Teamwork

Watched the first half and part of the third quarter of that sad Carolina Panthers game last night versus the Seattle Seahawks. Carolina beat Seattle twice last year, including in the playoffs, but injuries and other roster changes have left the team a shadow of last year’s self, unable to compete with a quality opponent such as Seattle.

Team games like football, basketball, hockey, and soccer are endlessly curious in the way they challenge individuals to communicate with one another in a variety of ways. I’m referring not just to verbal communication, but also to what might be called “complementary physical action” that enables players to gain an advantage over opponents by their positioning, passing, and collective attempts to score. You know, teamwork.

Baseball demonstrates the same kind of communication, though often the relationship between, say, all nine players on the defensive side is less overt, with the communication more often occurring between pairs or groups of three. Meanwhile any given football play (for example) has all 11 on either side being forced to work together constantly, which is a lot harder than it looks sometimes.

As a result, whenever a given line-up endures turnover thanks to injuries or other changes in personnel, that presents a new test for those who remain. The coaches who manage them exert an important influence over how well the new groups of individuals interact, but so, too, do the players bring more or less ability in this regard. That is to say, over and above their individual talents, each has a certain skill set evoking that category by which many of us were evaluated starting back in grammar school -- “works well with others.”

The Panthers aren’t working so well with one another, leaving them 4-8 at present when they were a gaudy 12-0 at this point a year ago. And it seems clear enough that all the individual parts aren’t nearly as in harmony as before -- the “teamwork” thing isn’t working.

Football is like poker insofar as skill matters but luck likewise affects results. Take forced fumbles, for instance. Last year opponents fumbled 24 times against the Panthers during the regular season (1.5 times per game), and Carolina recovered 15 of them (62.5%). This year Carolina has caused 13 fumbles (just over one per game), but have only recovered five of them (about 38%).

Being able to force fumbles at a higher clip would suggest greater team defense (skill), but recovering them more often involves a combination of skill (being faster to the ball) and luck (being in an advantageous position when the ball pops out).

But truthfully, that hard-to-measure skill of “team chemistry” is more important than a few balls bouncing the wrong way. Being able to jump higher, run faster, and outmaneuver opponents physically is important, but being able to work together has an even greater influence on a team’s results.

Image: Seattle Seahawks Russell Wilson..., Jack Kurzenknabe, public domain.

WPT Success for Sexton

“I work much too hard for every Panther win.”

That’s what I texted a friend late last night after Carolina hung on to beat New Orleans 23-20.

Was kind of a familiar story with the Panthers starting strong and continuing to maintain a big lead through three quarters, entering the fourth up 23-3. Then the offense just shut down altogether, having three straight three-and-outs to give the Saints the ball back over and over, enabling them to climb back into the sucker.

Thankfully Carolina was able to convert on a third down late -- the team’s only first down the entire fourth quarter -- to milk just enough time to make it difficult (though not impossible) for New Orleans to mount one last drive to attempt a tying field goal. The Saints came up short, and the Panthers eked out the win.

Meanwhile starting in the afternoon I had dialed up the streaming coverage of the World Poker Tour Montreal final table at the Playground Poker Club, following along with a lot of the poker world to see if WPT host Mike Sexton -- who brought the chip lead to the six-handed final table -- might win his first WPT title.

We all know Sexton pretty well by now, of course, given that the WPT is in its 15th season and he’s been there from the very start. He played a fairly prominent role during the poker “boom” of the 2000s (to which the WPT shows contributed significantly). And over the years just about everyone who has been around the poker world has gotten to know him in some capacity, his unofficial status as “Ambassador of Poker” being well confirmed.

I have covered Sexton in a number of tournaments over the years, of course. Also had the chance to help report on a few WPT events as well -- including at the Playground Poker Club -- at which I’ve gotten to chat with him about his years living in North Carolina and playing in underground games before moving out to Vegas. Not too long ago I read and reviewed his new autobiography, titled Life’s a Gamble, which filled in further gaps about his interesting life (and the history of the WPT).

By the time the game ended it was down to heads-up between Benny Chen and Sexton, with Chen enjoying the chip lead to begin their duel. I’d noticed a few hands go by in which Chen seemed to be running especially well connecting with boards, and his lead increased as a result.

Looking back through the WPT live updates, I see that Sexton nearly pulled even in an early hand between the pair, but Chen pushed back out ahead and maintained the lead over the first several dozen hands the pair played. At one point Chen had 17.775 million to Sexton’s 1.675 million, a better than 10-to-1 chip advantage. That’s an even bigger edge, percentage-wise, than the lead the Panthers had entering the fourth.

Sexton doubled once with Q-10 versus Chen’s 9-4-suited and chipped back a bit. But then Sexton fell back and found himself all in and at risk again, this time in a bad spot with A-4 versus Chen’s A-Q-suited. Fortunately for Sexton a four came among the community cards and he survived, and after 90 hands they were still going at it.

I ended up hitting the sack some time after that as they’d end up playing almost a couple of hours more. Sexton would double up two more times -- once with pocket kings, another time coming from behind with J-10 versus A-8 -- finally wrestling the chip lead away from Chen. It was just two hands later Chen would shove with K-J, Sexton snap-called with pocket queens, and the big pair held to give Sexton the title.

They played 158 hands of heads-up, and Chen had the chip lead for 156 of those hands. In other words, it played out not unlike some of these NFL games where one team is ahead for 59-plus minutes only for the other team to pull it out in the end -- as almost happened to the Panthers.

Kind of neat to see Sexton get this one. He’s been playing WPT events since the sixth season, and had made a couple of WPT final tables before. Easy to understand Chen’s disappointment, though, having had to endure the big comeback during which he had Sexton on the ropes for much of the endgame (not to mention everyone pulling for his opponent).

That’s the way these games go, where it’s often the case you have to work hard for these wins.

Image: “Mike Sexton | WPT Five Diamond (S13),” World Poker Tour. CC BY-NC 2.0.

Fumbles That Hit You Right in the Feelings

Football season is in high gear, even if my Carolina Panthers are off to a woeful start.

Yesterday’s game versus the Atlanta Falcons was especially distressing, given how evident it was from the very beginning the defense wasn’t going to be able to stop Atlanta’s passing game. Reigning MVP Cam Newton going out in the second half after suffering a concussion just made things less pleasant.

The Panthers losing presents a specific problem for me in my Pigskin Pick’em pool (where we pick games straight up, not versus the spread), as I dislike picking against them. That bias wasn’t so much of an issue last year when they went 15-1, but it’s already earned me three “X” marks this year.

Otherwise I’ve done well so far with my picks, although yesterday got me thinking once more about the relative pain and pleasure that comes from various outcomes.

My buddy Robert Woolley, a.k.a. the “Poker Grump,” wrote a nice article for PokerNews recently titled “Mountains, Swinging, and the Fear of Loss in Poker” in which he shares some research regarding the way losing can hurt more than winning can feel good.

