They Want to Believe

About a week ago, President Trump added Dr. Scott Atlas to the Coronavirus Task Force. Dr. Atlas is not an epidemiologist or public health expert. His main qualification, far as I can tell, is that he was a Fox News fixture who agreed with the president regarding almost everything Covid-related.

As the months of the Trump presidency pass, what strikes me most vividly is the imperviousness of the man and his base to any kind of disconfirmation. He and his base absolutely refuse to acknowledge when he's been wrong, even when it's startlingly, absurdly clear. Dr. Atlas has been carefully vetted. He will not be telling the president that he is wrong. 

I'm a sports handicapper. I am, in a good year, correct 58 to 60 percent of the time. That means 40 percent of the time I am dead wrong, provably incorrect. In the most overpowering, magical years of my life, I have been publicly wrong a third of the time. And, on rare but real occasions, I've had seasons where I was wrong more often than I was right. There's no escaping my wrongness. My partners know when I'm wrong. They and I have email records. The public usually has known when I'm wrong, either through public contests or published records with monitors. The sports books I use have permanent records of the results. I can't just invent a different reality. I have been forced to confront my numerous mistakes and bad judgements every day of every season for 40 professional years and 10 years preceding that. 

What must it be like, I wonder, to go through life pretending to be an expert in all things, and to be able to ignore or jettison all disconfirming evidence? Eventually, one might come to believe in one's omniscience. Living life in the service of propping up one's omniscience would be an adventure. That kind of modus operandi would require periodic wholesale roster changes in both the public and private personnel surrounding you. People who became aware of your errors would have to be discarded. Disconfirming voices would have to be shifted out of one's auditory range. 

I mention all of this because the Republican National Convention has begun. Who will the Republicans trot before the cameras? A parade of B-list sycophants and Trump family members doesn't really impress. Sycophants rarely do. Realistically, the roster for an average Celebrity Apprentice season would have higher Q ratings than whoever the GOP sends to the podiums. More high profile, successful Republicans spoke at the Democratic convention than will speak at the Republican. What will the GOP do for ratings? Recruit a bunch of Fox News celebrities?

Hammering home the idea that Covid-19 is on the run and all is well in America should make for a very curious and tone deaf Republican presentation, sort of like broadcasting a cruise on a Scientology sea org. Out of touch with the outside world because that's become both the mission and the means to stay in charge.

With the announcement that President Trump will more or less be hosting all four days of the convention, things have gotten increasingly curious. It suggests at least three distinct things. First, the roster of GOP standard bearers is a bit thin. Second, Trump doesn't really trust anyone else to keep the backbone of the themes intact for multiple nights. He doesn't trust anyone else's salesmanship. Third, one of the probable reasons for the thin Republican speaking roster is that people don't want to tie themselves to the president. They are willing to cede the limelight to the Trump family because if the convention is perceived as an absurd bust, it's largely on the Trumps.

Thus, the president is going to put in multiple shifts. How can someone who was so absolutely wrong about something of crucial importance step onto a stage night after night and fake that he did a good job? How can you say (as Trump did on February 26),"You have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero" or (on February 28), "It's going to disappear," and then say, with a straight face, that everything is going according to plan? How do you do that? A hundred years from now, improv troupes will be training with the scene, "You were president, and you said the virus would disappear. Now it's six months later, and 180,000 are dead. Go with it!"

If the GOP had any honor, we'd see a seppuku convention finale. Instead, we'll get a political party on roller skates flailing as they try to put lipstick on flying pigs. Sixty million Americans will be duly impressed. 

Loyalty to a party is one thing. Loyalty to a circus is another. All that clown makeup, those safety net pardons, the brutal stench from piles of pachyderm excrement; it's all a bit much. Living under the orange big top is for those either too blind to find their way out or those paid extremely well to follow the elephants with a shovel.

