Any evidence to support-unpopular teams are good value?

The Actuary · 08-28-2002, 03:50 PM

This seems like a no brainer theory.

But why is it that team sports point spread records and moneyline results are dominated by the top teams year after year?

I just finished doing an exhaustive dbase study into American horseracing. Clearly, the results suggested the best bets were on the "popular" trainers/jockeys/horses at good odds. Not on longshots with hopeless connections. Now I know racing has a "wow" effect, we came to gamble, we came for a life changing type of payout. But the winning roi bias is on horses that are competent but overlooked by the crowd. In essence 5-8/1 shots that go postward at 10/1 and up.

I think this theory is hogwash, the assumption that an expansion team vs the Supe winner, will yield at the very minimum a juice free bet on the expansion team.

Of course the theory makes perfect sense, but so do alot of other fallascious gambling theories.

Any proof? Anyone? Buehler.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

TA

count zero · 08-28-2002, 05:02 PM

NFL ATS records certainly do not support the idea that the "top" teams are the ones to bet on. Just a couple of admittedly imperfect indicators: the well-known ATS dive taken by Super Bowl champs the following year, and the somewhat less-known winning record ATS of teams that start the year 0-4 SU. As a rule, and I'm speaking only on the basis of personal experience, the best NFL teams to back are the mid-level and lower mid-level teams as dogs.

Buehler????

Machiavelli · 08-28-2002, 05:59 PM

I think we need to clarify whether we are talking about just good teams (which could be easily statistically studied) or popular teams (which would have to be subjectively statistically studied).

If we are talking about the latter, the results of the study will hinge upon how we decide when the Rams changed from an "underachiever" to a dynasty, etc.

maria sharapova · 08-28-2002, 06:09 PM

Actuary- Regarding your study on Horseracing,i'm curious
1) how did you define the term "popular"--what was the cutoff point??
2)For trainers/jockeys that have recently(last couple of years)become
more well-known,did you use their earlier results before they were public darlings???
For example,a trainer such as Scott Lake.Five years ago not well-known,and probably
more profitable to wager on at that time.(perhaps not)By including his races from
5 years ago,you might be polluting your test sample with your research sample.
3)what about trainers that were public favourites but whose win% shows sign
of erosion.For example over 10 years ago,if i was betting on Aqueduct,the top
guys were Moschera,Hushion,and Ferriola(is he still alive??). When does one finally
give up on this type of trainer???
Anyway good work
Ciao from maria

The Actuary · 08-28-2002, 07:12 PM

I do not think betting trainer/jockey data alone will yield a profit. There is a guy who's name escapes me who specializes in nothing but trainer information and claims he is successful, however those that subscribe to his website say otherwise.

My information was based on races in the past year and a half. The trainer ratings are based on a rolling year.

It was merely a variable contained in a disproportionate number of longshots.

Bad teams perpetually have bad records vs the spread and good teams good numbers. A team chosen at random seems much more likely to have an ATS commensurate with it's straight up number then not.

The Actuary · 08-28-2002, 07:18 PM

Just as an aside, I once posted it was a bad bet to bet on the Lakers at virtually any time after a championship or two. Obviously a very popular team. However I believe now that was idiotic, and the best bets are the occurances when teams such as the Lakers are underrated.

The Actuary · 08-28-2002, 07:54 PM

Count that evidence is interesting.

It seems to stamp the NFL as different. Because any glance at recent tables for the other four sports seems to have quite a few previous year's semi-finalists, finalists and champions. After I posted this I went to look at MLB, world champ AZ at the top, perpetual power ATL is second, the bottom populated by bad teams. Granted NYY are mid pack, however they're nearly break even. I remeber looking at a couple years NHL and was surprised to see the Wings at or near the top.

buckeye · 08-28-2002, 08:13 PM

I'm going to display my vast ignorance here, so indulge me.

Mach mentioned "when bad teams turn good", and I'll say vice-versa as well. Are the BULK of the "unbalanced covers" for a team in transition done before the public and linesmakers have CAUGHT ON to their transformation? In other words do they cover early ( for teams on the rise ) and then settle back to 50-50 once the linesmakers and gen public catch on that they are better than anticipated? And conversely did they fail to cover their first say 5/6 games and now that we know they really do suck the opportunity to "fade them" is gone because the line will reflect their newfound suckiness?