According to findings of the economist Robert cites in the article, the “loss aversion” ratio for most people is “in the range of 1.5 to 2.5.” In other words, for many it is somewhere either above or below being twice as painful to lose than it is pleasurable to win.

It was early in the NFL season last year I shared a hastily-created “pleasure-pain index” for Pigskin Pick’em, something I was reminded of by Robert’s article as well as by some of the results from yesterday. The index goes as follows:

most pain: making non-consensus choice (usually an underdog), being wrong

least pain: making consensus choice (usually a favorite), being wrong

least pleasure: making consensus choice (usually a favorite), being right

most pleasure: making non-consensus choice (usually an underdog), being right

After three weeks of following a relatively conservative path with my picks, I broke out of that yesterday somewhat by choosing a few unpopular dogs such as Jacksonville (who won) and the LOLJets (who lost). Those picks ended up evening out for the most part, although one game in particular -- San Diego’s miserable give-away of its game versus New Orleans -- got me thinking the index isn’t accounting for another factor significantly affecting the pleasure-pain measurement.

I picked San Diego over Indianapolis in Week 3, a game in which the Chargers had a 22-20 lead and a 2nd-and-3 at midfield with less than three minutes left, but couldn’t make a first down and lost the lead on a long TD.

The Chargers then got the ball back down four and promptly fumbled, then after getting it back one last time with almost no time left fumbled again. Indy won 26-22, with San Diego having gone from an 80.6% “win probability” (as ESPN is now measuring) with two minutes left to losing.

Despite the pain caused by that failed pick, I chose San Diego again yesterday in their home game against New Orleans, and with just under seven minutes left the Chargers were up 34-21 with possession of the football. Win probability? 98.5%. But they fumbled, and the Saints got a quick TD. Then they fumbled again, New Orleans got seven more, and the Chargers lost 35-34.

I didn’t actually see either game, save the last desperate minute yesterday when San Diego got the ball back one last time and lost 12 yards, then threw a pick. Reading box scores and play-by-play rundowns of the ends of these two games, the fumbles seem almost purposeful -- the surest way to lose the games. Bill Barnwell of ESPN even tweeted yesterday how San Diego was “trying so hard to lose this game,” and while I don’t actually think they were, it’s uncanny how efficiently they managed to let slip away an all-but-certain victory.

I’m realizing the pain is heightened when being on the wrong side of these games, and is much greater than the pleasure of winning them, in my experience. I’m referring to games in which as a person trying to predict winners the game concludes in such a way that you cannot help but view yourself as being either “lucky” or “unlucky” when choosing either side -- you know, games decided by unlikely late turnovers, odd or incorrect calls by referees, missed field goals, and the like.

I certainly like winning such games, but when that happens I can’t say I feel as though I’ve “earned” the check mark like I do when teams demonstrate less equivocally that I’ve chosen the right side (such as when I picked the Steelers last night and they crushed Kansas City 43-14). Meanwhile losing them feels especially bad, and even today I keep looking back and thinking how “undeserving” I am to have been rudely delivered that red “X” in the Chargers-Saints game.

Each of the four categories above, then, could be split into four more subcategories -- the “lucky” win, the “non-lucky” win, the “non-lucky” loss, and the “unlucky” loss -- with the relative pain-pleasure calibrated for each outcome. Hmm... this is getting complicated. I may have to create a table or graph to represent it all.

Silly stuff, I know. But the curious part of it is how what I’m describing is precisely the opposite of what happens (to me) in poker, where losing because of bad luck doesn’t hurt much at all, but losing because of my own poor decisions hurts significantly. Similarly, winning by getting lucky doesn’t bring as much pleasure as winning because of smart, skillful play.

Will keep monitoring it all. And we’ll see if I can ever bring myself to picking the Chargers again -- or perhaps if I can start picking against the Panthers -- and what sort of pain and/or pleasure those picks will produce.

Image: “fumble!” (adapted), Paul L Dineen. CC BY 2.0.

Football, Finally

I’ve been guilty more than once here over the last couple of months of grumbling about the relative paucity of televised sports entertainment. It’s my own fault, really. Imprisoned by my own tastes.

Sometimes the whining has come under the heading of pining for more poker on the teevee -- such as during the WSOP Main Event (which still hasn’t begun to be aired on ESPN and won’t start until Sunday). Definitely feel like there’s a valley here in the summer that poker could fill for a certain segment of sports watchers.

I realize there are sports to watch during the couple of months that follow the NBA finals. It’s not that I don’t enjoy watching the occasional tennis match, fourth round of a golf tournament, soccer match, or baseball game. Or even (this year) the panoply of Olympic sports from last month, which I spent some hours enjoying during the first week at least before taking off for Barcelona halfway through the sucker.

But for me the most enjoyable sport to watch on television is football, and I mean professional football. College is an okay diversion, but it ain’t nearly as engaging to me as the pro game.

This year begins uniquely for a Panthers fan like myself, given how Carolina gets to play in tonight’s Thursday kickoff game in a Super Bowl rematch versus the Denver Broncos. It’s not an ideal spot to begin a season -- on the road, on a short week, and versus an above average opponent. But it’ll give us all an early idea how bullish we should be on the team this time around.

Tonight’ll mark the first of 256 attempts at picking winners again as well as I jump back into another Pigskin Pick’em campaign. Hard to have much perspective with tonight’s pick, as we’re pretty well overwhelmed with unreasonable optimism regarding the Panthers around these parts. No Peyton for the Broncos (and an untested fellow in his place behind center) is encouraging many to go with Carolina as well, although I don’t necessarily think the QB situation will hurt Denver all that much.

Ah well... no more fussing over it. Time to make a pick. The second-guessing is just hours away!

Image: “Pigskin,” Eric Kilby. CC BY-SA 2.0.

Preseason Football is Like Play Money Poker

That NFL Hall of Fame Game was canceled last Sunday because of some sort of field-painting snafu, thereby delaying the start of the preseason by a few days. Such teasing perhaps increased the anticipation slightly prior to last night’s games, although truthfully the whole NFL preseason is pretty much a tease, if you think about it.

As the Carolina Panthers lined up to begin their initial preseason game last night versus the Baltimore Ravens, I was slightly excited to turn away from the Olympics for a bit and finally -- finally -- dial up the sport I enjoy watching the most. But it only took a series or two (and the subbing out of the starters) to remember these games aren’t quite “real” football. (Crazy to think how tickets for these games cost the same as regular season ones.)

In fact, it only took me until the start of the second quarter before I was already flipping back over to swimming and gymnastics.

Found myself thinking a little of play money poker games -- pretty much the only kind I play anymore online, and only rarely at that. There’s always a small little feeling of excitement when sitting down, kind of a very, very faint echo of the feeling from years ago when playing real money games. But it goes away quickly, and it’s hard to maintain focus and/or enthusiasm thereafter.

