ONLINE SPORTSBOOKS

Go Back   MajorWager Forums > MW - Online Sportsbooks > Mess Hall
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Mess Hall Online Sportsbook Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 12-18-2007, 01:21 PM
Rogthedodger Rogthedodger is offline
Editor-in-Chief, MajorWager.com
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,871
Default The Favorite Bias in College Football Bowl Lines...By Jay Graziani

Those who follow college football year-to-year know that bowl season historically represents one of the best periods for backing the underdogs across the board. Since 1997, bowl underdogs have gone 148-106 against the spread, for a very respectable 57% winning percentage. A $100 wager on every underdog the past 10 years would have put over 3 grand in your pocket, and would have turned a profit every season except 1997 and 2003. There has historically been about a 2 point bias towards the favorite in bowl games, and it has shown no sign of disappearing in recent years.

Underdog overperformance is not just reflected in against-the-spread results - underdogs in bowl games have won 42% of their games outright over the past decade, resulting in even greater profits to those who have backed them straight up. A $100 wager on every bowl underdog on the moneyline would have returned over $5000 in the past decade. Throw out 1997, when underdogs went a brutal 1-19 outright, and this simple strategy gave you 45% winners and about $7000 in extra holiday cash in the past 9 years.

While the historical results are impressive, "past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results" is a mantra worth following when it comes to sports handicapping. There are three caveats to withdrawing your 401(k) and splitting it amongst the underdogs this bowl season. First, this underdog bias is fairly well known in the football gambling community. As with any situational angle, oddsmakers and sharp bettors can be expected to eventually catch onto this trend, causing lines to adjust to compensate for the situation. In fact, a 3-year moving average of the return from this angle has shown a fairly strong downward trend since 2000 including a losing season last year. Only time will tell if that means this angle is beginning to lose (or has already lost) its usefulness.

A second issue, fairly common in football handicapping, is the limited sample size. While the historical results seem solid on the surface, they could be a result of random chance. Although we are looking at 10 years of data, that only represents just over 250 games. With such a limited amount of data, it is hard to say with confidence whether these results are significant and predictive.

A final caveat to consider for the 2007-08 bowl season is the performance of underdogs during this past regular season. 2007 NCAA football was marked by an apparent increase in parity, as highly-regarded teams seem to fall to inferior opponents week after week, and every Sunday brought a completely reshuffled Top 25. The public at-large knows that this has been an "any given Saturday" type of season, and that will likely be represented to some degree in the betting lines, quite possibly deflating these lines below historical levels and leading to a weakening of this angle's profitablility.

Past results show that a successful regular season for underdogs generally results in a sub-par bowl showing. In the past decade, the five worst regular season for underdogs against the spread represented 5 of the 6 best seasons in that span to back the bowl underdog on the moneyline. The 5 years in which underdogs outperformed in the regular season actually showed a loss in this betting system. This trend also holds for against-the-spread results, with underdogs in "outperforming" seasons actually ending up less than 50% ATS in the subsequent bowl games. An analysis of average margin-of-victory gives the same results. This predicts a below-average year for underdogs in the 2007-08 bowls.

While 2007 was good for underdogs ATS, it was the 3rd worst season in the past 10 years to bet underdogs straight up (on the moneyline). This is another negative indicator, as years in which the underdogs won outright at a rate less than the 10-year average shaved about 10 points off their outright bowl wins percentage. While this subset still returned a historical profit, it is another reason for some caution when backing the underdogs this year.

Notably, the 2007 season was the second best year for across-the-board underdogs in the last decade. Using the available (limited) data, this suggests that the 2007-2008 underdogs will underperform in the bowl games, both straight up and against the spread. This is not surprising, as bowl season tends to favor "contrarian" handicapping which goes against public opinion. With the recent strong performance of underdogs (particularly against big "public" favorites), we can expect the value side of the bowl lines might lie with the favorites this year. Overall, the data at hand predicts an unusually tepid bowl season for underdog bettors. While it is difficult to bypass an angle holding such a great recent track record, those who have followed this very profitable moneyline strategy in the past may want to cut back a little this year and err on the side of caution in what looks to be a down season.

