[h=1]Where contrarian betting value lies in NFL Week 6[/h]David Solar, ESPN Chalk
ESPN INSIDER
When we discuss contrarian betting in the NFL, we include many strategies that can be used to extract value each week. Betting against the public is one of our cornerstone philosophies, but we also recommend picking teams on losing streaks, fading winning streaks, and taking the league's least popular teams.
Investors familiar with the concept of "buy low and sell high" may be surprised to learn sports betting is no different. Teams never offer more value than they do after a loss, and there is never a more favorable time to bet against a team than after a victory.
Granted, the term "loss" can seem ambiguous. Our strategies typically focus on underdogs, who are often able to lose the game while still covering the spread. Just last week our picks posted a 2-2 ATS record although those teams went 1-3 straight up.
What happens when bettors are repeatedly burned by the same teams? What happens when these teams fail to cover the spread, and bankrolls suffer? When bettors start to lose money faster than Nicolas Cage at a paleontology auction, panic sets in. That's when opportunistic contrarians can capitalize on these artificially inflated lines.
Using our Bet Labs data analysis software, we tested whether bettors overreacted to teams that had performed poorly against the spread (ATS). Our hypothesis was that bettors would be unwilling to take teams that had consistently failed to cover the spread, and the value would be amplified when their opponent had been profitable.<offer style="box-sizing: border-box;"></offer>
We found that teams with an ATS winning percentage of 30 percent or less went 514-458 ATS. This figure was somewhat misleading since it included a number of 0-1 teams. Since we wanted to highlight teams that had repeatedly failed to cover, we examined games from Week 6 or later. This addition cut our sample size in half, but increased our winning percentage from 52.9 percent to 55.7 percent.
For our next step, we looked at opposing teams with an ATS winning percentage of at least 51 percent, which once again cut our sample size in half but improved our system's win rate from 55.7 percent to 62.6 percent.
<aside class="inline inline-table" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); clear: both; margin: 6px 0px 18px; padding: 15px 0px; width: 570px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
ESPN INSIDER
When we discuss contrarian betting in the NFL, we include many strategies that can be used to extract value each week. Betting against the public is one of our cornerstone philosophies, but we also recommend picking teams on losing streaks, fading winning streaks, and taking the league's least popular teams.
Investors familiar with the concept of "buy low and sell high" may be surprised to learn sports betting is no different. Teams never offer more value than they do after a loss, and there is never a more favorable time to bet against a team than after a victory.
Granted, the term "loss" can seem ambiguous. Our strategies typically focus on underdogs, who are often able to lose the game while still covering the spread. Just last week our picks posted a 2-2 ATS record although those teams went 1-3 straight up.
What happens when bettors are repeatedly burned by the same teams? What happens when these teams fail to cover the spread, and bankrolls suffer? When bettors start to lose money faster than Nicolas Cage at a paleontology auction, panic sets in. That's when opportunistic contrarians can capitalize on these artificially inflated lines.
Using our Bet Labs data analysis software, we tested whether bettors overreacted to teams that had performed poorly against the spread (ATS). Our hypothesis was that bettors would be unwilling to take teams that had consistently failed to cover the spread, and the value would be amplified when their opponent had been profitable.<offer style="box-sizing: border-box;"></offer>
We found that teams with an ATS winning percentage of 30 percent or less went 514-458 ATS. This figure was somewhat misleading since it included a number of 0-1 teams. Since we wanted to highlight teams that had repeatedly failed to cover, we examined games from Week 6 or later. This addition cut our sample size in half, but increased our winning percentage from 52.9 percent to 55.7 percent.
For our next step, we looked at opposing teams with an ATS winning percentage of at least 51 percent, which once again cut our sample size in half but improved our system's win rate from 55.7 percent to 62.6 percent.
<aside class="inline inline-table" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221); clear: both; margin: 6px 0px 18px; padding: 15px 0px; width: 570px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
CRITERIA | ATS RECORD | UNITS WON | ROI |
---|---|---|---|
ATS Record <30% | 514-458 (52.9%) | +30.78 | +3.2% |
ATS Record <30%, Week 6 or later | 245-195 (55.7%) | +37.45 | +8.5% |
ATS Record <30%, Opp ATS Record >51%, Week 6 or later | 124-74 (62.6%) | +43.97 | +22.2% |
* Closing lines from Pinnacle were used to determine records. |