I do want to restart my play money “Home Games” on PokerStars at some point, which in way work to create a kind of interest and competitiveness that can be fun. I’ll try to get motivated in that direction sooner than later.

Meanwhile we can wait out these tedious preseason contests until September 8 when my Panthers get another crack at Denver in the season opener. The real opener, that is.

Image: “100% Genuine Fake Shop. Lol!” (adapted), Graham Hills. CC BY 2.0.

Recency Bias in Politics and Poker

Was sitting here this evening with the teevee on hearing the talking heads reacting to early results of the New Hampshire primaries. Most polls had Donald Trump winning big on the Republicans’ side and Bernie Sanders similarly coming out on top for the Democrats, and that is just how things have played out.

Many of the commentators nonetheless seem to be expressing some amazement at the twin triumphs of Trump and Sanders. To be fair, they’re prefacing such comments with statements about how a few months ago it would seem unlikely that either of the two “outsider” candidates (a term that somewhat differently applies to each) would not just win in NH but by large margins. Even so, most seem to be influenced more by the fact that neither won in Iowa (although both nearly did), thus making the overwhelming wins in NH seem more dramatic by contrast.

Now I’m watching the speeches of the winners and other candidates. Man, they are going on and on. Couldn’t just say “nh” in NH, and move on, I guess.

(By the way, I’m assuming someone has already conceived of an op-ed comparing Donald Trump and Cam Newton and how each handles winning and losing, probably mapping those responses onto some conclusion about the relative maturity level of the culture as a whole.)

Thinking ahead, what happened tonight will surely inordinately affect the response on February 20 when the next round of voting occurs with the South Carolina primary and caucuses in Nevada and Washington state. The focus on what just happened is partly influenced by the 24-hour news “cycle” (which isn’t really even a “cycle” anymore but rather a kind of perpetuum mobile running without interruption). But it’s also, I think, just “part of the game.”

Many poker players are well aware of the idea of “recency bias” and that tendency to think things in the recent past are reliable indicators of what is about to happen next. And the fact is, those indicators often are fairly reliable, but not always -- another reason for the resulting bias.

Trying to pick winners each week during the NFL season highlights the problems that can arise from a too great reliance on recent events. Heck, the huge point spread in favor of the Panthers in Super Bowl 50 and all of the betting on Carolina -- more than 70% of the bets leading into Sunday, I read -- exemplified recency bias especially well, as everyone was influenced by their trouncing of Arizona in the NFC Championship.

The presidential race will continue to experience turbulence for the next few weeks, I imagine, but by the end of March more than half the delegates will have been determined for each party, thus making what happened most recently relatively less influential.

But what just happened will still affect responses to what happens next, as it always does.

Image: “New Hampshire Primary - Illustration,” DonkeyHotey. CC BY 2.0.

Denver’s Hand Holds Up

Well, obviously I did something wrong yesterday.

With just under 11 minutes left in the third quarter of Super Bowl 50, the Carolina Panthers’ opening drive of the second half stalled on the 26-yard-line of the Denver Broncos. Facing fourth-and-11, the Panthers attempted a field goal which would cut the Denver lead to three.

It had been an ugly first half for the Panthers, with a couple of fumbles including one converted into a touchdown by the Broncos. But they were only down six, thanks in large part to the Carolina defense having mostly stifled Denver throughout the first two quarters. And a made FG here would mark a good start to what Panthers’ fans hoped would be a better second half.

Alas, Graham Gano’s 44-yard attempt stayed right, then at the last moment struck the upright and bounced away for a miss. It turned out to be an especially appropriate symbol for the entire game for Carolina. A bit of bad luck, though if skill had prevailed luck didn’t necessarily have to matter as much.

The missed FG that hits an upright always seems like a lucky (or unlucky) play. Sometimes the ball still caroms through after hitting the upright, if the end-over-end turning ball happens to catch it in a favorable way. Other times it doesn’t. Then again, if the ball had been kicked even just a little closer to the center of the uprights, the ball’s spin or that fateful breath of wind wouldn’t have made any difference.

On Denver’s subsequent drive, they converted a field goal to make it 16-7. Then the Panthers drove 52 yards in four plays, and on the fifth Cam Newton overthrew a receiver and Denver safety T.J. Ward intercepted the ball. Ward ran a couple of steps then fumbled, and ball bounced crazily toward the Panthers’ end zone before being covered by Ward’s teammate, Danny Trevathan (his second fumble recovery of the game).

Again, it seemed like an unlucky bounce that prevented Carolina from scooping up the loose ball around the Denver 5. But of course, the fumble doesn’t happen without the interception preceding it. Then we went to another interminable-seeming commercial break. (Let me tell you, when your team is losing in the Super Bowl, the commercials aren’t nearly as fun.)

Luck mattered in the game, and we can put under the same heading some of the penalties handed out and calls made as representing judgments by others outside of the players’ control. It felt like Carolina was picking up big hands over and again but somehow failing to scoop any decent-sized pots with them. But as second half wound down it didn’t feel like Denver had gotten lucky to win. They’d earned it, just as much as Carolina earned the loss.

Then again, it could have been my fault. I mean, I did what I could, including holding my lucky Panther, Sweetie, for much of the second half (against her wishes, mind you). I guess some Denver fan must’ve done me one better, holding on a little tighter, much like the Denver players did a better job holding on to the ball.

And as a result, the Broncos’ (better) hand held up.

Staying Put for the Super Bowl

I remember some twenty-plus years ago living in Chapel Hill and going to graduate school. After getting an undergraduate degree there I continued on for the M.A., then would make a change for the doctorate afterwards (going to Indiana). Several years later I would return to my home state of North Carolina to live and teach.

In other words I’d been a lifelong Tarheel fan by the time the ’93-’94 season came around. The team’s run to a championship that year remains vivid in my memory, something I wrote a little about over on Ocelot Sports a couple of years ago and also chatted with Dr. Pauly about on a podcast we did for the 20th anniversary of the final game between UNC and Michigan.

One part of that memory that stands out was the way my friends not only found it necessary to watch all of the tournament games at the same place (one friend’s apartment), but for all of us to sit in the same seats as well as the Heels kept winning each game.

I recall more and more people joining us as they proceeded through the tournament, with about 20 crammed in the small living room for the final. But the core group all kept our same seats so as not to disturb the spell of Carolina’s streak. As my buddy the host explained, “You can’t prove it doesn’t have an effect.”

At the time I vaguely thought about the logic class I’d taken as an undergrad and phrases like “proving a negative” and “proof of impossibility” and “correlation does not imply causation.” I played cards occasionally then, but this was before I’d get heavily into poker and the study of the game, and so I don’t think I knew about the “gambler’s fallacy” then, or I’d have probably thought of that, too.

