[BostonCard]

http://www.npr.org/2015/07/22/425377064/...-the-world

I remember this podcast from a few months ago.  In it, Megan McArdle talks about tweaks you can do to improve your life.  In it, she discusses betting against yourself (basically, hedging), and she brings up betting against your team:

MEGAN MCARDLE: Well, I think sports is probably the best example and this is going to make me unpopular, but look, if you really love your team, you know, lay a little bet on the team on the other side.

GOLDSTEIN: If, for example, you're a fan of San Diego Padres, bet against the Padres, just a little, just enough to take the edge off if things don't go your way.

MCARDLE: Then when something bad happens, you've got that little psychological backstop, you know, like, I won money. Everyone loves winning money.

So, that's my strategy.  I'm going to bet* against Stanford and hope I lose the bet.

USC 27, Stanford 13


* No actual money, just in the picks.

[BostonCard]

http://www.npr.org/2015/07/22/425377064/...-the-world

I remember this podcast from a few months ago.  In it, Megan McArdle talks about tweaks you can do to improve your life.  In it, she discusses betting against yourself (basically, hedging), and she brings up betting against your team:

MEGAN MCARDLE: Well, I think sports is probably the best example and this is going to make me unpopular, but look, if you really love your team, you know, lay a little bet on the team on the other side.

GOLDSTEIN: If, for example, you're a fan of San Diego Padres, bet against the Padres, just a little, just enough to take the edge off if things don't go your way.

MCARDLE: Then when something bad happens, you've got that little psychological backstop, you know, like, I won money. Everyone loves winning money.

So, that's my strategy.  I'm going to bet* against Stanford and hope I lose the bet.

USC 27, Stanford 13


* No actual money, just in the picks.

[CornFed]

We used to refer to this as an emotional hedge.  I've used it many times.

P.S.  Oh, and by the way

Us-    24
Them- 20

[CornFed]

We used to refer to this as an emotional hedge.  I've used it many times.

P.S.  Oh, and by the way

Us-    24
Them- 20

[Rally]

I guess nothing much is going to change in the next 49 hours and 32 minutes, so here's my prediction.

Okay, here is our only path to success.

We fly in Skov, name him a team captain, and send him out with two others for the coin toss.  We win the toss and defer, then the SC players wish our guys good luck.

Skov says ***** you and hits the guy in the mouth, knocking him out for the game.  Skov is ejected and we take a penalty.  Skov flies back to SFO.

We kick off deep, send Marecic (he's working in Bay Area . . . Cheap flight) who levels the guy.  We get called for ineligible player but SC is still on their 25. 

First play we send the house, creaming Kessler.  Unsportsmanlike conduct call but so what? 

Now the tone is set and one of two things happen.  Either SC spends the first quarter expecting Luck to trot out or they are demoralized.  Third possibility:  they are so pissed they set NCAA record for major penalties in the first qtr.

Five minutes left in the fourth qtr, Luck shows up on our sideline wearing #12; crowd goes wild.  Deafening noise.  While Haden is rushing the field we toss the ball to Love who takes us into magic field goal range. Down  17 - 14, Ukrapina kicks a 53 yarder to tie the game as time expires.

At the beginning of the 4th OT, Trojan players rarechecking their watches.  They have hot dates lined up with starlets in just a few minutes.  They pause, weigh priorities, then lay down. 

We win.  Crowd goes wild.  Sarkisian cries at Press conference.  Hayden threatens law suit.

Then we lose to Oregon State the next week, but it was fun.

final score:  Us 34, them 28.

You read it here first.

[Rally]

I guess nothing much is going to change in the next 49 hours and 32 minutes, so here's my prediction.

Okay, here is our only path to success.

We fly in Skov, name him a team captain, and send him out with two others for the coin toss.  We win the toss and defer, then the SC players wish our guys good luck.

Skov says ***** you and hits the guy in the mouth, knocking him out for the game.  Skov is ejected and we take a penalty.  Skov flies back to SFO.

We kick off deep, send Marecic (he's working in Bay Area . . . Cheap flight) who levels the guy.  We get called for ineligible player but SC is still on their 25. 

First play we send the house, creaming Kessler.  Unsportsmanlike conduct call but so what? 

Now the tone is set and one of two things happen.  Either SC spends the first quarter expecting Luck to trot out or they are demoralized.  Third possibility:  they are so pissed they set NCAA record for major penalties in the first qtr.

Five minutes left in the fourth qtr, Luck shows up on our sideline wearing #12; crowd goes wild.  Deafening noise.  While Haden is rushing the field we toss the ball to Love who takes us into magic field goal range. Down  17 - 14, Ukrapina kicks a 53 yarder to tie the game as time expires.

At the beginning of the 4th OT, Trojan players rarechecking their watches.  They have hot dates lined up with starlets in just a few minutes.  They pause, weigh priorities, then lay down. 

We win.  Crowd goes wild.  Sarkisian cries at Press conference.  Hayden threatens law suit.

