Monday, February 05, 2007

Behind the Cred: Some Insights into the Greatest Betting System Ever Devised

If you are a staunch believer in the Nihilist Anti-Lock Betting System (NALBS), then chances are good that you have already retired, bought up large swathes of primo real estate on some tropical isle and are at this moment reading this ThunderJournal on your platinum-plated laptop while lounging on some idyllic talcum sand beach sipping Mai Tais out of the navel of some hot naked island girl. Yes, as I (with the help of NALBS) predicted, the Colts easily covered the 7 point spread en route to their victory over the hated and overrated Bears.

But I cannot say that this particular victory came without it's moments of apprehension.

First, I will quickly recap what the NALBS is for those of you who have not been paying attention over the past year. It is an elegantly simple, yet powerful, two step process:

1) Find out the Nihilist in Golf Pants' ATS prediction for the game; and

2) Bet the opposite.

With last night's outcome, the System is an astounding 10-2 ATS (last years' analysis here). You will not get that quality of result from any 900 number anywhere. Anywhere!

Well, the Nihilist threw us NALBS apostles a curveball this year by calling for the Colts to win, but not to cover. I believe this was the first time this particular issue presented itself, because the Nihilist's prediction could account for 2 mutually exclusive outcomes within the trend:

a) The Colts cover the spread; or

b) The Bears win outright.

So NALBS acolytes were left to grapple with an ambiguity inherent in the system. Is the Nihilist in Golf Pants always wrong about the outcome of a given game without regard to the spread (that is, who the winner will actually be), or is it possible for the Nihilist to actually be right about the outcome, but wrong about the spread? After several hours of debate, we borrowed from the legal profession and resolved the problem by applying an elementary cannon of statutory construction:

The plain language of a (rule) controls, and the words therein are to be ascribed their common everyday meanings, unless otherwise defined. Furthermore, it is to be assumed that the (drafter) intended the (rule) as written, that there is no surplussage of language, and any omissions were intentional.

This helped us clear up the ambiguity, because right there in Step 1 of the system outlined above, the system clearly calls for the adherent to ascertain the Nihilist's ATS (against the spread) prediction. Under the "no surplussage of language" clause of the above cannon of construction, we were able to assume that the spread was a necessary, indispensable element of the System. Then, applying the plain language of the System, it was obvious that we were to apply the opposite wager as opposed to the opposite result. Therefore the logic broke down like this:

* The spread is Colts -7

* The Nihilist said the Colts would win but not cover.

* The only way to wager on that prediction as stated would be to take the Bears +7.

* The opposite of taking the Bears + 7 would be to take the Colts -7


* Bet on the Colts and lay the 7.

The consensus was reached, and you witnessed the result.

I'd like to thank the Nihilist in Golf pants for once again making this a lucrative Super Bowl. And I assure him that I am in no way mocking him. The best policy is to keep the goose that lays the golden eggs very happy.

And shame on you Baniaiaiaaaiiaaiaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaaiiiaan. You, of all people, should have known better than to have doubted me.

No comments: