NCAA football 2010

[ATX]

pass on border war for now, I had Kansas on the ML last year at something like 19, but way too much guesswork on Kansas right now, lean to under.

Rice +30'/+30 for 1.5%

[ATX]

Utah State/Idaho under 70 for 1.1%

[ATX]

at least Florida State is playing hard, I can't say the same about wash st, no idea what they bring today, their offense is just too horrid to put good money on. I really like Rice to cover, but no reason to press, put more on it. I'm not very happy about the Uconn cover, that line was 3 points off, but it is Syracuse. Game ball to Porterie, he did throw 2 TD's to go with his 4 picks, unfortunately to the wrong team and now FSU doesn't go for two? no idea what Less does but Arkansas probably finds a way, just not the greatest idea to bet against them at home. USC/UCLA not sure what happens, I like the under but just not enough. I like Hawaii at home as ddd, but I've seen that defense and it was really bad earlier this year. I liked Stanford a little around 7 but it's moved too much and I can't really say that the Cardinal should be laying ten, in fact I like ND who has won the last 6+ meetings, no idea how the Irish come out. note to FSU qb, when the defense is offside throw the ball into the end zone. you kicked (missed) a fg earlier so why not now? what a terrible pass, hang it up Bowden you suck ass.

[ATX]

2h Wash/Wash St under 28 for .8%

[ATX]

Oregon State +10 over Oregon for 1.3%

[ATX]

Western KY +7 for .8%

[ATX]

off to the game.

Taking 'Bama +6 or better for 1.3%

[Stabler12]

Originally Posted by ATX

off to the game.

Taking 'Bama +6 or better for 1.3%

Enjoy the game, and GL on the Bama pick. I am holding my Texas ticket and won't hedge a dime.

[ATX]

I am taking the points with Nebraska.

not sure how much yet, but probably about 1.5%

[ATX]

They're 14½-point underdogs and they lost to Iowa State (at home!), but Nebraska can still feel relatively confident about its chances against Texas on Saturday. When it comes to the Big-12 title game, anything goes.


Icon SMI/Newscom
Nebraska's Ndamukong Suh
For the undefeated Longhorns, a win puts them squarely in the national-championship game. Since 1996, eight teams have arrived at the Big 12 title game in this exact situation. But here's the thing: five of them have had their bacon handed right back to them.

In 1996, an unranked Texas team stunned No. 3 Nebraska on quarterback James Brown's memorable fourth down roll-out late in the game. Two years later, Kansas State was all set to play Tennessee in the first-ever BCS title game—until it blew a 27-9 lead and lost to Texas A&M (a 17-point underdog) in overtime.

In 2007, Missouri was No. 1 in the BCS when it fell to No. 9 Oklahoma and Texas was ready to claim the No. 2 spot in 2001 when No. 7 Colorado won a 39-37 upset.

Then there was the uncomfortable case of top-ranked Oklahoma's 35-7 brutalizing at the hands of No. 15 Kansas State in 2003. Despite the loss, the Sooners still landed in the BCS title game, thanks to those notorious computers.

If Nebraska—No. 22 in the BCS standings—wins the game, they'll be one of the most unlikely teams to steal a BCS spot. Only Pittsburgh in 2004 (No. 21) and Florida State in 2005 (No. 22) were equally perplexing party crashers.

—Steve Kornacki
Surprise, Surprise

Here are some highly ranked teams that were on track for a chance at a national title until their plans were derailed in the Big 12 title game.

YEAR BIG CHAMPIONSHIP PT. SPREAD RESULT
1996 No. 3 Nebraska vs. Texas (unranked) NEB -20.5 Texas, 37-27
1998 No. 3 Kansas St. vs. No. 8 Texas A&M KSU -17 Texas A&M, 36-33
2001 No. 3 Texas vs. No. 7 Colorado TEX -8 Colorado, 39-37
2003 No. 1 Oklahoma vs. No. 15 Kansas St. OKLA -15 Kansas St., 35-7*
2007 No. 1 Missouri vs. No. 9 Oklahoma OKLA -3 Oklahoma, 38-17

