They are almost a non factor, unless there is a string of eithr winners or losers, then I will look to see if the line has been hedged one way or the other.
But even then the irony is a lot of people see a team with 7 straight covers they are more apt to bet on them anyway, so the line will actually go up regardless of whether it was hedged that way or not.
Basically look to find some value going against a streak if the lines are being effected.
But even then the irony is a lot of people see a team with 7 straight covers they are more apt to bet on them anyway, so the line will actually go up regardless of whether it was hedged that way or not.
Basically look to find some value going against a streak if the lines are being effected.
For me, ATS records is a fundamental variable in capping. When a team is 15-3 SU at home but only 5-13 ATS, its indicatives that the linemaker is overvaluing the 15-3 teams strenght and that value lies on the betting the other side of the 15-3 team.
Basically we as gamblers are interested being on the right side of who wins the money,not who wins the game SU. ATS records point us in the right direction of where the value lies.
Basically we as gamblers are interested being on the right side of who wins the money,not who wins the game SU. ATS records point us in the right direction of where the value lies.
To me it what goes up must come down.If a team has won 5 straight ats, linesmaker would start over valuing them.
Last year in nfl if a team had won say 3 or 4 in a row ats, and were playing a team that had lost 3 or 4 ats, Id play the "due"team with some success, and somtimes you were still playing a fav...I stopped refining and filtering a long time ago.
Last year in nfl if a team had won say 3 or 4 in a row ats, and were playing a team that had lost 3 or 4 ats, Id play the "due"team with some success, and somtimes you were still playing a fav...I stopped refining and filtering a long time ago.
Very good question.
As a suggestion, you might want to go deeper than just the ATS "W" or "L".
You might want to pay attention to the ATS margin of cover or no cover.
There's a difference in performance in a team which covers 1 and another team which covers by 21.
Handicapping and keeping track of ATS margins is difficult because you end up doing the tabulations in your head and IN ALL CASES, you're doing it for both teams.
Kinda' like providing info for both sides of the equation.
You may also want to consider the team role and its ATS performance.
As a suggestion, you might want to go deeper than just the ATS "W" or "L".
You might want to pay attention to the ATS margin of cover or no cover.
There's a difference in performance in a team which covers 1 and another team which covers by 21.
Handicapping and keeping track of ATS margins is difficult because you end up doing the tabulations in your head and IN ALL CASES, you're doing it for both teams.
Kinda' like providing info for both sides of the equation.
You may also want to consider the team role and its ATS performance.
I'm going to play the games based on my own spread vs the linemakers, but once I determine a side I'll look at other factors to determine how much I should risk. The ATS rec figures in there. For instance, if I'm betting team A on the road and I see that they have a bad ATS rec away I'll reduce the wager considerably.
I pay almost zero attention to ATS streaks. I feel the same way as Patriot and Wantitall.
I think that a lot of the people that are successful realize that this is a market and treat it as such. One of the hardest things in this industry is becoming objective, you almost have to give up being a fan. I've still got my horns tho'. That being said, the way to profit from a market is to buy low, sell high. A lot of those ATS streaks jack the prices, so the value is on the other side. If you are not on a streak that goes 9-1 from the beginning, then you will be better of betting against at some point since usually the reverse will be +130 or higher after it goes 6-1 or so. I look at regression to the mean, the farther something goes past 70% the more I look to go fairly large on the other side.
Some teams do tend to play overs or unders against each other, but I dont pay attention to that ATS streak, I look at it from a team tendency standpoint, and the team tendency causes the streak, not the other way around.
I know that a lot of times an off-number really jumps out at me, and I trying to figure out what I'm missing, then I see the "team x is 9-1 ATS vs. team y after a win..." sort of stat, and I realize that is why the price is so off on the dog, the public is taking the other team on a trend, and makes the value that much greater on the other team.
There are some trends or angles that DO hold value, but for this to be the case they must be correlated to some sort of causation. They hold value b/c they are events OUTSIDE the numbers, they are based on human nature which supercedes the historical statistics on which the prices are based. I find the human element in SOME CASES to be much more predictive than the raw numbers, and I highlight these events as I come across them and they are some of my strongest wagers. I dont want to give away too much, but betting against Favre in domes is a relatively public angle I use, and my two big NCAA wagers were based a little bit on human elements, but just as a note: I put 2% on a lot of BIGXII games, I just put a little more on these b/c of something that I see.
[This message was edited by ATX on August 15, 2003 at 01:59 PM.]
