Bill's momentum keeps on rolling, right into the playoffs

First of all, I guess everyone is saying this but I might as well too: rest in peace Stu Scott.  I'd be lying if I said I thought he was the greatest, or if I tried to pretend like I never wrote anything mean about him on this blog.  But when push comes to shove, he was an entertaining dude who made sports fun.  That's all that really matters.

With that out of the way, let's get back to the important task of hating everything.  I'll comment more about the Hall of Fame election next week, and how dumb it is that Piazza and Bagwell are still not and (and not even good bets to make it next year--watch the voters only put in Griffey and no one else).

For now, though, let's get back to sports gambling savant Bill Simmons, who has a well-refined manifesto that is perfectly internally consistent, and who is apt at spotting a Vegas line that is a point too high or too low.  I lost track of his total numbers, but when we last left him a month ago, I had him at 59-61 plus some pushes.  He claimed at the end of last week's wild card round picks that he finished the regular season at 101-93 (after subtracting out the perfect 58-0 score he gave himself for the time he was suspended).  Something went awry in there, because at that time there were only four regular season weeks left for the NFL, and he has himself having picked roughly 75 games, or roughly 19 per week.  I dunno.  I'm not going to check his work, I'm just going to reiterate that he's a fucking dumbshit, and let him back that up as I analyze his wild card picks below.  He did the never-entertaining "Things about both teams that could make you regret picking them" format, and I'm commenting just on his logic for the teams that ended up winning, because, come on, isn't it great that when he publishes a set of picks in that format he's spoon feeding us a well-developed line of idiotic thinking that, if he followed it while placing bets, could have him going 0-for on the week?

He went 1-3 against the spread and 2-2 straight up.  THANKS FOR THE FREE MONEY, VEGAS!

PANTHERS (-6.5) over Cardinals

Obviously the only one he got right against the spread.

Why You Eventually Regretted Taking the Panthers: You laid nearly a touchdown with a lame division champ that went 64 days between wins. 

Against a team starting Ryan Lindley on the road.  (Really, I could just copy and paste that sentence for all of his comments about this game, but I'll get creative and actually mention other stuff as well.)

You backed a 7-8-1 team with the 25th DVOA over an 11-5 team with the 22nd overall DVOA. 

Don't those rankings show that the Cardinals were even more flagrant overachievers than the Panthers?  The Panthers probably would have been a 4-12 team in most other divisions, but cripes, the Cardinals were really only a 5-11 or 6-10 team themselves.  At least the Panthers didn't really have an identity crisis.  I'm sure they're aware their season sucked.

You got too carried away with an end-of-the-season winning streak over four teams that finished a combined 22-42. 

I don't think anyone who took the Panthers was really that enthralled with that winning streak.  But they might have been pretty interested in the way the Cardinals fell apart in November and December.

You ignored an old-school Playoff Manifesto Rule: 

ALERT ALERT TOP SECRET MANIFESTO GENIUS TIP AHEAD

“When In Doubt, Check the Coaching Match-ups” (Rivera vs. President-Elect Arians). 

Arians is (supposedly) really good (with the caveat that he doesn't have a huge body of work).  Rivera is definitely nothing special, but he's at least average.  I'm not sure how any of that accounts for Cam Newton vs. Ryan Lindley.

You didn’t see Barnwell’s nugget about how three of the other four “Worst QBs To Start A Playoff Game Since 1972” won those games. 

Oh, Bill has a little Peter King in him these days!  So good to be receiving nuggets from both of them!  I don't know any other method of conveyance of factoids I prefer to nuggets.

You spent too much time worrying about Arizona scoring and not enough time wondering what would happen in a 13-10 game if Cam made one dumb mistake. 

What?  I'm no TMQ, but that's a little hyperspecific for me for the purpose of betting.  "Sure, Newton is a million times better than Ryan fucking Lindley, and the Cardinals are coming apart at the seams, BUT WHAT IF IT'S 13-10 AND NEWTON THROWS A PICK SIX ON 3RD AND 2 FROM THE ARIZONA 27 WITH 4:25 REMAINING?"

Worst of all, you backed the wrong Wonk Team — you thought it was Carolina when it was really Arizona all along.

WONK TEAM!  ANOTHER MANIFESTO WEIRD TRICK THAT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MOMS USE TO MAKE THOUSANDS PER WEEK ON THE INTERNET!  "Wonk team" is about as cool as "hoops fan nerdgasm."  Don't say either unless you're super intoxicated or trying to annoy someone.

The Pick: Panthers 23, Cardinals 7

Not bad.  And it's all way, way, way downhill from here.

STEELERS (-3.5) over Ravens

Why You Eventually Regretted Taking the Ravens: You ignored the probability of Baltimore’s putrid secondary getting overpowered by the NFL’s most dangerous passing attack. 

Yeah, maybe Baltimore's secondary wasn't exactly full of A-listers, but they still ended up middle of the pack in most pass defense categories (17th and yards/attempt allowed, 19th in QB rating allowed).  This might have something to do with the fact that they tied for 2nd in sacks.  Hmmm, anyone see Saturday night's game?  Anyone happen to remember if Roethlisberger got his ass handed to himself like seven or eight times?

You mistakenly thought the weather might cripple Pittsburgh’s offense. 

Huh?

You forgot that the Lewis era officially died in Baltimore when Ed Reed left. 

"I can't possibly pick this 10-6 team that split its two regular season games against their upcoming opponent!  They had two really old HOFers on their team as of two seasons ago, and now they have zero old HOFers!"

You forgot that Baltimore’s offensive line was all kinds of banged up, and that Pittsburgh rushes the passer pretty well. 

Pittsburgh's offensive line was a disaster most of the year, and against the Ravens.  Pittsburgh also finished the season 26th in sacks.

You forgot how scary it was to wager against Big Ben in Big Games unless he’s going against Tim Tebow during the final 15 minutes of Fourth and God. 

I get that Roethlisberger has a good playoff career record (10-4 before this game), but he's also only got 21 TDs against 19 picks in those games, and an 83.3 rating.  His defense has bailed him out big time in some important games, notably Super Bowl XL against the Seahawks, and the 2008 and 2010 AFC championship games.  I think Tebow himself could have probably won all three of those games with the support Roethlisberger got.

You forgot that the Ravens went 4-0 against the NFC South (congratulations!) 

More damning--that, or the fact that the Steelers managed to lose to the Buccaneers at home?

and or that they beat one above-.500 team all season (in Week 2, no less). 

Fair point, but that team was the Steelers.

You forgot about Pittsburgh’s many playmakers, 

With Bell sitting, that list includes Antonio Brown and.... uh....

and you definitely forgot about the great Antonio Brown. 

Who had an amazing highlight-reel game on Sunday Night Football in week 17.  Easy to forget about that.

You forgot that Pittsburgh’s destiny might be taking out Manning on the road as heavy underdogs again, just like it did nine years ago. 

Yeah!  Destiny!  That's how gambling works!

Most of all, you forgot about karma. Was there a better karmic ending to this 2014 Ravens season then “Destroyed by their most hated rival in Round 1?” Of course not.

WHO SAYS NO

The Pick: Pittsburgh 37, Baltimore 24

Almost.

Bengals (+4) over COLTS

Given the way he journalistically fellates Luck (just like pretty much everyone else who writes about the NFL), this pick shocked me.  Was he going for THE DREADED DOUBLE REVERSE JINX to prevent THE FACKIN' PATS from having to face Luck if the Steelers and Colts had both won?  We may never know, but the answer is yes.  I hope the Ravens beat the Patriots by 50 this weekend.

Why You Eventually Regretted Taking the Colts: You forgot that the Colts were 2014’s Good Bad Team; they got destroyed three times in the last nine weeks. 

Not really.  Their game against New England wasn't really an ass kicking.  The Dallas game definitely was, and maybe Pittsburgh too, but the week before the Pittsburgh game they beat the Bengals 27-0, so yeah.

You forgot that Ahmad Bradshaw’s injury created the NFL’s most pathetic running back crew. 

It was pretty crappy even with Bradshaw.  I don't really think Chuck Pagano shit himself when Bradshaw went down, at least not to the same extent Mike Tomlin almost surely did when Bell went down.

You forgot that New England and Dallas ran the ball down Indy’s throat … and Jeremy Hill could do it, too. 

IN THEORY A RB COULD HAVE A GOOD GAME AGAINST THEM!  DIDN'T SEE THAT ONE COMING DID YOU??!?!!  

You forgot about the 3.3 percent chance that Jim Irsay would wander onto the field like Shooter in Hoosiers. 

*crickets*  *tumbleweed*

You forgot that Gio Bernard turned into a frightening third-down back. 

Who got way worse from his rookie year to his second year, always a sign of a dangerous player!

You forgot about A.J. Green’s Ewing Theory potential as well as the resulting “Nobody Believes In Us” potential. 

BRILLIANT

You forgot that Luck throws it up for grabs too much, 

Very true, and also the meanest thing I think I've heard anyone say about Luck in the last five months.  Seriously, the guy gets the kid gloves treatment worse than Jeter did this past summer.

and that Cincy’s excellent secondary loves picking off dumb passes. 

Other secondaries don't do that!  Only Cincy's!

You forgot that Indy’s home-field “advantage” just hadn’t been overpowering, 

Sure, only 19-5 since Luck arrived in 2012.

and that four favorites never cover in Round 1. 

That's a really good point.  Maybe I'll put my money on the Ravens and Lions.

You forgot that Cincy’s overall roster was just better than Indy’s roster. 

Correct.  Also like the 8th most important thing to consider when predicting the winner of a single playoff game.

You forgot that Matt Ryan, Peyton Manning and Randall Cunningham also lost THEIR first three playoff games. 

OH NO!  IF MATTY ICE AND HIS MEDIOCRITY COULDN'T DO IT, THERE'S NO WAY LUCK CAN EITHER!

You forgot that Dalton could destroy Cincy’s postseason without necessarily doing it this weekend.

That's a really good point, if Cincy had won this game, they'd still be playing this coming weekend.  Ppl forget that.

The Pick: Cincinnati 23, Indianapolis 20

Whiffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

COWBOYS (-7) over Lions

THIS SPREAD IS TWO POINTS TOO LOW!  EASY MONEY!

Why You Eventually Regretted Taking the Cowboys: Tony Romo. Jason Garrett. Tony Romo AND Jason Garrett. 

Huh?  I know they don't have the best playoff reputation or anything, but Detroit hasn't won a playoff game in decades.

You ignored how Dallas’s biggest strength (running the ball) conflicted with Detroit’s biggest strength (stopping the run). 

Good defense beats good offense, the team with the most playmakers who make plays always wins, and cold coach = victory.  Science.

You laid a touchdown with a crummy defense against a playoff team with multiple big-play weapons. 

That finished 19th in total offense and 22nd in points per game, while playing home games in a dome and with a mostly healthy Calvin Johnson.

You forgot about Megatron. 

No one forgot about Megatron.