If so, then only those who were sharp enough to know "going in" that they were a transition team, could have benefitted from it - so it is worthless to try to ride something either way.

I'm not so sure that the 49ers heyday where they seemed to cover the majority despite being a public favorite is the norm. I think most teams surprise early then everyone adjusts by week 6-7 or so. So even if the good teams ATS record is 11-5 at year's end, if they were 6-1 early and then settled back down what good does it do unless you know BEFORE they were 6-1 that they were likely to over-achieve vs the line in the early going. My guess is that this is what happens more than that they hit a more evened and consistent 2/3 ratio from beginning to end of season. Do the #'s verify this? I am saying that my guess is the 11-5 would more likely be something like WWLWWWWLWLLWWLW than WLWWLWLWWWLWWLWW sort of pattern to get there.

In some ways it is like the "do you ride a streak or figure it is OVERDUE to lose?" debate. It is mostly fallacious thinking and each game/line is better off judged in isolation from such things as covers-to-date or even SU-to-date as they are "probably" reflected in the lines and un-useable/leverageable as an angle. Even if your power ratings start out better than the oddsmakers there will be an early season "catch-up" period that may well normalize out the edge over time. It often depends on how good you are, I suppose.

Does this make any sense???

Machiavelli · 08-28-2002, 09:06 PM

"If so, then only those who were sharp enough to know "going in" that they were a transition team, could have benefitted from it - so it is worthless to try to ride something either way."

I think this makes a ton of sense.

"I am saying that my guess is the 11-5 would more likely be something like WWLWWWWLWLLWWLW than WLWWLWLWWWLWWLWW sort of pattern to get there."

This would be a tough thing to measure, as a "balanced" or "unbalanced" pattern would have to be defined.

Machiavelli · 08-28-2002, 09:29 PM

The thing I am more interested in is the so-called "Notre Dame" effect, for teams that have a ton of fans outside their market.

I will try to create an simple study that is unbiased.

Let's set the time period to a nice round number, 10 years.

Now, let's try to choose the teams that were most "popular" going into the past ten years. Again, let's try to choose a nice round number, the top 5 most popular teams going into the 1993 season. My guesses would be:

Cowboys
49ers
Packers
Raiders
Dolphins

(Honorable mention to Bears, Steelers, Broncos, and Redskins)

That would be a pretty decent sample size, 800 games minus the games that these teams played against one another. Would also be interested in 1983-2001 (twenty years) since the same teams were pretty popular (except maybe SF) throughout the entire 20 years, too.

ChuckyTheGoat · 08-29-2002, 03:12 AM

I don't have any hard data in front of me. But NFL is definitely a different animal. It's such a public sport, that betting on the good teams is usually not cheap. One of the hardest things to do is cover AFTER you've racked up a lot of covers. In general terms, it's a contrarian league.

count zero · 08-29-2002, 04:41 AM

Here are the unverified, unchecked results for Mach's thought experiment:

5 public teams(DAL, SF, GB, OAK, MIA), all games (1992-2001, 10 years):

Year W-L

1992 38- 36
1993 34- 36
1994 35- 32
1995 34- 36
1996 35- 35
1997 26- 40
1998 33- 36
1999 29- 41
2000 38- 30
2001 39- 30 341- 352 49.2%

H 179-167
R 162-185
F 241-258
D 100-94
HD 29-12

5 public teams as favorites only (1992-2001):

Year W-L

1992 24- 23
1993 25- 30
1994 27- 26
1995 31- 33
1996 28- 29
1997 19- 31
1998 25- 25
1999 15- 27
2000 20- 16
2001 25- 18 239-258 48.1%

H 148-155
R 91-103

5 public teams, all games (1983-2001, 19 years):

Year W-L

1983 39- 30
1984 41- 29
1985 42- 31
1986 32- 39
1987 29- 24
1988 30- 43
1989 35- 32
1990 39- 33
1991 39- 35
1992 38- 36
1993 34- 36
1994 35- 32
1995 34- 36
1996 35- 35
1997 26- 40
1998 33- 36
1999 29- 41
2000 38- 30
2001 39- 30 667- 648 50.7%

H 340-316
R 327-332
F 443-448
D 224-200
HD 70-40

5 public teams as favorites only (1983-2001):

