Gamblers (Anonymous) Thread - 2006 Recap

[Steeltown Dre]

(I posted this on my new blog, but I decided to share it here as well. The text should read the same, but to look at the picture better, you can go to the blog:

 

http://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.

 

 

Conclusion 3: The points are extremely significant.

 

The way I calculated how much the points mattered was:

 

I took the number of games won SU by the favorite and subtracted the number of games where the favorite covered the spread. So we are left with the number of games where the fav won but the underdog covered (and the points mattered). I divided that number by the total number of games played that season.

 

[Note: I looked at backing out those games that "pushed", but on average the "pushed" games only amounted to 0.6% of the total, so I ignored those games]

 

What we see is that the points matter in about 20% of all games played, and this is pretty consistent from season to season. In fact, the most it has ever mattered was 23%, and the least was 17%.

 

So the big overriding conclusion here is the points are huge, and don't let anyone tell you that they don't matter. Now, maybe getting into specific pointspreads, they don't matter as much.

 

One time the points don't really matter is if there is a home favorite of between 1 and 2.5 points. The points only mattered in 2 games out of 200, since 1995. In this situation, either take the fav and don't worry about laying the points, or take the dog SU. Because in only 1% of the games will the fav win but not cover. So if you want to look at specific situations, the points may not matter as much in those situations.

 

But in general, the points are a big part of gambling, and getting the most points you can get for a dog (while still having value in the juice) can affect around 20% of the number of bets you might win.

 

Conclusion 4: It is hard to predict how much the points will matter in the postseason.

 

We had 3 seasons where the points did not even matter (you could either take the fav and lay the points, or take the dog SU, there wasn't a fav who won but failed to cover).

 

We had almost half of the 16 seasons where the points mattered in 10% or less of the games, which is about half the amount it mattered in the regular season.

 

But then again, we have had those postseasons where the points mattered in 36% of the games, much higher than the amount it mattered in the regular season.

 

There is also no real correlation between the regular season and the postseason.

 

So how did 06-07 compare to the average?

 

We had more dogs cover in both the regular season and the postseason than average. And while the points didn't matter quite as much as average on the regular season, the points mattered a lot more in the playoffs than average.

 

So what to expect for next season?

 

At times an analysis does not really produce any incredible trends, and that is the case here. Going in, we should already know that the points matter, and we should know that dogs do better than favs on average. And that is all we really found out. The only thing I could surmise for next season is a similar number of dogs covering as we saw this past year, as 2005-06 was really an aberration. Other than that, I'll be looking forward to another challenging year of handicapping in 2007-08.

[Steeltown Dre]

I don't know why I can't get the chart to show up. I guess cut an paste it into a new window or go to the blog. You kind of need to see that chart to look at how I compared things.

 

I thought about pasting it in here as text, but you know how that turns out - it would be hard to make sense of it.

[Steeltown Dre]

A good article on the Super Bowl betting:

 

Nevada gamblers bet less, but lost more on this year's Super Bowl.

 

The hotel casinos won.

 

Bettors wagered $93.1 million on Sunday's game between the Indianapolis Colts and Chicago Bears, down from the 2006 total of $94.5 million. The state's sports books won $12.9 million, the second most ever, compared to $8.8 million last year.

 

Figures were released Tuesday by state gambling officials.

 

Sports books increased their winning percentage to 13.9 this year from 9.3 last year.

 

One of Northern Nevada's biggest hotel casino sports books started Super Bowl Sunday by losing $90,000 on one play when Devin Hester of the Chicago Bears ran the opening kickoff back 92 yards for a touchdown.

 

"There was a good chunk of change (bet) on that," John Pinto, sports book director at downtown Reno's Silver Legacy Resort Casino, said as he counted wins and losses from the biggest gambling event of the year for Nevada sports books. "We were thinking to ourselves, 'This is going to be a long day.'"

 

A lot of gamblers had money on Hester at odds of 25 to 1.

 

"The player to score first was a big loser for the books," Pinto said. "We lost $90,000."

 

In a matter of seconds.

 

Four hours later, Pinto was a lot happier when the game finished with the Indianapolis Colts, a seven-point favorite, beating the Bears, the choice of many gamblers, 29-17.

 

"A majority of the (bets) were Chicago," Pinto said.

 

Gamblers bet $540,000 on the Super Bowl at the Legacy, the second highest total ever at the book, behind last year's $628,900.

 

"It was a great weekend overall," Pinto said. "The book did pretty good on it."

 

That's because the Silver Legacy won money from gamblers who made parlay bets on which team would win and the game's combined point total for both teams, which was set at 48.

 

"There was a lot of Chicago and 'under' money," Pinto said. "The 'over' was in a lot of parlays."

