What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Bill Simmons Podcast (2 Viewers)

The offshore sportsbooks should get together every Christmas and send him some sort of gift for all of the bad gambling advice he dispenses.
I've long suspected that offshore books have sponsored his podcast for years. They pay Simmons to give out bad advice, books make it all back and more when listeners follow his advice at offshore books. He's too dynamically bad at multiple sports to continue on at this rate for this long.
 
The offshore sportsbooks should get together every Christmas and send him some sort of gift for all of the bad gambling advice he dispenses.
I've long suspected that offshore books have sponsored his podcast for years. They pay Simmons to give out bad advice, books make it all back and more when listeners follow his advice at offshore books. He's too dynamically bad at multiple sports to continue on at this rate for this long.
But he's wealthy, and outside of NFL it doesn't seem like he does much day-to-day betting. NFL and maybe a few futures in MLB/NBA/NHL? That won't kill you if you're a millionaire. I'd guess he ends up down a light four-figures every year.

 
His picks aren't really bad. He got killed last week, but crushed the week before. I think he was 5-0 on his picks on the House podcast and I'm pretty sure he said he's close to 60% YTD

 
His picks aren't really bad. He got killed last week, but crushed the week before. I think he was 5-0 on his picks on the House podcast and I'm pretty sure he said he's close to 60% YTD
5 games a week for 7-8 weeks is a pretty miniscule sample. I am not smart enough to beat NFL sides long-term, but I'm the next-best thing, which is smart enough to know that I definitely can NOT beat NFL sides. Em had a recent streak where he went 13-4! Eminence!

I think the two biggest errors they make are 1) relying on small-sample trends ("Team X is 6-0 ATS on the road this year") and 2) using rationale that's already being taken into account when the line is set (e.g. "[starting QB] is out, don't like the backup. Taking the other side.") The bookmakers KNOW this.

Two good gambling podcasts where you can actually learn something/get some valuable information are Millman's podcast for ESPN, and Gill Alexander's podcast "Beating The Book." (a recent ep featured (ex?) FFA poster Johnny Detroit) Go with those instead.

 
His picks aren't really bad. He got killed last week, but crushed the week before. I think he was 5-0 on his picks on the House podcast and I'm pretty sure he said he's close to 60% YTD
5 games a week for 7-8 weeks is a pretty miniscule sample. I am not smart enough to beat NFL sides long-term, but I'm the next-best thing, which is smart enough to know that I definitely can NOT beat NFL sides. Em had a recent streak where he went 13-4! Eminence!

I think the two biggest errors they make are 1) relying on small-sample trends ("Team X is 6-0 ATS on the road this year") and 2) using rationale that's already being taken into account when the line is set (e.g. "[starting QB] is out, don't like the backup. Taking the other side.") The bookmakers KNOW this.

Two good gambling podcasts where you can actually learn something/get some valuable information are Millman's podcast for ESPN, and Gill Alexander's podcast "Beating The Book." (a recent ep featured (ex?) FFA poster Johnny Detroit) Go with those instead.
I don't disagree with anything you said. I don't think that Simmons himself would say he (or House or Sal) is going to beat the vig long term. I'm just saying that he hasn't been awful this season as a whole. I think both his "5 games" each week and Sal's best bets on ESPN have been +EV so far this year.

It also could be that I've been listening to so much VIP Sports podcast lately that these guys sound like Neil Degrasse Tyson by comparison.

 
I don't care how bad his picks are, his gambling podcasts are entertaining as hell.
I actually enjoy the fact that many of the picks are built on superstition and intuition. Scientifically a really dumb way to bet, but extremely relatable and entertaining.

 
I don't care how bad his picks are, his gambling podcasts are entertaining as hell.
I actually enjoy the fact that many of the picks are built on superstition and intuition. Scientifically a really dumb way to bet, but extremely relatable and entertaining.
He also called the Philbin firing the week before it happened and the Kaepernick benching the week before it happened. The Philbin dismissal was no shock, but I have to admit, I didn't think the 49ers were going to bench Kaepernick for Blaine Gabbert. He was right, I was wrong.

 
Do we really need Sal AND House talking NFL picks though? I fast forward through the first half of the House pod every week because it's repetitive.