You forgot it was Golden Tate’s destiny to have a Revenge Game in Seattle in Round 2. 

Maybe he can still be cut by the Lions and picked up by the Panthers?  It's his destiny!

You forgot that you were backing Jerry Jones in the playoffs, 

Haha, that's like the Romo + Garrett point but on super moron steroids.

that Dallas crowds sucked this season, 

Most NFL crowds suck these days.  The BEANTOWN FAITHFUL weren't exactly all smiles and support back when the Pats looked like assholes in September and early October.

that a worn-down DeMarco Murray had carried the ball 392 times already. 

He went for 100 yards on 20 carries in week 17.  I think it's pretty likely he wears down by, like, 2018.  I don't think it was very likely he'd wear down between week 17 and the wild card round.

You forgot how sad Troy Aikman sounds when he’s announcing a big Cowboys loss. 

*another tumbleweed*  *coyote howls*

You teased the Panthers and Cowboys and stupidly forgot to hedge with Lions +7. 

You're terrible at gambling.  Shut up.

You got a little too excited about Round 2: Romo vs. Rodgers in the Ice Bowl 2.0. 

THAT'S TOTALLY WHAT THEY SHOULD CALL IT, IT'LL BE JUST LIKE THE FIRST ONE

You forgot about Stafford’s Back Door cover potential. 

...

And you forgot that (a) Suh’s appeal getting reversed, 

That was odd.

(b) Suh shutting down Dallas’s run game as part of Detroit’s upset victory in Round 1, then (c) Suh signing with the New York Giants in March would be a classic under-25 Cowboys fan trifecta.

THAT'S why it made sense to pick the Lions.  Because Suh might leave Detroit via free agency this spring.

The Pick: Cowboys 33, Lions 14

But the Detroit run defense vs. the Cowboys run offense!  Strength vs. strength!  Oh wait, that's actually how it played out (73 rushing yards for Dallas).  Hmm.  Shit.  This looks kind of dumb when I mock him for explaining why Dallas might not cover, and then they don't even though they win the game.  Maybe when underdogs cover but lose, I should comment on his analysis for the team that COVERED, not the team that won.  Damn.  Well, I'll do it differently for the divisional games.  Go Ravens!

ATTENTION WORLD: BILL HAS FIGURED OUT HOW TO GAMBLE ON THE NFL

His lead in to last Friday's picks column:

I rededicated myself to understanding football gambling better. I mean, why not? What else was I going to do? One morning, I was killing time power-walking on a treadmill before a doubleheader of The Equalizer and A Walk Among The Tombstones when I came up with a gambling brainstorm: What if there were a better way to figure out NFL records than just wins and losses? For instance, Arizona battled back in Week 1 to beat San Diego 18-17 on Monday night — the Cardinals got the “win” and San Diego got the “loss,” but really, that was an “either/or” game, right? For gambling purposes, there had to be a better way to capture that.

I went through the first few weeks of games and redid everyone’s records, tagging each game as either a legitimate win or loss, an ass-kicking win or loss, or an either/or game. 

There IS a way to capture that: it's called point differential.  (To be fair, this new "system" of Bill's also incorporates some measure of standard deviation that season long point differential does not capture.  To be realistic, thinking that this is some kind of revolution for the world of spread bet analysis is unfiltered idiocy.)

And if anything else happened in that game with gambling repercussions — a comeback win, a blown lead, major dysfunction, whatever — I tagged that, too. And again, I did this because I had an incredible amount of time on my hands.

Well, I'm glad he put that time to good use.  He went 3-11 against the spread (a Redskins cover of +10 tonight could get him all the way to 4-11!) this week.  That's actually kind of hard to do.  Getting that far away from a .500 record really requires a special brand of dumbassery that few possess.  I guess Bill has it.  

If you are the kind of person who sincerely listens to what Bill Simmons has to say about gambling, or anything else, you're fucking stupid and you need to do something about that.  Also, with the MNF game still in progress, underdogs went 6-8 against the spread this week, putting them at an even 58-58 for the season.  The Year of the Dog rolls on.

Bill's Guide to Gambling (alternate title: How to Lose Money By Being Stupid), Part 2

[SIMILAR DISCLAIMER TO THE ONE I INCLUDED BEFORE PART 1 OF THIS SERIES, BUT SLIMMED DOWN A LITTLE: I'm about to write about NFL gambling, and criticize Bill heavily for his gambling analysis and picks. However, I understand that like Bill, I am terrible at NFL gambling, and I would never tell anyone that I had some kind of a system that was going to help me win this season or ever. Now that I have that out of the way again, let's begin.]

These ahhh dahhhk, dahhhk times for one Mistah Simmons.  DAHHHK.  The Red Sox have now gone one seasons without winning a World Series (FIRE FARRELL!), the Celtics are going to be shitty again this year (silver lining: their division will be super shitty right along with them), and now the GREATRIOTS are finally in the process of falling apart after more than a decade as a good-to-great team.  Turns out you can't just trade a pro bowl offensive lineman for peanuts and still give your aging QB enough time to go through his reads.  Anyways, to top it all off, now he's suspended  by his employer which means he can't shine light upon the world by giving it his weekly picks.  But since Grantland's readers want a picks column anyways, starting last week (and hopefully continuing indefinitely, even after Simmons gets back), that responsibility fell to Bill Barnwell.  You know, the guy who writes about football at Grantland who actually can analyze his way out of a wet paper bag if he has to.

I've heard complaints that he's a little Simmonsy in his own right, specifically in that he oversimplifies things.  That may be fair.  But here's an important counterpoint: at least he's not a goddamn moron.  How'd he do with the picks?  Oh, ho hum, just 8-4.  Small sample size of course, but let's see how the next two weeks unfold.  I'm going to guess that taking Barnwell's advice over the course of a full season would end up saving you a lot of cash versus taking Simmons's.  But hey, even though Simmons is a dipshit of galactic proportions, he's a hardworking dipshit.  Let's run through the rest of his gambling rules, and see how they played out during weeks 1 through 3.

Rule: As always, be superduperduperduper careful of the Obvious Pick.

What the Christ does this even mean?  This means nothing.  This is a post hoc face-saving device you bring up when the dust has settled and you just lost $500 in a weekend.  "Should have TOTALLY been aware of the possibility that the Bucs wouldn't just cover in Pittsburgh, but could actually win outright.  So dumb to put the Steelers in all my parlays.  That was a total Obvious Pick.  Can't believe I missed it."  (Barnwell got that game right, by the by.)

Whether it’s some allegedly hot team coming off a big win, the team that just looked awesome on Sunday or Monday night, the team that every “expert” is picking on Thursday and Friday, the most obvious candidate for your Eliminator Pool (like Chicago at home against Buffalo this week), 

Lulz.  Indeed, Buffalo did go into Chicago and beat the Bears.  Simmons, of course, picked this game incorrectly because of course he did.  BILL!  YOU DIDN'T WATCH OUT FOR THE OBVIOUS PICK!  

or the team that’s getting picked 85 percent of the time on ESPN’s Pigskin Pick’em. Every week — repeat: EVERY WEEK — there’s always one Obvious Pick. Just be careful.

"Here's a rule that you don't necessarily have to follow, but you should be aware of it, perhaps even to the point of being careful about it.  But it's not a RULE rule.  Just a suggestion.  You're welcome."

Games so far this year that implicated this rule, which, of course, requires subjective decisions related to what an "obvious pick" is; I'm basing it on discussions I had with a couple of friends who love sports gambling (we'll call them J-Bug and House) during the days leading up to these weekends.  Feel free to disagree with the our consensus picks (at the time) for "obvious" games, and then go fuck yourself if it's a big deal to you.  Unless otherwise noted, home team was the "obvious" pick:

Week 1

BUF at CHI (Bill went against the rule and lost)

CLE at PIT (Bill went with the rule and won)

Week 2

ARI at NYG (ARI was the obvious pick after the Giants looked like a college team in week 1; Bill went with the rule and lost as the Giants looked like a college team again in this game)

NE at MIN (NE was the obvious pick; Bill went against the rule and won)

Week 3

TB at ATL (Bill went against the rule and won)

DEN at SEA (Bill went against the rule and won)

Verdict on this rule: the obvious games are obvious because they tend to be pretty easy to pick.  Then 5 or 6 times a season you get an upset in one of them, and tardburgers like Bill turn it into a gambling rule OMG DON'T TRUST THAT OBVIOUS GAME IT'S JUST A LITTLE TOO OBVIOUS DON'T YOU THINK???????

Rule: Always take a beat when you’re just blindly checking off games to ask yourself, “Wait, are we sure … ?”

Almost as helpful as the last rule. "When you are going to put real money that you have worked hard to earn or steal down on a game, don't just blindly 'check off' games, whatever that means, because that would be fucking stupid.  However, in the event that you find yourself blindly checking off games, go back through when you're done and then actually think about the games and re-make your picks as necessary."  Seriously, fuck this guy.

Like the Jets laying five to Oakland in Jersey this week. 

I know this was written before week 1, when we knew a lot less about all the teams in the league, but the Raiders have been terrible for a decade, lost 6 straight to finish out 2013, and were starting a rookie QB who played in a non-power conference in college.  I don't care how bad Geno Smith is, the Jets were the smart pick here, even though they did not cover.  The fact that Bill was able to talk himself into taking the Raiders, who needed all 6 of the points they were getting in order to cover, is a blind squirrel finding a nut.

When your brain is turned off, you lay the points, right? 

No, when your brain is turned off, you go to sleep, or at least stop gambling.

Who the hell would take Derek Carr and the Raiders on the road? 

Most people would agree (although Carr would then go on to cover against New England in Foxboro... maybe I'm the idiot).

But turn your brain on for a second … should that crappy Jets team be favored by five against ANYONE? 

Well, they were a fuckload better than the Raiders in 2013, and didn't have any really significant offseason losses.  They were beaten by a TEXTBOOK FAWKIN' BACKDO-AH COVAH in this game, leading by 12 inside the 2 minute warning when Carr hit James Jones for a 30 yard TD with the Raiders out of timeouts.  So yeah, I think the Jets should have been favored by 5.  (In Bill's defense, the Jets have looked horrible since and are now 1-3 overall and 1-3 against the spread.  But the Raiders are probably significantly worse.  NFL ACTION ACTION ACTION.)

Does home-field advantage matter when you’re getting booed because you’re down 17-0 in the second quarter and it looks like Tom Cruise could start at cornerback for you? Why are the Jets such an easy pick there?

I don't think they were THAT easy; me and J-Hench and Jimmy Kimmel didn't think this was an "obvious" game.  Anyways, I can't even analyze this rule because it's not a rule at all.  "Always wear your seatbelt" is a rule.  "When you're driving down the freeway at 90 mph and then you realize you're hallucinating and can't see straight, stop immediately" is just common sense.  This is more like the latter of those.

Rule: Make a plan for double-digit spreads and stick with it.

This might be the best one on the whole list.

Picking double-digit spreads is like having a 12 against a two in blackjack — there’s no right answer, but you’re better off doing the same thing every time. 

