3 ms·
> Eh, eye of the beholder. It's really not, which is why quantitative models have real value. You don't have to argue that he's biased, you just have to point
by wtallis 4y ago
> Eh, eye of the beholder.
It's really not, which is why quantitative models have real value. You don't have to argue that he's biased, you just have to point to the evidence. But your whole comment is indistinguishable from someone with sour grapes who is simply casting aspersions on his track record without being willing to analyze it properly. At the very least, you ought to specifically identify what kind of biases his predictions have shown; he leaves himself wide open to being proven wrong, so it's only fair for you to do the same.
- RC_ITR 4y agoHe regularly underperforms the Vegas line. He makes bad models. Nate put 2021/22 warriors at 0.5% to win, Vegas was +900. Nate put 2020/21 bucks at 10% to win, Vegas was +550. If you can’t even come close to beating the line, you’re not a good model. He’s just transparent about his variables. Edit: To be clear I don’t gamble, I just follow sports and like data analysis, so this isn’t a bank account thing.