One of my first gambling posts on this blog about fifteen years ago was about Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink":
In 1983 a gentleman brought a statue to a museum that he said was from 600 B.C. Of course, the museum took this claim with skepticism. The asking price was 10 million, and not one of these statues had surfaced in years. It was thought by experts and historians alike that they were all discovered. So, the science began.
14 months later, after a battery of scientific testing, the museum said the statue was real.
After it was purchased, when it was placed on display for experts to see, one watcher took one look at it and blurted out “I hope you didn’t pay much.” Another said, “there is something wrong here. I don’t know what it is, but there is something wrong.” All reported a subconscious, visceral reaction to the statue. They thought it was a fake, but they could not tell you why.
Later on through new testing, the statue was deemed in fact to be fake. The experts, through their unconscious competency, just knew.
I was watching The Forward Progress channel last night for the upcoming week in football (if you bet football and don't watch this show, in my humble opinion you're missing out). This show looks at the early lines and Rob Pizzola and Clive Bixby give their thoughts on each of the early sides and totals.
Rob - a seasoned line-watcher and football bettor - got to the Broncos-Patriots game and said, with regards to the 36.5 total, "this just feels too high to me."
He then said he had to do more work on the game, crunch numbers etc, but it still felt short.
It felt short to me too (as an amateur football bettor; I don't trust my gut yet), and I immediately bet the under. It's already moved to 34.5.
Rob "blinked" and his unconscious competency kicked in.
In my original piece I tempered the use of "blink" in gambling, because frankly it can be dangerous.
If we don't use this correctly we can get into results bias, or confirmation bias, and we end up "trusting our gut" when we need analysis, because our gut isn't good enough. We also just might not be good enough to have a gut.
Fifteen years later, however, I find myself swaying a bit more to the Gladwellian blink end.
In a recent piece in HRU, the late odds shifts were examined, which are coming primarily from late CAW money. Seasoned players I speak with talk about how this doesn't look orderly and there are holes in the final odds. They have gut odds boards and the gut doesn't match the betting. They are right.
I'm a huge numbers guy and have been for a long time. But in football, leaning on "blink" helps there too in my view.
For me, there's nothing more fun in football than wondering if a young quarterback is going to be good or not so good. Looking at EPA per play, Jordan Love or Justin Fields or Bryce Young are being evaluated each week and have been for some time. Hell, pre-season Justin Fields was being talked about as an MVP bet.
But don't we lose the "blink" of watching how they play the game when we are so married and dive so far into the numbers rabbit hole?
I got a clip pinged to me about Kirk Cousins, one of my favorites, primarily because everyone thought he stunk and I couldn't figure out why, because he looked pretty good to me.
If you like comparing young quarterbacks, look at this three minutes of his first start. Washington was a mediocre team, the OL was meh, receiving core was okay, and the offense was built for a running QB, but he stepped in and let it fly.
Being a student of gambling over the many years I am surprised I originally discounted using "blink". I believe if you know how to use it, and don't overuse it, it's something worth leaning on, whether it be for sports or horses.
Have a nice Monday everyone.