 

That made all of them losers for gamblers.

 

Anyone who had Chicago as part of their combination lost because the Bears lost by 12. Anyone who had 'over' as part of their combination lost because the point total was 46.

 

"We survived," said Terry Cox, sports book manager at Reno's Peppermill Hotel Casino. "It was extremely busy. The game came out OK."

 

Cox was operating a new expanded book with more room for gamblers.

 

"The business reflected it," Cox said. "Not necessarily the amount of dollars, but the number of bets. The number of tickets was way more than any other Super Bowl."

 

The betting pattern on this year's Super Bowl differed from previous games, Cox said.

 

Normally, sports books get a lot of early betting on the favorite, with money on the underdog coming in near or on Super Bowl Sunday. This year, gamblers bet the underdog Bears early and the favorite Colts late.

 

"They bet the Bears for 13 days, then at the last minute the Colt money came rolling in," Cox said. "It was pretty even. This year, the public was on both sides of this game."

 

Cox could tell by the sound in his book.

 

"The Colts would do something, and half the room would scream," Cox said. "The Bears would do something, and half the room would scream."

 

Cox reported increased betting on Super Bowl propositions, such as which player will score the first touchdown, that have become popular on Super Bowl Sunday.

 

"The wagering on the propositions is higher ever year," Cox said.

 

That helped the Silver Legacy where gamblers bet on individual players, such as Colts quarterback Peyton Manning to surpass certain scoring and yardage numbers.

 

"A lot of the player propositions didn't come in," said Pinto, explaining how the steady rain at the Super Bowl and the Colts' decision to run the football much of the second half kept numbers low.

 

One of the biggest plays of the day for Pinto was a miss by Colts place kicker Adam Vinatieri on a field goal try at the end of the first half.

 

"Vinatieri missing that field goal was huge for the books," Pinto said.

 

One of the Super Bowl bets was which team would "win" the first half. The Colts were a four-point favorite. When Vinatieri missed, they led by two, 16-14.

 

"That was a $400,000 miss for (gamblers)," Pinto said. "We were going to lose $100,000 if he made it. He missed it, so we picked up $300,000."

 

RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL

[Gdawg]

Ah, I remember 2005 fondly, seemed like you could just go down the line picking the favorites to cover and make money. December 2005 was the best month I ever had betting on football

 

There was a prop I wanted to bet, but didn't get to it in time to make any real money...the "Peyton Manning will be SB MVP" prop; one of the regulars on the Gamblers Anonymous thread suggested it (sorry I can't recall who suggested it). When I first took a look at it on Betcris it was +200, it later moved to

-180 Crazy money on that one and I'm sure it started much higher than +200!!!

[Steeltown Dre]

There was a prop I wanted to bet, but didn't get to it in time to make any real money...the "Peyton Manning will be SB MVP" prop; one of the regulars on the Gamblers Anonymous thread suggested it (sorry I can't recall who suggested it). When I first took a look at it on Betcris it was +200, it later moved to

-180 Crazy money on that one and I'm sure it started much higher than +200!!!

 

 

Good post - I know a couple of books had odds between +120 and +180 about 1.5 weeks before the Super Bowl.

 

That was a smart bet - because it's almost like taking Indy ML, but instead of having to lay -250, you can get + money on it.

 

I felt if Indy won, Peyton would have around an 80% chance of getting the MVP, so since I was pretty sure Indy would win, that would be a very smart bet at those odds.

 

Congrats!

[Gdawg]

Good post - I know a couple of books had odds between +120 and +180 about 1.5 weeks before the Super Bowl.

 

That was a smart bet - because it's almost like taking Indy ML, but instead of having to lay -250, you can get + money on it.

 

I felt if Indy won, Peyton would have around an 80% chance of getting the MVP, so since I was pretty sure Indy would win, that would be a very smart bet at those odds.

 

Congrats!

 

 

Thanks Dre, that was my line of thinking once one of the guys suggested in the Gamblers Anonymous thread that the Prop would be a good bet if the Colts won. I figured barring an incredible game from someone else, Manning would be the MVP if the Colts won. Rhodes ALMOST made me a loser on that one, at least I thought he was going to

[rattsass]

Thanks Dre, that was my line of thinking once one of the guys suggested in the Gamblers Anonymous thread that the Prop would be a good bet if the Colts won.

 

 

Actually I mentioned that in another thread talking about prop bets. Since most of my stake was on the Colts anyway I did not make that bet. I'm glad some did use it to their benefit though. It was a great hedge for the Bears bettors.

[Gdawg]

Actually I mentioned that in another thread talking about prop bets. Since most of my stake was on the Colts anyway I did not make that bet. I'm glad some did use it to their benefit though. It was a great hedge for the Bears bettors.

