never happen and under our laws should never happen. Gambling is only legal in certain locations like Vegas, so the sale through ebay or another provider of these options would be illegal if it was sold from a location where gambling is illegal or to a location where gambling is illegal. There's no real distinction between that and taking bets online. (i.e., I will sell for $100 a contract that says you will receive $200 if the Cavs win the title - that's just taking a 2:1 bet). It's just illegal.
Plus, Vegas would step in to prevent it. Vegas has no incentive to let people sell their bets. They want people paying them for 2-1 odds on the Cavs, since they get a commission on that. Simmons could sell a $300 15-1 ticket from the Cavs for $2000, the person buying gets 9:4 odds (better than the 2:1 available in Vegas) and doesn't pay a commission (as I recall, about 5%, so $100 on that Cavs bet in Vegas). That doesn't help Vegas. They want the commissions, even if they pay out more in the long run. They also want that extra money coming to them if the Cavs DON'T win so they can pay out on all the bets still coming in for teams like the Celtics and Lakers. In fact, if people were permitted to sell those Cavs tickets, Vegas would have to lower Cleveland's odds to entice more people to put money on the Cavs. They don't want to do that.
-
Look, the guy saw 15-1 odds and intelligently jumped on them. No reason to hammer on him for it. The Bird, you said you thought going into the season the odds to win should have been about 4-1 for the Celtics (25% chance), 5-1 for Cleveland (20%), et al. That's your rationale for why you don't believe the 15-1 odds ever existed. Well, Simmons is right. Check out this article from June 20, 2008:
http://www.hoopsavenue.com/2008/06/2009-nba-finals-odds/
Given those odds (Boston at 7-2, Cleveland at 16-1), if you thought Boston had a 25% chance to win the title and Cleveland had a 20% chance, your expected values for $50 bets on each team would have been $43.75 for the Celtics (25% chance to win $175) or $160 for the Cavs (20% chance to win $800). It's not even close which one a rational person would pick. The expected value is just far higher. It's a no brainer, even for a Celtics diehard. In fact, even if you thought the Celtics had a 50% chance to win it all and Cleveland the same 20%, the expected value would still point toward Cleveland ($160 to $87.50).
Remember, Vegas doesn't base odds on who it actually thinks will win (that will influence the lines, but not control them), it bases odds on who the public thinks will win and who they will bet on. Vegas plays for the long run, they want roughly equal action on all teams so they guarantee a profit (both by selling more than they pay out AND by picking up a lot of commissions).
At the end of last season and going into this one, most people thought Boston, LA, Detroit, San Antonio, probably New Orleans and maybe a few others would be better than Cleveland. Remember, Cleveland had fewer than 50 wins last year and a negative point differential. There wasn't much reason to believe they'd get significantly better (Mo Williams didn't seem like that big an upgrade), and most of their surrounding players were just getting older (Ilgauskas, Wallace, Szczerbiak) not better. They were not an appealing pick from an average person's perspective, at least not as appealing as New Orleans, Orlando and Utah - three young up and coming teams who had better records last year than Cleveland - San Antonio (healthier, bounce back year) and Houston (Artest addition and healthier) or Boston and LA. More money was going on those teams - odds are just shifted to get more money on other teams, like Cleveland.
Factor in that much Vegas action involves teams from California (particularly LA, since that's the bulk of who goes to Vegas), New York and Boston (East coast media hype), so those teams will have much lower odds than one might expect. But they still get more action because so many people from those towns go to Vegas and drop bets. That's a big reason teams from secondary markets, like Cleveland, get higher odds. It's not because they're worse or because Vegas thinks they're worse; it's just because fewer people bet on them so Vegas needs to bring more action that way.
Simmons jumped on what many of us noticed from the Celtics' playoff series against the Cavs last year - the Cavs were the biggest threat to our title run last season, and it stood to reason that with another year of Lebron developing, they'd only be better this season. The general public didn't jump on it, but wily NBA observers, such as Simmons and many of us here, would/should/could have. The Bird, you said yourself you saw them as the second contender for the title going into the season. Again, looking at the numbers above, it would have been rational for you to put money on Cleveland - far more rational than to put money on the Celtics (with your numbers, you'd expect to lose $6.25 betting on Boston but gain $110 betting on Cleveland).