Bob Dietz

August 24, 2020

For Whom the Bell Never Tolls

 ". . . any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." John Donne (1572-1631)

"Over the last week, the Democrats held the darkest and angriest and gloomiest convention in American history."  President Donald Trump (August 21, 2020)

Today, August 22, we will officially pass 178,000 American deaths due to Covid-19. This number, in fact, is demonstrably low, as demographers and epidemiologists will establish after the pandemic. More than 1,000 Americans are dying every day from the virus. The most rosy projections predict 300,000 dead by December 1. The U.S. pandemic results have, thus far, been horrific. 

Are there reasons for gloom? For anger? Can the president not understand that gloom and anger are reasonable responses? If not, what exactly would be rational reasons for gloom and anger? Ah, but I ask a rhetorical question, because as long as the stock market maintains, as long as one and two percenters thrive, the president can't acknowledge the propriety and even the necessity for anger and for gloom. If you are simply and truly deaf to the bells for 178,000 deaths, many avoidable, then indeed all is well within your world.

As the days pass, my questions about President Trump become more complex. I have never aspired to play psycho-historian or historical psychoanalyst or whatever the titles of those journals. Seems one small step above pure speculation. But questions must be asked.

Does Trump not understand that 178,000 people have actually died? And that these people had families and friends who mourn? Does he also not understand that we are on track to lose another thousand a day for the next three months?

What makes the president's quoted response even more curious is that his younger brother, Robert, died last week. How did that play into the president's criticism of gloom and darkness, if at all?

I suppose that there are two theories here. Either the president is playing cheerleader for the nation (again), and his brother's death has sensitized him, so he refuses to dwell (or even acknowledge) the country's cumulative loss and pain. Or conversely, the president is simply deaf to the tolling of any bell. He cannot process it, so he ignores it, deflects it, and assumes others share his anesthetized sensibilities. His niece's book, Too Much and Never Enough, describes his avoidance of his older brother's death. Does the president lack the ability to emotionally feel others' pain, to get inside "the other's" head, to empathize?

If a man cannot hear a single bell toll up close, then it should not be surprising if he remains unaffected when tens of thousands chime together from a distance. I make no judgements regarding the value of empathy or the public projection of empathy. That seems a subjective debate for people much more versed in politics and civics than me. As I've said previously, I have no problem attending a lecture by Count Dracula. The hair on the back of my neck rises, however, in those moments when I scan the lecture room and realize that most of the audience has bite marks in their necks. 

A man without empathy leading the way doesn't, by itself, bother me. What chills me to my core is the realization that he's the champion of my compatriots in the room. And none of them hear the tolling of the bells. 

Bob Dietz

August 22, 2020

Articles of Note -- August 21

My first recommendation is "Why Americans Are Allergic to the Truth" by Drew Magary at GEN. That August 4 piece is a reaction to an (updated) August 4 article by Ed Yong at The Atlantic, "How the Pandemic Defeated America." Both of these are cogent no-nonsense summaries.

Next is Christiano Lima's August 19 Politico piece, "Report: 'Superspreaders' of bogus health news racked up billions of views on Facebook." The frightening, quantified gist is that people click on the questionable and crazy far more often that they click on guidance from actual credentialed experts or professional organizations.

Finally is an August 20 CNN report by Christina Maxouris, Eric Levenson, and Nicole Chavez, "US coronavirus: Georgia, Texas, and Florida lead the country in cases per capita." The title says it all, as the late closings and early re-openings of these three states have come home to roost. And what, the governors were expecting different outcomes? Based on what? As I said many months ago, these politicians were at odds with the science. Either they were going to be correct, or the science was going to be correct. Unfortunately for me, there were no available betting odds.

These four pieces are each a must read.

Bob Dietz

August 21, 2020

Tales from The Asylum -- August 19

Welcome, once again, to the shadows of The Asylum. Ignore those moans, those howls, those screams of torment. That's just the poor sane bastards visiting their American relatives. We have a very special tour for you this week. From Tobacco Road to the elegant address of One University Drive, we will curl your toes and free your mind. Rationality, after all, has no place in The Asylum (cue organ music).

