No wonder the oddsmaker wins. What are we afraid of?: Thoughts for the Day, September 21, 2026

How Do the Oddsmakers Do It?

Saturday morning, I was talking with my best friend, George, about the Michigan and Michigan State football games. We were both struck by the point spreads. Michigan State was about a 24-point underdog, while Michigan was favored over UTEP by roughly 35.

We talked about how tempting it was to put a few bucks on the underdogs. After all, 24 and 35 points are a lot of points in a football game. Then we decided the oddsmakers probably knew what they were doing and kept our money in our pockets.

For one half Saturday afternoon, I thought we had given the oddsmakers far too much credit. UTEP actually led Michigan twice, and Michigan was ahead only 17–14 at halftime. Michigan was supposed to win by 35?

The oddsmakers had blown this one.

Then Michigan came out for the second half and overwhelmed UTEP. The Wolverines scored 28 points in the third quarter and won 52–17.

Margin of victory: 35 points.

George immediately sent me a text: “Oddsmakers nail it again. Wow!”

Which got me wondering: How in the world do the oddsmakers do it?

The Answer Isn’t What I Expected

So I asked ChatGPT to help me understand how the oddsmakers do it.

The first thing I learned is that the final point spread isn’t really the prediction of one brilliant oddsmaker sitting in Las Vegas. It is closer to a market price.

Someone has to establish the opening line, of course. Those initial numbers are based on sophisticated statistical models and power ratings that attempt to measure the relative strength of the teams. Then adjustments are made for things like home-field advantage, injuries, matchups and other information that could affect the game.

Once that opening line appears, something interesting happens. The bettors go to work.

The Market Takes Over

The sportsbooks that establish the first lines initially accept relatively small wagers. Professional gamblers—often called “sharps”—immediately look for mistakes.

Suppose Michigan opens as a 30-point favorite, but sophisticated bettors believe the difference between the teams is closer to 35.

They bet Michigan. The sportsbook reacts and moves the line. Maybe it becomes Michigan –31½. More money comes in. The line moves again.

As the week progresses, betting limits increase and more money enters the market. Other sportsbooks watch those movements and adjust their numbers as well. Eventually the line reaches a point where knowledgeable bettors no longer see an obvious advantage on either side. That’s how an opening line gradually becomes the closing line we see shortly before kickoff.

So when George and I were talking Saturday morning, we weren’t simply disagreeing with an oddsmaker. We were disagreeing with computer models, professional oddsmakers and thousands of bettors—some of whom make their living finding mistakes in betting lines.

That’s a much tougher crowd to outsmart.

Here’s the Surprising Part

Michigan’s 35-point victory makes it look as though the betting market predicted the game almost perfectly. It didn’t. The exact result was largely coincidence.

One analysis of more than 3,000 major-college football games from 2022 through 2025 found that the closing point spread missed the actual margin of victory by an average of about 12 points. Through the first three weeks of this season, the average miss has been about 11 points.

Think about that.

Oddsmakers aren’t fortune tellers. They don’t know the final score. Michigan winning by exactly 35 was unusual.

What the betting market is remarkably good at doing is establishing a number that is very difficult to beat consistently.

Why Is That?

I think the answer is something economists have understood for a long time. Markets can be pretty good at combining information.

One bettor knows Michigan better than almost anyone. Another specializes in UTEP. Someone else has a sophisticated computer model. Another bettor closely follows injuries. Still another studies offensive and defensive matchups. Each person has a little piece of information. Then they put real money behind their opinions.

If enough knowledgeable people think the line is wrong in the same direction, the line moves.

In that sense, the final point spread represents the collective judgment of an enormous number of people trying very hard—and risking their own money—to prove everyone else wrong. It’s the wisdom of the crowd with money attached to it.

The Sportsbook Still Has an Advantage

There’s one more thing I learned.The sportsbook doesn’t need to predict the score perfectly to make money.

A typical point-spread wager requires a bettor to risk about $110 to win $100. That difference—often called the vig or juice—gives the sportsbook its built-in advantage.

That means a bettor who wins exactly half of his bets will lose money over time. At standard –110 pricing, you need to win roughly 52.4% just to break even.

That may not sound difficult. It is. Because you’re trying to find errors in a market that thousands of other people are simultaneously trying to exploit.

We Made the Right Bet

Which brings me back to Saturday morning. Michigan favored by 35.

George and I thought that number looked crazy. Fortunately, we decided not to put our money where our mouths were.