HAHAHAHA NO IT'S NOT, YOU FUCKING DOLT!  Here's how Bill came up with this: he likes gambling on football.  He thinks he's good at it.  He likes blackjack.  He thinks he's good at it.  THEY MUST HAVE SIMILARITIES!  HOW COULD THEY NOT???  WHO SAYS NO??????  I don't have time to aggregate all the data over a long period of time, but I'd be willing to bet a shiny nickel that over the long run, double digit favorites cover at very close to 50%.  That means that if "there's no right answer" and you decide to always bet for or against them, SURPRISE, you will lose money due to the house vig.  This is like saying "Picking home teams is like 12 against 2 in blackjack--just do the same thing every time" because home teams in the long run cover about 50% of the time.  If you are the kind of person who does things like this, you will lose money, because you are stupid.  Don't be stupid.

In 2014, I plan on grabbing the points unless it’s a breathtaking scenario along the lines of “The Seahawks just lost last week, they’re pissed off, and now Carson Palmer is coming to Seattle and he’s starting even though he might have a torn rotator cuff.”

I like how much he shits all over Arizona and Palmer in this article.  Watch them go 11-5 and make the conference championship game.  OTHER THAN THE SEAHAWKS NAME ONE NFC TEAM BETTER THAN THE CARDINALS.  YOU CAN'T.  

Verdict on this rule: So far this season there have only been 5 double digit spreads; favorites are 2-3 against them (PHI and SD covered against JAX; DEN, NO and NE failed to cover against KC, MIN and OAK).  Bill didn't get to pick the SD/JAX game because it happened last weekend.  In the other 4, he went 2-2 even though the underdogs went 3-1 against the spread.  Why?  Because he took all the underdogs except the Pats against the Raiders, of course.  I mean, Christ, what do you expect out of the guy?  You want him to control his impulses?  He's got the analytical skills of a 14 year old.  Of course he went against his rule once the FOOTBALL RED SOX were involved.  BUT I MEAN LOOK AT THIS PATRIOTS TEAM; SHOULD THEY BE LAYING 14 POINTS TO ANYONE????????  Jesus, I'm not sure they should be laying 4 points to anyone.

Rule: Beware of obvious choices and not-totally-reliable candidates for two-team and three-team teasers.

You should approach every tease with this mind-set: I would feel totally comfortable betting my life on this if it wouldn’t be so bizarre to bet your life on a two-team football tease. I already broke this rule in Week 1 when I teased Seattle -6 (already covered) with Chicago -7.5 at home against Buffalo (looks sooooooooo easy on paper and I did it anyway). When Jay Cutler limps out of the game in the second quarter, blame me. It’s my fault.

Holy Jumping Jesus on a Trampoline, we don't even need to go over this one.  It's just a restatement of that one "rule" we discussed 2 minutes ago that basically amounts to "try to make smart bets," but applied to parlays.  And then, naturally, he was right about the fact that he made a dumb bet in the CHI/BUF game, because even when he's right, he's wrong.  It must be excruciating to be Bill Simmons.  Actually, scratch that--it WOULD be excruciating to be Bill Simmons IF you had even a shred of self awareness.

Rule: When in doubt, always grab an underdog at home.

I love the wishy-washing of "when in doubt."  You know, if you've been blindly throwing money at your bookie or at the sports book dealer without any idea of who you are or where you are, that's a good time to start doubting yourself and asking "Wait... are you sure?"  At that point, if you are not sure, take home underdogs, BUT ONLY IF IT'S NOT A SUPER OBVIOUS PICK.

During a typical gambling season, home dogs will cover somewhere around 58-60 percent of the time. But during the Great Gambling Train Wreck of 2013? Home dogs started out hot as always (17-11 over the first five weeks), then free-fell into a fiery hell (25-34-2 over the next 12 weeks). Again, we have a solid amount of evidence that 2014 might be the Year of the Dog. 

Good use of "evidence."  To quote Simpsons superlawyer Lionel Hutz, "Well, Your Honor, we have hearsay and conjecture.  Those are KINDS of evidence."  To Bill, seeing that sometimes gambling trends repeat themselves, but sometimes they don't, is a kind of evidence.  WHO SAYS NO.

I don’t need to spell this out for you.

Yeah you IDIOTS.  Just follow Bill's rules already.  You losers.

Games so far this year that implicated this rule:

Week 1

NO at ATL (Bill went against the home dog and lost)

NE at MIA (Bill went against the home dog and lost)

SF at DAL (Bill went against the home dog and won)

Week 2

SEA at SD (Bill went with the home dog and won)

HOU at OAK (Bill went with the home dog and lost)

NE at MIN (Bill went against the home dog and won)

ARI at NYG (Bill went with the home dog and lost)

NO at CLE (Bill went with the home dog and won)

Week 3

IND at JAX (Bill went with the home dog and lost)

HOU at NYG (Bill went against the home dog and lost)

DAL at STL (Bill went with the home dog and lost)

SF at ARI (Bill went with the home dog and won)

Week 4

GB at CHI (home dog did not cover)

DET at NYJ (home dog did not cover)

ATL at MIN (home dog covered and won outright)

NO at DAL (home dog covered and won outright)

NE at KC (home dog covered and won outright)

Let's total it up.  Overall, home dogs are 9-8 against the spread.  Better than nothin'.  (In fact all 9 won outright, so you could have picked up some decent coin by playing all home dog money lines so far this year.)  Bill didn't pick the week 4 games, of course.  In the games he did pick, the home dogs went 6-6.  However, he only picked the home dog 7 out of those 12 games, and went 3-4.  And because he's a dillweed, he also went 2-3 when he went with the road favorite, making him 5-7 overall in home dog games.  I propose a new rule: if the road team is favored, just don't bet at all (if your name is Bill Simmons).

Verdict on this rule: Might be worthwhile if you stick with it.  And I guess play the home dog money lines rather than taking the points?  I don't know.  Don't listen to me.  I have no fucking clue what I'm doing.

Rule: Make a list of teams you irrationally like and dislike before the season starts, then stick to your guns those first five weeks.

HAHAHAHA.  Also a good rule, because it gives him a chance to talk about how smart he has been for years now.  (Also, "irrationally like" is a SECRETLY UNDERRATED Simmonsism.)

I broke that strategy down in 2004’s award-winning “Simbotics” seminar— 

A link to one of his columns from back then was here, but I removed it, because it was self-indulgent and dreadful (as his columns tend to be).  

for instance, I love San Diego as 2014’s surprise 12-win contender, 

The Chargers look pretty good.  They're 3-1 overall and 4-0 against the spread.  Naturally, since Bill is dumb, he did not pick them to cover in Buffalo during week 3, so he only went 2-1 in their games.

Tampa Bay as 2014’s “Nobody Believes In Us” sleeper, 

Tampa Bay looks pretty awful, although they did beat the mediocre Steelers in Pittsburgh, so that's fun.  They are now 1-3 overall and 1-3 against the spread.  Here's what Bill had to say about their week 1 matchup with Carolina:

BUCS (-3) over Panthers
My dream Week 1 matchup: my favorite still-undervalued team playing at home against 2014’s no. 1 regression candidate. Actually, this game is like a hot blackjack table. Just shut up. Don’t celebrate, don’t brag, don’t count your chips, don’t taunt the pit boss, don’t say anything.

MORE BLACKJACK ANALOGIES PLEASE!  Panthers 20, Bucs 14.  And the Panthers now look absolutely atrocious.  To Bill's credit, he did stick to his guns and pick the Bucs to beat the Rams in week 2 (oops).  Also to his credit, he then wised up and took the Falcons to beat them in week 3.  What happened to sticking to your guns?  Hey, like Jack Handy says, I'd rather be lucky than stupid.

Baltimore as 2014’s comeback team, 

The Ravens are 3-1, although 3 of those games have been at home and the only good team they played (Cincy) beat them at home.  Still, they are also 3-1 against the spread.  Bill went 3-0 in their games, picking against them in the Cincy game.

Cincy as 2014’s Slightly Undervalued Contender, 

Cincy looks really, really good.  They are 3-0, and 3-0 against the spread.  Of course, Bill took the Falcons to cover against them in Cincy in week 2, saying he was grabbing the 5 points "only because of the overwhelming Garbage Time Touchdown Potential."  Atlanta did score a garbage time touchdown; unfortunately they were down 21 at the time.  STICK TO YOUR GUNS FOR FIVE WEEKS BILL YOU SILLY MAN.

and Minnesota as 2014’s super-frisky non-playoff team. 

The Vikings are a tough team to judge, since they've lost Peterson but gained a QB who is way way better than Matt Cassel in the last couple of weeks.  They are now 2-2 overall and against the spread.  They're not winning that division, but I suppose they do qualify as "frisky," so good for Bill.  

I’m also waaaaaaaaay down on Carolina 

Carolina looks awful.

and Kansas City; 

The Chiefs are now 2-2 overall but 3-1 against the spread; they just finished shoving the Patriots' heads up their own asses on national TV.  Man, why did Bill have to get suspended last week?  I really wish I could go read his pick for that game right now, just to make me smile.  YOU THINK BILLY B IS GOING TO LET ANDY REID WIN THIS GAME?  STAWP.  JUST STAWP.

I think the Falcons, Cardinals and Jets are worse than people think; 

And yet you took the Falcons against the Bengals in Cincy.  Also, we went over this, but the Cardinals are good.

I’m petrified of the QB situations in Buffalo, Houston and Washington; 

If you have a pulse and a passing interest in the NFL, you knew those QB situations were unstable back in June.

and I’m worried that San Francisco might have a Year From Hell Season. 

I'll give him a speck of credit here, they have looked ready to melt down a couple of times.

Throughout September, I am sticking to my guns — that’s how I feel, so that’s how I am picking games with those teams.

No, you're not.  You dummy.

Next: DEFINITIVE PROOF that CANNOT BE DENIED that this REALLY REALLY ACTUALLY is the YEAR OF THE DOG. (Note: dogs went 4-7-1 last week, bringing them to 31-27 on the year.  It is not the year of the dog.)

Bill's Guide to Gambling (alternate title: How to Lose Money By Being Stupid), Part 1

[DISCLAIMER: I'm about to write a lot about NFL gambling, and criticize Bill heavily for his gambling analysis and picks.  I enjoy gambling on the NFL.  I am also terrible at it, and freely admit this.  I would never pretend otherwise.  I would never tell anyone, whether in person or in writing, that I had some kind of a system or set of rules that was going to help me win this season or ever.  I will always happily talk about what I think are good bets to make for the coming weekend's games.  I will always admit as part of that discussion that my advice is probably terrible and should not be followed by anyone.  Now that I have that out of the way, let's begin.]

Bill makes no secret about how much he loves gambling, and he probably writes about gambling on the NFL more than anything else these days.  (A close 2nd: speculation as to how we will look back in ten years on certain regular season NBA games that were kind of exciting.)  However, despite his passion for it, Bill is objectively goddamn treefuckingly awful at picking NFL games.  That's where the rest of us get to have some fun.  

