Announcement

**thesandman** · 03-16-2005, 03:01 AM

This is good info. I found this buried on Page 3.

**Ripple** · 03-16-2005, 11:07 AM

they always have some interesting thoughts about there games..i read them all the time for football..but this is the first time i ever seen them chat about baskets... i stole this from another capper,,but its ok,

**keawe** · 03-16-2005, 11:14 AM

Thanks for the info post rip!!
goodluck today in the NIT!!

**Ripple** · 03-16-2005, 11:17 AM

u-2 keawe thank you

**Spark** · 03-16-2005, 12:53 PM

Make Money During March Madness
By Kevin O’Neill

Conventional wisdom this week is that the mid majors and dogs in general are getting oodles more respect from the public than they have in the past. Examples cited include 12th seed mid-major Wisconsin-Milwaukee is catching only 4½ or 5 points from 5th seed SEC titan Alabama while 6th seed LSU is laying only a short 2½ into UAB, an 11 seed. Is this evidence of the public becoming more familiar with and more willing to bet teams from smaller conferences?

A study comparing the pointspreads from a few years ago to this year’s suggests the reverse is true. To compare with this season I went back to the 2001 NCAA tournament and did an analysis of Pointspreads by seed, and judging from this narrow study, the favorites in certain seed ranges appear to be getting more play from the average bettor.

#6 vs. #11, #5 vs. #12, and #4 vs. #13 were the three groupings of matchups selected for the study. In these matchups the tournament selection committee has taken a strong stand in saying that one team is substantially more accomplished than the other. Why limit it there? When you get down to #7 vs. #10, the teams are getting a little too close to suggest that one deserves to be favored over the other. At the upper end of the scale, #3 vs. #14 games can involve teams that don’t have pointspreads put on them throughout the year.

In all three of our ranges, the average pointspread is higher in 2005 than it was in 2001. The average #4 seed was favored by 8 over the #13 seed in 2001. This year they are favored by an average of 9.5. In the #5 vs. #12 matchup the average #5 seed was favored by 4.5 in 2001, they are favored by an average of 6 this year. The average #6 seed was favored by 2.75 in 2001 over the #11’s, while #6 seeds are favored by an average of 4.125 this season.

Despite the conventional wisdom circulating among bettors this season, the underdogs are getting less respect than their counterparts of the same seeding were just a few short years ago. The difference is the favorites laying anywhere from 1.375 to 1.5 points per game more on average.

Moving on, there are certain questions about this tournament that, if answered correctly, can make us a few bucks. Let’s look at eight strategies for getting spring started with a slightly fatter wallet.

Realize that hot teams are overbet and cold teams are underbet. Betting the teams that won their conference tournament in impressive fashion to get off to a fast start in the NCAA tournament has historically been a good way to see your bankroll dwindle. You’re not the only one who saw those clubs look great all weekend. The “one month a season” bettors saw it too. Not only are these teams likely to be overbet, they’re likely to be pleased as punch to have won their tournament. Conversely, solid teams who played poorly last weekend may prepare as though they have something more to prove at the exact same time that bettors look to beat them.

Coaching matters. Leadership matters in any organization, and rarely does a team make the Final Four with a coach that wouldn’t be in almost any analysts’ Top 20 of hoops mentors. We’ve got strong opinions, both positive and negative, as to the relative quality of many coaches in the NCAA tourney and it will be reflected in our handicapping. Speaking of handicapping, the Strategic Sports Publishing late telephone service is on a 33-16 (67.3%) recent run. If you’re interested in signing up for our March Madness late telephone service package call my office at 770-649-1078.

Pick up on actual conference strength ASAP. Conventional wisdom is that the ACC, though top-heavy, is tremendous and the Big East has great depth. The Big Ten (beyond Illinois) and Pac Ten are seen as being weak. If a particular conference performs poorly during the daytime Thursday, that information may prove valuable on Thursday night and Friday, as the conference’s representatives didn’t play as tough a schedule as originally appeared. While the same is true for a conference that overachieves, the negative usage of this factor has more value, as an overrated big conference may have several teams in the tourney while the perception of an underrated conference leads to fewer bids for those leagues.

Don’t bet the future book. Now that the field is set, the future book is a lousy proposition. Invariably, betting the money line and letting it ride gets you a better return. As an example, Georgia Tech is a five seed and is between 20-1 and 30-1 to win it all. Let’s say you got the best number of 30-1. The Yellow Jackets are a –250 money line favorite over George Washington in round one. If they win and go on to play Louisville, that game would be roughly a pick, so the money line would be roughly –110. If Tech wins there, chances are they would not be much of an underdog to Washington, maybe +120 or so. If they pull off that mild upset let’s imagine they’d be about +150 if Wake Forest made it out of the other bracket in the game to decide the regional title (Tech was +1 at home at home against the Deacons and +9 at Wake Forest, though they are better regarded now). In the Final Four they would be at the very least +200 or so to both Illinois and North Carolina. In the unlikely even the Jackets win it all in that scenario, risking $100 on a money line bet and letting it ride over the six-game span would earn a return of over $13,000, more than triple the $3,000 profit that betting them in the futures would garner. Now granted, we’re assuming no upsets in the other half of the brackets, but it would take some huge upsets to turn the future book into an area of positive expectation compared to letting it ride. Future books are enormous profit centers for the sports books. Ignore them, go with the money line, and let it ride.