12-18-07
Jay Graziani
MajorWager.com
graziani@majorwager.com

http://www.majorwager.com/frontline-602.html
__________________
Editor-in-Chief
MajorWager.com
editor@majorwager.com
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 12-18-2007, 02:52 PM
zoso zoso is offline
Private 1st Class
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 29
Default

Nice article. Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 12-18-2007, 03:04 PM
jwunderdog jwunderdog is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 899
Default

Quit writing articles and get working on our picks DG!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 12-18-2007, 06:00 PM
drunkguy drunkguy is offline
MW Mod & Writer, Jay Graziani
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 8,678
Send a message via MSN to drunkguy Send a message via Yahoo to drunkguy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwunderdog View Post
Quit writing articles and get working on our picks DG!!!!!!!!!!!!
hey man, I'll have them tonight

my 7.5 winners to go with your 7.5 losers should put us right in the middle of the pack in this contest
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 12-18-2007, 07:05 PM
MRW2276 MRW2276 is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,366
Default

"While 2007 was good for underdogs ATS, it was the 3rd worst season in the past 10 years to bet underdogs straight up (on the moneyline)"


Are you factoring in Stanford +8,000, Cuse +7000, Pitt +4500, and App St +6000 (if your book had it) into the ML equation? If so don't see how these 4 alone didn't put across the board ML up huge as that's over 250 games at 100 bet each..
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 12-18-2007, 07:23 PM
robin robin is offline
Two Star General
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MRW2276 View Post
"While 2007 was good for underdogs ATS, it was the 3rd worst season in the past 10 years to bet underdogs straight up (on the moneyline)"


Are you factoring in Stanford +8,000, Cuse +7000, Pitt +4500, and App St +6000 (if your book had it) into the ML equation? If so don't see how these 4 alone didn't put across the board ML up huge as that's over 250 games at 100 bet each..


youre obv right....
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 12-18-2007, 07:37 PM
jwunderdog jwunderdog is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 899
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robin View Post
youre obv right....
I think he is talking about the 2007 bowl results not 2007/2008 regular season.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 12-18-2007, 07:41 PM
drunkguy drunkguy is offline
MW Mod & Writer, Jay Graziani
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 8,678
Send a message via MSN to drunkguy Send a message via Yahoo to drunkguy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MRW2276 View Post
"While 2007 was good for underdogs ATS, it was the 3rd worst season in the past 10 years to bet underdogs straight up (on the moneyline)"


Are you factoring in Stanford +8,000, Cuse +7000, Pitt +4500, and App St +6000 (if your book had it) into the ML equation? If so don't see how these 4 alone didn't put across the board ML up huge as that's over 250 games at 100 bet each..
should have clarified...I am just talking on a % win basis, not moneyline return.

I made an assumption that overall the average moneyline would be about even from year to year over the ~800 games. It's quite possible it isn't but I haven't had the time to look at the moneylines for each year.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 12-18-2007, 07:52 PM
robin robin is offline
Two Star General
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,146
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drunkguy View Post
should have clarified...I am just talking on a % win basis, not moneyline return.

I made an assumption that overall the average moneyline would be about even from year to year over the ~800 games. It's quite possible it isn't but I haven't had the time to look at the moneylines for each year.


the numbers may be somehwat equal. the huge difference is the number of gigantic underdogs that won outright this year, when they havent in past years. this skews the data hugely
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 12-18-2007, 08:15 PM
MRW2276 MRW2276 is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,366
Default

Ok cool drunk I thought maybe those upsets weren't included in the article as you don't usually see ML on them in vegas and only a few places online offer ML that high.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 12-18-2007, 09:19 PM
drunkguy drunkguy is offline
MW Mod & Writer, Jay Graziani
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 8,678
Send a message via MSN to drunkguy Send a message via Yahoo to drunkguy
Default

to be honest it didn't even cross my mind, I forgot about the huge upsets this year


it's a good point and something worth considering. If anything, it probably is contributing to bringing the price of the favorites down.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 12-18-2007, 10:01 PM
drunkguy drunkguy is offline
MW Mod & Writer, Jay Graziani
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 8,678
Send a message via MSN to drunkguy Send a message via Yahoo to drunkguy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwunderdog View Post
Quit writing articles and get working on our picks DG!!!!!!!!!!!!
hey, when we gonna see some hoops dude?




I need me some linemovers
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 12-18-2007, 10:31 PM
KoolPappy KoolPappy is offline
Three Star General
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,121
Default

Southern Mississippi +13 is an absolute no-brainer vs. Cincinnati...I'M IN BIG...
__________________

Pappy

~ Do more for others than you do for yourself.


Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
College football live favorite of the weekend! luke m. Mess Hall 6 10-03-2007 11:18 AM
Looking Back on the First Weekend of College Football, 2007...By Jay Graziani Rogthedodger Mess Hall 0 09-04-2007 12:32 PM
wondering where your favorite college football stadium got it's name? Whistle-Tip Mess Hall 0 03-09-2004 03:30 AM
College Football Bowl Game and College Hoops SureBetHandicapping The NFL Football Field 0 12-16-2003 12:33 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:11 AM.

Please be advised that if you are wagering over the internet, this is illegal in many jurisdictions. A wagering site may be operating legally at their location but it may still be illegal for you to wager from your location. We suggest you check on the legal situation from any jurisdiction in which you may wager.
 

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6