 
Do we really need Sal AND House talking NFL picks though? I fast forward through the first half of the House pod every week because it's repetitive.
I know it's a minor difference but Sal is there to predict the line and then discuss - they sometimes pick a game or who they like but they don't pick each game or analyze it the same way they analyze the making of the line. Again - to some it may be a distinction without a difference but I'm entertained enough to listen to both. Sal > House though.

 
Good Posting Judge said:
Evilgrin 72 said:
His picks aren't really bad. He got killed last week, but crushed the week before. I think he was 5-0 on his picks on the House podcast and I'm pretty sure he said he's close to 60% YTD
5 games a week for 7-8 weeks is a pretty miniscule sample. I am not smart enough to beat NFL sides long-term, but I'm the next-best thing, which is smart enough to know that I definitely can NOT beat NFL sides. Em had a recent streak where he went 13-4! Eminence!

I think the two biggest errors they make are 1) relying on small-sample trends ("Team X is 6-0 ATS on the road this year") and 2) using rationale that's already being taken into account when the line is set (e.g. "[starting QB] is out, don't like the backup. Taking the other side.") The bookmakers KNOW this.

Two good gambling podcasts where you can actually learn something/get some valuable information are Millman's podcast for ESPN, and Gill Alexander's podcast "Beating The Book." (a recent ep featured (ex?) FFA poster Johnny Detroit) Go with those instead.
Also, Money Talks.

Seriously though, I listen to Millman and Beating the Book and they are awesome.

 
Good Posting Judge said:
Evilgrin 72 said:
His picks aren't really bad. He got killed last week, but crushed the week before. I think he was 5-0 on his picks on the House podcast and I'm pretty sure he said he's close to 60% YTD
5 games a week for 7-8 weeks is a pretty miniscule sample. I am not smart enough to beat NFL sides long-term, but I'm the next-best thing, which is smart enough to know that I definitely can NOT beat NFL sides. Em had a recent streak where he went 13-4! Eminence!

I think the two biggest errors they make are 1) relying on small-sample trends ("Team X is 6-0 ATS on the road this year") and 2) using rationale that's already being taken into account when the line is set (e.g. "[starting QB] is out, don't like the backup. Taking the other side.") The bookmakers KNOW this.

Two good gambling podcasts where you can actually learn something/get some valuable information are Millman's podcast for ESPN, and Gill Alexander's podcast "Beating The Book." (a recent ep featured (ex?) FFA poster Johnny Detroit) Go with those instead.
Also, Money Talks.
They work with the guys that make the lines.

(I still don't know what that's supposed to mean. Are the books telling him what they want people to bet, and is he then reversing that and pouring his clients' money on the other side? And if the books can tell he's doing that and are still giving him sides, does that mean the books are now telling Stevens the opposite of where they want the money to be?)

 
Gary Russell will not score a touchdown is the greatest prop bet that cousin Sal has ever made

 
Good Posting Judge said:
Evilgrin 72 said:
His picks aren't really bad. He got killed last week, but crushed the week before. I think he was 5-0 on his picks on the House podcast and I'm pretty sure he said he's close to 60% YTD
5 games a week for 7-8 weeks is a pretty miniscule sample. I am not smart enough to beat NFL sides long-term, but I'm the next-best thing, which is smart enough to know that I definitely can NOT beat NFL sides. Em had a recent streak where he went 13-4! Eminence!

I think the two biggest errors they make are 1) relying on small-sample trends ("Team X is 6-0 ATS on the road this year") and 2) using rationale that's already being taken into account when the line is set (e.g. "[starting QB] is out, don't like the backup. Taking the other side.") The bookmakers KNOW this.

Two good gambling podcasts where you can actually learn something/get some valuable information are Millman's podcast for ESPN, and Gill Alexander's podcast "Beating The Book." (a recent ep featured (ex?) FFA poster Johnny Detroit) Go with those instead.
Also, Money Talks.
They work with the guys that make the lines.

(I still don't know what that's supposed to mean. Are the books telling him what they want people to bet, and is he then reversing that and pouring his clients' money on the other side? And if the books can tell he's doing that and are still giving him sides, does that mean the books are now telling Stevens the opposite of where they want the money to be?)
They also talk about how badly they beat up the sportsbooks, so it is pretty confusing. Especially since the books tend to limit big/winning players.

 
Simmons' first HBO project is apparently a 30 for 30 style documentary on Andre the Giant.

It will be interesting if they manage to get beyond the stock apocryphal stuff that I've seen everywhere. "He got rides to school with Samuel Beckett!" "He drank six litres of red win to get a buzz!"