10/27/07 NEB 25 - TEXAS 28 NEB 20.5 U 59 -98 -232 134
10/21/06 TEXAS 22 - NEB 20 NEB 5 U 47.5 -8 -90 82
11/01/03 NEB 7 - TEXAS 31 TEXAS -5 U 48.5 -309 -300 -9
11/02/02 TEXAS 27 - NEB 24 Push 3.0 O 50 -80 241 -321
12/04/99 TEXAS 6 - NEB 22 NEB -8 U 52 116 225 -109
10/23/99 NEB 20 - TEXAS 24 TEXAS 9.5 U 51.5 154 130 24
10/31/98 TEXAS 20 - NEB 16 TEXAS 16.5 - - -87 65 -152
12/07/96 TEXAS 37 - NEB 27 TEXAS 20.5 O 56 0 0 0

[ATX]

bowl games: I almost always bet dogs, I used to bet every single dog ml in the bowls until a couple of years ago. I don't think this angle worked blind over the last 2 years, but it worked amazingly well for years before that. there's is more than one discussion about it in this forum over mutlitple years. I'll try to remember to bump them, one of my favorite threads over the years. a lot of it was/is at therx in the RR, I think, not sure of the year but maybe 2003 or 4. I'm not doing that this year blind, but one thing about the bowls that is redundant, but a quick summation..."taking dogs in bowls is a good idea because the whole premise of the bowl games is to see closely matched teams..."

leaning to Michigan State over Texas Tech. a lot can happen between now and the actual games (VT/'Bama), I don't like betting this early.

the OU/Stanford line is strange. just makes one want to bet the hell out of the Cardinal. I'm not sold AT ALL on Stanford's defense. OU has a horrible, horrible recent bowl history. Stanford basically has no recent bowl history. I'm not sure OU performs any differently than they have in their last few bowl games, what is their motivation? it would seem that Stanford has a lot more motivation going in since this is a rare occasion for the team (that is going upward as a program) and a win over OU could be a nice stepping stone for Harbaugh. I'm almost sure enough about this, but not quite.

I can't guarantee 100% accuracy from this database, but I like the ease of use in pulling up bowl games. http://mcubed.net/ncaaf/teams/stan.shtml

[Stabler12]

X, where can I get the pointspreads? That link is only showing me scores of all bowl games. I blindly bet bowl dogs for years (c.1998-2006) and only once didn't come out ahead. I went ATS, though.

[ATX]

Originally Posted by Stabler12

X, where can I get the pointspreads? That link is only showing me scores of all bowl games. I blindly bet bowl dogs for years (c.1998-2006) and only once didn't come out ahead. I went ATS, though.

trying to remember off the top of my head a site that has ATS bowl games databased in a similar easy format. I am moving, so I don't have my other computer with me (it has a ton of bookmarks). obviously, covers.com has all the ATS, but the format is somewhat time consuming. I don't really look more than 2-3 years back on teams to be honest, I don't see a whole lot of statistical significance. before I forget...here are a couple links on another bowl system that I think holds value. I haven't had time to look at it closely just yet, but the premise is solid.

I'm not sure if I am going to play this system or not. But last year it went 10-2.

Here it is: Of the top 60 Sagarin-rated teams, FADE EVERY team ATS whose strength of schedule rating is 60 or worse unless they are facing a team whose SOS rating is even lower than theirs. Take every top 60 team whose SOS is better than 60 AND who is facing an oponent whose SOS is worse than 60.



http://forum.sbrforum.com/college-fo...last-year.html

http://forum.sbrforum.com/college-fo...ear.html?slf=2

[ATX]

I'm having trouble finding the college bowl underdog discussion threads, but this is part of it.

NCAA Bowl Games

some info from years past as a matter of perspective, it's not a very complicated system. It's based on betting dogs with the points and on their moneylines. This info hasn't been updated since a year ago, and I don't have the exact numbers in front of me for last year, but I did well with this system again. If someone has the numbers, or sees something erroneous feel free to add to this...