I think that a lot of the people that are successful realize that this is a market and treat it as such. One of the hardest things in this industry is becoming objective, you almost have to give up being a fan. I've still got my horns tho'. That being said, the way to profit from a market is to buy low, sell high. A lot of those ATS streaks jack the prices, so the value is on the other side. If you are not on a streak that goes 9-1 from the beginning, then you will be better of betting against at some point since usually the reverse will be +130 or higher after it goes 6-1 or so. I look at regression to the mean, the farther something goes past 70% the more I look to go fairly large on the other side.
Some teams do tend to play overs or unders against each other, but I dont pay attention to that ATS streak, I look at it from a team tendency standpoint, and the team tendency causes the streak, not the other way around.
I know that a lot of times an off-number really jumps out at me, and I trying to figure out what I'm missing, then I see the "team x is 9-1 ATS vs. team y after a win..." sort of stat, and I realize that is why the price is so off on the dog, the public is taking the other team on a trend, and makes the value that much greater on the other team.
There are some trends or angles that DO hold value, but for this to be the case they must be correlated to some sort of causation. They hold value b/c they are events OUTSIDE the numbers, they are based on human nature which supercedes the historical statistics on which the prices are based. I find the human element in SOME CASES to be much more predictive than the raw numbers, and I highlight these events as I come across them and they are some of my strongest wagers. I dont want to give away too much, but betting against Favre in domes is a relatively public angle I use, and my two big NCAA wagers were based a little bit on human elements, but just as a note: I put 2% on a lot of BIGXII games, I just put a little more on these b/c of something that I see.
[This message was edited by ATX on August 15, 2003 at 01:59 PM.]
ATX:
I want to elaborate a little on something you mentioned and that is regression to the mean. Let me give a simplistic example of how I understand that.
If you flip a coin 1000 times it will come up heads nearly 500 times. Let's say you flip a coin 100 times and you get heads 30 times and tails 70 times. A person would think that out of the remaining 900 flips the coin *should* come up heads 470 times and tails 430 times in order for both heads and tails come out to 500 results each. Therefore if you bet on heads for the remaining flips you will come out ahead.
I have sometimes thought there may be some sort of link between seemingly random events such as this but that is a more esoteric idea that need not be played out here.
I want to elaborate a little on something you mentioned and that is regression to the mean. Let me give a simplistic example of how I understand that.
If you flip a coin 1000 times it will come up heads nearly 500 times. Let's say you flip a coin 100 times and you get heads 30 times and tails 70 times. A person would think that out of the remaining 900 flips the coin *should* come up heads 470 times and tails 430 times in order for both heads and tails come out to 500 results each. Therefore if you bet on heads for the remaining flips you will come out ahead.
I have sometimes thought there may be some sort of link between seemingly random events such as this but that is a more esoteric idea that need not be played out here.
Regression to the mean & the law of averages.
I think there's two phenomena getting described here.
The law of averages relates to the coin toss example.Actual occurrances tend towards their true proportions over time.
The important word is proportions.If you get a 70/30 coin toss split over the first 100 tosses the overall proportions need only to tend towards the true 50% probability over time...& it can do this if the next 900 are evenly split.There's no need for heads or tails to catch up.
So an initial inbalance doesn't help you predict the future.
This may not apply to ats quotes though which must factor public perception & public perception of the law of averages is almost always based around the erroneous idea of the "straggler" catching up.
Regression to the mean applies to natural occurrances(number of points scored per game or average rushing yrds per game perhaps),so I'm not sure if you can apply it totally to what is essentially an artificial man made ats market.
Here's how I understant RttM.Good teams usually remain good,but not by as much & bad teams remain bad,but again not by as much as the season progresses.
Say a team is averaging 30 points per game(forget how you decide this & over how many games) & teams overall in the league are averaging only 20.
Then your best guess of how that team will score in the future could be
30x(1-R)+(20xR),where R is the regression constant.
Deciding the size of R is the step that requires most work.If in this example you make it 0.1,then the new points estimate becomes 29.So the 30 is regressed to the mean of 20 by this amount.
It's present in goals scored in soccer,so with the usual warning as to whether you take points scored or scoring events as your starting point,it should be present in gridiron.
P.
I think there's two phenomena getting described here.
The law of averages relates to the coin toss example.Actual occurrances tend towards their true proportions over time.
The important word is proportions.If you get a 70/30 coin toss split over the first 100 tosses the overall proportions need only to tend towards the true 50% probability over time...& it can do this if the next 900 are evenly split.There's no need for heads or tails to catch up.
So an initial inbalance doesn't help you predict the future.
This may not apply to ats quotes though which must factor public perception & public perception of the law of averages is almost always based around the erroneous idea of the "straggler" catching up.
