I know, I did that assuming that you’re using 63 bits per bracket. 2[sup]63[/sup] is a large number.
:smack:
It’s not, particularly. But it does sometimes fly against common wisdom. Take the example I was discussing in my last post: if UNI beats MSU on Friday (fat chance!), then their next game might be an Elite Eight matchup as a 9 seed against 2 seed Ohio State. Every commentator would talk about them being an underdog in that game–but the statistical analysis of the history of the tournament shows that this is an error–UNI shouldn’t be considered much of an underdog against anyone in this situation (my alum homerism above not withstanding). And the Vegas line (correctly, IMO) reflects this–I see the Spartans favored by only one point, in spite of them being a 4 seed facing a 9. The biggest line I see for this round is Purdue getting 8 1/2 against Duke; I’d be inclined to bet on Purdue with that line, and starting with the next round, any underdog is probably the right bet. Even, say, 12 seed Cornell vs. 2 seed West Virginia. If Cornell gets to that game, it’s because they beat Kentucky this round after beating Wisconsin last round. At that point, they’ll have proved their seeding wrong, and you have to think that they’re capable of beating anybody.
Both lines may reflect key injuries to MSU and Purdue stars, though.
Aren’t the lines based on what’s being bet, i.e. the perception of the people making the bets, even if that perception doesn’t match reality?