{"id":230380,"date":"2023-09-25T15:38:23","date_gmt":"2023-09-25T22:38:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/survivorsweat.com\/?p=230380"},"modified":"2023-09-25T15:38:23","modified_gmt":"2023-09-25T22:38:23","slug":"2023-circa-survivor-week-3-in-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/survivorsweat.com\/content\/article\/2023\/2023-circa-survivor-week-3-in-review\/","title":{"rendered":"2023 CIRCA SURVIVOR \u2013 WEEK #3 IN REVIEW"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Good (Dolphins and 49ers), the Bad (Vikings and Panthers), and the Ugly (Broncos and Bears)<\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

NFL Week #3 was a mix of good, bad, and ugly.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The good part was \u2013 yours truly is still alive in the 2023 Circa Survivor contest. I’ll accept my<\/p>\n

good fortune and have no complaints since 70 percent of the starting field has already been<\/p>\n

eliminated.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The bad was that while one of my tickets survived, I also lost one of my two remaining entries.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The ugly was more than 3,400 other entries got burned, which was about 60 percent of the field<\/p>\n

prior to this past week\u2019s games.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

WHAT HAPPENED IN WEEK #3<\/h3>\n

Seven out of 10 contestants who began in pursuit of a $9.4 million dream are now gone. Blame<\/p>\n

a third consecutive week of chaotic results for doing most of the damage.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I was one of those casualties since I had a ticket on the Baltimore Ravens, which lost in<\/p>\n

overtime to the Indianapolis Colts. That was a frustrating defeat. But I had a chance to win the<\/p>\n

game in the end (and should have won it). Still, nothing compares to the carnage that<\/p>\n

happened this past Sunday in Jacksonville and Phoenix where both the heavily-favored Jaguars<\/p>\n

and Cowboys went down in flames by double digits. Nobody foresaw those two shockers<\/p>\n

happening (there wasn\u2019t even 1 contest ticket on the Colts, Texans, or Cardinals).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

These three huge upsets alone accounted for 3,409 eliminations, constituting well over half of<\/p>\n

the remaining field entering this past week.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cANY GIVEN SUNDAY\u201d<\/h3>\n

This has been a wildly unpredictable NFL season, once again proving once the old adage about<\/p>\n

\u201cAny Given Sunday.\u201d That means any team can beat any other team at any time. Okay, so<\/p>\n

perhaps it\u2019s hard to foresee either Chicago or Denver winning a game based on what we\u2019ve<\/p>\n

seen from them so far. However, one of these upcoming weeks, the Bears or Broncos will get a<\/p>\n

win. Actually, that\u2019s guaranteed this coming weekend, since Denver plays at Chicago. Then,<\/p>\n

maybe not \u2013 perhaps the game will end in a tie. Wouldn\u2019t that be a fitting outcome?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Here\u2019s the weekly chart showing the distribution number of contest picks by team heading into<\/p>\n

Week #3:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

So, how does this year\u2019s results and pace of eliminations compare with Circa Survivor\u2019s<\/p>\n

previous years? Let\u2019s take a look.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

At first glance, it looks like this year might not be as much of an outlier as I first thought. We can<\/p>\n

see from the chart that in past seasons, opening weeks did significant damage to the field.<\/p>\n

About 70 percent of starting entrants were gone after Week #3 in the 2022 contest. However,<\/p>\n

only about 30 percent were gone by this time in 2021. And, 40 percent of the starting field was<\/p>\n

gone in 2020. Hence, the contest entrants have fared significantly worse the last two seasons.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Variance? Worse contestants? Increased parity in the NFL?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

These things might explain what we\u2019re seeing.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

WHAT I’VE LEARNED<\/h3>\n

One thing we agreed on when I first began writing this series of articles here at<\/p>\n

SurviverSweat.com was this was to be a public learning experience. I intended to use this<\/p>\n

platform as a learning opportunity and then share with readers, presumably many of them my<\/p>\n

fellow contestants.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

So far, so good.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I\u2019m learning.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I keep telling my fellow handicappers I’m not really an \u201cexpert,\u201d and have never professed to be,<\/p>\n

even though I’ve been active as a sports gambler and writer for many years and am familiar with<\/p>\n

most of the advanced concepts and methodologies used in wagering.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I’ve always considered myself a student of the game and gambling. By that, I mean there’s<\/p>\n

always something to learn. To be successful, you must make adjustments along the way.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s because the tools and techniques that one uses in the past don’t always apply to the<\/p>\n

present \u2013 and most likely will not apply to the future.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

For instance, one lesson I’ve already learned is rethinking my strategy and philosophy on<\/p>\n

picking crowd favorites in this contest. Last week in my response to Mike Buchmiller and Russ<\/p>\n

Rosenblum, co-hosts of the weekly Circa Survivor podcast (and last season\u2019s co-winners), I<\/p>\n

questioned their strategy.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I noted that holding fewer tickets requires a more conservative approach. I argued that a<\/p>\n

high-risk \/ high-reward strategy is a nice luxury that can be taken by those who have lots of<\/p>\n

tickets in their portfolio. They can afford to be more aggressive, which means taking marginal<\/p>\n

teams and hoping for big upsets (like what happened in Week #3). Then, they have fewer<\/p>\n

competitors to weed through going forward. I also argued this is much tougher to do when you<\/p>\n

have one (or just a few) tickets. You don\u2019t have many bullets, so you better hit the target with<\/p>\n

what you\u2019ve got.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Well, I presume many Circa Survivor contestants followed the more conservative approach this<\/p>\n

past week (doing what seemed safe) when they picked the Jacksonville Jaguars and Dallas<\/p>\n

Cowboys. Those teams looked too easy.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Oops!<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

There should be a lesson for all of us there in the future. Accordingly, I have to modify my<\/p>\n

position (or at the very least to rethink it). Making a bold pick every now and then and hoping<\/p>\n

the rest of the field implodes means advancing into a much less crowded field. So, the +EV is<\/p>\n

probably to take some outlier chances along the way. I’m not going to dispute the<\/p>\n

Buchmiller-Rosenblum strategy. After all, look at their record, and then look at mine.<\/p>\n

Still, I want to be on the dance floor when the music’s playing in mid-season and beyond. It\u2019s no<\/p>\n

fun being tossed out of the party. So, my short-term thinking will continue being based on the<\/p>\n

simple goal of survival. But my long-term thinking must be that I\u2019ll have to take some fliers on<\/p>\n

unpopular picks in the contest in upcoming weeks to put myself in a position to win.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I\u2019ll discuss this more in future weeks (hopefully, still with a live entry).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

AN EARLY LOOK AHEAD TO WEEK #4<\/h3>\n

This appears to be a tougher-than-average slate of games for survivor contestants. Ten of 16<\/p>\n

games are lined at 3 points or less. Low pointspreads usually means close games. And close<\/p>\n

games usually means higher than normal rates of elimination in survivor contests.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, there are some glaring mismatches. Based on the early lines, these are the four<\/p>\n

teams many \u201csurvivors\u201d are likely to be considering:<\/p>\n