My buddy Bob (a.k.a. the “Poker Grump”) who regularly writes strategy articles for PokerNews has written smartly about the latter. In “What is the ‘Gambler’s Fallacy’ and How Does It Apply to Poker?” he explains how it works, starting with the example of a roulette player allowing the phenomenon of a ball landing on red nine straight times influence him to think that has something to do with what will happen on spin number ten.

Superstitions among sports fans aren’t quite the same thing, although they share a common lack of rationality. A poll conducted by Associated Press-Ipsos several years ago found that a little more than 20% of sports fans “say they do things in an attempt to bring good luck to their favorite team or avoid jinxing them.”

The Super Bowl is Sunday, and Vera and I have already been invited to a couple of viewing parties. As readers of the blog surely have picked up on by now, I have a rooting interest in the game, one that matches where I was with the Heels back in the spring of 1994. In this case my fandom has also been building for decades and through a long, exciting season’s worth of games, most of which have gone my team’s way.

I’ve watched all of those games this year from the couch here -- from the same side, actually, where I’m sitting and typing this post.

I’m thinking it might be nice just to stay at home on the farm on Sunday.

Panthers Keep Pounding

Eight days ago I sat on my couch to watch the Carolina Panthers’ first playoff game, a division round matchup versus the Seattle Seahawks. Like all Panthers fans, I greatly enjoyed the first half during which our team dominated while storming out to a 31-0 lead.

At the half I moved to a new location. We had a visitor and while Vera entertained I parked it in a different room to watch the second half. Needless to say, things weren’t as comfortable in that environment as I watched Seattle come all of the way back to make it 31-24, with the Panthers having to recover an onside kick attempt by the Seahawks at the end to seal the win.

The comeback inspired a strategy article for PokerNews, titled “Football, Poker, and the Challenge of Trying to Keep a Big Lead.” It’s a theme I’ve written about before in various places -- that is, the strange discomfort experienced by some players when playing “from the front.”

Carolina obviously adopted a highly conservative strategy on both sides of the ball during that second half, going with run plays and low-risk passes on offense while mostly sticking to preventing long pass plays on defense while allowing short-to-medium gains that helped Seattle put together drive after drive.

In yesterday’s conference championship game, Carolina found itself in a similar spot by the half, up 24-7 and fairly dominating the Arizona Cardinals (surprisingly, I thought, given how evenly matched the teams appeared to have been). The second half then saw the Panthers adopt a different approach and remain more aggressive both offensively and defensively, and the result was another almost identical half, score-wise, as the final ended up 49-15.

I also adopted a different strategy yesterday, remaining right there on the couch from start to finish with no dramatic moves to watch from different locations. Like the Panthers, I decided to stick with what was working. Was a hugely satisfying game for Panthers fans, of course, and a nice finish to a home season that saw them win all 10 of their games at Bank of America Stadium.

Two whole weeks, now, to do whatever I have to do before Super Bowl L -- or, rather, Super Bowl 50 (as no one seems to want to hang that “L” on the sucker). Two weeks until I get right back on the couch again and stay put.

Photo: “Panthers iPhone Wallpaper,” Shea Huening (adapted). CC BY-ND 2.0.

Best of Luck to Everyone

The Panthers are in the NFC Championship game this Sunday, and I can hardly bear making myself even think about it.

I’ve been a fan since the first year of the franchise, and can safely say my rooting interest in the Panthers has been greater than for any other pro team in my lifetime. In other words, it is impossible for me to be at all objective about the team and/or what might happen on Sunday in their game versus the Cardinals.

I think it’s fair, though, to suggest both games Sunday will feature evenly matched teams, and whoever happens to win the games will then be evenly-matched in Super Bowl 50 two weeks later.

Both games feature the top two teams in each conference, with the No. 1-seeded Denver Broncos hosting the No. 2-seeded New England Patriots in the early game, then the top-seeded Panthers hosting the second-seeded Arizona Cardinals in the nightcap. Both games have had lines of around three points favoring the home teams, which is generally the number of points allotted for home-field advantage, meaning the sportsbooks are essentially calling the matchups even.

You can reasonably argue in favor of one team or another on Sunday, but I think most rational-thinking people would admit that with the match-ups this close (on paper, anyway), it’s hard to guess what might happen. Even rabid fans of one of the teams involved (like me) have to admit as much. A couple of coin tosses.

It makes me think a little of the situation that often arises in certain tournaments such as the $25K High Roller I helped cover at the conclusion the PokerStars Caribbean Adventure. The players making it to the final table are all so skilled, you have to call the match-ups essentially even. With four left (for instance) a person certainly could have argued in favor of Nick Maimone, Sean Winter, Dario Sammartino, or Josh Beckley being the best of those remaining. But the skill distinction was so small between them (in my view), it was mostly negligible.

Somewhat ironically, then, luck matters more in these spots. How the cards are dealt matters more when everyone knows equally well how to play them. Maimone rivered a straight flush to beat Beckley’s turned ace-high flush, and Beckley was eliminated in fourth. Sammartino’s king-ten couldn’t outrace Winter’s pocket sevens, and he was out in third. After a heads-up deal, Maimone got dealt better cards than Winter did, and Maimone eventually prevailed.

“Good thing we made the deal,” said Winter at one point, noting how Maimone had won several pots in a row. “Nah, I’m just picking up hands,” Maimone insisted, and I don’t doubt that he was right.

With both games so even this weekend, both will probably hinge on a turnover or key play -- likely something that can be classified as lucky -- to determine the outcomes. It could go otherwise, of course, and we might see two blowouts. Even so, luck will play a role.

I’m reminded of those two earlier playoff games, the one ending on a couple of flukey penalties and a field goal to win (Pittsburgh at Cincinnati), the other ending on a missed 27-yard field goal that would have changed the outcome (Seattle at Minnesota).

I’m thinking as well of an interview I heard this week with Green Bay Packers injured receiver Jordy Nelson. He was asked about the Packers’ having successfully completed multiple “Hail Mary” passes this season, including two in short succession at the end of regulation in that wild finish versus Arizona last Sunday.

“What do the Packers know that other teams don’t know about Hail Mary passes?” went the question (I’m paraphrasing). Nelson had a great answer.

“They’re all luck.”

Photo: “www.Army.mil,” The U.S. Army. CC BY 2.0.

Play the Cards You’re Dealt

The advice to “play the cards you’re dealt” is one of those many poker clichés you’ll hear come up in non-poker contexts. In fact, now that I think about it, you probably hear the phrase uttered more often away from the poker table than at it.

After all, it seems kind of superfluous to remind each other while at the table you have to play the cards the dealer delivers to you. But in other situations, that recommendation to be realistic (or content) about what you can accomplish with whatever resources you have is perhaps better served by the poker metaphor.