Since 2010, and through 3 weeks of the 2014 season, Bill is 516-529 picking against the spread.  (He has a number of pushes as well, of course, which I'm not going to list because fuck you I don't want to.  This is why the season totals below add up to fewer than the 256 regular season games that make up an NFL season.)  That means that if you had followed his picks and put down $10 on every single game, and the payout was -110, as it almost always is for an NFL ATS pick, you would have lost just under $600 over that period of time.  The numbers break down like this:

2010: 131-119.  Bill's picks broke almost exactly dead even for the season; after factoring in the house edge (explained below if you don't know about it), betting $10 a game would have left you up $0.91 at season's end.

2011: 120-127.  Betting $10 a game would have left you down $179.

2012: 132-120.  Betting $10 a game would have left you exactly spot on dead even.

2013: 108-140, yes that's right, he was 108-140.  Betting $10 a game would have left you down $418.

2014: So far, he's 25-23.  Betting $10 a game would have left you down $2.72 so far.

(For those of you who don't have experience losing money on sports gambling like I do, -110 means you have to bet $110 to win $100, or $11 to win $10, etc.  In other words if you bet wins, you don't double your money--you win about 90% of the amount of the bet, on top of getting your original bet back.  This is how the house makes money on sports gambling--they set/adjust lines to get an even amount of money on each side of the spread, and the winning side gets less than double their money back, leaving the casino with a small profit.  Anyone who tells you sports books try to operate in any other fashion is a fucking moron.)  

Now, for the average person, there is no shame in this.  It's hard to pick games consistently.  While theoretically a monkey flipping a coin should pick 50% of game correctly over a large enough sample size of games, and Bill has only picked 49.4% of them correctly since 2010, that's not a big deal.  Then you factor in the -110 house edge, and it gets extremely hard to beat the house consistently.  The vast vast majority of gamblers don't beat the house in the long term, which is why casinos and bookies exist.  If your friend is down $600 on football bets in the last few seasons, you should not automatically give that friend a bunch of shit about it unless they hold themselves out as some wunderkind gambling expert.  

And that's the problem with Bill: he absolutely holds himself out, in a very public forum, as a wunderkind gambling expert.  He very, very, VERY clearly is not.  Even in his best years, he's picking 52.5ish% of games correctly, and breaking even on money.  This does not stop him from 1) talking about NFL gambling all the time, including running his picks column every week every year, 2) but more obnoxiously, regularly publishing "manifestos" and other articles that claim to have cracked some kind of secret code such that following the advice therein should lead to fabulous riches, and most obnoxiously, 3) throwing arrogant little quips to the effect of "THIS LINE IS THREE POINTS TOO HIGH, THANKS FOR THE FREE MONEY VEGAS" into his columns left and right.  It would be one thing if he was a self-professed gambling enthusiast who loves picking NFL games, but had the self-awareness to acknowledge that he wasn't very good at it.  But as anyone who has read him since about 2002 knows, "Bill Simmons" and "self-awareness" are two things that do not exist together.  

So, enough blabbing and introducing.  Let's get to the meat.  What follows is Bill's latest example of #2 in the list in the previous paragraph; here we have the official, top secret, no holds barred Bill Simmons 2014 NFL Gambling Guide.  If the breakdown of his success rate above wasn't enough to make you want to find him and try to become his personal bookie, this article should push you over the edge.

Football, football, football, football!

FOOTBALL!!!!!!!!

Superb exposition from America's most popular "sports" "writer."

If you missed my Thursday column about Roger Goodell’s NFL That Never Sleeps (featuring my winning Seahawks minus-6 pick!), here’s the link.

Sure won't be clicking on that.  Thanks for the offer though!  Also, most people with brains have known for years that Roger Goodell is a complete shithead with no redeeming qualities.  In that "NFL That Never Sleeps" column (which was published on September 5, just a few days before the Ray Rice inside the elevator video dropped), Bill does jump on Goodell for several things, including his fumbling of the Rice suspension proceedings.  But then Bill decides that ol' Rog does have several things going for him.  First among those:

First, his multi-scene cameo in Draft Day was fantastic. I loved his chemistry with Frank Langella.

DIE.  

If you want to send along a mailbag question for my Friday NFL Picks column this season (and I’m going to need good ones as always), here’s the link.

Don't bother--he's just going to make them up and assign them to fictitious fans (most of them women) anyways.

If you want to listen to my Guess the Lines podcasts with Cousin Sal every Monday, here’s the link.

I would rather listen to 45 minutes of a squeaky ceiling fan.

If you want to make fun of my five weekly LVH Supercontest Picks on my Facebook page, here’s the link.

A shred of self awareness!  We will touch on this later, because he does make a couple other cracks at his own expense.  Don't worry (and I know you weren't), it's not going to ruin the line of thought behind this blog post.

If you want to pick games against me, Ian Ziering, David Hasselhoff, Gary Busey, Mark McGrath and other well-known celebs in the 2014 Celebrity Picks Challenge Presented by Fireball Whisky, here’s the link.

"Ian Ziering" "Mark McGrath" "well-known celebs"

OK.

Here’s the good news: My Friday picks column is now old enough to vote for president, fight for our country and maybe even be someone’s freshman roommate in college. That’s right … it’s Year 18. And you think so little of me at this point that you clicked on the link in the previous paragraph. 

HE'S CALLING YOU OUT, READERS.  PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS, AND DO YOUR BEST TO TAKE ON THIS GUY WHO IS NOT AS GOOD AT PICKING GAMES AGAINST THE SPREAD AS PAUL THE OCTOPUS WOULD HAVE BEEN (R.I.P, Paul the Octopus).

Now you have that detestable “Rude” song running through your head for the rest of the day. 

Now he's just going out of his way to be annoying to his readers.  But I certainly do agree with him.  That song is ass herpes in audio form.

And you deserve it. I thought we had something. I hope you feel bad.

I feel bad that I'm still blogging about how dumb you are, seven years into this blog's existence.  Mariotti got fired (more than once).  Rick Reilly stepped down/was quietly fired.  Joe Morgan got fired.  Why are you still there?

Anyway, way back in September of 1997, I was living in Boston and writing for my self-created “Boston’s Sports Guy” website for millions and millions of readers. Fine, it was hundreds and hundreds. 

#humblebrag

But that was the year I unleashed my first batch of mostly mediocre picks on an unsuspecting America. It’s been trial and error ever since. Mostly error. 

Again, some humility/self awareness.  Let's see how quickly he can reverse course and set flame to any goodwill those last few sentences might have generated with unassuming readers who think Bill is anything but a self-absorbed know-it-all asshole.

I juggled a handful of handicapping laws before eventually settling for the Gambling Manifesto That’s In My Head.

First of all, before we get to the substance of this, don't use the word "manifesto."  It generally has a negative/terroristic connotation, and even when it doesn't, if you suck at the thing about which you're writing some kind of master plan, it's super embarrassing.

Why abandon a tried-and-true manifesto? 

Because it never worked, was never going to work, and had no utility whatsoever?

I learned the hard way that football changes too much from year to year to survive too many enduring rules. 

Bill, for 17 years: "I have it all figured out!  The magic formula that leads to NFL gambling success!  THIS season it's going to be different!"
Bill, year 18: "I have come to the conclusion that football changes from year to year.  Therefore, I have a whole NEW magic formula that will lead to NFL gambling success!  THIS season, it's going to be different!"

For instance, the gambling gods conspired in 2013 to ruin everyone who fancied himself a handicapping expert. 

No, they didn't.  There are no gambling gods.  You just had a shitty season.  Like you did in 2011.  And probably many, many other seasons since 1997.

Every sharp and every degenerate will remember the devastating Great Gambling Train Wreck of 2013 years and years from now, 

HOW WILL WE LOOK BACK ON THIS MOMENT IN THE FUTURE WHEN WE ARE WONDERING WHAT IT WAS LIKE TO CONTEMPLATE WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE TO LOOK BACK ON A PARTICULAR MOMENT MAN I AM SO DEEP.

the same way we’ll remember earthquakes, political scandals and unauthorized Saved by the Bell movies. 

Dude, you're like 45.  You were too old for Saved by the Bell during its original run.  You don't get to complain about its direction since.

My B.S. Report buddy and future Gamblers Anonymous roommate, Cousin Sal, 

I hate Cousin Sal.  I have never once listened to a B.S. Report or Pick the Lines podcast and I still hate him with all my heart.  Cousin Sal sucks.

recently sent me an invaluable link from The Sporting News. The three most relevant quotes from that piece, along with my notes in parentheses.

I'm leaving that link in, because even if it just says "pick the team that seems to you like it probably will do better," it is more helpful to prospective NFL gamblers than anything Bill has to say.

“In 2013, NFL favorites covered the spread at a 52.2 percent clip, the highest rate since 2005 and the third highest in the last 25 years … since 1990, NFL favorites covered an average of just 48.7 percent of games.”

Right, so, last year was a good year for favorites.  Better than any year since... not that long ago.  In other words, it wasn't some kind of unprecedented catastrophe for underdogs.  Weren't we just hearing about how GAMBLERS WILL TALK ABOUT THE GREAT UNDERDOG SLAUGHTER OF 2013 WHILE GAMBLING ON MOON FOOTBALL FROM THEIR MOON BASES?  Why don't we hear anything about the GREAT UNDERDOG SLAUGHTER OF 2005 today?  Most likely this is became Bill Simmons is a fucking dunderhead.

Anyways, brace yourself for what comes next.  This is one for the record books, folks.  It doesn't get much better than this.

(That’s bad. That’s very, very, very bad. Every “smart” gambler is trained to grab the points and go against the public as much as we possibly can. That’s how we butter our bread. Swing our luck by 3.5 percentage points and we’re in major trouble ranging from “Crap, I have to reload my off-shore betting account for the third time this month?” to “If I don’t meet some guy named Big Al in the parking lot behind Target on Main Street by 7:30 on Wednesday night, I’m gonna be walking with a limp.”)

DIE
DIE
DIE

Not sure which is worse--his conflation of "going against the public" with taking underdogs, or his use of "we" after referring to "smart gamblers," because hey, what says "smart" like beating the house once (by a minuscule amount) once every five seasons?  And yes, I understand that there's a kernel of truth to the taking the points/going against the house part, as nobodies who gamble once a year when they happen to be in Vegas for a business conference are probably slightly more likely to bet good/favored teams; but first of all the house will adjust the line accordingly, second of all the amount of action coming from people with such an unsophisticated view of a game is going to be pretty low unless it's a playoff game, a Thanksgiving game, etc., and third of all, seriously, read that paragraph again and see if you can talk yourself into thinking Bill even understands that much.  I sure can't.

“(For) seasons in which NFL favorites covered more than 51.5 percent (since 1990) … the average for those five seasons was 53.3 percent. In years following those seasons (highlighted in green), favorites covered, on average, just 47 percent of games. That’s a 6.3 percent swing (from 53.3 percent to 47 percent).”