 
His picks aren't really bad. He got killed last week, but crushed the week before. I think he was 5-0 on his picks on the House podcast and I'm pretty sure he said he's close to 60% YTD
5 games a week for 7-8 weeks is a pretty miniscule sample. I am not smart enough to beat NFL sides long-term, but I'm the next-best thing, which is smart enough to know that I definitely can NOT beat NFL sides. Em had a recent streak where he went 13-4! Eminence!

I think the two biggest errors they make are 1) relying on small-sample trends ("Team X is 6-0 ATS on the road this year") and 2) using rationale that's already being taken into account when the line is set (e.g. "[starting QB] is out, don't like the backup. Taking the other side.") The bookmakers KNOW this.

Two good gambling podcasts where you can actually learn something/get some valuable information are Millman's podcast for ESPN, and Gill Alexander's podcast "Beating The Book." (a recent ep featured (ex?) FFA poster Johnny Detroit) Go with those instead.
Also, Money Talks.
They work with the guys that make the lines.

(I still don't know what that's supposed to mean. Are the books telling him what they want people to bet, and is he then reversing that and pouring his clients' money on the other side? And if the books can tell he's doing that and are still giving him sides, does that mean the books are now telling Stevens the opposite of where they want the money to be?)
They also talk about how badly they beat up the sportsbooks, so it is pretty confusing. Especially since the books tend to limit big/winning players.
None of it makes any sense, but their BS is infectious. Last night, I shifted into Stevens mode from out of nowhere in my everyday life.

Wife : "Are you making dinner tonight? Don't we have strip steaks to gri-"

EG : "It's going to be an ABSOLUTE BLOWOUT DINNER !"

Wife : "What the hell is that? What are you doing?"

EG : "I'm not just making a steak, I'm dealing with butchers, ranchers, CEOs. I'm working with the guy who fed the steer. There comes a time in your life when you deserve something good on your dinner plate, and that time for you is now ! Just let me do what I do. You'll even get some creamed spinach on the side. ANYTHING ELSE I CAN DO FOR YA ?!"

Wife : "What IS this? I'm so confused. What are you doi-"

EG : "Give me 1% of your trust and I swear to you as your husband I will earn the other 99%. I wouldn't go to your job and tell you how to run the HR department, don't tell me what cut of steak you want or how you want it cooked, just sit back and shut up and let me make you a steak. FAIR ENOUGH ??!!"

Wife : "Whatever this is, stop it right now."

:lmao:

 
So it looks like Ryan and Greenwald will have a twice weekly TV pod. Greenwald's writing a book, so it doesn't look like he'll be writing a column for anyone for the time being.

The Gladwell pod got into some of the inside baseball Grantland stuff again. Nothing really new, but Gladwell's perspective on the whole thing is interesting.

 
His picks aren't really bad. He got killed last week, but crushed the week before. I think he was 5-0 on his picks on the House podcast and I'm pretty sure he said he's close to 60% YTD
5 games a week for 7-8 weeks is a pretty miniscule sample. I am not smart enough to beat NFL sides long-term, but I'm the next-best thing, which is smart enough to know that I definitely can NOT beat NFL sides. Em had a recent streak where he went 13-4! Eminence!

I think the two biggest errors they make are 1) relying on small-sample trends ("Team X is 6-0 ATS on the road this year") and 2) using rationale that's already being taken into account when the line is set (e.g. "[starting QB] is out, don't like the backup. Taking the other side.") The bookmakers KNOW this.

Two good gambling podcasts where you can actually learn something/get some valuable information are Millman's podcast for ESPN, and Gill Alexander's podcast "Beating The Book." (a recent ep featured (ex?) FFA poster Johnny Detroit) Go with those instead.
Also, Money Talks.
They work with the guys that make the lines.

(I still don't know what that's supposed to mean. Are the books telling him what they want people to bet, and is he then reversing that and pouring his clients' money on the other side? And if the books can tell he's doing that and are still giving him sides, does that mean the books are now telling Stevens the opposite of where they want the money to be?)
They also talk about how badly they beat up the sportsbooks, so it is pretty confusing. Especially since the books tend to limit big/winning players.
None of it makes any sense, but their BS is infectious. Last night, I shifted into Stevens mode from out of nowhere in my everyday life.