Some colleges started in-person fall semester last week. Shortly thereafter, hundreds of students tested positive for Covid-19. North Carolina immediately shut down and shipped its students home. I recall Penthouse magazine titling my letter to them "Unmatriculated." That about covers it. The UNC students and their families (and the subjects of that letter, by the way) are all screwed. With hundreds testing positive, it's likely thousands may be infected, and they get to go home and spread it to parents and grandparents. David Perry, a historian at the University of Minnesota, reported to CNN that he was appalled when UNC Provost Robert Blouin said, "I don't apologize for trying." Perhaps Blouin could instead apologize for being a complete dumb-ass who has put lives on the line. 

North Carolina, East Carolina, Oklahoma State, and Notre Dame all felt the pandemic bug last week. Just wait until the majority of universities open for business next week, like ETSU in my backyard. We should be in for some comical administrative excuses and verbal contortions that will make both Yogi Berra and The Asylum proud.

From the east boundary of The Asylum to the west boundary, we seem to have university personnel in need of electric shock. John Eastman, Professor of Law at Chapman University in California, opined in Newsweek that Kamala Harris isn't qualified for the vice presidency. Something about running while black, which is the same as driving while black but without the vehicle searches.

Meanwhile, President Trump's new plan for a second term, leaked by White House Team Trumpers, is to create such an electoral mess that the election gets tossed into the House, with each state getting one vote in the process. I will pay good money to see the bastion of democracy that is The Asylum assign the same clout to Wyoming as to California. Only the President of The Asylum could come up with this, except maybe for that balding guy in Russia. See, this is why I was reincarnated as a white man. If you can't kill 'em, cheat 'em. Then kill 'em. Yeah, let's have half a million pretty-much-all-white folks count the same as 40 million not-so-white folks. Should be a helluva ride.

In The Asylum wing devoted to stable-or-otherwise geniuses, the president's friend from My Pillow made the rounds touting a Covid-19 cure. Gotta love American expertise. Design a pillow, cure a pandemic. Like Leonardo da Vinci, only with a better quality of sleep.

And finally, this uplifting note from the recreational wing of The Asylum. John Focke, broadcaster for the Charlotte Hornets, was suspended indefinitely after referring to the Denver Nuggets as the Denver N*gg*** in a tweet. He claimed it was a spelling error. Somewhere, maybe in the militia-filled wilds of Michigan or Pulaski (TN), there's a judge's chair reserved for next year's spelling bee with Focke's name on it, hopefully spelled correctly.

Join us again (cue organ music) next week as we descend into the sub-basements of The Asylum. It's Republican National Convention time. Can you spell H-Y-D-R-O-X-Y-C-H-L-O-R-O-Q-U-I-N-E?

Bob Dietz

August 19, 2020

Analyzing Louie Gohmert (Part Two): Things to Come

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert's August 6 East Texas Now interview provided a preview of the GOP template that will be on display the next 11 weeks. Gohmert's interview was carefully crafted, adhering to rules and priorities that the GOP will use to deflect science and data in the days to come.

The more I looked closely at the interview, the more disturbing it became. Gohmert plays at being a folksy every-man, continually providing opinions that he says are backed by facts, data, and names that never materialize. When he presents actual hard numbers, such as his "79% reduced fatality rate" when using hydroxychloroquine, the number is unanchored by precise definition or specific attribution of studies or investigators. Gohmert is able to evade being pinned down because he avoids the adversarial interviewer or any actual expert.

The question thus arises, is Louie Gohmert doing this accidentally in a naive and offhanded way? Or is his presentation practical, precise, and coldly manipulative under the auspices of a folksy every-man public persona?

Well, it took me awhile, but I finally realized which author from my youth was a dead presentation-ringer for Gohmert. I was 10 or 11 when I first read Play Poker to Win by Amarillo Slim Preston. Gohmert has the same physical presentation as Slim and those same icy reptilian eyes that betray his persona facade. My worst poker nightmare would be sitting at a table filled with Amarillo Slims and Louie Gohmerts. I'm not sure, Slim's cowboy hat aside, if I could tell Preston and Gohmert apart. Besides their physical similarities, they're both apex predators, gunslingers warping the minds of those who wander into their magnetic fields. Amarillo Slim oversaw the advent of Texas Hold 'Em (a game notorious for it's ease of cheating) and rode math skills and collusion to success. Louie Gohmert has ridden America's lack of science and critical thinking to GOP success. These Texas boys have both been master strategists. 