As to Simmons' belief that he should be permitted to sell his ticket, it could never happen and under our laws should never happen. Gambling is only legal in certain locations like Vegas, so the sale through ebay or another provider of these options would be illegal if it was sold from a location where gambling is illegal or to a location where gambling is illegal. There's no real distinction between that and taking bets online. (i.e., I will sell for $100 a contract that says you will receive $200 if the Cavs win the title - that's just taking a 2:1 bet). It's just illegal.
Plus, Vegas would step in to prevent it. Vegas has no incentive to let people sell their bets. They want people paying them for 2-1 odds on the Cavs, since they get a commission on that. Simmons could sell a $300 15-1 ticket from the Cavs for $2000, the person buying gets 9:4 odds (better than the 2:1 available in Vegas) and doesn't pay a commission (as I recall, about 5%, so $100 on that Cavs bet in Vegas). That doesn't help Vegas. They want the commissions, even if they pay out more in the long run. They also want that extra money coming to them if the Cavs DON'T win so they can pay out on all the bets still coming in for teams like the Celtics and Lakers. In fact, if people were permitted to sell those Cavs tickets, Vegas would have to lower Cleveland's odds to entice more people to put money on the Cavs. They don't want to do that.
Thanks Bill
-
Look, the guy saw 15-1 odds and intelligently jumped on them.
I've got no problem with the bet. That's simply a matter of economics, although for people who believe in karma (and Simmons claims that he does), betting against your favorite team seems like the ultimate self-imposed jinx. However, if somebody gave me 15-1 odds on the Cavs right now, I'd probably take it. (For the record: the only team I have money on is the Celts, at 4.5-to-1).
My issue, to the extent that there is one, is Simmons continually saying "Cleveland will win the championship". That's fine for an objective sports columnist. It's not fine for somebody who claims to be the biggest fan in the history of Celtics sports. I'm pretty sure that sexyscottish, or any number of Celticsbloggers out there somewhere aren't saying "You know, yeah, even though the Celtics have beaten Cleveland two out of three times this year, I think the Cavs are better." That's not, from my experience, typical "Super Fan" behavior. (And I differentiate between casual fans, fans, and Super Fans / those who "bleed green").
As for last year's Lakers thing, it was pretty convenient to claim "reverse jinx" only after the Celtics won. His position all along was "I want the Celtics to win, but I think the Lakers are much better". Only after the series did he change his tune, claiming the lame "reverse jinx" thing that so many predicted that he would fall back on.
Bill Simmons, Columnist is entitled to whatever opinion he wants. Bill Simmons, Boston Sports Guy shouldn't be openly picking other teams two years in a row.
-
all of this over an obvoius joke. Ever since he picked the pats int he super bowl and hence ruined their perfect season he said he would never pick the home team again....
And now he is repeatedly overstating his promise that the Cavs will win it. Even if he believes it is the most likely scenario, the way that he presents it in his column is to "jinx" that most likely scenario.
-
There should be a section on eBay that allows the auctioning of enticing future bets. For instance, a few weeks before the NBA season, I placed $300 on 15-to-1 odds that Cleveland would win the 2009 NBA title. Those odds have dropped to 2-to-1. Not that I would (after all, Cleveland is going to win the 2009 NBA title), but shouldn't I have the option to sell that $300 ticket on eBay? What if someone bid $1,200 on it (which would be a smart move because, again, Cleveland is going to win the NBA title) and I was guaranteed a $900 return on my investment? Should I take the money? This would be a fun Web site, you have to admit. And if eBay can't do it, then why couldn't the casinos themselves build a Web site that allows people to sell future tickets and get a second cut on the action? It all makes too much sense.
I'm assuming this is another one of Bill's "reverse jinxes"? I know this is fairly minor, and people get way too riled up about Simmons, but I think it's disingenuous for somebody to act like Boston's Superfan #1, and then consistently talk about other teams being superior to the Celts (L.A. last year, Cleveland this year.)
as for simmon's "idea"... www.yoonew.com
Didn't Simmons also say the Lakers were going to beat the celtics in last years finals, and that the celts had no chance? Yeah, he has no credibility when it comes to predicting games. But he is an entertaining read.