(Wait, this is good! Is that why The Sporting News made the real headline for this column “The Year of the Dog”? I think it is!)

Any evidence that trend is somehow a result of causation (maybe some quote from a guy who runs a book about how the casinos then to overcorrect after a particularly favorite heavy year, or something)?  Because if there isn't any such evidence, then basically, the "swing back" phenomenon to heavy underdog wins the year after heavy favorite wins is no more reliable than saying "Hey look!  After this roulette wheel hits three black numbers in a row, a red number usually comes next!  TIME TO TAKE OUT A SECOND MORTGAGE!"  I mean, I could totally see it being causal, rather than random chance.  But it's good to see Bill isn't thinking that far.  HE'S JUST LOOKING FOR TRENDS, GANG.  GOTTA FOLLOW THE TRENDS.  THAT'S HOW "SMART" GAMBLERS BUTTER THEIR BREAD.

“In 2006, the year after the best NFL season for favorites in the last 25 years (57.8 percent of favorites covered in 2005), 

I STILL REMEMBER THOSE DAYS.  THOSE WERE DARK DAYS FOR J-HENCH AND I.  WE LOST EVERYTHING BETTING ON DOGS THAT FALL.  EVERYTHING.  CARS, WATCHES, KIDS.  IT WAS A BLOODBATH.

dogs ruled, with favorites covering just 44.6 percent. After the second best season for favorites (52.9 percent in 1998), dogs again cleaned up, as favorites went just 46.5 percent ATS. The third best year for NFL favorites was last season.”

(Translation: Year of the Dog, Part Three!!!!!!!)

IT'S FREE MONEYYYYYYY!  As noted above, Bill is 25-23 so far this season.  He has picked 21 dogs and 26 favorites (1 game has been a pick 'em).  To his credit, his dog picks are 13-8!  That's good!  Dogs are 27-20 overall!  IT'S THE YEAR OF THE DOG!  (Note: this probably will not continue, and even if it does, only Bill would be stupid enough to write a column about what a good idea it is to take dogs and then only take dogs 45% of the time.)

So let’s make that one of our 2014 rules: “When in doubt, always, always, ALWAYS take the points.”

I mean, through three weeks, that's actually great advice.  Unfortunately he's been unable to follow it.

Some other rules that I plan on abiding by in 2014 …

Rule: Diligently avoid taking shaky QBs on the road, bad coaches against good coaches, and, especially, bad coaches coaching shaky QBs against good coaches on the road.

WOWIE ZOWIE.  This is groundbreaking strategy, ladies and germs.  No gambler has ever been so bold as to theorize that when a bad QB backed up by a bad coach goes on the road to face a team with a good coach, you might want to gamble on the good team.  IT'S SO CRAZY IT MIGHT WORK.

This year’s group of shaky QBs in no particular order: EJ Manuel–Kyle Orton; Geno Smith; Johnny Football; Jake Locker Unless He Shows Us Something Early; Chad Henne; Ryan Fitzpatrick; Derek Carr–Matt Schaub; Matt Schaub A Second Time; Robert Griffin III (sorry, D.C. fans, but it’s true and you know it); Tony Romo During Any Week In Which He’s Just Had An Epidural; Matt Cassel; Shaun Hill; Carson Palmer; Just About Any Shaky Backup.

Games so far this year that implicated this rule to some extent:

Week 1
BUF at CHI (Bill went with the rule and lost)
JAX at PHI (Bill went against the rule and lost)

Week 2
JAX at WAS (Bill went against the rule and lost)
ARI at NYG (Bill went with the rule and lost)
NYJ at GB (Bill went with the rule and lost)

Week 3
HOU at NYG (Bill went with the rule and lost)
OAK at NE (Bill went with the rule and lost)

I barely need to summarize that data.  It speaks for itself.  The rule was right 2 out of 7 times.  Bill couldn't even track that, because none of these rules matter and they all contradict themselves so fuck everything.  Bill was right 0 out of 7 times.  (Note: I excluded games where the Titans went on the road because Jake Locker had a great Week 1; then again, he's been crappy since.  But I think he reached Showed Us Something Early status by clobbering the not-bad Chiefs at Arrowhead.  I also counted the OAK at NE game even though Derek Carr is mentioned both here and below, since NE is theoretically good at home.  I did not count the OAK at NYJ game because the Jets are terrible.  Bill did pick that one right, but only by going against his rule, which adds to the comedy.  Anyways, why is Carr on both the "I don't trust" and the "I do trust" lists?  Because Bill refuses to be edited, because he is a colossal prick.)

Not on that list for now: Brian Hoyer (I’m a semi-fan); 

Quasi-support.

Josh McCown (I’m a believer); 

You're an idiot.

Kirk Cousins (I’m a fan); 

You're an idiot, as we will see in coming weeks.

Teddy Bridgewater (I’m a HUGE fan); 

You're a HUGE idiot, as we will see in coming weeks.

Blake Bortles or Derek Carr Unless They’re Playing Somewhere Scary Like Seattle (I don’t mind either of them); 

Is Gillette Stadium Somewhere Scary Like Seattle?  Carr covered there.  In any case, he's on the other list too, so fuck you, Bill.

and Jimmy Garoppolo (my son’s first future football hero).

With the way Brady is playing, we just might see him make some starts before the season is over.

Anyways, verdict on this rule: it's dumb, and Bill is dumb.

Rule: Don’t go against Seattle, Denver, New Orleans, Green Bay or New England at home with a spread under 8½.

Games so far this year that implicated this rule:

Week 1
GB at SEA (Bill went with the rule and won)
IND at DEN (Bill went with the rule and lost)

Week 2
(GB and DEN both played home games, but had spreads over 8.5; Bill went against the Broncos and won, and with the Packers and lost)

Week 3
DEN at SEA (Bill went with the rule and won)
(NO and NE both played home games, but had spreads over 8.5; Bill went with the Patriots and lost, and against the Saints and lost)

Well, unless you have an amazing reason on the level of “Sports Illustrated just put Aaron Rodgers on the cover holding 10 black cats while standing under a ladder and posing with his new girlfriend Caroline Wozniacki.”

Verdict on this rule: not enough data yet.  Odds are it's a pretty good rule to follow, which is something a 9 year old with a vague interest in football could have told you.

Rule: Don’t go against the Pats after a loss and/or when they’re getting points.

After the Pats lost to Miami in week 1, they walloped the Vikings in week 2, covering easily.  I'm pretty sure the University of Minnesota could give the Vikings a game this year.

We have a 13-year Belichick-Brady track record at this point. In the situation I just described, they are 97,567-2 against the spread (all numbers approximate).

And then the following week, the Raiders came into Gillette and covered, and damn near forced overtime (having a game tying TD in the final minutes called back for holding, and then throwing an interception that was the receiver's fault a few plays later).  Verdict on this rule: DURRRRRRR BILLY B TOM TERRIFIC GREATRIOTS YAY!  I hope the Pats finish 2-14 and Jimmy Garopollo retires after the season is over.

More later.

Bill knows about as much about football betting as he does about baseball, or anything related to sports really (part 2)

Before we get started on laughing at the rest of Bill's pre-wild card round gambling manifesto, let's review his results from the first two rounds.  Has he FINALLY figured out everything there is to know about betting on playoff games?

Wild card results: 1-1-2 (SF/GB and KC/IND both pushed)
Divisional round results: 2-2 (He got SF and NE right, thought NO and DEN would cover, and in picking the latter violated his own rule #1 below; even when this guy is right, he's too dumb to succeed)

So with the house -110 edge on any spread bet, he's lost money so far.  Still three games left to recoup those losses though!  I'll be sure to post about his championship game picks at the end of this week even if it's not part of a full post.  In the meantime, let's hear more from the guy who says that the NFL went TOTALLY BATSHIT during the last seven postseasons because the same things that used to happen during the 90s and early 00s kept happening.

I don't see things changing, either. We knew the NFL wanted perpetual parity by ushering in the Salary Cap era, but the Bigger, Stronger, Faster era might be having a bigger impact than anything else. 

"The NFL has a lot of parity today because of the salary cap, but you know what's creating even more parity?  The players are bigger and more athletic than they used to be."  This is great analysis except for the fact that players have been getting steadily bigger and more athletic for like 80 years now.

These guys are clearly too huge now; 

Clearly!  Obviously!  These are words that people who know they are grasping at straws use.

YouTube videos of the 1970s games have little correlation to what we're watching now. 

That is not true.

And let's be honest — nobody really cares. The league's PED testing system remains a laughable joke, as does the fact that it won't discuss weight limits or any other out-of-the-box idea that might make the league's players a little more, um, realistic. 

As much as I hate the NFL, you know who probably considers the idea of weight limits a non-starter?  That would be the NFLPA.  As in the organization that is the counterbalance to the NFL on most issues related to evolution of the game.  Too much nuance for Bill to grasp I guess.

Instead, it's cracking down on hard hits, cheap shots and headhunting — a decent start, but nothing that will solve the fundamental problem of NFL players outgrowing a sport that was originally designed for different bodies and different speeds.

I won't disagree that the guy who invented football in 1870whatever couldn't possibly conceive of a 6'4" 290 pound defensive end who runs a 4.5 40.  I just don't think the players have "outgrown" the sport.  Safety equipment isn't what it could be, and frankly, the practice of cracking down on hard hits and cheap shots probably should have started decades earlier than it did.  Watching clips of games from the 80s and 90s, I cringe at many of the JACKED UP quality hits.  They're absolutely brutal, way beyond anything that happens in today's game.

Whether it's a coincidence or something more (and I say the latter), it sure seems like we're seeing more and more injuries to marquee players. 

That is the wishy-washiest sentence you could possibly write on this subject.  You'd have to exert significant effort to do a worse job of expressing a real idea there.  "Completely anecdotally, it seems like there are a lot of injuries to good players, which MAYBE MIGHT COULD be the result of something other than blind luck, although I don't really have any idea of what that something would be."  Nevermind the fact that there is essentially nothing different about the way stars play the game and the way average players play the game.  Nevermind that Bill is probably only writing this because he's a Greatriots fan, and yes, they have been pretty snakebitten this year.  Losing Gronkowski and Wilfork sucks.  Those guys are awesome.  At the same time: SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU ASSHOLE.

The lack of depth has been astonishing. In Week 16, the injury-ravaged Patriots started four guys they found off the street — not even off practice squads, but off the street. 

Guys get signed off the street in December every season.  The Patriots had to sign a bunch of them at once because the Patriots have been unlucky this year.  In conclusion: star players are getting hurt all the time these days, probably because of a comet passing too closely to earth or something.

