jlgamlber I like that idea. Check out these trends I just found. I do love trends. You might find this interesting.
I just found this as well. I don't believe that someone went up $600K but figured it was interesting enough to share. I also just like the first paragraph...I hate the double up system crap....but the info about 12 seeds looks to be good. I might jump on this with you and see what happens. BOL buddy. Thanks for pointing that out. Looks like it could be a winner
Pro Gambler, claims he won 600,000$ on last years tourney. He advises the following.....
Put 100 $ on all 4 #12 seeds (ML) in the first round. At least 1 #12 seed has upset a #5 seed in 11 of the last 12 years. The usual ML bet on a 12 seed is 6:1 or +700.
Using this formula, you're risking 400 $, but just one upset by a #12 seed nets you 300 $. (last year, Gonzaga and Utah St. won as #12 seeds.)
Hedge your bet Before the start of the tourney, books will be giving at least 3:1 odds on a good team making it to the "sweet 16". (2 wins).....
Put $100 down on your favorite team; all they have to do is win the first game and you've made a profit, guaranteed. After round 1, put $150 on the underdog they're playing in round 2.(plus the points) If the dog pulls the upset...you profit $50. If they lose...you profit $150. The best scenario is when your original team wins the 2nd round game, but does'nt cover the spread. You've just won both bets and netted $450!
I just found this as well. I don't believe that someone went up $600K but figured it was interesting enough to share. I also just like the first paragraph...I hate the double up system crap....but the info about 12 seeds looks to be good. I might jump on this with you and see what happens. BOL buddy. Thanks for pointing that out. Looks like it could be a winner
Pro Gambler, claims he won 600,000$ on last years tourney. He advises the following.....
Put 100 $ on all 4 #12 seeds (ML) in the first round. At least 1 #12 seed has upset a #5 seed in 11 of the last 12 years. The usual ML bet on a 12 seed is 6:1 or +700.
Using this formula, you're risking 400 $, but just one upset by a #12 seed nets you 300 $. (last year, Gonzaga and Utah St. won as #12 seeds.)
sims_key Good catch.....I was caught up in trend and made a dumbass overlook. I am thinking of getting on New Mexico St +900 for 2U already. We will see. I would like to have a book to sell points. I will be on NMST ATS but wish I could sell 6 points.
Thanks for pointing that out. So I guess you would have to hit two or more to profit. or hit the nmst. It might be smarter jlgamlber just to play nmst because I definately don't see all three of little ones hitting and why risk it to hit two of the smaller ones and only profit $100. But maybe it will work.....BOL on whatever you do. 
I found this trend to be very interesting as well. I obviously did not write these. I am sure everyone picked up on that already. $95,000 sounds very good. I might look more into this one. I think this is the best info out of all. " straight up winners are an incredible 283-84-11 ATS (77%) over the past six years during March Madness."
Today we will look at a similar genre of data set, but will discuss only trends and angles pertaining to the first round. As a reminder, our records include every single NCAA tournament game since 1998. Our next piece will deal exclusively with second round trends and hopefully be out before the second round starts! Thereafter, as we noted in our prior piece, we?ll do our best to release each article at least a day prior to the start of the round we are covering. 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.
2. Trends By Seed
3. Trends By Price Range
The present piece deals with first round trends only and is based upon the last six NCAA tournaments combined. So once again; let?s get to it!
The Same Seemingly Simple Challenge Applies
Straight up (SU) winners in first round games are a whopping 138-48-4 ATS (74%) over the past six years. This figure came in right below the 77% benchmark that SU winners had been hitting at in all rounds during the same time period. This strong trend has held true in each and every year since 1998. Straight up winners in the first round have been at least a 65% ATS winning proposition in five of the past six years. In four of the past six years, straight up winners were a minimum 74% ATS opening round proposition.
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? who will win out between Duke vs. Alabama State, Stanford vs. Texas-San Antonio or St. Joseph?s vs. Liberty? Again, no point spread. Just name the straight up winner. Presumably, most would say you could pick the straight up winner at an even 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 283-84-11 ATS (77%) over the past six 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 seems to have lips, here is another way of looking at this trend. A ?nickel? player who bets $550 to win $500 would be $95,300 wealthier if he or she were to accomplish this feat. A "half dollar" player risking the standard $55 to win $50 would be $9,530 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 is always the case, however, 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 the above trend reflects two basic components:
1. Underdogs who win outright.
2. Favorites who win and cover.
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? Not so fast. As one notable professor, A. J. Carlton, wisely noted; ?Let us keep our mouths shut and our pens dry until we know the facts.?
Round #1 Underdogs Still Rule ? But Barely
Underdogs are still a better bet than favorites in first round games. Specifically, underdogs are 98-88-6 ATS (53%) over the past six tournaments combined. If you are wondering why dogs rule the roost; refer back to March Madness Trends ? Part 1 of a Six Part Series.
The interesting component of this trend is its seesaw nature. Namely, last season underdogs were a bookie busting 19-12-1 ATS (61%) in first round games, compared to 2002 when pups were an unprofitable 14-17-1 ATS (45%) in the opening round. However, in 2001 underdogs were once again profitable at 18-14 ATS (56%). In 2000, dogs were all square at 15-15-2 ATS (50%). In 1999, they were a 56% winning proposition (18-14 ATS) after going just 47% (14-16-2) in 1998.
As this pattern shows, underdogs were profitable every other year (except 2000). Or if you prefer, favorites were profitable every other year (except 2000). A reasonable explanation is that oddsmakers simply adjust based on the prior tournament's outcome. If this is the case, than dogs could be spaded and neutered in the opening round this season after taking the bookmakers to the cleaners in round one last year.