Sometimes the smartest bet you make is the one you don’t make.

*************************************************************************************

What Are We So Afraid Of?

I read an opinion piece in The New York Times this week that got me thinking about something I’ve been struggling with for quite a while.

The article described a controversy involving Bo French, the Republican nominee for Texas railroad commissioner. French had posted a photograph of a group of young Texas fans who appeared to be South Asian and complained about what their presence said about the university.

The article also described other statements French has made about Muslims, Chinese people and foreigners.

For me, the article raised broader questions about Christian nationalism—the idea that Christianity should occupy a special place not simply in American culture, but in American government and public institutions.

As I read the article, my thoughts went beyond that controversy. I started thinking about conversations I’ve had with many people I know.

Why do so many Americans—including many White Christians—believe the United States was founded as a Christian nation, when our Constitution deliberately protects religious freedom and prevents the government from establishing a religion? Why are so many Americans fearful of immigration when immigration has been such an important part of the American story? Why are some White Americans uncomfortable with people of different races or religions?

And perhaps the question I’ve been struggling with most: Where does that fear come from?

Is it racism?

Is it ignorance?

Is it fear of change?

Or is it simply that many of us have spent most of our lives around people who look like us, worship like us and share similar backgrounds?

I don’t know. That’s one reason I’m writing about it.

I occasionally hear friends, neighbors and people I have known for years—good people whom I like and respect—talk about immigrants, Muslims, Black Americans or other groups in ways that make me uncomfortable.

Sometimes it’s a joke. Sometimes it’s a sweeping generalization. Sometimes it’s an assumption about an entire group of people based on the behavior of a few.

I find myself wondering: What are we so afraid of?

Religion

Christianity has played an enormous role in American history.

Many of our founders were Christians. Christian churches have been central to American communities for generations. Christian beliefs influenced our culture and many of the people who created our government.

Christianity is unquestionably an important part of America’s heritage. But that’s different from saying the United States government was established as a Christian government.

The Constitution doesn’t establish Christianity—or any other religion—as the nation’s official religion. Article VI says that no religious test can be required for public office. The First Amendment begins by prohibiting Congress from establishing religion while also protecting its free exercise.

Those two ideas belong together. Government shouldn’t establish a religion. And government shouldn’t prevent us from practicing ours.

I can practice Christianity. My neighbor can practice Judaism. Another neighbor can be Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist. Someone else can believe in no religion at all. All of us are equally American.

Yet the belief that America was intended to be a Christian nation is widespread.

A Pew Research Center survey found that 60% of Americans—and 81% of White evangelical Protestants—believed the founders intended the United States to be a Christian nation. I find that fascinating, and it raises a question for me: Does protecting someone else’s religious freedom somehow threaten mine?

I don’t see how. In fact, it seems to me that the same Constitution protecting a Muslim’s right to worship is protecting my right to worship as a Christian.

Immigration

I have similar questions when I listen to the immigration debate.

Let’s make an important distinction. A country has every right to control its borders. We should know who is entering the United States. We need an immigration system that is orderly, enforceable and fair.

We can have legitimate disagreements over how many immigrants should be admitted, what should happen to people who enter illegally, how asylum should work and what responsibilities immigrants have when they come here. Those are policy questions.

Unfortunately, sometimes our conversation moves beyond immigration policy and becomes something else. It becomes a conversation about immigrants themselves.

They’re taking over. They don’t share our values. They’re changing our country. They don’t belong here.

That’s where I begin to struggle. Because America has always been changing.

The Irish changed America. The Italians changed America. The Germans changed America. Eastern European Jews changed America. Chinese immigrants changed America. Polish immigrants changed America. Mexican immigrants changed America. And generations of immigrants from virtually every corner of the world have changed America.

They didn’t simply become Americans. They helped create what America became. That doesn’t mean immigration has always been easy. It hasn’t.

Earlier generations of immigrants were frequently greeted with many of the same fears we hear today. They looked different. They worshiped differently. They spoke different languages. They ate different food. People worried that they wouldn’t assimilate.

And then something interesting happened. Their children became our classmates. Their grandchildren became our doctors, teachers, business owners, police officers, soldiers and neighbors.

Eventually we stopped calling most of them immigrants. We just called them Americans.

Concern Is Real

Recent Pew research found that most Americans still believe openness to people from around the world is an essential part of our national identity. But there are important differences underlying that overall number.