Wife : "Are you making dinner tonight? Don't we have strip steaks to gri-"

EG : "It's going to be an ABSOLUTE BLOWOUT DINNER !"

Wife : "What the hell is that? What are you doing?"

EG : "I'm not just making a steak, I'm dealing with butchers, ranchers, CEOs. I'm working with the guy who fed the steer. There comes a time in your life when you deserve something good on your dinner plate, and that time for you is now ! Just let me do what I do. You'll even get some creamed spinach on the side. ANYTHING ELSE I CAN DO FOR YA ?!"

Wife : "What IS this? I'm so confused. What are you doi-"

EG : "Give me 1% of your trust and I swear to you as your husband I will earn the other 99%. I wouldn't go to your job and tell you how to run the HR department, don't tell me what cut of steak you want or how you want it cooked, just sit back and shut up and let me make you a steak. FAIR ENOUGH ??!!"

Wife : "Whatever this is, stop it right now."

:lmao:
Lmao
 
IMO, Grantland improved immensely when it started relying more on its homegrown talent and less on Klosterman, and to a lesser extent, Gladwell.

Of course, I can't stand Gladwell, who's the master of turning a few anecdotes into a "think piece."

 
IMO, Grantland improved immensely when it started relying more on its homegrown talent and less on Klosterman, and to a lesser extent, Gladwell.

Of course, I can't stand Gladwell, who's the master of turning a few anecdotes into a "think piece."
I don't mind Gladwell, but I agree with that take.

Do you dislike Klosterman? I usually find his thoughts pretty interesting on the podcasts. I haven't really read him much.

 
IMO, Grantland improved immensely when it started relying more on its homegrown talent and less on Klosterman, and to a lesser extent, Gladwell.

Of course, I can't stand Gladwell, who's the master of turning a few anecdotes into a "think piece."
I don't mind Gladwell, but I agree with that take.

Do you dislike Klosterman? I usually find his thoughts pretty interesting on the podcasts. I haven't really read him much.
Not a big fan of Klosterman the essayist. I did like Killing Yourself to Live, which I think is his best book by a pretty hefty margin.

 
Jonah Keri will be "porting" his MLB stuff over to ESPN.com for the rest of 2015. The way he worded it, it sounds like he may be gone in 2016.

 
IMO, Grantland improved immensely when it started relying more on its homegrown talent and less on Klosterman, and to a lesser extent, Gladwell.

Of course, I can't stand Gladwell, who's the master of turning a few anecdotes into a "think piece."
Do you dislike Klosterman? I usually find his thoughts pretty interesting on the podcasts. I haven't really read him much.
I like him on his podcast but don't enjoy reading him

 
Simmons' first HBO project is apparently a 30 for 30 style documentary on Andre the Giant.

It will be interesting if they manage to get beyond the stock apocryphal stuff that I've seen everywhere. "He got rides to school with Samuel Beckett!" "He drank six litres of red win to get a buzz!"
or not

 
Bill just retweeted me to his nearly 5M followers. Pretty much the highlight of my life.

He's a huge Francesa fan, so it was just a matter of time. :D
How much traffic did it drive?
As of his RT about 15 hours ago, I got a little over 100 new followers. He's a blowtorch.

ETA: I was so blown away by the Simmons RT, I forgot to mention being in the Post yesterday morning (very end of the column). That's a pretty good day. Phil is technologically challenged. He doesn't really get Twitter. He thinks I'm a website. I think that's the 6th or 7th time he's mentioned my work, and it's always appreciated. He's a good dude.

This is the Dallas pick to which he refers, if anyone cares.

And this is the clip that Simmons retweeted.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bill just retweeted me to his nearly 5M followers. Pretty much the highlight of my life.

He's a huge Francesa fan, so it was just a matter of time. :D
How much traffic did it drive?
As of his RT about 15 hours ago, I got a little over 100 new followers. He's a blowtorch.

ETA: I was so blown away by the Simmons RT, I forgot to mention being in the Post yesterday morning (very end of the column). That's a pretty good day. Phil is technologically challenged. He doesn't really get Twitter. He thinks I'm a website. I think that's the 6th or 7th time he's mentioned my work, and it's always appreciated. He's a good dude.

This is the Dallas pick to which he refers, if anyone cares.

And this is the clip that Simmons retweeted.
Wow - I always assumed if you became a social media sensation it would be in the porn category.