Remember, Vegas is the ?City of Fish and Chips. Some poor fish is always losing his chips.? We took this quote from a blackjack book written back in the early 1980?s, but make no mistake; Mr. Shewell?s words directly correlate to the oddsmakers? ability to fine-tune what has been unsuccessful for them in the past and use it as a profit center in the future. It?s what ?the house? is built upon. Always stay a step ahead!
Underdogs That Lose Straight Up
Underdogs that lose straight up are no better against the number in first round games than they are overall. In this case, pups that lose straight up are a miserable 48-88-4 ATS in the opening round over the past six years. This is right in line with the 33% winning rate they enjoy across all rounds as we discussed in the first article. The ranges in which dogs that lose straight up and cover has fluctuated between 22% and 32% in four of the six years. Perhaps, however, these particular breed of hounds are making a comeback after going 11-12-1 ATS (48%) last season. Although that still makes them a losing proposition in 2003, this percentage was far and away the highest mark since 1998. Be wary ? regression to the mean may kick in this year. And presumably not by accident.
The Best Match ups
In the first article, we broke down seeds by best and worst performers across all rounds. Since the first round has fixed seeding, we can analyze it by match ups.
The classic No. 12 seed over No. 5 seed is the most profitable winning proposition over the past six years of opening round games. Specifically, No. 12 seeds were 15-8-1 ATS (65%) during this time. In addition, they have been darn consistent all the way back to our first data set in 1998. In fact, in three of the six years, No. 12 seeds went 3-1 ATS. In one other year, they went 2-1-1 ATS. The other two years they were deadlocked at 2-2 ATS vs. their No. 5 counterpart.
The next best performers were the No. 3 seed covering against the No. 14 seed and the No. 10 seed covering against the No. 7 seed. Both the No. 3 and No. 10 seeds were a 61% ATS winning proposition in opening round games combined over the past six years. A word of caution here: neither seed has shown a consistent pattern from year to year. The results have been up and down and really all over the place. The same pretty much holds true across the board for the other seeds as well.
In conclusion, we would not put too much weight into ATS trends by seed. And that goes when handicapping the No. 5 vs. No. 12 match up. Rest assured; you are not the only one who knows about the success of the No. 12 seeds in opening round games. The oddsmakers and everyone else are becoming aware of this pattern, which means only one thing; we urge caution, as an adjustment certainly could be due.
As the general saying goes; ?if you are in a card game and you don?t know who the sucker is, you?re it.? Meaning; before blindly betting the lower seed in this particular first round pairing, understand that the oddsmakers will not sit back on their hands and be eaten alive if a trend becomes so glaring that John Q. Public is now using it as a strategy. Make sure these trends are not being compensated for in how the lines are being set this year. Some simple power ratings will help you to accomplish this feat.
By Price Range
Once again, playing small double digit favorites is the quickest way to the poor house in opening round games, just as is it is across all rounds as pointed out in the first commentary.
In first round games, favorites priced between -11 and -14 are a back breaking 7-15-2 ATS (32%) over the past six tournaments combined. This is nearly identical to the 35% rate that this price range bombs out at over all rounds since 1998. Favorites just below this price range were unprofitable once again. That is, -8 to -10.5 point chalk in first round games were just 7-10 ATS (41%) in the past six years worth of first round action. As a benchmark, they hit at a 39% ATS clip across all rounds since 1998.
The best price range for favorites continues to be heavy chalk. If you laid 18.5 points or more in ever single March Madness game in round one since 1998, you would be 21-14 ATS (60%). This is just a hair below the 58% clip you would be winning at if you played this same price range across all rounds during this same span. Although, we rarely see favorites of this magnitude aside from round one so the comparable results are not at all bizarre.
That is all for now. We will do our best to produce the round two trends and analysis as early as possible. Once again; thanks, good luck and we will be back before long. And please remember; these trends are proposed and set out to be used alongside other viable handicapping methodologies. While we sound like a broken CD player, we cannot reiterate this point enough.
?Knowing how to figure the odds will not make a winning player. But a total disregard for the odds for a long period will surely make you a loser. Lucky players don?t last? ? A. D. Livingston
Adding these for tomorrow. It is a lot of games but I am trying something. They won't all lose and hopefully will hit a few ML and come up with good day. Bottom line only 51U pending so won't be a terrible day unless I amazingly picked all losers which I believe that as much as saying I picked all winners here.
Northeastern +8 4U
Northeastern ML (+320) 1U
Northeastern 1half +4.5 4U
Northeastern ML (+210) 1U
Coastal Carolina +10.5 4U
Coastal Carolina ML (+450) 1U
Texas Tech +9 4U
Texas Tech ML (+320) 1U
Texas Tech 1half +5 4U
Texas Tech 1half ML (+240) 1U
Jackson St +22 3U
Jacksonville +15 3U
Western Carolina +11 4U
Western Carolina ML (+500)1U
Western Carolina 1half +6 4U
Western Carolina 1half ML 1U
South Dakota +14 3U
Well this should be an interesting day....I already locked these in so no talking me out. Lets see how this works. Oh yeah and B&M ML 1half is +240 and ML on game was +350
Just did one more.
Parlay
Northeastern ML
Texas Tech ML
1U to win 17U
Parlay
Northeastern 1half ML
Texas Tech 1half ML
1U to win 10U
I don't advise tailing this. lol. BOL to everyone!
Established in 1995,
THIS PICTURE SUCKS MORE THEN THE OTHER ONE
Hot Forum Topics
