Spurious Correlation Winner Predictions Betting Website

Based on what could be called "the Super Bowl betting strategy the NFL doesn’t want you to know about": The team mascots positions on the food chain ranking predictor. So if the Seattle Seahawks are playing the Carolina Panthers, a panther obviously eats a seahawk, (if there were such a bird) so you’d go with the Panthers.

This of course is insane except that it’s predicted the Super Bowl winner by almost 2 to 1. 20 times the mascot with the higher food chain ranking won compared to 13 times the lower food chain ranked mascot winning. It didn't work with yesterday's Super Bowl with the Rams (goats) vs the Bengals (tigers). A ram is literally lunch for a tiger so using that predictor, the Bengals should have beat the Rams, it was just good science, but it didn't pan out.

Still, the ratio holds at 20 to 13 and it made me wonder if, using spurious correlation you could come up with other predictors for championship game outcomes. Uniform color, perceived aggressiveness of the mascot, say a pirate vs a miner (Buccaneers vs 49ers).

So to clarify, the idea is to use bad science to come up with betting strategy for championship games that would at least be interesting to watch. I posted the idea of the mascot food chain link on another site and NOBODY didn't have that in mind during the game. It sort of questions your view of the world I guess. Yes, it's BS, but you watch to see if the prediction works anyway. Even if you're hoping it doesn't, you still note the outcome.

So you'd go to this website and it might say "Teams from cities with a river going through it have won 80% of the championship games against cities that don't have rivers. Would you like to bet on the Blabbertown Doohickies to take the win?" Tell me you wouldn't at least entertain the idea, if only for a split second before slapping yourself into reality. Or maybe you wouldn't, maybe you'd go "80%? Maybe there's something to this." and lay down a couple of hundred bucks. Might learn you're more superstitious than you thought.

See link for other spurious correlations to get the idea.