NBA fans were more confident than non-fans that they could beat a computer prediction model.
When asked to assess the same Opening Night games, however, both groups arrived at almost identical answers.
That gap between perceived expertise and actual predictions is the standout finding from a Dimers survey of 1,000 US adults, published Oct. 23.
Dimers surveyed 500 NBA fans and 500 non-fans before Opening Night, asking participants to divide 100 virtual points between the two teams in each matchup.
Respondents also rated their confidence that their betting predictions would outperform a computer model.
According to the Dimers report, 52% of fans believed they could out-predict a model, compared with 40% of non-fans.
But their assessments of the games barely differed.
Fans assigned the Knicks an average 56% chance against the 76ers, compared with 54% among non-fans.
Both groups favored New York and San Antonio. Both teams lost.
“The fans at least lost with conviction,” Dimers wrote.
Non-fans were also more willing to leave a contest evenly balanced, as 57% assigned at least one game a 50/50 probability, compared with 49% of fans.
Supporting a particular team appeared to matter more to predictions than the difference between fans and non-fans.
Knicks supporters assigned New York a 67% chance of winning, compared with 55% among neutral fans.
Spurs supporters similarly gave San Antonio a 65% chance, against 54% among neutral fans.
Three-quarters picked the Spurs, who lost 116–104, according to Dimers.
However, the largest loyalty gap was among supporters of the team that won.
Thunder fans assigned Oklahoma City a 66% chance, 20 percentage points above the 46% assessment from neutral fans.
Lakers fans, meanwhile, recorded the highest average confidence score among the fan bases Dimers ranked, at 61.7 out of 100 — even though their team was not playing.
The tension between sporting knowledge and computers extends beyond betting fans.
As CCN reported on Oct. 1, Michael Jordan discussed how athletes approach decision-making differently from betting companies during an appearance alongside executives from DraftKings and Sportradar.
“The way you look at it and the way I look at it as an athlete is totally different,” Jordan said during the Sept. 29 discussion.
His argument focused on how players react to situations as they unfold, while betting businesses analyze patterns to anticipate outcomes.
While some fans believe they can outperform computer models, others are already using technology to inform their decisions.
Research published by the Fantasy Sports & Gaming Association in July found that 25% of fantasy players and sports bettors used AI tools, generally in a supporting role.
Among those who avoided AI, 43% cited a preference for making their own decisions.
Meanwhile, 85% said AI-generated content should be clearly labeled.