Now throw this in: The slew of NFL safety-first rule changes made it easier for receivers and tight ends to run over the middle, and also allowed quarterbacks to stand in the pocket without worrying about being decapitated or being bernardkarmellpollarded. In the old days, you'd just assume that a shitty-to-mediocre QB would self-destruct in the playoffs because of the defensive pressure, the intensity or whatever. That's why three of my 15 Manifesto 4.0 rules revolved around quarterbacks: "Never, ever, EVER back a crappy QB on the road," "Check out the backup QBs" and "Before you make a decision, take one last look at the quarterbacks again." But in today's safety-first NFL, how many times did we see the likes of Mike Glennon, Christian Ponder or Jason Campbell looking exceedingly comfortable in an allegedly scary venue like Seattle or San Francisco? 

I don't know.  You're the one making the manifesto, maybe you'd like to answer the question rather than phrasing it rhetorically and assuming that everyone will agree with you?  Campbell probably looked comfortable on occasion because per Football Outsiders, the Browns had an average pass protecting offensive line (the Bucs and Vikings were slightly below average in this category).  Ponder is terrible so it doesn't really matter if he was comfortable or not.  And Glennon, who the hell knows, maybe he's actually good.  More importantly, what the hell kinds of conclusions are we supposed to draw from this paragraph?  Unlike Bill, I'll answer my own question.  There aren't any to be drawn.  He's correct that rule changes have favored more offense, but who gives a shit?  Those changes help the teams with the Peyton Mannings and the Tom Bradys much more than they help the teams with the Jason Campbells and Mike Glennons.  SCOFF SCOFF SCOFF JASON CAMPBELL is not gambling advice.  No surprise that until he CRACKED THE CODE AND FIGURED OUT THE NFL, Simmons thought it was.

Swinging it back to this year's playoffs: In the old days, I would have said, "No way Andy Dalton can win a playoff game on the road, he'll self-combust" and back that mind-set with a sizable illegal wager. In 2014? I mean … name me an AFC team/crowd combo that's breaking Andy Dalton. It doesn't exist. 

Well, the Chargers and the Bengals' own home crowd, evidently.  He threw two picks against San Diego, lost a fumble, was sacked three times and was under heavy pressure all game.  He was terrible.  Good for San Diego for making Bill look like a tard.  I kind of feel bad for Dalton, and for Bengals fans.  Kind of.  Not that much.

Only Andy Dalton can break Andy Dalton. (And don't worry — he might.) Everyone has a puncher's chance in 2014. Everyone. And that's one of many reasons why Playoff Gambling Manifesto 5.0 will never happen.

Other reasons:
1) Too many podcasts with Malcolm Gladwell to tape; not enough time to write
2) Everything we thought we learned about the NFL from 2006-2013 IS ABOUT TO CHANGE AGAIN, SO MUCH CRAZINESS ON THE HORIZON (translation: more failed picks on the horizon)
3) Guy trying to write manifesto is a fucking idiot

The good news? We learned a few lessons and suggestions over these past eight years. You don't have to live by these babies; just keep them in your hip pocket and sprinkle them into your gambling life however you want. Call it a Pseudo-Manifesto.

Peter King would be proud of Bill for backing these assertions with so little ethusiasm.

SUGGESTION NO. 1: Find this year's "NOBODY BELIEVES IN US!!!!" team and give strong consideration to riding them like Secretariat.

We're currently riding a streak of six "NOBODY BELIEVES IN US!" playoff teams: the Giants (2007), Cardinals (2008), Jets (2009), Packers (2010), Giants (2011) and Ravens (2012). 

I like the massive stretch to include a Jets team that was pretty fucking good to begin with even though it didn't win its division, and also failed to make the Super Bowl.  SIX IN A ROW FOLKS.  IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT WE SHOULD ADD THE 2006 BEARS AND MAKE IT SEVEN BECAUSE REX GROSSMAN WASN'T A HALL OF FAMER.

Four won Super Bowls, the fifth came one minute away from the title, and the sixth nearly made the Super Bowl with Mark Sanchez. 

The 2000 Ravens, 2001 Patriots, 2003 Panthers and 2005 Steelers should all fall into this category as well.  I wish I were on a podcast with Bill right now so he could make up a reason they don't.

We've covered this phenomenon a million times in this space; it's a real thing. 

DIE.

When everything's relatively equal, a little extra motivation goes a long way. Athletes love proving people wrong, and the greatest thing about sports is that, in the words of Joaquin Andujar, "youneverknow." Our best "NOBODY BELIEVES IN US!" possibilities for this year's playoffs?

Green Bay Packers: Somehow made the playoffs after playing Matt Flynn, Scott Tolzien and Seneca Wallace at QB for 40 percent of the season … gave up more points (428) than they scored (417) … nearly lost a win-or-go-home game to a Bears team that was so limited, the general reaction of Chicago fans was, "I'm bummed that we lost, but I'm relieved the season is finally over" … severely banged-up on both sides of the ball … it's unclear if people remember how good Rodgers is (if they don't, the fourth-and-8 play should have reminded them) … had major trouble selling out this weekend's playoff game against the Niners, fostering a little "even Packers fans don't totally believe" sentiment … and here's the biggie: They're GETTING POINTS at Lambeau this weekend. Nobody believes in you, Green Bay!!!!!!

And then they lost to their superior opponent, as you'd expect them to do most of the time.

San Diego Chargers: Barely finished 9-7 … only made the playoffs after getting major help from Geno Smith and Geno Smith's dong … oh, and they needed five quarters and Ryan Succop's shanked game winner to beat KC's second string in Week 17 with their season on the line … have a tortured playoff history that includes the traumatic "Freezer Bowl" loss in Cincinnati during the Dan "MFIC" Fouts era … are playing in Cincinnati this weekend … oh, and they're coached by a guy who said "You know what?" approximately 377 times during this allegedly inspiring speech.

This was actually a pretty solid pick.  The Chargers were clearly better in January than their record indicated.  They did go 2-0 against the spread in their two games.  Of course, when twelve teams make the playoffs and you're picking one from each conference (bound to be a bottom four seed, and probably a bottom two seed) to be a "NOBODY BELIEVES IN US" team, you don't really deserve much credit for finding a team that could cover on the road twice in a row.

SUGGESTION NO. 3: Beware of the "Everybody Believed In Us" team.

The bastard sibling of the "Nobody Believed In Us" team.

Well, that seals it.  Broncos-Seahawks in the Super Bowl next month.

A few years ago, I compared this phenomenon to Albert Ganz, the bad guy in my favorite movie ever (48 Hrs). 

How unfuckingsurprising that a B+ buddy cop action comedy would be his favorite movie ever.  BUT WHAT ABOUT MIDNIGHT RUN???????

Nick Nolte shoots him at the end, followed by Ganz looking down at the bullet hole and hissing, "I can't believe it … I got shot." You never want to be riding the consensus favorite that's suddenly and incredulously staring down at that bullet hole — whether it's the 2001 Rams, the 2007 Pats, the 2012 Broncos or whomever. 

Unless it's the 2004 Pats, 2008 Steelers (up against the NOBODY BELIEVES IN US Cardinals) or 2009 Saints.  In that case, ride that favorite all the way to moneytown!

Overconfidence = playoff death. 

Except when it doesn't.  Holy shit, this guy is a fucking clod.  He is writing this paragraph 100% because of the 2007 Patriots.  Guaranteed that if they win that Super Bowl, the only rule in the updated manifesto is BET ON BILLY B, HE ALWAYS GETS THE JOB DONE.  What an asshole.

I don't think we have a Ganz team right now; it would have been the Seahawks, but that Week 16 home loss to Arizona may have shaken them out of it. If Seadderall blows someone out in Round 2 and gets a round of "Seattle might be a juggernaut!" momentum going? Be careful, my friends. Be careful. That also leads into our first lesson …

OK, and now you know--Seattle over Denver in the Super Bowl.  Not sure if they'll cover or not.  Maybe we'll find out as Simmons continues to wow us with his powers of mystical bullshit.

LESSON NO. 1: Beware of the "Looked A Little Too Good The Previous Round" team.

One of the few Manifesto staples that still works — remember, people love overreacting to whatever happened the previous week (and during the Twitter/Internet/Talking Head era, overreacting in general). A good recent example: the 2011 Saints dropping 45 on the Lions in Round 1, charging into San Francisco in Round 2 as four-point favorites … then losing to Alex Smith.

In a game that came down to the final possession, with SF scoring the deciding TD with nine seconds left.  I agree: EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE SEEN THAT COMING FROM A MILE AWAY!  Betting a four point road favorite is a scary proposition any time, but Jesus, Bill.  Pick a better example than that.  And be sure to conveniently ignore the 2010 Packers (beating Chicago in Chicago by a TD the week after clobbering the Falcons in Atlanta), the 2011 Giants (winning the NFC title game in San Francisco after stomping the Packers in Lambeau) or a dozen other examples from the last ten years I could have used.

LESSON NO. 2: Beware of any and all aging QBs in cold weather.

Or, as it's better known, the Favre/Manning Theory. (And hopefully not this month, the Favre/Manning/Brady theory.)

Maybe we SHOULD call it the Brady theory after last year's AFC title game performance, except maybe not because Brady beat the Ravens in the previous AFC title game in cold weather, and also except maybe not because Brett Favre was pretty good in the 2007 postseason (sure, he had that backbreaking INT that won the NFC title for the Giants, but he had 5 TDs and 2 INTs in two games that postseason), and also maybe not because this is a retarded idea in the first place before you even examine the anecdotes.

LESSON NO. 3: Beware of all dome teams in cold weather.

Thanks to Chase Stuart for this stat: Dome teams are 3-22 in the playoffs when they're outdoors and it's 35 degrees or colder.

So naturally the Saints went into Philly on a cold night (not sure what the low was, but it couldn't have been above 40) and won.  And that stat is interesting and all, but doesn't help us pick against the spread.

Take it from a lifetime New Englander who spent the last 12 years in Southern California and turned into a total cold-weather wuss — at some point, your body decides, "Look, I'm not used to being cold" and acts accordingly. 

TAKE IT FROM ME, ONLY I KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE IN MY LATE 30S AND BE COLD.  BEFORE I CAME ALONG NO ONE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU.  YOU'RE WELCOME.

LESSON NO. 4: Don't make any three-team, 10-point teasers with three Round 2 favorites.

As covered earlier, the last time all four Round 2 teams went "chalk" was January 2005. This isn't even a lesson, it's a rule — no three-team teasers in Round 2. Period. Don't even think about it. The cousin of this rule: "Beware of the two-team teaser or parlay on paper that looks a little too easy." Gambling is never easy. Ever. Ever. Ever.

You would have won a four way 10 point teaser on this year's divisional round favorites easily.  You would have won a three way parlay with the Seahawks, Niners and Patriots fairly easily.  THIS IS A HARD AND FAST RULE FOLKS, IT'S NEVER THIS EASY, EXCEPT WHEN IT IS.

SUGGESTION NO. 4: Be careful with any team that battled a major off-field distraction during the week leading up to the big game.

Also known as the Eugene Robinson Corollary. 