Don’t forget about “March Mildness”: The differing emotional stats of various NIT teams allow for some outstanding opportunities. There are teams so crushed to miss the big dance they have almost no chance to win. The trick is to work hard to read everything possible about these games, look through the “coachspeak”, and put yourself in the shoes of the participants. A developing young team that never really had a shot at the NCAA’s can be a great bet against an experienced major conference team jilted by the selection committee whose emotional mindset is in question. We’ll have extensive NIT coverage as well as NCAA selections on our free hotline at 1-770-618-8700, a 24-hour voice mail broadcast.

Profit in your office. If you run your office pool place this note on the brackets. “Thanks to last year’s winner (insert name here) for his generous gratuity in recognition of all the hard work we put into this pool, which returns 100% of all entry fees as prize money”. Only a cad of a winner wouldn’t slip you a couple hundred if that notice makes the rounds. It may also guilt last year’s winner into actually giving you the gratuity the stiffed you on last year.

Bet Smart. If you are not a $500 per game bettor, do not bet $500 per game just because this is the NCAA tournament. If you have a visceral physical reaction as you sweat out a $50 bet, why are you betting at all? I don’t play poker, therefore I don’t sit with the pros in the Bellagio poker room when I’m in Vegas. If you’ve got a little fun money that you won’t miss, by all means take your shot, but too many people overextend come Super Bowl and NCAA tourney time. Don’t be an idiot.

**Spark** · 03-16-2005, 12:55 PM

March Madness Trends: Part 1
By: William Foote & Staff

The Madness, folks, is finally upon us. The most beautiful three weeks of sports during the year. When the nation’s productivity drops 50 percent, as employees wear out the refresh button and extend their lunch breaks to catch the waning seconds of a first round game where some pimply faced kid from “Where the Hell is That?” college is about to send their bracket up in flames.

Yes, folks, the NCAA Tournament is finally upon us! And while we can’t help you fill out a perfect bracket, we have been holed up for weeks preparing to pad your collective wallets. Some may recall that we published an extensive (and we do mean extensive!!!) study on the tournament last year. We have updated the piece to reflect last year’s results and have added some additional insight not previously covered.

This first article will briefly outline the overall trends across all rounds from the previous seven tournaments. The study encompasses every single NCAA Tournament game since 1998. Again, this will be the first in a series of tournament articles released in the coming days and weeks.

Our next piece will deal exclusively with first round trends. Thereafter, we will release one article per round until the whole enchilada is finished. So be sure and look for them in the days ahead! They will be posted right here.

For matters of simplicity; each article is broken down into three basic categories:

1. General Trends
2. Trends By Seed
3. Trends By Price Range

Our first piece ****** the entire seven year data set with all rounds combined. So without further ado …

A Seemingly Simple Challenge

Before we jump into the numbers, let us pose a seemingly simply challenge. Could you pick the straight up winner of each and every NCAA tournament game at a 55% or better rate? How about a 60% or better rate? We are talking about just identifying the straight up winner with no point spread involved. You know… like who will win out between Illinois and “We are making our first Tournament appearance ever” College? Again, no point spread. Just name the straight up winner. Presumably, most would assume that even a monkey could pick the SU winners at perhaps even a higher rate. Our question then becomes: why don’t you?

One of the most glaring trends we have ever come across is the frequency in which straight up winners also cover the spread in the NCAA tournament. In fact, straight up winners are an incredible 331-99-11 ATS (77%) over the past seven years during March Madness. This simply means that if you were able to identify who was going to win the game, irrespective of the spread, than you would be picking winners at a 3:1 ratio!

Since money talks, let us put it another way. A “nickel” player who bets $550 to win $500 would be $111,050 wealthier if he or she were to accomplish this feat over the past seven tournaments. A "half dollar" player risking the standard $55 to win $50 would be $11,105 closer to retirement.

Someone once said, “There are more important things in life to worry about than just money; how to get a hold of it, for example.” Well, picking straight up winners in the NCAA Tournament appears like a darn good place to start. Right?

As one notable annoying football analyst likes to say, “not so fast, my friend.” As is so often the case, if it looks to good to be true than it probably is. Let us quickly shed some light on why this ostensibly simple feat is anything but.