The phrase occurred to me today while reading about the Philadelphia Eagles letting go of Chip Kelly just a game shy of the end of his third season with the club. The article I was reading appears on the ESPN site and is called “Why the Chip Kelly experiment didn’t work.” That title highlights the way the head coach who eventually also became the team’s general manager (and thus controlled personnel) has always been regarded as a kind of iconoclast who deliberately deviates from usual strategies when it came to managing and coaching NFL teams.

I remember writing a blog post here discussing Kelly way back at the very beginning of his tenure with the Eagles, one in which I was complaining about my Carolina Panthers’ conservative play-calling and drawing a contrast between them and Kelly’s team. Kelly had brought his no-huddle hurry-up offense from college to the pros, winning his first game in splashy fashion and making teams like Carolina suddenly seem sluggish and unimaginative. (Funny now, of course, to think of how differently the next three years would go for both clubs.)

Going without a huddle was just the most conspicuous of many against-the-grain methods Kelly tried to employ at Philadelphia, and the ESPN article breaks down in detail other aspects of his “system” and why it ultimately didn’t produce overwhelming success. (It didn’t exactly fail, either, as Kelly went 26-21 during his almost three years at the helm.)

Some of the other areas in which Kelly didn’t necessarily play “by the book” (or tried to write his own) had to do with reducing the number and complexity of offensive plays, introducing different practice schedules and routines, involving a “sports science program” to help with conditioning, and “an enormous emphasis on measurables” when it came to filling out a roster. That latter point somewhat curiously refers to the physical size of players (“Cornerbacks had to be a certain height. Defensive lineman had to have the proper arm length.”), and not to the statistics produced on the field.

All of it suggests a kind of stubbornness that saw Kelly trying to make certain players fit into predetermined roles and “schemes.” “The word Kelly constantly harped on was execution,” goes the article. “But players are not robots.... When players fail to execute, it ultimately means they are not good enough or the coaches are not doing their jobs.”

I’m sure this summary simplifies what actually happened when it came to game-plan creation and calling plays. But the impression remains that Kelly had ideas about what a winning strategy was -- a theory -- that when put into practice failed to realize the goals of that strategy at least in part because of the personnel Kelly had. And after he became GM, he assumed responsibility for that, too, and thus a certain measure of culpability when the players he’d chosen failed to execute the plans he’d made for them.

The poker equivalent would seem to be a player having certain ideas about, say, position and stack sizes, yet not appreciating the importance of the cards, too. That is to say, a player who didn’t necessarily agree with the idea that you should “play the cards you’re dealt,” choosing instead to play the same way regardless of his hand. Which can work sometimes, but sometimes does not.

As GM Kelly could to a certain extent choose the “cards” he could then play, but only according to the limitations of current player availability and salary considerations. It does seem clear, though, that he sometimes found himself playing his “cards” in unusual ways, a consequence of his “system” or method of playing that didn’t necessarily appreciate the limitations of his “hand.”

Whatever the case, the Eagles finally decided they had one Chip too many.

Panthers Playing the Big Stack

I’ve was in the Charlotte airport a couple of times near the end of November. It’s my home airport, and one of my favorites thanks to a variety of reasons. Of course even if it didn’t have all the amenities and weren’t as easy in which to get around, I’d probably like it on some level simply because it’s home.

When you go home, there’s a kind of comfort that comes with the familiar. Many will be reminded of just this feeling over the next few days while reuniting with family and friends for the holidays. I’ll admit after traveling abroad I like hearing English again, and hearing it spoken by some in that Southern accent I’ve been listening to for the majority of my life to this point.

One thing I noticed when hearing those voices these last couple of times through CTL was a lot of talk about the Carolina Panthers. They were 10-0 on my way out, thumped Dallas on Thanksgiving, and so were 11-0 on my return. Now they’re 14-0 -- only the fourth team in NFL history ever to go so deep into a season without a loss. And the Panther talk is getting even louder.

Now people are starting to talk about the team outside of western North Carolina, too, not least because of that crazy New York Giants game last Sunday. Between the Giants huge comeback, the fantastic finish in which Carolina snatched away the win, and the Odell Beckham-Josh Norman sideshow it was quite a spectacle on its own, never mind the context of the Panthers trying to stay undefeated adding an extra layer of drama.

Besides the prospect of going 16-0, there’s still something on the line this Sunday when the Panthers go to Atlanta, as they haven’t quite locked up home field advantage throughout the playoffs. Some of the talk, though, has already turned toward the question of whether or not the team should rest starters heading into the playoffs.

While obviously an injury to a key player at this point would be a gut-punch, I’m hopeful Carolina will be playing to win not just against Atlanta but when they travel back home to play Tampa Bay in the regular season finale.

I remember being disappointed back in ’09 when Indianapolis got to 14-0 then rested starters during the season’s final two games, losing both. Not that I was a Colts fan (although I did live in Indiana for several years and rooted for them then), but it just seemed a bummer of a way to punctuate what was otherwise a very special season. (The Colts made the Super Bowl that year where they lost to New Orleans.)

“Our approach these last 14 games is going to be the approach that we’re going to have these next two,” says tight end Greg Olsen in a soundbite ESPN is running. He’s echoing what everyone else is saying, too, although it remains to be seen how exactly the Panthers proceed.

I’m reminded a little of that situation in poker of accumulating a big stack -- whether in a tournament or a cash game -- then having the urge to tighten up or even leave the game (if it’s cash) in order to preserve what you’ve got. I addressed this phenomenon, something I confess to be a leak of sorts in my own play, in a strategy article for PokerNews a couple of weeks back titled “Leaving to Lock Up a Win? Don’t Get Up from a Good Game.”

In football we often see a manifestation of the same principle within an individual game -- the so-called “prevent defense” designed to take away long passes, but give up short ones so as to force a trailing team to use clock while trying to catch up. “It prevents teams from winning,” goes the clichéd joke regarding the prevent defense. So, too, does the suddenly tight-playing big stack sometimes find it difficult to avoid losing chips after gearing down.

The Panthers will be big favorites in these last two regular season games versus losing teams. The playoffs will be different, though, with a number of opponents within Carolina’s conference at least the Panthers’ equal if not better, even if they’ve dropped some games along the way this year.

It’s a nice problem to have, being the big stack (so to speak) and having all the options available from which to choose. Hoping the Panthers play it well and don’t start feeling too comfortable, kind of like we feel after coming home.

The Instinct to Not to Look

Yeah, I heard about Steve Harvey’s mistake, misreading the card and mistakenly announcing the runner-up as the winner at the climax of last night’s Miss Universe pageant in Las Vegas.

Saw that being passed around Twitter moments after it happened, but I didn’t click through to see any video or explore it much further. Such screw-ups can certainly be funny to watch. And in fact one of my first thoughts upon hearing the story was how on a couple of occasions I’ve watched Harvey hosting Family Feud and genuinely laughed out loud at what were basically people saying dumb things and/or screwing up (with Harvey’s wry responses accentuating the humor).

