Posted:
#1
(I posted this on my new blog, but since things are slow and everyone has moved onto other sports, I decided to share it here as well. The text should read the same, but if you want to look at the blog, it is here:
https://sharpfootballanalysis.blogspot.com/index.html - still working on a good title... If you disagree with anything feel free to respond and we can discuss.)
I wanted to take a look at how this past season compared to previous seasons in terms of ATS numbers and results. The source for my data may not be the same as the source for your data (if you try to compare), as the line shifts and I don't know if you are using opening or closing lines, and what book you use.
But all my numbers are consistent w/ themselves (same source) and so the analysis should show similar results, even if you use a different source.
First I looked at the percentage at which favorites covered. Knowing the public likes taking the favorite, and knowing that you only need to hit just over 51% to win money w/ consistent betting practices (getting better juice can drop this number), I just wanted to see what years the favorites did well and what years the underdog did well.
I looked at both regular season and post season numbers.
The second thing I looked at was the number of games in which the points come into play. This is from an underdog perspective. If a favorite wins and covers, you don't have to worry about the points, you lost your bet. If an underdog wins, you don't have to worry about the points, you won your bet. The time the points come into play are those times where the favorite wins but did not cover. Then the underdog bettor won, but the points did matter.
I have heard various people claim how the points only matter in such a small % of games. So the column for "points mattered" shows the % of games where the dog lost but covered the spread (or the underdog won but failed to cover the spread).
As you can see, I only took my sample thru the 1991 season. I could have gone further back, but I felt that was a large enough sample.
At any rate, here are the numbers, and my conclusions follow:
Conclusion 1: Betting underdogs in the long run will make money.
Most bettors know this. The problem is, you aren't betting across the board, you are picking select games, so that shifts the percentages. However, looking at all 16 years, or even at the last 5, underdogs cover slightly more than favorites.
But, if you look at individual seasons, you will see how much it can shift from one season to the next. The largest shift took place this season. In 05-06, favorites covered at 58% - killing a sharp bettor and helping the public. This season, the favorites only covered 45%. That's a 13% swing!
There have been spans (from 92-97 and from 99-02) where for 4 years or more, favorites covered at less than 50%. Significantly less (47% and 46% respectively, and those numbers are significant). But the past 4 years, we have had 2 years where favorites covered more than underdogs.
This season it dropped low, to 45%. My gut feeling is we should see another season where more dogs cover, and we won't see a season like 05-06 (58% of favs covered) for quite some time.
Conclusion 2: Favorites tend to cover more in the postseason.
Of course, if you look at the last 5 years, that has not been the case. However that avg is really brought down by only 36% of the favs covering in 2003-04.
But for 11 of the 16 seasons, the fav covered more in the postseason than in each regular season. That is 69% of the seasons saw more favorites cover in the playoffs than the regular season. Another number tough to ignore. Now, by how much more did they cover?
In those 11 seasons, they covered an average of 9% more games. Which is a sizable amount.
Even if you take the average % increase using all 16 seasons (including those where the fav covered less in the postseason) you still are looking at an increase of 4%.
There was no real correlation between the regular season and the postseason.
So while this won't matter for almost another full season, remember that on average, favorites do fare better than underdogs ATS in the postseason.
https://sharpfootballanalysis.blogspot.com/index.html - still working on a good title... If you disagree with anything feel free to respond and we can discuss.)
I wanted to take a look at how this past season compared to previous seasons in terms of ATS numbers and results. The source for my data may not be the same as the source for your data (if you try to compare), as the line shifts and I don't know if you are using opening or closing lines, and what book you use.
But all my numbers are consistent w/ themselves (same source) and so the analysis should show similar results, even if you use a different source.
First I looked at the percentage at which favorites covered. Knowing the public likes taking the favorite, and knowing that you only need to hit just over 51% to win money w/ consistent betting practices (getting better juice can drop this number), I just wanted to see what years the favorites did well and what years the underdog did well.
I looked at both regular season and post season numbers.
The second thing I looked at was the number of games in which the points come into play. This is from an underdog perspective. If a favorite wins and covers, you don't have to worry about the points, you lost your bet. If an underdog wins, you don't have to worry about the points, you won your bet. The time the points come into play are those times where the favorite wins but did not cover. Then the underdog bettor won, but the points did matter.
I have heard various people claim how the points only matter in such a small % of games. So the column for "points mattered" shows the % of games where the dog lost but covered the spread (or the underdog won but failed to cover the spread).
As you can see, I only took my sample thru the 1991 season. I could have gone further back, but I felt that was a large enough sample.
At any rate, here are the numbers, and my conclusions follow:
Conclusion 1: Betting underdogs in the long run will make money.
Most bettors know this. The problem is, you aren't betting across the board, you are picking select games, so that shifts the percentages. However, looking at all 16 years, or even at the last 5, underdogs cover slightly more than favorites.
But, if you look at individual seasons, you will see how much it can shift from one season to the next. The largest shift took place this season. In 05-06, favorites covered at 58% - killing a sharp bettor and helping the public. This season, the favorites only covered 45%. That's a 13% swing!
There have been spans (from 92-97 and from 99-02) where for 4 years or more, favorites covered at less than 50%. Significantly less (47% and 46% respectively, and those numbers are significant). But the past 4 years, we have had 2 years where favorites covered more than underdogs.
This season it dropped low, to 45%. My gut feeling is we should see another season where more dogs cover, and we won't see a season like 05-06 (58% of favs covered) for quite some time.
Conclusion 2: Favorites tend to cover more in the postseason.
Of course, if you look at the last 5 years, that has not been the case. However that avg is really brought down by only 36% of the favs covering in 2003-04.
But for 11 of the 16 seasons, the fav covered more in the postseason than in each regular season. That is 69% of the seasons saw more favorites cover in the playoffs than the regular season. Another number tough to ignore. Now, by how much more did they cover?
In those 11 seasons, they covered an average of 9% more games. Which is a sizable amount.
Even if you take the average % increase using all 16 seasons (including those where the fav covered less in the postseason) you still are looking at an increase of 4%.
There was no real correlation between the regular season and the postseason.
So while this won't matter for almost another full season, remember that on average, favorites do fare better than underdogs ATS in the postseason.
0
Hot Forum Topics
