When Ken Pom was researching for BP, he found in 2008(I think - I can't get my fingers on the passage I remember) this:
Teams that win by 10-19 pts, lose OUTRIGHT the next meeting around 50% of the time.
The reason I bring this up now is we have just such a scenario. Fairfield beat Loyola MD by 10 this season. Now they are playing again.
Some questions that were raised as I looked at this, and I do not know the answers: 1. How many of these instances saw a DOG win by 10-19, then lose the next time. This would make sense as the fav would likely win the next but seems to be a SMALL number of instances. 2. How many were underdogs the second time around (kind of related to point 1). 3. Has this held true over several years? Or was it a one year outlier.
The angle here is the ability to hit the dog ML 50% of the time which is obviously a winning proposition.
I may try to TRACK this angle this year to see how it does. If anyone has any additional input or information - please do share.
When Ken Pom was researching for BP, he found in 2008(I think - I can't get my fingers on the passage I remember) this:
Teams that win by 10-19 pts, lose OUTRIGHT the next meeting around 50% of the time.
The reason I bring this up now is we have just such a scenario. Fairfield beat Loyola MD by 10 this season. Now they are playing again.
Some questions that were raised as I looked at this, and I do not know the answers: 1. How many of these instances saw a DOG win by 10-19, then lose the next time. This would make sense as the fav would likely win the next but seems to be a SMALL number of instances. 2. How many were underdogs the second time around (kind of related to point 1). 3. Has this held true over several years? Or was it a one year outlier.
The angle here is the ability to hit the dog ML 50% of the time which is obviously a winning proposition.
I may try to TRACK this angle this year to see how it does. If anyone has any additional input or information - please do share.
Using last season's stats from kenpom's blog earlier this year:
Fortunately, there are plenty of rematches in the sport, so one can
use real data to determine how much a head-to-head victory is a true
verdict of superiority. Last season, there were 1,049 regular-season
conference games which were a rematch of an earlier game. The winners of
the initial game won 61.1% of the rematches. Not exactly a figure that
inspires confidence that the outcome of a single game is useful to
compare two teams. Keep that in mind as you make arguments about one
team being better than another.
We should break this down further, though. Because we’re only looking
at conference regular-season games in this sample, location is very
important. For instance if the victor of the initial game was the road
team, it won the rematch 80.2% of the time. This shouldn’t be surprising
because it’s more difficult to win on the road and the rematch would be
an easier game for the winner since it would occur at home.
The flip side is more instructive. When the home team was the winner
of the first game, they were a collective 309-326 in the rematch. That’s
right, a home winner is more likely to lose a rematch than win it. It
gets better, though. A home team winning the first game by single-digits
went a collective 96-195, winning 33.0% of the time. Considering that
overall, road teams win conference games about 38% of the time, close
home winners are really not proving their superiority at all.
Wait, there’s more. Home teams that won by one or two points were 16-52 in the rematches, winning just 23.5% of the time.
Most fans like to think the results of a close game as just because
teams that emerge victorious show grittiness, heart, and toughness. But
those teams were almost certain losers when they faced the same team on
the road. What happened to the grittiness then? To me, there’s no
greater statement to the influence of luck in the outcome of a close
game than the struggles of close home winners in a road game against the
same team.
If you still doubt, consider this: The average margin for the winners
of the first game in those cases was +1.6 points. The average margin
for those teams in the rematch was -6.9, almost exactly double what many
studies have shown to be typical home court advantage. Was there
anything more going on for the close home winners than just simply being
at home? It doesn’t appear that way.
Using last season's stats from kenpom's blog earlier this year:
Fortunately, there are plenty of rematches in the sport, so one can
use real data to determine how much a head-to-head victory is a true
verdict of superiority. Last season, there were 1,049 regular-season
conference games which were a rematch of an earlier game. The winners of
the initial game won 61.1% of the rematches. Not exactly a figure that
inspires confidence that the outcome of a single game is useful to
compare two teams. Keep that in mind as you make arguments about one
team being better than another.
We should break this down further, though. Because we’re only looking
at conference regular-season games in this sample, location is very
important. For instance if the victor of the initial game was the road
team, it won the rematch 80.2% of the time. This shouldn’t be surprising
because it’s more difficult to win on the road and the rematch would be
an easier game for the winner since it would occur at home.
The flip side is more instructive. When the home team was the winner
of the first game, they were a collective 309-326 in the rematch. That’s
right, a home winner is more likely to lose a rematch than win it. It
gets better, though. A home team winning the first game by single-digits
went a collective 96-195, winning 33.0% of the time. Considering that
overall, road teams win conference games about 38% of the time, close
home winners are really not proving their superiority at all.