Year W-L

1983 33- 28
1984 34- 26
1985 31- 25
1986 21- 24
1987 11- 15
1988 8- 18
1989 17- 15
1990 25- 17
1991 22- 20
1992 24- 23
1993 25- 30
1994 27- 26
1995 31- 33
1996 28- 29
1997 19- 31
1998 25- 25
1999 15- 27
2000 20- 16
2001 25- 18 441- 446 49.7%

H 268-274
R 173-172

Let's also look at the other side of the equation. Here are the results for teams that lost SU in each of the first 4 weeks of the season. This is only an approximation, since I didn't account for teams with byes in one of the first 4 weeks that went on to lose their first 4 games over 5 weeks.

Year W-L

1983 12- 11
1984 18- 17
1985 16- 19
1986 21- 15
1987 0- 0
1988 5- 7
1989 15- 8
1990 0- 0
1991 20- 26
1992 24- 12
1993 23- 13
1994 10- 13
1995 14- 10
1996 21- 15
1997 19- 14
1998 26- 20
1999 32- 27
2000 17- 18
2001 19- 16 312- 261 54.5%

H 161-123
R 151-138
F 59-55
D 253-206
HD 113-81

Finally, I should mention a thread I've run for the past 4 years at a variety of sites called Stupid Play Of The Week. It effectively finds teams that carry extra value by virtue of being undesireable betting prospects (it asks users of mechanical systems to submit the plays their system came up with that they've thrown out as unbettable "mistakes" by the system). Over 4 years, SPTW has hit 155-106 59.4%, and many of the contributors were very unsophisticated players. In the hands of a good handicapper, it's even stronger -- our own KingOfTheSquares hit something like 13 out of 16 one year, and did almost as well another. Again, this is somewhat anecdotal, but it's a truism in the NFL that the plays that "can't miss" tend to do worse than the ones that are hard to pull the trigger on.

KingOfTheSquares · 08-29-2002, 05:23 AM

An interesting thread...

I believe that with few exceptions in the NFL, the line will catch up to the "new" top teams once the initial shock is over, i.e. a poor team becomes a winner. At the start of that trend, the new "winner" is beating the line virtually every game for 3-4 games and then the linesmakers (public) bid up the price. One of the few exceptions was the Rams in '99 when they consistantly won ATS even after they were discovered. Another anomaly was the 49ers on the road during their glory years. In SF's case, I believe that was due, at least partially, to the excellent treatment that Ed DeBartolo gave to the team while they were on the road (vs. the sometime crappy wind conditions in Candelstick while at home).

The loser teams who are seriously bad tend to be much worst and the line tends to not catch up to them. Not sure why this is true but when regressed out, these teams tend to fall out of the 18 point "normal" difference between the top and bottom team of any given year. And by same token, the Rams of '99 came in above the same 18 dif.

I'd love to find some factors that would predict when a poor team is about to break out, so far, no luck...and the toads are usually pretty easily to identify...but for some reason, I can't hardly bring myself to bet against them. Must be those monster chalk Favs that scare me off.

The Actuary · 08-29-2002, 03:44 PM

Thank you that data Count.

I think Chucky's post is correct in that the NFL is the most public of leagues.

Are the last two years an aberration?

Also as a contributor to your thread, I found that interesting, I did not realize you actually kept records of it. But am an unsophisticated contributor of two wins.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

TA

Machiavelli · 08-29-2002, 06:27 PM

Great, thanks count.

buckeye · 08-29-2002, 07:26 PM

What KOTS said!

My gibberish was an attempt to say what KOTS put into much more structured verbiage! The RAMS and 49ers being anomolies. I don't track the numbers but I also thought that unexpectedly fugly teams covered more at the end of the season as well because of an over-shift by the public.

This thread's a keeper!

The Actuary · 09-02-2002, 08:55 PM

<< To a certain degree, yes," said Cesar Robaina, odds manager for LVSC, which makes and distributes the betting line for most of the hotels in Nevada. "You have to force people to take the 'dog in certain games." >>

Interesting quote from an interesting article http://www.vegasinsider.com/vhtml/u/...666526,00.html

Generally, the sbi column is great contrarian fodder, but Cesar has earned my respect over the last couple of years. But c'mon no 10-0 or 9-1 starts in the VI contest this year, Ceasar give us break.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

TA