In answer to the original question, Gohmert knows exactly what he is saying each sentence of the way.

The GOP Anti-Science Template

Using the Louie Gohmert interview as a map, I'm going to predict the talking points and emphases of President Trump and the GOP during the next 80 days. If you thought that the GOP had been anti-science before, you haven't seen anything yet. 

The key theme of the president and his allies will be the alleged effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine. Considering that it failed double blind studies and the FDA revoked its general use, how can this be? Easy. Science has been all but ignored for the last six months. Now science won't just be ignored. Its recommendations and conclusions will be fought tooth and nail.

The first GOP priority is to pry the responsibility for the Covid-19 response from its own back and somehow dilute the blame. This is best done by publicizing the idea that hydroxychloroquine not only works, but works quite well against the virus. The "79% fewer fatalities with hydroxy" phrase will make the rounds. Failure to use hydroxychloroquine will be assigned a conspiratorial cause, with Dr. Fauci as figurehead for the proverbial Deep State. The Deep State and Big Pharma will be getting the blame. The thrust will be that it's all about making money, hating Trump, and squashing the little guy.

Something like this: "The best treatment was here all along, but Democrats, the Deep State, and Dr. Fauci would not allow it to be used to cut fatalities by 79%. The Dems, scientists, and doctors are responsible for the awful death toll. The GOP fought for the people, but the FDA and the rest of the system were rigged."

The hope isn't necessarily that voters will buy this story hook, line, and sinker, but that a good chunk of personal responsibility will be lifted from the GOP's back. Hard core believers may swallow the entire spiel. At the other end of the continuum, GOP doubters may be de-motivated to vote the non-GOP side.

The next theme will feature the chorus of "the deaths have been exaggerated." Anecdotes and stories of misdiagnoses with Covid-19 assignations will fill Fox News. So if you did blame the GOP for deaths, best to blame them somewhat less. 

Tied in with these first two themes will be the idea that the lack of widespread use of hydroxychloroquine was the reason for the shutdowns that froze the economy. It wasn't that closings and re-openings were botched. That's scientist speak. The real problem was that people weren't allowed to use the HCQ. That's what tanked the economy.

Meanwhile, Fauci, Redfield and Birx will be sidelined. Hired intellectual hands will be brought in, no matter their inferior credentials. Early vaccines and new breakthrough cures will be hyped. Supporting data for the GOP claims will be mentioned in fleeting, general, non-descript ways. Everything will be generalities and promises. Data from the most credible studies will not be mentioned.

It would not surprise me if, during the Republican convention, Trump promised hydroxychloroquine for everyone who wants it. What better way to relieve stress-stricken Americans than to promise a cheap effective cure? Then, if you vote against Trump, you're voting against a cure. You're the bad guy. Evil incarnate.That's where we're going.

The GOP convention will feature non-experts giving expert advice on life and death medical strategies. This will put people like Fauci and Birx and Redfield in a bind. They are government employees. Will they muster the energy to go toe to toe against the president to countervail whatever claptrap is unveiled in the next 80 days? They will be in a no-win situation for themselves. Will they have the intestinal fortitude to say, "The GOP is pushing bunk?" Will they have the guts to go up against "the cure?"

People are looking for safety and salvation and villains to blame. The GOP will provide it all.

More (and Worse) Things to Come

We are going to have a very loud anti-science drumbeat for the next 80 days. With some of the blame for the death toll shifting to the non-use of hydroxychloroquine, there will be an interesting consequence. Shifting blame to the Dems and the Deep State and the FDA has the intended side effect of lifting some of the death blame from those Americans who failed to wear masks or social distance. Civilians will be relieved of part of their responsibility, angst , and guilt. It wasn't the lack of masks or early re-opening that led to deaths; it was the lack of HCQ. Many Americans will be relieved, and also less motivated to wear masks or social distance in the future. That is how this see-saw psychological dynamic will work.

What American doesn't want to feel the weight of guilt lifted? What American doesn't want to believe in a cure right now?