Wait, there’s more. Home teams that won by one or two points were 16-52 in the rematches, winning just 23.5% of the time.
Most fans like to think the results of a close game as just because
teams that emerge victorious show grittiness, heart, and toughness. But
those teams were almost certain losers when they faced the same team on
the road. What happened to the grittiness then? To me, there’s no
greater statement to the influence of luck in the outcome of a close
game than the struggles of close home winners in a road game against the
same team.
If you still doubt, consider this: The average margin for the winners
of the first game in those cases was +1.6 points. The average margin
for those teams in the rematch was -6.9, almost exactly double what many
studies have shown to be typical home court advantage. Was there
anything more going on for the close home winners than just simply being
at home? It doesn’t appear that way.
Research I did for College Basketball Prospectus 2008-09 showed that a
team that beats an opponent at home by 10-19 points ends up losing the
re-match (presumably on the road, no?) against the same opponent about half the time. Now, think about
this. You should quickly realize that even a dominant home win in
isolation provides very little information. Sure, if Missouri beats Iowa
State at home by double-digits this January, you are going to feel like
they have better than a 50/50 shot of winning the rematch in Ames. But
that judgment has much more to do with the information you have about
the other games each team has played.
So that answers one question - this is about HOME teams winning by 10-19, the losing on the road 50% of the time.
Research I did for College Basketball Prospectus 2008-09 showed that a
team that beats an opponent at home by 10-19 points ends up losing the
re-match (presumably on the road, no?) against the same opponent about half the time. Now, think about
this. You should quickly realize that even a dominant home win in
isolation provides very little information. Sure, if Missouri beats Iowa
State at home by double-digits this January, you are going to feel like
they have better than a 50/50 shot of winning the rematch in Ames. But
that judgment has much more to do with the information you have about
the other games each team has played.
So that answers one question - this is about HOME teams winning by 10-19, the losing on the road 50% of the time.
"Home teams that won by one or two points were 16-52 in the rematches, winning just 23.5% of the time."
Thanks Kine for sharing this - adds another element. The above quote looks pretty significant - maybe those same season revenge angle bettors are on to something...
"Home teams that won by one or two points were 16-52 in the rematches, winning just 23.5% of the time."
Thanks Kine for sharing this - adds another element. The above quote looks pretty significant - maybe those same season revenge angle bettors are on to something...
Siena was one of those teams that won at home (against Niagara) by 18 and lost at Niagara by 13. I remember that because it snapped a winning streak on the espn streak for the cash game and 87% of active players in that game lost their streaks because of it. The next day I picked Kent State -1 over Buffalo on the covers survivor and Kent State didn't win by 10-19, they in fact beat Buffalo at home by 35! It meant nothing as they lost the rematch at Buffalo by 15, a 50 point swing! This shows that dominant home performances don't guarantee road wins.
Siena was one of those teams that won at home (against Niagara) by 18 and lost at Niagara by 13. I remember that because it snapped a winning streak on the espn streak for the cash game and 87% of active players in that game lost their streaks because of it. The next day I picked Kent State -1 over Buffalo on the covers survivor and Kent State didn't win by 10-19, they in fact beat Buffalo at home by 35! It meant nothing as they lost the rematch at Buffalo by 15, a 50 point swing! This shows that dominant home performances don't guarantee road wins.
Local - it fits in the 77% lose by 1 or 2. I am following the 10-19 in this thread, though I hit NIA today in a few ml parlays - easy winner.
Sunday:
Notre dame beat St. John's by 15 last week. Now ND goes to NY - and the Johnnies opened at -2. I was hoping that we would not have to lay pts with this and that we would consistently be in the +ml land, but oh well. Will wait to see if the line moves but for tracking
Local - it fits in the 77% lose by 1 or 2. I am following the 10-19 in this thread, though I hit NIA today in a few ml parlays - easy winner.
Sunday:
Notre dame beat St. John's by 15 last week. Now ND goes to NY - and the Johnnies opened at -2. I was hoping that we would not have to lay pts with this and that we would consistently be in the +ml land, but oh well. Will wait to see if the line moves but for tracking
Bill - they lost by 22, which falls outside any evidence collected.
Notre Dame at St. John's -3
Don't want to be blind here, IF this game is a toss-up, why would I want to pay -130? In addition to the DD win scenario, we also have the unranked laying pts to the ranked which everyone seems to love but as I put in my weekend thread - was not a winner yesterday. Nothing should be played blindly in other words. I like the Johnnies - they are a veteran squad and would like to back them here and for the purposes of this thread, seems like we should always be on the home team - OR maybe always on the + ml. Or maybe use the info to cap the game independently.