This is a great point.  This one time, a player on a team that was a huge underdog got arrested the night before the Super Bowl (not the week leading up to the game).  His underdog team then got thrashed by the favorite the next day.  MANIFESTO: UPDATED.  The better example would have been the Raiders and Barrett Robbins in 2003, which was 1) an off field distraction that actually took place over the course of several days leading up to the game, not the night before it, and 2) happened before a game in which the favorite lost.  But since you (the person reading this) and I are not dumb, we won't take a single example as ironclad proof that we should always bet a certain way in a certain situation, so why are we talking about this?

All dong-photo scandals, PED scandals, sex scandals, 

Yeah, this one really bit the 2010 Jets (Rex Ryan and wife foot fetish video) in the ass right before their game against the Patriots, didn't it?

locker room fistfights, hooker/strip club scandals and vengeful-former-employee scandals go here. To be fair, the Ravens won last year's Super Bowl even after the Ray Lewis/deer antler spray fiasco became a major story for a couple of days followed by everyone looking the other way and pretending it never happened — that's why I made it a suggestion and not a rule.

You're a cunt.

SUGGESTION NO. 5: Ignore final records and gravitate toward how teams finished in November and December.

Again, this one doesn't always work — 

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA he thinks that some of them always work.

remember "red-hot" Washington losing to Seattle in Round 1 last season? 

What an asshole.

SUGGESTION NO. 6: "Before you pick a team, just make sure Marty Schottenheimer, 

Hasn't coached in years and will never coach again

Herm Edwards, 

Hasn't coached in years and will never coach again

Wade Phillips, 

Hasn't been hired as a head coach in years and will never be hired as a head coach again

Norv Turner, 

Jesus, who knows, I wouldn't put it past some team to give him another shot

Andy Reid, 

The Chiefs were the better team and should have won that game

Anyone Named Mike, Anyone Described As Andy Reid's Pupil and Anyone With the Last Name Mora" Isn't Coaching Them.

I made this tweak in 2010 and feel good about it — especially when the "Anyone Named Mike" rule miraculously covers the Always Shaky Mike McCarthy and Mike "You Know What?" McCoy (both involved this weekend!) as well as Mike Smith, Mike "The Sideline Karma Gods Put A Curse On Me" Tomlin, Mike Munchak and the recently fired Mike Shanahan. We're also covered if Mike Shula, Mike Martz, Mike Mularkey, Mike Tice or Mike Sherman ever make comebacks. I'm not saying you bet against the Mikes — just be psychotically careful with them. As for Andy Reid … we'll get to him in a second.

At least here he's just trying to be goofy, not analytical.  Oh dear God, he's not actually trying to be analytical, is he?  Oh Lord in heaven.  I hope not.  WHATEVER YOU DO DON'T BET ON MIKE MCCARTHY OR MIKE TOMLIN.  SURE, THEY HAVE TWO RINGS AND THREE SUPER BOWL APPEARANCES BETWEEN THEM IN THE LAST SIX SEASONS, BUT THAT NAME, IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT.

LESSON NO. 5: Don't forget that the most important people on a playoff team are the coach and the quarterback.

The kind of deep analysis you usually can only get by tuning into a pregame show so Howie Long or Chris Carter can shout it at you.

Here's a little game for you: Before every playoff game, rate the coaches and quarterbacks from 1 to 10, add up their scores, then make sure you're OK with the math before you keep going. A good example from last year: Joe Webb (1) + Leslie Frazier (3) against Aaron Rodgers (10) + Mike McCarthy (5). A four against a 15??? And you thought about taking the Vikings +7½???? Really? My numbers for Round 1 this weekend …

Kansas City: Alex Smith (3) + Playoff Andy Reid (3) = 6
Indianapolis: Andrew Luck (8) + Chuck Strong (7) = 15

(Hmmmmmmm. And I only have to lay a field goal with Indy at home???)

Lucky him that the published spread at the time he made his pick was Indy -1--that prevented him from going 1-2-1 in the four wild card games.  Wouldn't surprise me if he went back and edited that after the game.

New Orleans: Cold-Weather Drew Brees (5 or 6) + Sean Payton (9) = 14 or 15
Philly: Sold His Soul Nick Foles (8) + Chip Kelly (7) = 15

(An even battle! Now I'm even more confused.)

At least you admit it.

San Diego: Cold-Weather Phil Rivers (7) + Mike McCoy (3) = 10
Cincinnati: Andy Dalton (3) + Marvin Lewis (6 or 7) = 9 or 10

(Basically dead even! Remember — Rivers won in cold weather this year in K.C. and Denver.)

Weren't we just piling on Marvin Lewis?  And rightfully so?  I hate to support Bill's dumb method here, but in this case it would have told you to bet on San Diego for sure.

San Francisco: Colin Kaepernick (5 or 6) and Jim Harbaugh (10) = 15 or 16
Green Bay: Aaron Rodgers (10) and Mike McCarthy (3 or 4) = 13 or 14

(Who else is abjectly terrified of taking the "3 or 4" coach against the "10" coach?)

AND YEA VERILY IT CAME TO PASS (actually it was a push)

LESSON NO. 6: Never bet too much money on your own team, and (obviously) never bet against your own team, ever, under any circumstances.

I bet against my own teams all the time.  I love doing it.  It's not for everyone, but if you're gambling small amounts and really like hedging your emotions (boy do I ever!), it's the way to go.  I think I'll go put down $20 against the Broncos this weekend, in fact.   That sounds like an excellent idea.  Except that when the Patriots beat them, I'll have to publish a note of apology and acknowledge that Bill was 100% right, just like he always is.

Goes without saying. If your team made the playoffs, you already have enough at stake. To be fair, I violated this lesson somewhere between eight and 25 times during the Belichick-Brady era — including Super Bowl XLVI, when I bet most of my winnings from the 2010 Hilton SuperContest on a Vegas ticket for

No one gives a fuck.

SUGGESTION NO. 7: Don't try to be a hero, just try to win money.

I get it. You want to be cute. You want to say things like, "I don't care about Andy Reid's history in big games, or Alex Smith's history in general … that's precisely why nobody will see the Chiefs coming this weekend!" and load up on the Chiefs, then feel like a hero when they covered.

Ask yourself this question: If your life depended on it, you'd really bet on Alex Smith and Andy Reid in a road playoff game?

(You would?)

(You'd do that?)

(Seriously?)

"Don't try to be a hero" sounds like good advice from the guy who has now probably spent ~100 hours of his life writing several different "manifestos" that describe the SECRET WEIRD TRICKS you need to know when betting on the NFL.

LESSON NO. 7: When in doubt, gravitate toward the one pick that (a) would screw over the most gamblers and experts, and (b) would definitely be going against the single worst gambler you know.

This joke is too easy to make (and to be fair, he ends up making it himself a few lines down).

Remember — there's a reason casinos keep adding new buildings, online gambling sites keep fighting to be legal everywhere, and bookies risk incarceration just to take your dumb/predictable/bandwagon wagers. 

Yes, it's called the house edge, you fucking fucktard.  Vegas doesn't want a bunch of action on one side of a bet, in hopes that the other side will prevail and they'll have a windfall.  Vegas wants risk-free money.  It gets that when both sides of a spread have equal action and pay -110.  Holy fucking dogshit, how have you (apparently) not realized this concept after gambling for years and years and years?  It's embarrassing.  I am embarrassed for you.  I am embarrassed for myself for having to write this paragraph and point out how embarrassing this is for you.  If any of the six of you reading this aren't experienced with sports gambling, let me give you a little tip: there is nothing a sports book hates more than when one side of a bet has way more action than the other side.  Joe Posnanski wrote an awesome article about Vegas taking a horrible beating during March Madness 2012 because (if I remember correctly) there was a ton of action on the low-seeded underdogs in round one, and they all covered against their high-seeded opponents.  Or something like that. The directors of the sports books were practically inconsolable.  Posnanski makes it sound like they all got taken out into the Nevada desert and shot after that weekend.  Unfortunately the article is not loading properly from any source so I can't provide a link, but if you want to try to find it yourself, Google "Posnanski Madness Money and Mayhem" and click around for a while.  It's worth the time if you can find it.  I just spent 5 minutes looking for it and couldn't find a working link though.

But yeah, more importantly, Bill is a mouth breather.

By the way, I finished the 2013 regular season with a 108-140-8 record against the spread. At least for this season, there's a good chance that I'm the worst gambler you know.

Stunning display of self-awareness!  Sadly, it's too late for him to save this blimp crash of an article.

Bill knows about as much about football betting as he does about baseball, or anything related to sports really (part 1)

The title says it all.  Just read this horseshit.

I posted my last Playoff Gambling Manifesto in January of 2006 right before the NFL playoffs turned into a glorified crapshoot. That particular document contained 15 gambling "rules" that I created from 1991 to 2005, along with my buddy Geoff, during an extended trial-and-error period that left more than a few scars and bruises. For instance, you only learn a rule like "Never bet on a playoff team coached by Marty Schottenheimer" once you've said things like, "The next time you hear me say that I'm betting on Marty Schottenheimer in January, just swing an ax into my chest."

Now there's a point I won't argue with him.  Poor Marty.  Poor Cleveland.  I won't say poor Kansas City, because fuck Kansas City.  

And you know what? The Manifesto actually worked. 

No it didn't.  You were lucky for a while.

When New England won back-to-back Super Bowls, I finished 14-8 against the spread in those two postseasons. 

I'm sure that had nothing to do with the fact that your favorite team, for which you are a huge homer, won six straight during those two postseasons.

Everything flipped in January, 2006, right when I posted Manifesto 4.0. Over the next six postseasons, I staggered to a middling 31-34-1 record, 

Because you're not that smart and got unlucky.  Nothing flipped.  Nothing changed.  Football was played exactly the same way.  You had exactly the same amount of knowledge.  It's just that consistently picking winners is hard, and you were unable to do so for a really long time.  You're a fucktard for thinking there is any other explanation for that 31-34-1 stretch, but of course that shouldn't surprise anyone.

slowly drifting away from the Manifesto as the league stopped making sense. These last two postseasons, I went 15-7 by obeying a stripped-down set of rules (we'll get to them). 

Hey, you got lucky again!  Good for you.  I hope you donated the money to charity.

Still, I'm not sure people realize how wonky these last eight postseasons were.

Allow me to demonstrate, point by point, why that's fucking idiotic.

Since January 2006 …

• The league's two best teams by record only faced off in one Super Bowl: the '09 Saints versus '09 Colts (combined records: 31-5).

Yeah, back when Bill was putting together his brilliant original manifesto, that used to happen ALL THE DAMN TIME.  By which I mean, looking all the way back to 1990, the only other times it happened were in 1992 (Redskins and Bills) and 2002 (Raiders and Buccaneers).   

• The no. 1–ranked DVOA team only made one Super Bowl … (long gulp) … yup, the '07 Pats. Only two other top-three DVOA teams made a Super Bowl: the '10 Packers (third) beat the '10 Steelers (second). The last top-two team in DVOA to actually win the title? The '04 Pats, who finished first. In other words, keep your guard up, Seahawks fans.

There was a nice streak of top ranked DVOA teams making the Super Bowl in the late 90s, but the only other one to have done so in the 21st century besides the 2007 GREATRIOTS was the 2002 Buccaneers.