But for whatever reason I often have a hard time getting much enjoyment out of watching others fail, especially in big, conspicuous ways. Maybe I’ve built up some empathy or something after decades spent speaking before groups and/or writing for an audience, knowing how unpleasant making mistakes can be, even small ones. Whatever the cause might be, my instinct seems to be not to look. The opposite of “rubbernecking,” if there's a word for that.

Speaking of looking away, earlier on Sunday I was riveted by my Carolina Panthers delivering a thumping to the New York Giants for most of three quarters, building up a 35-7 lead while turning Giants’ star receiver Odell Beckham, Jr. into a complete basket case. I saw Beckham respond to things not going his way by picking up three personal fouls, including once obviously trying to injure Panthers cornerback Josh Norman with a helmet-to-helmet hit away from the play.

I was right on the verge of getting a little irrational myself watching Beckham’s antics when I got pulled away from the game thanks to some unavoidable business to tend to here on the farm. As a result, I missed the entire fourth quarter that saw the Giants come storming back to tie the game, with the villain Beckham actually being the one to catch the TD pass that made it 35-all.

Thankfully the Panthers were able to tack on a winning FG to win the game and preserve their undefeated season for another week. And perhaps even more thankfully, I avoided the stress of watching all of that play out, as I’m sure that like Beckham I would’ve turned into a basket case myself.

Whereas with the Harvey gaffe I looked away intentionally, with the Panthers-Giants finale I was made to not to look by circumstances beyond my control. Both examples make me think a little of how back in the day when playing poker online I’d sometimes find myself looking away from the screen during all-in situations as the board filled out street-by-street. It wasn’t superstition -- rather, it was merely a defensive gesture designed to minimize the stress of having to fade another’s outs or root for my own.

I guess it happened a few times as well that I’d look back in time to be momentarily confused by the result, thinking I’d won -- “wait, wait, wait... my straight got there! ohhhh, he’s got the flush” -- when in fact I had lost.

You know, like poor Miss Colombia. Or the Giants. Or Harvey, for whom the night’s best moment turned out to be the worst.

What’s the Line in This Game?

Watched a decent amount of football over the weekend, including enjoying seeing the Carolina Panthers get to 12-0 in a nail-biter versus the New Orleans Saints.

More than most games (I think), football includes many unpredictable elements that make it relatively improbable even for a dominating team to make it through a full season without a loss. And while the Panthers have a lot of weapons and are relatively strong all around, they aren’t a truly dominating team. They’ve had some fortunate bounces, though, along with playing well, and thus the streak continues.

Speaking of the luck of the game, the conclusion to the ACC Championship in Charlotte the day before ended in somewhat dismaying fashion for UNC fans when a blown referee’s call -- a “phantom” offsides on a successful onside kick -- ended the Heels’ hopes of completing a comeback versus top-ranked (and also still undefeated) Clemson.

Unlike pass interference or unnecessary roughness calls which can often be debatable, this one seemed a lot more cut-and-dry. None of the Heels’ players had broken the plane of the line of scrimmage when the ball was kicked (see above), but for some reason the referee immediately threw a flag for offsides, nullifying the play.

I heard one sports talk show host today say it was the kind of call that makes you wonder immediately -- and conspiratorially -- “What’s the line in this game?” (If I recall correctly, Clemson was close to a touchdown favorite.) The question had a kind of literal significance, too, when looking at that replay and seeing the uncrossed yard line being highlighted in yellow.

I believe refs have to discretion to pick up a flag if they determine a penalty to have been incorrectly called, but here the ref was adamant that he was correct (apparently even telling the UNC coach he could have called offsides on multiple players). But despite the seemingly unambiguous evidence in the replay, offsides is apparently a judgment call, too, and thus not reviewable. And so it stood.

To be honest, I wasn’t especially bothered by the call, thinking both how there remained a lot of uncertainty about what might have happened next (UNC was down eight with just over a minute to go) and recalling that crazy Miami-Duke finish from a little over a month ago that ended with a series of blunders by ACC refs ultimately resulting in a Hurricanes win.

Writing about that one, I talked about being a biased observer (a UNC alum and Duke hater), about the silliness of some clamoring for the result to be overturned or for Miami to forfeit after the fact, and also about the way sports has come to exemplify our increasingly litigious culture wherein there always seems another chance to throw the challenge flag or file an appeal.

Like I say, the blown call was dismaying, but like a flukey bounce simply part of the game. The Heels set up and executed the play well -- like playing a poker hand as effectively as possible -- but got unlucky, with the dropping of the flag like a dealer accidentally exposing a card to ruin the chance at winning a pot.

Which we might not have won, anyway.

Season of the Witch

Sometimes in all-in situations, say, when there’s one last river card to come, players will entertain themselves by calling out specific cards a beat before the card is revealed. “Eight of diamonds!” will shout a player, enacting a kind of prognosticator’s freeroll that gets promptly ignored if wrong, but celebrated if somehow the guess proves correct.

That celebration is usually forgotten fairly quickly, too, as it should be. But it still can add up to a fun moment for those involved, the way it goofily suggests the gambler’s dream of extra-normal powers of perception.

Last week while in Brazil, I was chatting with Reinaldo on Wednesday about the upcoming NFL games. He and I are both in the same Pigskin Pick’em pool and while we’re both far out of the running overall, we’re neck-and-neck with each other, and so are having some fun going back and forth about which of us will end the season with more correct picks out of the 256 total NFL regular season games.

My Carolina Panthers played on Thanksgiving, and somewhat hilariously were an underdog to the Dallas Cowboys despite Carolina being 10-0 going into the game while Dallas was 3-7. The reason for the line, of course, was the fact that Dallas starting QB Tony Romo was back in the line-up, and so far during the year Dallas had lost exactly zero games when he’d played (three) and won exactly zero when he hadn’t (seven).

Laying on a little bit of fan-fueled hyperbole, I pretended to express outrage about the Panthers being somehow disrespected by such a line. But in truth I knew the Panthers outmatched Dallas, even with Romo. “The Panthers will roll tomorrow,” I told Reinaldo. “In fact, they’ll knock Romo out of the game.”

As I mentioned last week, we were able to keep tabs on the T-giving games while at the tournament, and so I greatly enjoyed watching Carolina fulfill my prediction as they jumped in front of Dallas, then continued to pull away as the third quarter neared its close. It was about that time I shot my buddy Rich Ryan a message.

“Saw this coming all the way from South America,” I boasted. “I’m just surprised they haven’t knocked Romo out of the game yet.”

Less than a minute after I hit send, Romo was sacked hard by Thomas Davis, reinjuring his collarbone and having to leave the game. Indeed, his season is over.

“Sick timing brah,” replied Rich before I could even fire back an “ahem” to punctuate the uncanny coincidence of the message.