Then we lose to Oregon State the next week, but it was fun.

final score:  Us 34, them 28.

You read it here first.

[teejers1]

The emotional hedge betting against Stanford only works when the Cardinal is the favorite, assuming bets are with the points.  For example, you could take SC and give the points and get a double-whammy:  SC winning by fewer than 10 points.  It's only in the case of betting against a favored Stanford that you're guaranteed some monetary solace.  And you have the double-whammy upside.  (Stanford winning by less than the spread).

P.S.  Betting SC on "the money line" probably wouldn't be very rewarding this week.

[teejers1]

The emotional hedge betting against Stanford only works when the Cardinal is the favorite, assuming bets are with the points.  For example, you could take SC and give the points and get a double-whammy:  SC winning by fewer than 10 points.  It's only in the case of betting against a favored Stanford that you're guaranteed some monetary solace.  And you have the double-whammy upside.  (Stanford winning by less than the spread).

P.S.  Betting SC on "the money line" probably wouldn't be very rewarding this week.

[fullmetal]

No hedge, just all Stanford, all the time.  How many of us picked Stanford to beat U$C in 2007? :)

[fullmetal]

No hedge, just all Stanford, all the time.  How many of us picked Stanford to beat U$C in 2007? :)

[BostonCard]

The emotional hedge betting against Stanford only works when the Cardinal is the favorite, assuming bets are with the points.  For example, you could take SC and give the points and get a double-whammy:  SC winning by fewer than 10 points.  It's only in the case of betting against a favored Stanford that you're guaranteed some monetary solace.  And you have the double-whammy upside.  (Stanford winning by less than the spread).

P.S.  Betting SC on "the money line" probably wouldn't be very rewarding this week.

I don't bet money; just talking about the cardboard picks.

BC

[BostonCard]

The emotional hedge betting against Stanford only works when the Cardinal is the favorite, assuming bets are with the points.  For example, you could take SC and give the points and get a double-whammy:  SC winning by fewer than 10 points.  It's only in the case of betting against a favored Stanford that you're guaranteed some monetary solace.  And you have the double-whammy upside.  (Stanford winning by less than the spread).

P.S.  Betting SC on "the money line" probably wouldn't be very rewarding this week.

I don't bet money; just talking about the cardboard picks.

BC

[SUBuddha]

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=12777.msg128884#msg128884 date=1442530661]
The emotional hedge betting against Stanford only works when the Cardinal is the favorite, assuming bets are with the points.  For example, you could take SC and give the points and get a double-whammy:  SC winning by fewer than 10 points.  It's only in the case of betting against a favored Stanford that you're guaranteed some monetary solace.  And you have the double-whammy upside.  (Stanford winning by less than the spread).

P.S.  Betting SC on "the money line" probably wouldn't be very rewarding this week.

I don't bet money; just talking about the cardboard picks.

BC
[/quote]

You may not bet anything of value but I have had a handle of Jack and a case of Fat Tire in every USC game for the last 7 years. Oh and for my homeland, I have about $300 of booze bet on every game. The key here is when I go to those locales, win or lose, I get to partake in either my winnings or losses either way.

[SUBuddha]

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=12777.msg128884#msg128884 date=1442530661]
The emotional hedge betting against Stanford only works when the Cardinal is the favorite, assuming bets are with the points.  For example, you could take SC and give the points and get a double-whammy:  SC winning by fewer than 10 points.  It's only in the case of betting against a favored Stanford that you're guaranteed some monetary solace.  And you have the double-whammy upside.  (Stanford winning by less than the spread).

P.S.  Betting SC on "the money line" probably wouldn't be very rewarding this week.

I don't bet money; just talking about the cardboard picks.

BC
[/quote]

You may not bet anything of value but I have had a handle of Jack and a case of Fat Tire in every USC game for the last 7 years. Oh and for my homeland, I have about $300 of booze bet on every game. The key here is when I go to those locales, win or lose, I get to partake in either my winnings or losses either way.

[Rally]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12777.msg128908#msg128908 date=1442543068]
[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=12777.msg128884#msg128884 date=1442530661]
The emotional hedge betting against Stanford only works when the Cardinal is the favorite, assuming bets are with the points.  For example, you could take SC and give the points and get a double-whammy:  SC winning by fewer than 10 points.  It's only in the case of betting against a favored Stanford that you're guaranteed some monetary solace.  And you have the double-whammy upside.  (Stanford winning by less than the spread).

P.S.  Betting SC on "the money line" probably wouldn't be very rewarding this week.

I don't bet money; just talking about the cardboard picks.