• Underdogs covered six of the last seven Super Bowls and won four outright: the '07 Giants (12-point dogs); the '09 Saints (five-point dogs); the '11 Giants (2.5-point dogs); and the '12 Ravens (4.5-point dogs). The previous four underdogs to win a Super Bowl outright: the '02 Bucs, '01 Pats, '97 Broncos and '90 Giants.

This is not useful as trend information (especially in the case of sub-5 point underdogs winning outright WOW WACKY WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF THAT?????) unless one of the planks of your manifesto is "always bet on the favorite."

• It's really important to clinch a Round 1 bye, right? Well, the '08 Steelers and '09 Saints were the only bye week teams to win Super Bowls. The Bye Weekers only finished over .500 in the playoffs once, in 2009, when they went 6-3. They never went "chalk," finishing 29-30 overall. By contrast, from 1998 through 2004, the Bye Weekers won six of seven Super Bowls, went "chalk" three times (in 1998, 2002 and 2004), and never dipped below .500 (finishing 40-22 overall).

This is actually useful information, and is also something everyone who pays even the slightest attention to the NFL has been hearing nonstop for the past several years.

• Three teams won a Super Bowl without hosting a playoff game: the '05 Steelers, '07 Giants and '10 Packers. From 1966 through 2004, that only happened twice.

Only useful information if one of the planks of your manifesto is "If a 5 seed or 6 seed makes the Super Bowl, do not bet on them to win under any circumstances.  They just won three straight on the road--what makes you think that they'll be able to win at a neutral site?"  This is perhaps more useful when applied as an analytical tool for conference championship home vs. road results (or divisional round home vs. road results, already covered above), but then you look at the results and see that home teams were only 18-14 in conference championship games from 1990-2005.

• The '08 Cardinals went 9-7 and somehow lost the title in the final minute, on the highest degree-of-difficulty game-winning pass in Super Bowl history. Three years later, the '11 Giants became the first 9-7 team to win the title, as well as the only Super Bowl champ that gave up more regular-season points than it scored. I will get over this at some point in my life. Probably not this decade or next decade. But at some point.

Yes, the difference in talent between the teams with the best records and the teams with the 9-7 or 10-6 records during any given season is perhaps less pronounced than it used to be.  This is only useful information if one of the planks of your manifesto was "Always bet on the team with the better record."

• Five of the last six Super Bowls were nail-biters that included at least one unforgettable moment: David Tyree catching a season-saving football off his helmet and then never making another professional catch in his entire life (Super Bowl XLII); James Harrison's insane touchdown and the semi-miraculous Roethlisberger/Holmes game-winning touchdown (Super Bowl XLIII); Peyton Manning's season-ending pick-six (Super Bowl XLIV); Brady just missing Welker for a potential season-clinching TD that I can still see when I fall asleep at night (Super Bowl XLVI); and the blackout and all the other unforgettable stuff that happened during that Ravens-Niners barn burner (Super Bowl XLVII).

All true.  All irrelevant in a discussion about gambling, but thanks for maintaining that "the sun shines on the world because Bill Simmons casts his eyes upon it" tone of self-importance Marchman (and others) have pointed out.

• We've had one significant Round 2 upset for eight straight Januarys: the '05 Steelers in Indy (+9.5 underdogs); the '06 Pats in San Diego (+4.5); the '07 Chargers in Indianapolis (+11); the '08 Cards in Carolina (+10); the '09 Jets in San Diego (+8.5); the '10 Jets in New England (+9); the '11 Giants in Green Bay (+8.5); and the '12 Ravens in Denver (+9). Good lord! Seven of those were MONSTER upsets, too. Kudos to the Greatest Quarterback of All Time, Peyton Manning, for somehow being on the wrong side of three of them! (Sorry, I had to.)

I don't have the point spreads on these, but I'm sure they were all at least +4.5 (or in some cases, if they weren't, the road teams blew out the home teams so badly that it was definitely a notable outcome)--the 2003 Panthers beat the 12-4 Rams in Saint Louis, the 2003 Colts beat the 13-3 Chiefs in Kansas City, the 2001 Eagles stomped the 13-3 Bears in Chicago, the 2000 Ravens stomped the 13-3 Titans in Nashville, the 1999 Titans beat the 13-3 Colts in Indy, and I could go on and on, but the point is that Bill is a fucking dolt.  Also, big ups to Tom Brady, Obviously the Greatest Quarterback of All Time Because Everyone Knows Peyton Manning Sux LOL, for being on the wrong side of the Ravens' (+8) upset of the Patriots in last year's AFC Championship game.

• We've had two stunning conference title game upsets: the '07 Giants (nine-point underdogs in Green Bay) and '12 Ravens (7.5-point dogs in New England). And we had one semi-mildly stunning upset that wasn't so stunning because we'd already learned that you should never bet against God, puppies and gambling theories hatched in Pakistan: the '08 Cards as four-point home dogs over Philly.

Wow, can't believe he even bothered to mention that Patriots loss.  I'm surprised there isn't a Grantland Ministry of Information assigned to edit out any negative references to Boston area teams, even those made by Simmons himself.  Anyways, again, no clue on the point spreads but I'm sure they were big and/or the result was a huge blowout--the 1999 Titans crushed the 14-2 Jaguars in Jacksonville, the 2001 Patriots beat the 13-3 Steelers in Pittsburgh, the 2004 Patriots crushed the 15-1 Steelers in Pittsburgh, and the 2005 Steelers crushed the 13-3 Broncos in Denver.  But no, really, believe Bill when he says that he used to have a PERFECT manifesto for betting on NFL playoff games.  It wasn't just that he had a good lucky streak, which was followed by an unlucky streak.  It was that in 2006 everything that had been totally predictable went SUPER CRAZY and all this stuff that had never happened before started happening.

• From 2000 through 2006, only three times did a matchup feature a playoff team that had won four or more games than its opponent: Eagles-Vikings in 2004, Steelers-Jets in 2004, and Bears-Seahawks in 2006. All three times, the better team won. From 2007 through 2011, those matchups happened at least twice per postseason and an unbelievable 14 times overall. Seven of those 14 games were won by the vastly inferior team, including two by .500-or-under teams playing at home and as 7-plus-point underdogs (the 2010 Seahawks and 2011 Broncos).

Another sort of useful piece of information that parallels the divisional round road team record thing: there appears to be more parity in the NFL than there used to be.  If that trend destroys your manifesto, your manifesto was dogshit to begin with.

• For anyone making proclamations this week like "I just don't trust Andy Dalton in January," please remember that, in the last eight postseasons, (a) Matt Hasselbeck and Rex Grossman started Super Bowl games; 

Matt Hasselbeck was pretty good.  He was three-time Pro Bowler with almost 35,000 career passing yards.  Rex Grossman was not very good, but the 2006 Bears were very good.  Not sure what's WACKY about this.  In 1994 Stan Humphries started a Super Bowl.  In 1995 Neil O'Donnell did too.  In 1998 Chris Chandler did the same.  Which world did Bill come from in which only Hall of Famers were allowed to start Super Bowls.

(b) Mark Sanchez won FOUR ROAD PLAYOFF GAMES IN TWO YEARS; 

It's almost like the Jets HAD A REALLY GOOD DEFENSE IN 2009 AND 2010.

(c) Matt Schaub won a playoff game only 12 months ago and just nine months before he became a bleary-eyed carcass; 

First time in history a 30-something athlete has gone from pretty good to pretty crappy in 12 months.

You forgot (d).

(e) Jake Delhomme won consecutive road playoff games; and (f) Tim Tebow won a playoff game … in overtime … by completing an 80-yard touchdown pass.

SO SUPER CRAZY.  IT'S LIKE THE TWILIGHT ZONE MIXED WITH THE OUTER LIMITS.

• In the last eight postseasons, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees are 19-16 combined, with two Super Bowl titles.

• In the last eight postseasons, Mark Sanchez, Eli Manning, and Joe Flacco are 21-9 combined, with three Super Bowl titles.

• Read those last two paragraphs again.

BRAIN EXPLOSION IT'S SO BANANAS WOWOWOWOW

So I ask you again … how can you give your gambling career over to a Playoff Manifesto when all hell has apparently broken loose????

I KNOW RIGHT????  Good thing you've fixed all those problems and now your system will be totally perfect again, like it was as of January 2006, when a comet passed too close to Earth and secretly jumbled everything up!  We'll take a look at it next week.  In the meantime, I'll post Bill's picks (from the end of this article) and provide my own analysis.  I'm not saying I'm going to do better than him, I'm just saying he's a moron and as someone who regularly watches the NFL, I have as much gambling acumen as he does.  It's just that unlike him, I don't pretend to have CRACKED THE CODE.  I'm not a self-important cunt like that.

Chiefs +1 @ Colts

Bill's Pick: Colts 27, Chiefs 14

My Pick: As I type this, it's 31-10 Chiefs shortly before halftime.  I'd like to laugh in Bill's face, but if I'm being honest, I also thought Indy would win this game by at least a TD.  I GUESS THAT'S WHY THEY PLAY THE GAMES ON THE FOOTBALL FIELD IN THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE FOLKS.

Saints +2.5 @ Eagles

Bill's Pick: Eagles 34, Saints 22

My Pick: Saints 28, Eagles 21.  Call me crazy.  I know dome teams are terrible outdoors in the playoffs.  I just feel like the Eagles aren't that good, and will be in a "we're just happy to be here" mood.  Their season is already a success.  The Saints will get it done somehow.  Or not.  Who the fuck knows.

Chargers +7 @ Bengals

Bill's Pick: Cincinnati 27, San Diego 23 

My Pick: Cincinnati 31, San Diego 17.  I don't think it'll be all that close.  Cincy's defense is too good.  If the Chargers pull off the upset it'll be because Andy Dalton turned the ball over like five times, like he did in that Thursday night game against the Dolphins a couple months ago.  I lost $10 on that game.  Fuck you, Andy Dalton.  Obviously you care about my gambling stories, and obviously I'm still bitter.

49ers -3 @ Packers

Bill's Pick: San Francisco 41, Green Bay 20

My Pick: Green Bay 24, San Francisco 20.  God I hate Packers fans.  I hope this doesn't happen.  I like the Niners a lot, I just feel like neither team is going to be able to move the ball much on the ground, while Rodgers and Cobb will hook up for some big plays and Kaepernick has a bad game.  Notice that I didn't say anything about the weather, because if you watch this game tomorrow, the announcers are going to talk about the weather during about 90% of their air time.  You're welcome.

Yeah, so I'm picking against Bill's spread pick in all three remaining games, and picking a different winner in two of them.  Did I do that on purpose to be contrarian?  Probably.  Could you be just as successful at picking against the spread as Bill (or me) by flipping a coin?  Probably. Is Bill Simmons an asshat when it comes to gambling?  Definitely.  Is Bill Simmons an asshat when it comes to any other topic?  Again, definitely.