The planning of all of this is truly worthy of the most maniacal Bond villain. Or maybe the balding dude in Russia.

Bob Dietz

August 18, 2020

Analyzing Louie Gohmert -- Part One

Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert gave an August 6 interview with East Texas Now that was so premeditated in what it said and what it didn't say that it exemplifies a GOP pandemic presentation template. Gohmert's entire spiel was quite precise and self-aware, strongly suggesting a presentation protocol and strategy agreed upon in advance by the culture that is the GOP.

What struck me is the degree to which Gohmert's ostensibly off the cuff interview adhered to a crystalline structure and purposeful prioritization of elements during all segments of the interview. Also striking was the obvious adherence to certain strategies regarding what to claim, how to limit actual specific details of those claims, and what information to quite obviously ignore during each step of the interview. In this sense, the interviewer was an active participant, tossing preordained questions Gohmert's way.

Doing forensic analyses of interviews and speeches is not a lot of fun and takes some time. After watching the complete interview, which was 20 minutes in length, I went back and broke down the interview into 20 and 30-second portions, analyzing each portion. Then I watched the complete interview once again. Breaking it down and watching it multiple times led to a more ominous interpretation of what had taken place than the first go-round perception of "Texas lawmaker winging it in a folksy way." The interview actually highlights the GOP strategy and excuses for its Covid-19 response. I'll tackle that in more depth in Part Two. For now, I'll discuss the mechanics of the interview itself. The interview was live, with Gohmert checking in from his home, where he was in quarantine after testing positive for Covid-19. Let's get to it.

When the East Texas Now host asked how he was doing, Gohmert replied "amazingly well," despite demonstrating a shaky, rasping voice that he found necessary to acknowledge on two occasions during the interview. After "amazingly well," he immediately continued with his answer at the 30-second mark, "I did get on the hydroxy very quickly with Z-Pak and zinc, Vitamin D3, and also a steroid nebulizer, a breathing machine."

Note the immediacy of the hydroxychloroquine mention, plus the sequence. "Hydroxy" is named first, followed by the Z-Pak and zinc. The steroid is listed last, after an "uh" and a pause, almost as an afterthought. Now consider if the sequence of items used in treatment had been listed in reverse order. What different conclusion might a listener reach regarding the importance of which items? I think it's worth noting that steroids (not inhaled steroids) have been found to have positive effects in Covid-19 treatments. This is not stated, however, by Gohmert. It would seem to be an obvious and reasonable thing to mention if one were seeking to provide all the facts.

Gohmert went on to report that he had been warned by the White House medical staff to not take commercial transportation, so he drove from D.C. to Tyler to quarantine. 

As the interview continued, Gohmert's speech sounded more shallow, as if he could not muster up his usual volume of air. Later in the interview, when he became aware of this, he opined that it might be due to dryness caused by his nebulizer.

When asked about his symptoms at the three-minute mark, Gohmert responded, "There's been a lot of research on the HCQ." He then said that he found it interesting that there was so much pushback. Next, he said that he "was sent a story by a doctor friend" that countries using hydroxychloroquine, Z-Pak, and zinc "had 79% fewer fatalities."

After he tested positive at the White House, Gohmert said he was "met by a couple of incredible doctors." He says one was an epidemiologist, and they gave him "a lot of helpful information." Note first that he does not name the doctors. Keep in mind, also, that he does not say that any of the doctors recommended hydroxychloroquine. He immediately, however, implies that by saying, "Okay, people hate the HCQ because Trump recommends it, but you can't help but wonder if there's not an awful lot of money involved in the, uh, pushback against HCQ." 

Some notes on Gohmert's comments thus far:  

(1) The "had 79% fewer fatalities" goes unexplained. Does that mean overall in terms of raw numbers? Per capita? Per infection? What or who is the source of the "79% fewer fatalities" comment? Such a striking stat should certainly have source references attached, but it does not.

(2) No mention, zero, is made of double blind trials, the medical gold standard, that established that "HCQ" doesn't do any good. Not mentioning the most credible data is beyond disingenuous. Could Gohmert be unaware of the trial results? Fat chance, but we'll return to this later. I am reminded of the famous recent quote from Brazil's hydroxychloroquine backer, Jair Balsonaro, "We know there is no scientific evidence, but it has worked with me."