-
I'll take my lickings for this next comment, but I feel like Celticsblog (as an entity) is still fighting its own inferiority complex. Personally, I get tired of commentaries and questioning of Bill Simmons' loyalty, as well as the canned rebuttals to various articles written in the Globe and/or Herald that seem to be an attempt to establish the relevancy of Celticsblog. I don't think it's necessary. Celticsblog is legit. I love it. I've followed it for however long now (4-5 years) and I'm still here. But I think Celticsblog needs to act more like the relevant player it is in the world of Celtics coverage and less like the kid brother.
It's an interesting perspective, but it's not a motivation from my end. Rather, like everyone else on the site, I'm a fan. Certain things frustrate me, and I'm sure other things frustrate other members of the staff. When we see something that irks us, we're likely to write about it. I don't think there's any quest for legitimacy, because as you said, I think Celticsblog is fairly well established. So, if I rant about problems with the media, it's not because of an inferiority complex. Rather, it's because as a fan, I'm not happy with something.
This Simmons thing is a fairly minor thing, but he's marketed himself as a Boston sports icon. That being the case, when he sets himself up for criticism, people are going to oblige.
-
After looking at it again, he repeats it enough times that it seems pretty obvious that he's trying to rattle some cages. Mission accomplished, I suppose. Anyway, national columnists' opinions have exactly as much impact on what happens on the court as any of ours.
-
He was probably trying to do the reverse jinx thing but he also had an excellent point in his analysis earlier this year. Cleveland was the Celtics toughest opponent last year in the playoffs, right? So they were bringing back the same team, minus Joe Smith but adding Mo Williams. But what Simmons kept talking about was Wally's expiring contract. They could have potentially brought in another star player and he recognized that early in the season. What he wasn't counting on was Cleveland being awesome without even trading Wally.
Simmons is a Celtics fan, I don't see how anyone can question that.
-
There should be a section on eBay that allows the auctioning of enticing future bets. For instance, a few weeks before the NBA season, I placed $300 on 15-to-1 odds that Cleveland would win the 2009 NBA title. Those odds have dropped to 2-to-1. Not that I would (after all, Cleveland is going to win the 2009 NBA title), but shouldn't I have the option to sell that $300 ticket on eBay? What if someone bid $1,200 on it (which would be a smart move because, again, Cleveland is going to win the NBA title) and I was guaranteed a $900 return on my investment? Should I take the money? This would be a fun Web site, you have to admit. And if eBay can't do it, then why couldn't the casinos themselves build a Web site that allows people to sell future tickets and get a second cut on the action? It all makes too much sense.
I'm assuming this is another one of Bill's "reverse jinxes"? I know this is fairly minor, and people get way too riled up about Simmons, but I think it's disingenuous for somebody to act like Boston's Superfan #1, and then consistently talk about other teams being superior to the Celts (L.A. last year, Cleveland this year.)
Eh, just because they are a Celtics fan doesn't mean they always have to pick the Celtics to win. Would you have said this two years ago? Of course not.
To me, Bleeding Green means that you live and die with your team, but it has nothing to do with your opinion of whether other teams are better.
Now, if Simmons actually cheered for Cleveland to win in a series against the C's, because he had money on them, that would be different, but having an unbiased opinion of other teams is not a sign that he is any less of a fan.
-
There should be a section on eBay that allows the auctioning of enticing future bets. For instance, a few weeks before the NBA season, I placed $300 on 15-to-1 odds that Cleveland would win the 2009 NBA title. Those odds have dropped to 2-to-1. Not that I would (after all, Cleveland is going to win the 2009 NBA title), but shouldn't I have the option to sell that $300 ticket on eBay? What if someone bid $1,200 on it (which would be a smart move because, again, Cleveland is going to win the NBA title) and I was guaranteed a $900 return on my investment? Should I take the money? This would be a fun Web site, you have to admit. And if eBay can't do it, then why couldn't the casinos themselves build a Web site that allows people to sell future tickets and get a second cut on the action? It all makes too much sense.
I'm assuming this is another one of Bill's "reverse jinxes"? I know this is fairly minor, and people get way too riled up about Simmons, but I think it's disingenuous for somebody to act like Boston's Superfan #1, and then consistently talk about other teams being superior to the Celts (L.A. last year, Cleveland this year.)
Eh, just because they are a Celtics fan doesn't mean they always have to pick the Celtics to win. Would you have said this two years ago? Of course not.