 
IMO, Grantland improved immensely when it started relying more on its homegrown talent and less on Klosterman, and to a lesser extent, Gladwell.

Of course, I can't stand Gladwell, who's the master of turning a few anecdotes into a "think piece."
I agree completely about Gladwell. His books are such a beating but I feel obligated to read everyone because they are so taken as gospel in the corporate world. Wish everyone else loved Dubner/Levitt the way I do.

The podcast is hit or miss for me. I have zero interest in wagering but love the pop culture stuff. Seems like the Bill Simmons Podcast is a lot more wagering-heavy than his previous work.

 
IMO, Grantland improved immensely when it started relying more on its homegrown talent and less on Klosterman, and to a lesser extent, Gladwell.

Of course, I can't stand Gladwell, who's the master of turning a few anecdotes into a "think piece."
I agree completely about Gladwell. His books are such a beating but I feel obligated to read everyone because they are so taken as gospel in the corporate world. Wish everyone else loved Dubner/Levitt the way I do.The podcast is hit or miss for me. I have zero interest in wagering but love the pop culture stuff. Seems like the Bill Simmons Podcast is a lot more wagering-heavy than his previous work.
Simmons did make a big improvement in that the episode descriptions state when his discussion of various topics starts and ends. It's great to be able to skip the parts you aren't particularly interested in.

 
thecatch said:
bentley said:
IMO, Grantland improved immensely when it started relying more on its homegrown talent and less on Klosterman, and to a lesser extent, Gladwell.

Of course, I can't stand Gladwell, who's the master of turning a few anecdotes into a "think piece."
I agree completely about Gladwell. His books are such a beating but I feel obligated to read everyone because they are so taken as gospel in the corporate world. Wish everyone else loved Dubner/Levitt the way I do.The podcast is hit or miss for me. I have zero interest in wagering but love the pop culture stuff. Seems like the Bill Simmons Podcast is a lot more wagering-heavy than his previous work.
Simmons did make a big improvement in that the episode descriptions state when his discussion of various topics starts and ends. It's great to be able to skip the parts you aren't particularly interested in.
I was going to say that's funny because I basically skip all the pop culture stuff to get to the NBA and wagering on NFL discussions HAHA

 
thecatch said:
bentley said:
IMO, Grantland improved immensely when it started relying more on its homegrown talent and less on Klosterman, and to a lesser extent, Gladwell.

Of course, I can't stand Gladwell, who's the master of turning a few anecdotes into a "think piece."
I agree completely about Gladwell. His books are such a beating but I feel obligated to read everyone because they are so taken as gospel in the corporate world. Wish everyone else loved Dubner/Levitt the way I do.The podcast is hit or miss for me. I have zero interest in wagering but love the pop culture stuff. Seems like the Bill Simmons Podcast is a lot more wagering-heavy than his previous work.
Simmons did make a big improvement in that the episode descriptions state when his discussion of various topics starts and ends. It's great to be able to skip the parts you aren't particularly interested in.
I was going to say that's funny because I basically skip all the pop culture stuff to get to the NBA and wagering on NFL discussions HAHA
Me too. Gladwell I can stand, mainly because I haven't heard him as much (I skip his crappy books). But Klosterman can take a long walk off a short pier. He's the king of looking at a topic in a completely asinine way, and talking about his asinine thoughts as if they are new and interesting. They are not. They are stupid. And Simmons strokes him the whole way - probably because Simmons is the queen of that particular process.

 
I throughly enjoy when Bill has House describe his food intake.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
thecatch said:
bentley said:
IMO, Grantland improved immensely when it started relying more on its homegrown talent and less on Klosterman, and to a lesser extent, Gladwell.

Of course, I can't stand Gladwell, who's the master of turning a few anecdotes into a "think piece."
I agree completely about Gladwell. His books are such a beating but I feel obligated to read everyone because they are so taken as gospel in the corporate world. Wish everyone else loved Dubner/Levitt the way I do.The podcast is hit or miss for me. I have zero interest in wagering but love the pop culture stuff. Seems like the Bill Simmons Podcast is a lot more wagering-heavy than his previous work.
Simmons did make a big improvement in that the episode descriptions state when his discussion of various topics starts and ends. It's great to be able to skip the parts you aren't particularly interested in.
The best thing ever :) I don't really care about Gladwell or Klosterman. I don't "get" them at all

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top