Reinaldo was impressed as well, and after asking me what the male equivalent of a witch is, promptly called me a warlock. (That picture up above, by the way, is one of your humble scribbler from long ago, one Vera coincidentally found while I was gone.)

Even though I have no particular feelings about Dallas, I’ve always liked Romo. And even if I didn’t, I obviously was not glad to have seen him get hurt. Even so I’ll admit to having experienced the momentary, frivolous pleasure that comes with guessing correctly.

Acting Like a Winner

Last weekend my Carolina Panthers held on versus the Green Bay Packers to go 8-0, the best start by a long shot in the team’s two decade-plus history. Seriously, we Panthers fans don’t even know how to act at this point.

Speaking of knowing how to act when winning, I couldn’t help but fire a message to my buddy Rich at one point during the game. I can’t remember when it was exactly, but it was following some theatrics from Newton celebrating the Panthers’ success. It might have been near the end when victory was finally in sight, now that I think about it.

What I said to Rich was that while I like Newton, he’s basically incapable of “acting like he’s been there before.”

To be fair I’m mostly ambivalent about this issue of Newton’s celebrating. Some Panthers fans (and even more Panthers haters) are much more energized when complaining about Newton doing his “Super-Cam” gesture after scores or even getting excited after first downs (as he often does). Indeed, I am such a Cam fan, I tend to give him a lot of leeway in this area.

Newton’s hugely talented and even though he takes risks and is fully capable of errant throws now and then he’s such a huge positive overall. Add to that the fact that there’s almost nothing I like better in sports than when Newton delivers footballs to kids in the stands following scores. The kids love it, which is very cool. And it reminds adults what it was like to be kids, which is also cool. (There was an especially nice story related to the example pictured above from last weekend, by the way.)

Rich had a good answer for my acting-like-you’ve-been-there remark about Newton. “Why should he?” asked Rich in response. “Enjoy every second.”

That night and over the next two nights I watched the World Series of Poker Main Event play out, where eight of the nine players came up just short of the ultimate goal of winning the whole sucker. With each bustout came very sportsmanlike behavior all around, and in fact I can’t even remember any overdone celebrations whenever anyone won a big pot. (Not that anyone other than Joe McKeehen did a lot of that, actually).

Of course, none of those guys had ever “been there before” (although a few had gotten deep and/or won big tournaments previously). But they all had long ago absorbed those lessons in etiquette most poker players do regarding tempering celebrations when you win, and similarly toning down the complaining when you don’t.

Anyhow, the Panthers have obviously never been here before -- that is, undefeated through half a season. I hardly expect Carolina to replicate that feat in games 9 through 16, obviously. But I think there will be a few more celebrations, which I plan to do my best to enjoy when they come.

The Super Bowl of Second Guessing

I remember once playing in a rec basketball game as a teen in which we were trailing a stronger opponent heading into the latter part of the final quarter. The coach that night was my friend’s father, standing in for the regular head coach who had to miss the game for some reason.

My buddy’s Pop was either an assistant or just helped out in practices here and there, I can’t recall. In any event, I remember him calling a timeout and instructing us to start fouling the other team’s worst shooters, a fairly standard approach teams often take to try to get more possessions and stage a comeback should the other team miss enough free throws.

The strategy worked especially well, and within just a couple of minutes we’d whittled a double-digit lead down to just one. Then we fouled again, they missed again, and we took the lead with less than a minute remaining. The other team called a timeout, and as we huddled up my friend’s Dad had an idea.

Let’s foul again, he said, almost sounding like he was asking us when he did whether or not we thought it might be a good idea. The other team was struggling mightily from the line, he noted, and if we fouled they’d likely miss again, we’d get the board, and the game would be in the bag for us. I remember thinking it seemed like a goofy plan, but he was so enthusiastic about it we were all pretty easily convinced it was somehow a genius move.

You can probably guess how this story ends. We fouled, their player hit both free throws, and we ended up losing. It was initially disappointing, but ultimately the game became a fun, much-referenced collective experience we often talked about afterwards. I remember whenever it came up, my buddy’s Dad often saying with a touch of humility and a wide, mischeivous grin -- “It was such a great idea!”

Looking back, I’m reminded a little how the game represented what was perhaps one of the first times -- and in a thankfully low-stakes way -- I was exposed to the idea that adults didn’t always know the right thing to do. I also can’t help but think of how my buddy’s father continuing to argue for the plan despite the outcome might well have been an early lesson in the dangers of being results-oriented in one’s thinking.

His plan to foul when ahead was pretty obviously not a good one, regardless of the outcome. But his (half-joking, half-serious) insistence that the idea was still valid despite the way things turned out definitely forced a young Shamus to think about how results don’t necessarily confirm or deny the correctness of a strategy -- something the older, poker-playing Shamus came to understand even more clearly.

Obviously it was the stunning conclusion to last night’s Super Bowl XLIX that inspired this bit of reminiscing from me today. Seattle’s decision when down 28-24 to throw that second-and-goal slant pass with 26 seconds left and the clock running rather than run the ball was certainly a surprising choice, with the calamitous outcome of an interception inspiring instant second guessing that will continue unabated for as long as the game continues to be discussed.

New England’s decision not to use one of its two remaining timeouts prior to the play was itself especially odd, too, letting the clock run down from 1:00 to 0:26 and all but eliminating any chance to get back down the field for a tying field goal should Seattle punch it in as expected.

As a Carolina Panthers fan, I think back to Super Bowl XXXVIII in which New England got the ball with the score tied 29-all and used up almost all of the last 1:43 gaining enough yards to set up a winning FG. If Seattle scores on second down last night, NE has but 20 seconds with which to gain (likely) at least 40-45 yards to set up a tying kick.

Anyhow, I tend to think that NE not calling a TO last night perhaps led Seattle to think they needed to be wary about how they were going to use the one they had left. That is to say, had they run the ball and been stopped, they’d face a third-and-goal and thus would be forced to call their last timeout, which would then (essentially) take away the option to run on third down.

That’s what I’m led to believe, anyway, by Seattle coach Pete Carroll’s statements afterward about wanting “really to kind of waste that play.” That, of course, could have been accomplished by spiking the ball on second down, though that would’ve seemed an odd choice. In truth, they didn’t want to “waste” the down, but to run what seemed a low-risk play that would either stop the clock with an incompletion or get them in the end zone. But neither of those outcomes happened.

I don’t want to wade too deeply into analyzing the play or decision, though, something everyone else is doing ad infinitum today. And I’m sure there will be a few who -- like my buddy’s father long ago did with his unorthodox move -- will stubbornly build cases for why the pass call was not such a bad idea. Indeed, the quants at Five Thirty-Eight are already doing so, pointing out how NE letting the clock run down was a more egregious error than was calling that pass play.

But most are taking and will take the other view regarding the decision. And bolstered by the outcome will forever second guess.