To me, Bleeding Green means that you live and die with your team, but it has nothing to do with your opinion of whether other teams are better.
Now, if Simmons actually cheered for Cleveland to win in a series against the C's, because he had money on them, that would be different, but having an unbiased opinion of other teams is not a sign that he is any less of a fan.
I agree with Chris on this assessement.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Simmons is speaking from a gambling standpoint here, not necessarily as a sports fan. I think gambling rooting and fan rooting can be mutually exclusive except in the instance where they're in direct competition (i.e Cavs-Celtics in the playoffs).
Simmons might not have the green shades as others but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here and take that statement as one made as a gambler and not a fan. I'm not gonna knock him for taking the Cavs at 15-1 odds.
-
I also love that this thread reminds me of getting 90-1 odds on the Celts last year before we got KG. Kinda bad that I was a broke college student at the time, but almost 2 grand is an unreal haul.
-
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Simmons is speaking from a gambling standpoint here, not necessarily as a sports fan. I think gambling rooting and fan rooting can be mutually exclusive except in the instance where they're in direct competition (i.e Cavs-Celtics in the playoffs).
I don't think so. The "Cleveland is going to win the NBA title" statements seem to go beyond just gambling.
Regardless (and on another note), this is just confirmation of what we saw last year.
The good news? We're one more Boston victory away from an improbable Celtics-Lakers matchup in the NBA Finals that, under normal circumstances, would have me so giddy I'd be walking around Los Angeles randomly re-enacting the McHale-Rambis clothesline on unsuspecting pedestrians.
The bad news? Nobody is beating the Lakers this season. Not Boston, not Detroit, not anybody. They have the best team, the best player and a Hall of Fame coach. It's really that simple.
Now here's where you shake your head and say, "You're just trying to do another reverse jinx like that column about how Kevin Garnett isn't clutch." Fair point. That column was written for two reasons -- because I thought it was an interesting debate (is clutchness in our DNA or do we acquire it through repetition?), and because I was aiming for a reverse jinx that partially absolved me for blowing an undefeated Patriots season four months ago. This is different. The Lakers clearly have a better team. I believed this to be true before the playoffs and haven't seen anything to change my mind; if anything, the first three rounds confirmed the chasm between the two teams was even larger than anyone believed. Even with home-court advantage in the Finals, the Celtics will still be underdogs against the Lakers. And they should be.
Then, he claimed the whole thing was a "reverse jinx", followed by:
SportsNation Bill Simmons: I'm done with the reverse jinx thing - I spent 2 days crafting that last column and sold it too convincingly, there are some people back home who actually think I'm a Lakers fan now. I had a whole master plan to make up for what I did to the Pats in January but I'm abandoning it. ...
SportsNation Bill Simmons: Anyway, I'm done with the reverse jinxing. If the Celtics lose, don't blame me.
So, at what point do we put the "reverse jinx" excuse to bed?
-
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Simmons is speaking from a gambling standpoint here, not necessarily as a sports fan. I think gambling rooting and fan rooting can be mutually exclusive except in the instance where they're in direct competition (i.e Cavs-Celtics in the playoffs).
I don't think so. The "Cleveland is going to win the NBA title" statements seem to go beyond just gambling.
Eh...I guess I'm just not seeing the issue here. I think he's saying it as a basketball observer and not as a "rooting" interest. Given the current state of the Celtics and the question marks facing the boys in green, its not a far cry to make a claim like that.
Like Chris said, if he's simply making an observation and prediction based on a basketball observer, I have no issue with that. If he comes out and starts rooting for the Cavs when they're playing the Celtics, then we have an issue.
A lot of Simmons' basketball writings in the past have been on the NBA and its players as a whole, not just the Celtics. Obviously, we know that he grew up a Celtics fan, the whole ballboy, etc... but his ESPN stuff is more NBA as a whole oriented.
I don't think you find many people in Boston who consider him "the voice of the Boston sports fan". I think its much more national perception. People in Somerville, Cambridge, Dorchester, Boston, etc... don't see him as our voice. He's a transplant now and we like the idea of a local boy with a national voice but he doesn't necessarily have the pulse of us anymore.
Even though, he's considered a "local guy" and does have those roots, I don't really see the fuss on this particular issue. He made some gambling comments and made a proclamation of who he's thinks is going to win the '09 NBA title.