 

 

Ah, that's right...it was in a prop bet thread. Well thank you Rattass, you were right! I had the Colts to win SB Future, Bears +7.5 and the Bear ML, so a little extra insurance seemed in order

 

Thanks again for the inspiration

[xMRogers]

Steel - something I tried to do but couldn't get all the stats was the rundown of the moneyline over the years. Essentially, if you bet every underdog on the ML every week, how would you have done?

 

This year, would have made a KILLING - I had pinnacles' ML lines for the whole season, and for the year, believe it totaled up over 75 units (based on 1 unit per all 256 games), or equivalent of hitting 66% of straight bets. (unfortunately, analysis on home PC)

 

Last year though, I would think you'd have gotten killed - i didn't have the ML, but had the lines - figured out a line to ML trend based on this years games, and applied - would have lost about 58 units. However, I gotta think last years ML paid a bit more possibly as dogs only SU won at a 25% clip (won this year at a 42% clip).

 

Year before, dogs SU won at a 33% clip, and my number showed a +8 units, all coming in week 17 when it was plus 10 units by itself.

 

Wondering what the historic trend on ML betting is the last 7 years.

[Steeltown Dre]

Steel - something I tried to do but couldn't get all the stats was the rundown of the moneyline over the years. Essentially, if you bet every underdog on the ML every week, how would you have done?

 

This year, would have made a KILLING - I had pinnacles' ML lines for the whole season, and for the year, believe it totaled up over 75 units (based on 1 unit per all 256 games), or equivalent of hitting 66% of straight bets. (unfortunately, analysis on home PC)

 

Last year though, I would think you'd have gotten killed - i didn't have the ML, but had the lines - figured out a line to ML trend based on this years games, and applied - would have lost about 58 units. However, I gotta think last years ML paid a bit more possibly as dogs only SU won at a 25% clip (won this year at a 42% clip).

 

Year before, dogs SU won at a 33% clip, and my number showed a +8 units, all coming in week 17 when it was plus 10 units by itself.

 

Wondering what the historic trend on ML betting is the last 7 years.

 

 

You got it:

 

I took every game since 91. I bet $100 on the dog ML. So if the bet lost, I lost $100. If it won, I won the ML payout. I used the following payouts for MLs (the spread is on the left, the ML on the right):

 

1 +107

1.5 +111

2 +115

2.5 +130

3 +145

3.5 +162.5

4 +180

4.5 +195

5 +210

5.5 +225

6 +240

6.5 +265

7 +290

7.5 +305

8 +320

 

and so forth.

 

So a $100 bet on a 5 point underdog would win you $210.

 

I posted the results on my blog:

 

http://sharpfootballanalysis.blogspot.com/

 

I have the same numbers as you (25% ML dogs won in 05-06, and 33% ML dogs won in 05-06)

 

But since I am using "typical" or average MLs, instead of actual MLs for each game, my $ numbers may be a little different than yours.

 

However, that makes them a little more "pure" or unjuiced, based on how Pinny wants to adjust them for certain situations.

 

You will see it's not really a good way to make money, as you would be putting up $25,600 to win about $585 on avg.

 

However, the interesting thing is to compare 96 and 95. In both seasons, 81 ML dogs won. However in 96 you would have lost $74 and in 95 you would have won $2,811.

 

The reason being in 96 the avg line that ML dogs covered was 4.2. Whereas in 95, the avg line that ML dogs covered was 5.1. So even that little change in the payout per bet amounts to a $2,900 swing...

 

But interesting analysis - thanks for the idea.

[xMRogers]

yea - the key is to find the right years it appears (there's a heck of an analysis for you - find the years where a trend pays off, then state : make sure you bet the trend in the years it pays)

 

I'll grab my pinnacle analysis from this year over the wkend and pm it to you only cause I think it may make a diff to the Spread to ML conversion.

 

The one thing I wonder - come midpoint of a fav's season, you know it's a favs season usually - if you quit at week 9 any year you were down at that point, how's it work out. I think I'm trying to back into a proof that if I could somehow have avoided the '05 bloodbath, since 2000, this is a big moneymaker....but haven't been able to do that on my own yet...

 

I do think it may be a big moneymaker in just weeks 1 (who knows what's going to happen) and weeks 17 (who knows what's going to happen) - we did it this year week 17, but couldnt' get the 4 biggest ML bet cause none of us had a Pinny account. For the other 12 games, we lose $90...the 4 games would have won $700 combined (and then one of the guys not part of it but on all the emails pipes up - "oh, a pinnacle account - yea, I hav eone of those" on Monday)