Regression to the mean applies to natural occurrances(number of points scored per game or average rushing yrds per game perhaps),so I'm not sure if you can apply it totally to what is essentially an artificial man made ats market.
Here's how I understant RttM.Good teams usually remain good,but not by as much & bad teams remain bad,but again not by as much as the season progresses.
Say a team is averaging 30 points per game(forget how you decide this & over how many games) & teams overall in the league are averaging only 20.
Then your best guess of how that team will score in the future could be
30x(1-R)+(20xR),where R is the regression constant.
Deciding the size of R is the step that requires most work.If in this example you make it 0.1,then the new points estimate becomes 29.So the 30 is regressed to the mean of 20 by this amount.
It's present in goals scored in soccer,so with the usual warning as to whether you take points scored or scoring events as your starting point,it should be present in gridiron.
P.
BGO,
you cant compare sporting events with human beings to coin flips.
cards and dice are completely random, human beings are adaptive.
if you flip a quarter and hit heads 9 times in a row it does not change the probability of the next occurrence.
if team A beats team B 9 times in a row it DOES change the probability of the next meeting ATS.
not only b/c the ATS value changes, but also b/c the people involved are adaptive. Motivation, preparedness, and salary caps are something that cards and dice do not possess, but do play a factor not only ATS but also on actual team performance in sporting events.
Coin flips are independent events.
Sporting events are not.
Teams know when their competition wins or loses, and many fight to keep up with the Joneses. Do teams try as hard vs inferior teams like DET with a rival on tap?
Even a slight correlation makes a substantial difference--our breakeven is less than 52.4% with the available vig these days.
BGO, if you visit other forums you may see a lot of posts with comparisons of sporting events to coin flips. I've said it several times in other posts, but a lot of the statistical geniuses out there trip over the numbers. I've never understood why people compare sporting events to coin flips, what are the similarities?
you cant compare sporting events with human beings to coin flips.
cards and dice are completely random, human beings are adaptive.
if you flip a quarter and hit heads 9 times in a row it does not change the probability of the next occurrence.
if team A beats team B 9 times in a row it DOES change the probability of the next meeting ATS.
not only b/c the ATS value changes, but also b/c the people involved are adaptive. Motivation, preparedness, and salary caps are something that cards and dice do not possess, but do play a factor not only ATS but also on actual team performance in sporting events.
Coin flips are independent events.
Sporting events are not.
Teams know when their competition wins or loses, and many fight to keep up with the Joneses. Do teams try as hard vs inferior teams like DET with a rival on tap?
Even a slight correlation makes a substantial difference--our breakeven is less than 52.4% with the available vig these days.
BGO, if you visit other forums you may see a lot of posts with comparisons of sporting events to coin flips. I've said it several times in other posts, but a lot of the statistical geniuses out there trip over the numbers. I've never understood why people compare sporting events to coin flips, what are the similarities?
ATX wrote:
"you cant compare sporting events with human beings to coin flips."
You are correct here. In my example I only wanted to explain how I felt about regression toward the mean as an example. There are other examples mentioned here that explain how sporting events are not independent events.
"you cant compare sporting events with human beings to coin flips."
You are correct here. In my example I only wanted to explain how I felt about regression toward the mean as an example. There are other examples mentioned here that explain how sporting events are not independent events.
Potter wrote:
"If you get a 70/30 coin toss split over the first 100 tosses the overall proportions need only to tend towards the true 50% probability over time...& it can do this if the next 900 are evenly split. There's no need for heads or tails to catch up."
900 flips are too small of a sample size. I was using that as an example. However, given a large enough sample size (the true 50% probability over time that you mention), then tails must catch up over that time period.
"If you get a 70/30 coin toss split over the first 100 tosses the overall proportions need only to tend towards the true 50% probability over time...& it can do this if the next 900 are evenly split. There's no need for heads or tails to catch up."
900 flips are too small of a sample size. I was using that as an example. However, given a large enough sample size (the true 50% probability over time that you mention), then tails must catch up over that time period.
In many, if not all wagers, does the other side not have to hit eventually? And if you have done research and found where the turning point lies over a period of time, then you have a good hint of where a team should start over ATS.
If you know that over the past 5 years that no team has went over the total more than 10 straight times, then is it not logical to wager on a team who has went over 9 straight times in the 6th year?
Not saying it is good or bad, just asking for opinions. Thanks for the posts thus far.
If you know that over the past 5 years that no team has went over the total more than 10 straight times, then is it not logical to wager on a team who has went over 9 straight times in the 6th year?
Not saying it is good or bad, just asking for opinions. Thanks for the posts thus far.