BC
[/quote]

You may not bet anything of value but I have had a handle of Jack and a case of Fat Tire in every U$€ game for the last 7 years. Oh and for my homeland, I have about $300 of booze bet on every game. The key here is when I go to those locales, win or lose, I get to partake in either my winnings or losses either way.
[/quote]

THAT is the best way to hedge your bets :)

[Rally]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12777.msg128908#msg128908 date=1442543068]
[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=12777.msg128884#msg128884 date=1442530661]
The emotional hedge betting against Stanford only works when the Cardinal is the favorite, assuming bets are with the points.  For example, you could take SC and give the points and get a double-whammy:  SC winning by fewer than 10 points.  It's only in the case of betting against a favored Stanford that you're guaranteed some monetary solace.  And you have the double-whammy upside.  (Stanford winning by less than the spread).

P.S.  Betting SC on "the money line" probably wouldn't be very rewarding this week.

I don't bet money; just talking about the cardboard picks.

BC
[/quote]

You may not bet anything of value but I have had a handle of Jack and a case of Fat Tire in every U$€ game for the last 7 years. Oh and for my homeland, I have about $300 of booze bet on every game. The key here is when I go to those locales, win or lose, I get to partake in either my winnings or losses either way.
[/quote]

THAT is the best way to hedge your bets :)

[Extra Point]

Stanford  31
US.C        17

[Extra Point]

Stanford  31
US.C        17

[2 for 2028]

While I have little expectation that we will outplay them, I have to go with the good guys -

Stanford 24
US.C  23

[2 for 2028]

While I have little expectation that we will outplay them, I have to go with the good guys -

Stanford 24
US.C  23

[CrazedZooChimp]

Full confidence in the D, new confidence in Conrad.  23-17, good guys.

[CrazedZooChimp]

Full confidence in the D, new confidence in Conrad.  23-17, good guys.

[StanfordIndians1]

Stanford 30. USC 27
OT
1 fumble recovery
1 int
Time of possession 60/40 StanU

[StanfordIndians1]

Stanford 30. USC 27
OT
1 fumble recovery
1 int
Time of possession 60/40 StanU

[martyup]

Blind faith . . .

Stanford 24
USC 23

[martyup]

Blind faith . . .

Stanford 24
USC 23

[CornFed]

Blind faith . . .

Stanford 24
U$€ 23

May your faith be rewarded!

[CornFed]

Blind faith . . .

Stanford 24
U$€ 23

May your faith be rewarded!

[thunder_chik]

4 of 7 CBSsports pundits pick Stanford to win.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...pert/picks
So perhaps we do get some respect after all...

[thunder_chik]

4 of 7 CBSsports pundits pick Stanford to win.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...pert/picks
So perhaps we do get some respect after all...

[CTcard]

University of Sauced Coaches - 20
Red Tree University - 17

[And I may be emotionally hedging.]

More than many here, I actually think Stanford can play S.-C. more or less even up. They have done so for several years now; in fact out gained S.-C. 5 of the last 6 years - with the exception being a few yards shy in the 2010 game we won on a last second FG. I don't really see that since last year we should have regressed that much versus these guys.

On the other hand, I don't think we are well equipped to win a close game. Those tend to go to the team that doesn't make mistakes under pressure. Stanford seems much more likely to have a holding penalty, illegal chop block, miss a shotgun snap, throw an INT - or with a young defense get a PI call or miss a gap assignment at a critical moment.

Perhaps a semi-secret ace in the hole is FG kicking. Heidari can't beat us on a late FG this year - he's gone. Their new guy, a senior, has one career FG as far as I can tell, a 24 yarder. For us, Ukropina has looked surprisingly good so far. A prayer we win it on a missed S.-C. FG.

[CTcard]

University of Sauced Coaches - 20
Red Tree University - 17

[And I may be emotionally hedging.]

More than many here, I actually think Stanford can play S.-C. more or less even up. They have done so for several years now; in fact out gained S.-C. 5 of the last 6 years - with the exception being a few yards shy in the 2010 game we won on a last second FG. I don't really see that since last year we should have regressed that much versus these guys.

On the other hand, I don't think we are well equipped to win a close game. Those tend to go to the team that doesn't make mistakes under pressure. Stanford seems much more likely to have a holding penalty, illegal chop block, miss a shotgun snap, throw an INT - or with a young defense get a PI call or miss a gap assignment at a critical moment.

Perhaps a semi-secret ace in the hole is FG kicking. Heidari can't beat us on a late FG this year - he's gone. Their new guy, a senior, has one career FG as far as I can tell, a 24 yarder. For us, Ukropina has looked surprisingly good so far. A prayer we win it on a missed S.-C. FG.

[Kathy]

Stanford 24
USC 20

[Kathy]

Stanford 24
USC 20

[81alum]

Stanford 24
USC 23

[81alum]

Stanford 24
USC 23

[GoodGrief]

Stanford 42
Stupid them 10

We score a lot of touchdowns.

[GoodGrief]

Stanford 42
Stupid them 10

We score a lot of touchdowns.

[BostonCard]

Stanford 42
Stupid them 10

We score a lot of touchdowns.

Do whatever funky chicken dance you need to do to ensure that.

BC

[BostonCard]

Stanford 42
Stupid them 10

We score a lot of touchdowns.

Do whatever funky chicken dance you need to do to ensure that.

BC