I played ND ML +135 .5u.
But totally understand and see a reason to play the Johnnies or pass all together.
Bill - they lost by 22, which falls outside any evidence collected.
Notre Dame at St. John's -3
Don't want to be blind here, IF this game is a toss-up, why would I want to pay -130? In addition to the DD win scenario, we also have the unranked laying pts to the ranked which everyone seems to love but as I put in my weekend thread - was not a winner yesterday. Nothing should be played blindly in other words. I like the Johnnies - they are a veteran squad and would like to back them here and for the purposes of this thread, seems like we should always be on the home team - OR maybe always on the + ml. Or maybe use the info to cap the game independently.
I played ND ML +135 .5u.
But totally understand and see a reason to play the Johnnies or pass all together.
Using last season's stats from kenpom's blog earlier this year:
Fortunately, there are plenty of rematches in the sport, so one can use real data to determine how much a head-to-head victory is a true verdict of superiority. Last season, there were 1,049 regular-season conference games which were a rematch of an earlier game. The winners of the initial game won 61.1% of the rematches. Not exactly a figure that inspires confidence that the outcome of a single game is useful to compare two teams. Keep that in mind as you make arguments about one team being better than another.
We should break this down further, though. Because we’re only looking at conference regular-season games in this sample, location is very important. For instance if the victor of the initial game was the road team, it won the rematch 80.2% of the time. This shouldn’t be surprising because it’s more difficult to win on the road and the rematch would be an easier game for the winner since it would occur at home.
The flip side is more instructive. When the home team was the winner of the first game, they were a collective 309-326 in the rematch. That’s right, a home winner is more likely to lose a rematch than win it. It gets better, though. A home team winning the first game by single-digits went a collective 96-195, winning 33.0% of the time. Considering that overall, road teams win conference games about 38% of the time, close home winners are really not proving their superiority at all.
Wait, there’s more. Home teams that won by one or two points were 16-52 in the rematches, winning just 23.5% of the time. Most fans like to think the results of a close game as just because teams that emerge victorious show grittiness, heart, and toughness. But those teams were almost certain losers when they faced the same team on the road. What happened to the grittiness then? To me, there’s no greater statement to the influence of luck in the outcome of a close game than the struggles of close home winners in a road game against the same team.
If you still doubt, consider this: The average margin for the winners of the first game in those cases was +1.6 points. The average margin for those teams in the rematch was -6.9, almost exactly double what many studies have shown to be typical home court advantage. Was there anything more going on for the close home winners than just simply being at home? It doesn’t appear that way.
siena -5.5 would be the play tonite since they lost by 1 at canisius earlier this season
Using last season's stats from kenpom's blog earlier this year:
Fortunately, there are plenty of rematches in the sport, so one can use real data to determine how much a head-to-head victory is a true verdict of superiority. Last season, there were 1,049 regular-season conference games which were a rematch of an earlier game. The winners of the initial game won 61.1% of the rematches. Not exactly a figure that inspires confidence that the outcome of a single game is useful to compare two teams. Keep that in mind as you make arguments about one team being better than another.
We should break this down further, though. Because we’re only looking at conference regular-season games in this sample, location is very important. For instance if the victor of the initial game was the road team, it won the rematch 80.2% of the time. This shouldn’t be surprising because it’s more difficult to win on the road and the rematch would be an easier game for the winner since it would occur at home.
The flip side is more instructive. When the home team was the winner of the first game, they were a collective 309-326 in the rematch. That’s right, a home winner is more likely to lose a rematch than win it. It gets better, though. A home team winning the first game by single-digits went a collective 96-195, winning 33.0% of the time. Considering that overall, road teams win conference games about 38% of the time, close home winners are really not proving their superiority at all.
Wait, there’s more. Home teams that won by one or two points were 16-52 in the rematches, winning just 23.5% of the time. Most fans like to think the results of a close game as just because teams that emerge victorious show grittiness, heart, and toughness. But those teams were almost certain losers when they faced the same team on the road. What happened to the grittiness then? To me, there’s no greater statement to the influence of luck in the outcome of a close game than the struggles of close home winners in a road game against the same team.
If you still doubt, consider this: The average margin for the winners of the first game in those cases was +1.6 points. The average margin for those teams in the rematch was -6.9, almost exactly double what many studies have shown to be typical home court advantage. Was there anything more going on for the close home winners than just simply being at home? It doesn’t appear that way.
siena -5.5 would be the play tonite since they lost by 1 at canisius earlier this season
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.