Travel Report: 2015 PCA, Day 5 -- Poker's Past, Present, and Future

Thanks to those long days associated with covering the LAPT Bahamas Main Event during the week, I earned myself a little bit of a break yesterday by signing off a level or so early from Day 2 of the PCA Main Event.

The total turnout settled at 816 players for the $10,000 event, which means a $7,915,200 prize pool with $1,491,580 going to the winner. The top 119 get paid, so with 175 players returning today that money bubble will surely be bursting at some point in the afternoon, I’d expect.

Among my contributions over on the PokerStars blog during the day was an early compilation of observations about the differences (and similarities) between poker and the “real” world all filed under the heading “Is this the real life? A Bahamian rhapsody,” and a short item called “The hero call” in which I commented on a table featuring a player in a Batman t-shirt, another in a Superman tee sitting right next to him, and the Brazilian soccer hero Ronaldo.

Ronaldo, who plays as a PokerStars “Sport Star,” survived to Day 3 and has above average chips, and so he may well cash. He definitely plays like an amateur, but an active one seeing lots of flops and not just folding his way through the levels. And as a huge World Cup hero and one of the greats of that game, he gets a lot of attention which adds an extra layer of interest to the tournament as a whole.

Later in the evening I was able to watch almost all of the Panthers-Seahawks playoff game with the fellows, and that turned out to be much more engaging (and emotionally draining) than I’d anticipated it would be. I told everyone Carolina would lose 35-3, and so for them actually to be competitive up until that last pick-six with about six minutes to go was encouraging. And the Panthers adding the last TD at the end to make it a 31-17 final was somewhat satisfying, too.

In between the tournament and the game I was able to spend a very enjoyable, leisurely dinner with Jim McManus, the author of Positively Fifth Street and Cowboys Full: The Story of Poker, the latter being a text I assign in my “Poker in American Film and Culture” course.

Jim participated in an interesting panel discussion here a couple of days ago along with Lee Jones, Jason Somerville, and Barry Greenstein in which the group discussed poker’s colorful history, its present, and the future (with Somerville handling a lot of the contributions regarding the latter). You can read all about that here in my colleague Adam Hampton’s write-up.

Jim had played the PCA Main Event and busted on Day 2 (to the left is a shot of him playing taken by Joe Giron), and so one of the subjects we discussed was the high caliber of play these days in tournaments, especially major ones like the one he’d just played. We also covered a lot of other ground, including how my students respond to his book, his current writing projects, and some of what I have in the works for the coming year.

I delighted in talking with Jim a lot about Richard Nixon -- both his poker “career” and his political one -- and from some of his stories about Dwight Eisenhower (the best poker-playing president, Jim opines), I came away realizing I need to learn more about Ike as I further pursue my “Nixon studies.” Great fun, that.

Am following up that visit with one this morning with another favorite poker writer, Jesse May, whom I ran into earlier in the week. Hoping to write something from that meeting for the PokerStars blog as part of our Day 3 coverage today, so check out that and everything else over there (including the America’s Cup) as the reports continue from the Bahamas.

Folding Their Way to the Playoffs

Haven’t been writing here too much over the last couple of months about the Pigskin Pick’em pool in which I participate, largely because I fell well out of contention by about Week 8 or 9 this year, and so haven’t really spent a lot of time thinking about my picks or the race.

I have goofed around a little with some fantasy football this year. I mentioned a few weeks back how I’d won some cabbage in a couple of freerolls on the new Fantasy Draft site, and have intermittently been playing with that money since then although not every week. They still don’t have NBA games up on the site, so I assume they are still in a longish ramp-up mode over there.

The fantasy sports thing has yet to capture my fancy much, I must continue to report. I find it intriguing in a theoretical way, much like I am very interested in the logistics of sports betting without really being too keen on actually placing bets. And I suppose I’m also a little curious about the business behind these daily/weekly fantasy sports sites and the decisions they are making as they try to build themselves up, but even there it’s only a marginal interest for me.

Meanwhile my Carolina Panthers have had a woeful season, yet still somehow find themselves alive for a playoff berth thanks to being located in the worst division in the NFL, the NFC South. Was hilarious during the day on Monday to see them 5-8-1 and leading the division until New Orleans won their game Monday night to go 6-8.

Had to joke on Twitter how it felt like the Panthers were trying to fold their way into the playoffs, since even if they do somehow manage to win the division and get there, they’ll surely get KO’d right away much as happens to the player who survives the bubble bursting with only a few chips.

Will still be watching and rooting, though. A min-cash is better than going home empty-handed.

A Chance at a Championship

The Carolina Panthers at last return to the playoffs this weekend with a divisional round game versus last year’s NFC champs, the San Francisco 49ers. The two teams played a gritty, defensive game earlier this year with the Panthers managing to beat S.F. on their home field 10-9.

Of the four games this weekend, only the Panthers-49ers game features a point spread that is less than a touchdown, with Denver (over San Diego), New England (over Indianapolis), and Seattle (over New Orleans) all heavy home favorites. In fact, Carolina is the only home dog this weekend, with S.F. a favorite by as little as one point and as much as three, depending on where you look.

Most of the “experts” are picking San Francisco on Sunday. Over on ESPN their roster of prediction makers features 11 of 13 taking the 49ers. Four out of six of the SB Nation guys are going with San Fran. And 6 of 8 of the ones doing the picking at CBS Sports are choosing the 49ers as well.

Listening to Charlotte sports radio in the car today offered a predictably blinkered view of Sunday’s contest, with most callers predicting a Panthers win and the hosts similarly expressing optimism and looking ahead to later playoff rounds.

I was struck, in fact, by a host going off on a tangent regarding the quarterbacks Cam Newton (Panthers) and Colin Kaepernick (49ers), both of whom are in their third years in the league with both also having achieved significant success early in their careers.

The host spoke of Hall of Fame quarterback Dan Marino who everyone remembers made a Super Bowl in just his second year with Miami (SB XIX), was crushed by the Joe Montana-led 49ers 38-16, and never made it back to another championship game despite a stellar 17-year career.

On the one hand, the entire discussion seemed a bit premature given the fact that both Newton and Kaepernick have a couple of tough games standing in their way of reaching the Super Bowl. But I did get the general idea that such opportunities generally don’t come easily in the NFL, or in other highly competitive arenas either, for that matter.

There are a myriad of examples in poker of players either breaking through to win that first big tournament early in their careers or coming up short, then never getting back to anything close to the same level of success again. Poker more obviously dramatizes the luck involved in having breaks go your way to land you in the winner’s circle, but the NFL and other sports likewise demonstrate the same principle time and again.

I’ll be on the edge of my seat Sunday rooting on my Panthers, likely thinking back to a decade ago and the last time Carolina made a Super Bowl run. A lot will have to go Carolina’s way for that to happen again, but all I can hope for is that the team manages to take advantage of the opportunity as they don’t generally come around that often.