Evangelical Protestants were almost evenly divided: 54% said America’s openness is essential to our identity, while 45% said too much openness risks causing America to lose its identity. More than half said the growing immigrant population has been a change for the worse.

But here’s another statistic I think is equally important. Seven out of ten Americans say our racial and ethnic diversity strengthens American society. Even among evangelical Protestants, a majority agrees.

So, this isn’t a simple story about White Christians rejecting diversity.

Reality is more complicated than that

Which brings me back to what I’m really trying to understand.

Is It Fear?

Why are we sometimes so uncomfortable with people who are different from us?

Is it racism?

Sometimes I’m sure it is. But I don’t think that explains everything.

Is it ignorance? Perhaps, but the more I’ve thought about it, the less comfortable I am using that word. Maybe some of it is simply unfamiliarity.

It’s easier to fear “Muslims” if you’ve never had a Muslim neighbor.

It’s easier to make assumptions about Black people if you’ve never had a meaningful relationship with a Black family.

It’s easier to fear immigrants if you don’t actually know any.

Once the category becomes a person, things can change.

“The Muslim” becomes Ahmed from work.

“The immigrant” becomes Maria whose daughter plays soccer with your granddaughter.

“The Black guy” becomes the person you play golf with every Thursday.

And suddenly the stereotypes don’t work as well.

Because now we’re talking about people.

Maybe It’s Also About Change

I think there’s something else involved. America is changing.

Walk through almost any major American city and you’ll see people from different races, cultures and religions.

For some Americans, that change is exciting. For others, it may feel unsettling.

And perhaps that’s especially true for people who grew up in communities where most people looked like them, worshiped like them and shared many of the same cultural traditions.

Fear of change is human. But I do think there’s a question worth asking: Does someone else’s increasing presence in America require me to lose something?

If my neighbor is Muslim, does that make me less Christian?

If a Hispanic family moves into my neighborhood, does that make me less American?

If the racial composition of America continues to change, does that diminish my citizenship?

For me, it doesn’t.

Someone else gaining acceptance doesn’t require me to lose mine.

Someone else exercising religious freedom doesn’t diminish my religious freedom.

Someone else becoming an American doesn’t make me less American.

Maybe that’s one of the ideas we need to remind ourselves of occasionally.

I Think About My Own Life

Over 75 years I’ve met thousands of people.

I have many friends of different races and different religions. I’ve worked with people of different races and different religions. I have many friends whose political beliefs are completely different from mine.

Most are wonderful people.

A few are jerks.

Every group seems to contain both.

I’ve never found a race with a monopoly on character.

I’ve never found a religion with a monopoly on goodness.

And I’ve certainly never found a political party with a monopoly on wisdom.

The older I get, the less interested I am in knowing what group someone belongs to and the more interested I am in knowing what kind of person they are.

Are they honest?

Do they treat people decently?

Do they take responsibility for themselves?

Are they good parents?

Are they good neighbors?

Will they help someone who needs help?

Those characteristics tell me considerably more about someone than the color of their skin or where they worship on Sunday, Saturday, Friday—or whether they worship at all.

Who Gets to Be “Us”?

America has spent nearly 250 years arguing about who fully belongs here. We’ve expanded our understanding of that answer repeatedly. And yet we still seem tempted to draw another line separating us from them. Maybe that’s human nature. But one of the remarkable things about the American experiment is that our definition of “us” has continually become larger.

People who once weren’t included eventually demanded to be included.

Immigrants who were once viewed suspiciously became part of the American mainstream.

Religions once regarded as foreign became familiar.

People who once had fewer rights fought to obtain them.

America didn’t become weaker because the definition of us expanded.

I believe that we are becoming what our founding ideals said we were supposed to become.

***********************************************************************************

Whose House Is It?

Something President Trump said Friday caught my attention.

It wasn’t simply his announcement that he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House.

Explaining his authority to exclude news organizations, Trump started to refer to the White House as “my” house before correcting himself and calling it “the people’s house.”

Trump’s correction gets to the heart of what bothers me. Whose house is it?

I’ve always thought of the White House as America’s house. Presidents come and go. They live there temporarily. The American people own the place.

This Isn’t About CNN

Trump said he was banning the three news organizations because of what he considers years of “fake news” coverage. He also suggested other news organizations could be next.

That’s where I have a problem. This isn’t about whether I like CNN, Politico or any other news organization. News organizations make mistakes. Some stories are poorly reported. Some commentators are biased.

A president has every right to criticize them. He can call a story unfair. He can point out factual errors. He can refuse an interview. But there’s an important difference between criticizing the press and using government power to punish the press for its coverage.

What About the First Amendment?

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press. That doesn’t mean every reporter has a constitutional right to attend every meeting in the White House.

The Oval Office has limited space. The White House must make decisions about press pools and access. But courts have also recognized an important principle: government can’t simply exclude journalists from otherwise available press access because officials don’t like their viewpoint.

That’s why this issue is bigger than whether CNN has treated Donald Trump fairly.

Who gets to decide what is “fake news”? The president? CNN? Fox News? The New York Times? Me? You?

I would rather leave that decision to the American people.

Reverse the Parties

I find this question useful when thinking about presidential power: Would I be comfortable giving the same power to a president I strongly disagreed with?

Imagine a Democratic president banning Fox News from the White House because the president believed Fox had repeatedly treated the administration unfairly.

Would conservatives accept that? I doubt it. And I don’t think they should.

The First Amendment shouldn’t change depending upon which political party controls the White House.

The Press Isn’t There for the President

White House reporters are there for us. Their job isn’t to make the president comfortable. Their job is to ask questions of someone exercising enormous governmental power on behalf of the American people.

Sometimes those questions will be unfair. Sometimes they’ll be irritating. Sometimes they’ll be wrong.

What happens if news organizations begin to believe aggressive coverage could cost them White House access?

Be nice and you get invited in.

Be critical and you might find yourself outside the gate.

That’s not the relationship I want between government and the press.

An Important Update

Since I wrote this, the story has continued to develop.

On Monday, CNN, MS NOW and Politico filed a federal lawsuit challenging the ban on First Amendment grounds.

Perhaps even more interesting, the major television networks—including Fox News—suspended their White House television pool coverage after CNN was prevented from performing its scheduled pool duties. I think Fox’s participation is significant.

This shouldn’t be a question of liberal media versus conservative media. It’s a question of whether the government should determine press access based on whether the president approves of a news organization’s coverage.

America’s House

Which brings me back to Trump’s momentary choice of words.

“My” house. Then the correction: “The people’s house.”

Donald Trump doesn’t own the White House. Neither did Joe Biden, Barack Obama or George W. Bush. Every president is a temporary occupant.

The institution remains. And the journalists asking uncomfortable questions aren’t intruders in someone’s private home.

They’re part of the system through which the American people learn what their government is doing.

Today the excluded organization might be CNN. Someday it could be Fox News.

That’s why this isn’t really about CNN—or Donald Trump. It’s about what power we’re willing to give any president. The White House belongs to the American people.

Presidents are temporary occupants.

***********************************************************************************

What Does GPT Stand For?

One of the subscribers to this blog asked me what the GPT stands for in ChatGPT.

Since I didn’t know the answer, I asked ChatGPT. Here is what I learned.

GPT stands for “Generative Pre-trained Transformer.”

In plain English:

Generative — it generates new text and other content in response to you.

Pre-trained — before you use it, it has already been trained on large amounts of information to learn patterns in language.

Transformer — the type of AI architecture it uses to understand relationships among words and concepts and produce responses.

So ChatGPT essentially means a conversational—or “chat”—version of a Generative Pre-trained Transformer.

******************************************************************************

Quote of the Day: “Liberty is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”— George Orwell

Orchid of the Day: The major television networks—including Fox News.

After CNN, MS NOW and Politico were barred from the White House, the television networks suspended their White House pool coverage rather than simply taking CNN’s place.

Whatever you think of any of these news organizations, I think there is something encouraging about competitors standing together for the principle that government shouldn’t determine press access based on whether it likes the coverage.

Onion of the Day: Putting people into categories before getting to know them. Muslim. Immigrant. Black. White. Hispanic. Christian. Liberal. Conservative. Labels sometimes tell us something about people. They rarely tell us enough.

Maybe we’d all be better off spending a little less time deciding what groups of people are like and a little more time actually getting to know the people in them.

Question of the Day: Would you support a president excluding a news organization from the White House because the president believes its coverage is unfair—even if the president were someone you strongly opposed?

Lyrics of the Day: “People are strange when you’re a stranger.”

If you know the song and artist, please leave your answer in the comments below.

Answer to Lyrics of the Day, September 16, 2026: Imagine by John Lennon

Video of the Day: Cyndi Lauper - “If I Could Turn Back Time” (Cher Tribute) | 2018 Kennedy Center Honors