There's a jarring, tone deaf moment at the nine minute mark where Gohmert tries to explain how "the president is a really funny guy." Gohmert had been tested because he was scheduled to accompany President Trump on Air Force One to Texas. When his test came back positive, he was vetoed from the trip. So the president called Gohmert from Air Force One. Gohmert thanked the president because without the invitation and required test, he would not have known he was positive. Trump's "humorous" response was, "Oh, so you're saying that I saved your life," at which both Gohmert and the president shared a laugh. Given the lack of testing availability for many Americans the last six months, which may indeed have resulted in many deaths, the Trump comment seems an odd thing to put forth publicly as an example of the president being a "really funny man."

Trump then told Gohmert to follow Gohmert's doctor's orders, but Trump allegedly then said, "Mine recommended hydroxychloroquine." 

Gohmert then addressed his drug of choice again, saying, "I can't help but think it must have an effect since there is so much data out there." Once again, Gohmert doesn't quote papers or studies or actual sources regarding the alleged data of which he speaks. The only doctor that Gohmert mentions by name other than the task force's Dr. Fauci is a Dr. Bartlett, who recommended the steroid nebulizer. Bartlett is not quoted by Gohmert as recommending hydroxychloroquine. 

When asked about Dr. Fauci, Gohmert once again mentions the unnamed articles provided by a "doctor friend" discussing those "79% lower fatality rates" for countries using hydroxychloroquine. Gohmert then characterizes Fauci as a "zealot against a particular form of treatment. It's hard to deny at this point that it's done a lot of good."

Next, Gohmert mentions Rand Paul texting him and saying, "Congratulations. Now you're going to be immune." He then paraphrased Rand Paul, saying Paul declared the research made it "pretty clear" that people couldn't get Covid-19 a second time. Gohmert also mentions Herman Cain, and attributes his death, categorized as Covid-19, as due to his chemotherapy.

Finally, Gohmert spends time at the tail end of the interview downplaying the reported deaths from the virus, "I don't think we can rely very well on the numbers that we're getting." He mentions anecdotal talk and "stories constantly coming out" as indicators that deaths are exaggerated. He does not mention that demographers and epidemiologists will be able to determine after the fact how many people have died of Covid-19 by comparing death totals to averages of the previous years, which again is a basic, fundamental way of measuring pandemic effects that he chooses to ignore.

Summary of this Interview

The interview, in effect, was an advertisement for hydroxychloroquine. But that only scratches the surface, because such an interview carries within it implicit subtexts and dog whistles. Let's state the obvious first:

The only doctor actually named was the one who recommended the nebulizer for Gohmert. None of the doctors supposedly recommending hydroxychloroquine, if indeed any did, are named. 

None of the studies or papers demonstrating hydroxychloroquine's alleged successes are named. The doctors in charge of those alleged studies are not named. Papers' authors are not named.

The double blind studies that demonstrated hydroxychloroquine's lack of effectiveness are ignored. They are not mentioned once. There is not even a reference to them being flawed or problematic. The reason for that non-confrontational approach is that the double blind studies are unimpeachable.

In 20 minutes, Gohmert manages to put forth multiple conspiracy theories without providing any evidence whatsoever. First, he advocates for hydroxychloroquine, knowing the FDA does not approve its use. He then frames Dr. Fauci as a "zealot" against the drug. And he insinuates multiple times in the interview that money must be at the root of the lack of hydroxychloroquine support. That's conspiracy number one. Second, he claims that one cannot trust the death numbers being reported, with the clear implication that they are exaggerated. In fact, according to a recent Yale study, the deaths are strikingly underreported. Gohmert, however, would have us believe that doctors and coroners must be conspiring to pad the Covid-19 tally. This is conspiracy number two. Third, he explicitly mentions that people refuse to accept hydroxychloroquine's positive treatment results because they "hate Trump." This is a third conspiracy. 

The scientists, coroners, Democrats, front line doctors, and nurses are all conspiring. Presumably the rest of the world is also conspiring with them. 

This Gohmert interview was very carefully structured. No attributions for the "data" supporting hydroxychloroquine. No doctors named who recommended hydroxychloroquine for Gohmert. No mention of the "Demon Doctor" who championed hydroxychloroquine a couple of weeks ago. No mention of double blind trials establishing hydroxychloroquine as having no real value. No mention of drugs that have some measured but modest effect, such as remdesivir, which is certainly quite curious.

Is Louie Gohmert, a former judge and attorney, really so ill trained in science that he simply doesn't understand the value of attribution? Is he prioritizing information incorrectly due to ignorance or naivete? Not likely.

His interview gives a clear picture of the GOP strategy in the days leading to the election. I'll examine it all in Part Two.

Bob Dietz

August 16, 2020 

 

Sports Betting During the Pandemic -- Some Thoughts

Earlier this week, I promised some pandemic betting insights, so I'll tell you what I tried and also what I think is possible during this pandemic.

This football season, assuming there is one, will be such an anomaly that following routines that have led me to winning overall in college football for 40 years is not going to fly. This year is an entirely different and aberrant animal, so I am hesitant to prepare in a normal manner. While my usual means of preparation and analysis may be useless, however, there is a reasonable chance that this college football season could still be profitable. The means for making money, however, would be different than usual. 

First, since any established favorite in a conference is just as likely as conference dregs to be hit with Covid-19 infections and quarantines, one cannot take futures chalk. Selecting some ridiculous long shots keeps investments low, with the possibility that the brand names get shot down by the virus. Second, since any given week, huge chunks of rosters can be sidelined, lines could swing massively. I'm one of those people who does numbers checks at 2 AM and 5 AM and works about a hundred hours a week, so my shop-'til-I-drop sensibilities may yield more significant middle shots than during a normal season.

Okay, that's it for the free tips. I never tell people how I actually do things, so that's as much as anyone gets. But allow me to share my misadventures this week as I dabbled in pandemic sports betting. To put things in context, I've been doing this professionally for 40 years, and I've made about half a dozen serious baseball wagers in that time. I have a tough time betting real money on a sport where different venues are different shapes and sizes. Seems nuts to me. So my deciding to shell out even a few dollars on a baseball theory was rare. And again, to add context, 85% or so of my wagering is college football. The baseball bets I'll describe were each about one-tenth the size of my usual college football wagers.

Anyway, I had a theory. I know almost nothing about baseball, but I thought that the Miami Marlins getting off to a 7-1 start had resulted in their getting way more attention and positive ink than they would have gotten from a 7-1 start during a normal, 162-game season. Thus my conclusion was that value lay in the other side. I decided that I would fire 10 consecutive wagers against them, regardless of opponent or site. 

By the time I pulled the trigger, the Marlins had dropped to 7-2. I bet against them, had chalk, and won. I then took Toronto, playing in "home" Buffalo, as a heavy chalk. I had a 4-1 lead in the bottom of the eighth, went to get a cup of coffee, and came back to a 4-4 game. Ouch. Toronto managed to win in extra winnings. I fired against Miami again last night, again taking Toronto at "home," and laying -160. Miami led 11-4. Toronto somehow tied it 11-11, then fell behind in the top of the tenth, 14-11. The Blue Jays got two men on in the bottom of the inning with one out, but failed to score. 

I pulled the plug on further wagering. Too much mental wear and tear. Pitching cannot be trusted. The pitching in MLB has been horrendous. More pitchers have been injured in teams' first 15 games than in any season I can remember. I suppose this was always a distinct possibility, but the reality of it is really jarring. It's ugly. So I am taking my four-tenths of a unit profit from the three wagers and calling it a day. I am proud of that four-tenths of a unit, as I did a lot of sweating and grumbling while acquiring it. 

Betting on anomalous events really isn't my thing. This football season may be the most anomalous in the history of the sport. Opportunities might exist. The best opportunity in a minefield, however, is to get out of it intact. Wouldn't it be easier to not walk into the mine field in the first place? 

Bob Dietz

August 13, 2020