By definition, SU Winners who cover Can Be Broken Down Into Two Categories:

1. Favorites who win and cover.
2. Underdogs who win outright.

Why then, do we not simply play the favorite in every single tournament game and head to Hawaii for the rest of April, and perhaps part of May for that matter? As one notable professor, A. J. Carlton, wisely noted; “Let us keep our mouths shut and our pens dry until we know the facts.”

This rather callous remark actually segues perfectly into our next observation.

In the simplest of terms, underdogs are still a better bet than favorites. Specifically, underdogs were 231-197-13 ATS (54%) over the past seven tournaments combined. Conversely, this implies that of course favorites were an unprofitable 46% winning proposition during the same time period.

If you know anything about how odds are set, this should hardly come as a surprise. After all, John Q. Public still bets favorites at a higher ratio than underdogs. In other words, most folks are interested in betting the hot or most notable teams. And do not think this fact is lost on the oddsmakers!

Keep in mind that March Madness brings in as many square bettors this side of the Super Bowl. Practically every Tom, Dick and Harry will place a bet on this tournament and rest assured they are laying the wood more often than taking the points. If the lines makers did not adjust for this fact, then the books and Vegas would be wiped out.

But you can bet your last dollar that a No. 16 seed has a better shot at winning the tournament than the books being wiped out. Conclusion: it may be a better idea to take notice in the teams no one else is interested in.

Underdogs That Lose SU

One of the more interesting trends we uncovered is that favorites who won SU were a startling 196-98-11 ATS (67%). This trend makes some sense when you remember, as we pointed out above, that SU winners covered at a 77% clip. And favorites during the past seven tournaments were 305-134-2 SU (70%). (Note that the two pushes were games in which the final spread was a “pick.”)

In other words, since SU winners cover at such a high rate and most SU winners are favorites, then it would stand to reason that favorites generally cover from these observations alone. However, the implication here is startling. Namely, underdogs who lose SU were a measly 33% ATS!

So if you are going to play an underdog, you might be better served to play them on the money line. But be realistic. Please do not go out and play the No. 16 seed against a No. 1 seed on the money line and expect to come away with a lottery ticket and then bang on our door for a refund when it does not come in.

The Best Seeds

The two best seeds to bet the past six years are the No. 10 and No. 12 seeds. Everyone knows about the classic twelve over five seed upset in the first round by now, so this not all surprising. In fact, the No. 12 seed has hit at a combined 60% clip over the past seven NCAA tournaments. But do not overlook the power of the ten seed, as they are winning almost at the same rate (58%). The No. 8 seed just missed out on the silver medal, though, hitting at a 57% since 1998.

The Worst Seeds

Before we dig into the specifics, remember that the poorest performing seeds can actually be the best performing seeds if you fade them! The very worst apple of the bunch is the unlucky No. 14 seed which has gone 11-17-2 ATS (39%) over the past seven years. The No. 7 Seed proved not to be so lucky either (41%).

The third worst performers among the group were the sixteen seeds who sported a poor 12-16 ATS (42%) record. Given that no sixteen seed has ever made it beyond the first round would simply imply that No. 1 seeds are 14-10 ATS (58%) in first round games the past seven years. That is somewhat contradictory to the “take interest in teams no one else does” theory, but the following section quickly redeems our value premise.

By Price Range

Playing small double digit favorites is the quickest way to the poor house based on our data set. Namely, favorites priced between -11 and -14 are a back breaking 18-28-3 ATS (39%) during the past six tournaments combined. Favorites just below this price range between -8 and -10.5 were a paltry 24-32-3 ATS (39%). Taking these two price ranges combined suggest that playing underdogs between +8 and +14 would have yielded a wallet stuffing 60-42-6 ATS record (59%) over the past seven years.

We also noted a dichotomy between very small favorites and very large favorites. Specifically, be weary of playing small favorites at -3.5 or less, as they were a wallet crushing 50-71-5 ATS (41%). On the other hand, do not be afraid to lay heavy chalk because favorites at -14.5 or greater were a solid 42-32 ATS (57%). This was easily the best performing price range among favorites in our study.

One quick disclaimer before you go about on your merry way. Whenever composing a piece that is based upon trends alone, we feel it is our duty to reiterate that the past does not always predict the future. As Mr. Warren E. Buffett often remarks; “if you could simply extrapolate the past into the future, the richest people of all would be librarians.”

The point being is that history is a terrific guidepost to the future and can prove tremendously useful as a handicapping tool. But do not mistake history with "fait accompli" or in layman’s terms, irreversible fact.

The above highlighted some of the most notable overall tournament capping trends across all rounds. One of the brainiacs here in the office parsed out the data set to isolate first round trends only. We’ll check back with you in the next few days and share what we know. In the meantime ... good luck!

**moondog22** · 03-16-2005, 01:33 PM

Thanks Spark,good info.

**realreason** · 03-17-2005, 08:00 AM

needs to be seen....good stuff guys, love to get the knowlwdge it is what gives you the edge

Announcement

Winning points marchmadness newsletter

Winning points marchmadness newsletter

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment