Last week, I kicked off a season-long experiment in which I go head-to-head with ChatGPT on NFL bets.
asserted
I → kick → bets
I also openly predicted that artificial intelligence would wipe the floor with me.
asserted
intelligence → predict → me
It's important to be nice to our future overlords and pray that they show mercy.
asserted
they → pray → mercy
Apparently, ChatGPT felt sorry for me because it proceeded to go 0-5.
asserted
it → feel → 0
This page may contain affiliate links to legal sports betting partners.
uncertain
page → contain → partners
If you sign up or place a wager, FOX News may be compensated.
uncertain
News → sign → wager
This content was created by a team that works independently from the FOX newsroom.
asserted
that → create → newsroom
Meanwhile, I finished 3-2 and gained 0.99 units.
asserted
I → finish → units
That’s hardly the kind of week that makes the guys in Vegas suspicious, but it looks spectacular next to ChatGPT’s 5.23-unit loss.
asserted
it → ’ → loss
One week is obviously far too small a sample to draw any sweeping conclusions.
asserted
is → draw → conclusions
So, naturally, I’m going to draw one anyway: humanity is safe.
asserted
humanity → go → one
The rules remain the same.
asserted
rules → remain → ?
ChatGPT and I each make our five best bets using the same set of odds, and no selection can be priced worse than -120.
asserted
selection → make → -120
Every wager is sized to win one unit, which means a -110 favorite risks 1.10 units to win one, while a +110 underdog risks approximately 0.91 units to win one.
asserted
underdog → size → one
Before we get to the Week 2 picks, let’s review the opening week.
asserted
’s → get → week
Week 1 NFL Betting Results
Dan’s Week 1 NFL Betting Picks (3-2, +0.99 units)
- Chicago Bears -3 (-106) ✅ (+1 unit)
- Jacksonville Jaguars-Cleveland Browns Under 40½ (-110) ❌ (-1.1 units)
- Washington Commanders +5½ (-106) ✅ (+1 unit)
- Las Vegas Raiders-Miami Dolphins Under 41 (-110) ✅ (+1 unit)
- Green Bay Packers Moneyline (+110) ❌ (-0.91 units)
The Packers losing at plus money softened the damage, and hitting both the Bears spread and Raiders-Dolphins under secured a profitable opening week.
asserted
Packers → lose → week
We were one garbage-time Deshaun Watson touchdown away from cashing a 4-1 week, but that's why they call it gambling.
asserted
they → cash → it
Honestly, I felt pretty good about the process.
asserted
I → feel → process
The Packers were the far superior team for a large portion of the game before laying an egg and, as mentioned, the over only hit in Browns-Jags because of a 46-yard touchdown in the final two minutes of a blowout.
asserted
over → lay → blowout
Detroit won but failed to cover, while Houston, Los Angeles and Green Bay all lost outright.
asserted
Houston → win → ?
The Buccaneers and Bengals also sailed past the total.
asserted
Buccaneers → sail → total
ChatGPT spent nearly 20 minutes analyzing every eligible spread, total and moneyline before producing its card.
asserted
ChatGPT → spend → card
Apparently, it needed another 20.
asserted
it → need → 20
Cleveland Browns +8 (-108)
Cleveland Browns at Tampa Bay Buccaneers, 1 p.m. ET
Dan’s analysis:
It's terrifying to back the Browns after that putrid Week 1 performance, I get it.
asserted
I → back → it
But the lookahead line, which was posted before Week 1 results could influence the market, had the Browns +6, so oddsmakers have baked in how bad the Browns looked and moved them to more than a touchdown underdog.
uncertain
Browns → post → underdog
And, let's be honest, the Buccaneers didn't play all that well, either.
asserted
Buccaneers → let → ?
I think this is too much of an overcorrection and the public is chomping at the bit to bet against the Browns.
asserted
public → think → Browns
We're going to fade the public here and take the points.
asserted
We → go → points
Still, the Browns’ offensive-line concerns and Deshaun Watson’s turnover risk give Tampa Bay several paths to create separation, so I would lean toward taking the points but stop short of betting it.
asserted
I → give → it
Dan’s analysis:
Week 2 is a great time to fade Week 1 perceptions, and this game is a perfect example.
asserted
game → fade → perceptions
Everyone is piling on the Packers after they blew a double-digit second-half lead to the Carson Wentz-led Minnesota Vikings (rightfully so).
asserted
they → pile → Vikings
But the truth is that Green Bay is still a far superior team to New York, which managed to beat lowly Tennessee in Week 1.
asserted
which → manage → Week
The lookahead line on this one was Packers -5½, so again, there's been an overcorrection.
asserted
line → be → one
I just don't see it.
asserted
I → see → it
I expect Green Bay to compete for an NFC North title and I expect the Jets to be better than last season, but not a team that should hang with an already desperate and hungry Packers team.
asserted
that → expect → team
GPT’s analysis:
I agree with fading the Week 1 overreaction, but crossing the key number of three makes this less appealing.
asserted
this → agree → three
Green Bay has the more talented roster, but Geno Smith has repeatedly succeeded against Jonathan Gannon-coached defenses, so I would have needed Packers -3 to make the bet.
asserted
I → have → bet
With Tua Tagovailoa still not practicing and uncertainty surrounding Atlanta's Week 2 starter, that's not good news for points.
asserted
that → practice → points
The Falcons only scored 13 in Week 1, but this total is 44 because the Panthers surrendered 59 points to the Bears.
asserted
Panthers → score → Bears
Obviously, I don't see a repeat coming.
asserted
repeat → see → ?
…and 62 more, not listed.
The Aporia