Quote:
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

------------------------------------------------------------
FYI - for lines, i got the pointspread from Feist's site, and converted to ML from table I posted earlier in this section. I don't think the table is 100% accurate, but with line shopping you should be able to get that number or better.
This data is if you played every bowl game with $100 on the dog moneyline.
For 2001-2002 bowl season:
Wins: 10
Losses: 15
profit (using opening line): -134
profit (using closing line): +231
For 2002-2003 bowl season:
Wins: 17
Losses: 12
profit (using opening line): +2276
profit (using closing line): +2188
Combined record (2 seasons)
Wins: 27
Losses: 27
profit (using opening line): +2142
profit (using closing line): +2094
Two more years of data:
For 2000-2001 bowl season:
Wins: 15
Losses: 10
profit (using opening line): +1202
profit (using closing line): +1451

For 1999-2000 bowl season:
Wins: 13
Losses: 10
profit (using opening line): +940
profit (using closing line): +916

FOUR SEASON COMBINED DATA (1999-2003):
Wins: 55
Losses: 47
profit (using opening line): +4284
profit (using closing line): +4461

(note: one of the numbers in the first post is off. For 2001-2002 using closing lines, the profit should be -94, NOT +231)
A couple more answers about bowl games
moneyline dogs or dogs plus the spread?
This is 4 year data using closing lines and assuming you bet EVERY underdog in the bowls:
Moneyline: 55-47 +44.61 units
Spread: 66-34-2 +28.6 units
Remember, this in only 4 year's worth of data. However, this is statistically significant, at least for the against the spread results - there is about a 1:1000 chance of this record occuring by chance alone. Underdogs are great bets in bowl games, both on the moneyline and against the spread, when looking at the last four years worth of data.
December bowl games vs. January bowl games
Some people suggested that dogs are better plays in the early bowls, and not as good on bowls played on or after Jan 1. Here's what the last four years shows:
Moneyline dogs, December only: 42-28 +42.2 units
Moneyline dogs, January only: 13-19 +2.45 units
while it was slightly profitable to play dogs in January, December dogs were very strong the past four years.
Dogs ATS, Dec only: 50-18-2 +30.2 units
Dogs ATS, Jan only: 16-16-0 -1.6 units
Against the spread, dogs were a good play in the past 4 Decembers. Dogs and Favs split the bowl games in January against the spread.

All ML dogs
Some of this data does not match exactly what I posted last year, not sure why, I need to go through my database and check it out...anyway
I have 171 Bowl games from 1997-1998 season through 2003-2004. Using closing ML with a 100 wager on each:
1997-1998 1-19 -1790
1998-1999 10-12 +1455
1999-2000 13-10 +916
2000-2001 15-10 +1451
2001-2002 10-15 -94
2002-2003 16-12 +1998
2003-2004 9-19 -620
7 year total: 74-97 +3316
other than an EXTREMELY bad year in 97-98, these have performed fairly well, giving players an average 4.7 unit profit per year for the 7 years I have data
Also keep in mind this is "consensus number", MLs vary widely and last year playing this at the "best available", I actually lost only 3.85 units instead of the 6.2 that the data above shows

***********************
here is what I have for betting 1 unit on the underdog each game, since 1998
games that closed pk are left out
---------------------------------------------------------------
in sum: games that closed pk are left out, and are based on closing lines NOT the best of the number per DG.
YEAR SU W L units
1998 10 12 +14.55
1999 12 10 + 8.25
2000 15 9 +15.37
2001 9 15 -1.85
2002 14 13 +17.3
2003 8 20 -5.85
2004 14 14 +2.5
2005 13 14 +7.8
total 95 107 +58.07
I bet spread + ML to limit variance and have had success varying wager size so my profitability over this same time was better.

[Stabler12]

Thanks very much, that dovetails nicely with the way I've played them in the past.

[ATX]

I'm not sure I'm going to follow a system this year, but here's another good link.

http://www.peepsplace.com/showthread.php?t=41208

[ATX]

How To Hit Two-Thirds of Your College Bowl Bets...By Jay Graziani
The past two years I reported on a trio of handicapping situations specifically for bowl games, explaining the situations in depth in 2007: (http://www.majorwager.com/index.cfm?...how_column=604) and revisiting them briefly in 2008: (http://www.majorwager.com/index.cfm?...ow_column=716). Each has historically won 2 out of 3 of its qualifying bets dating back to 1983, 1995, or 1997, depending on how many years of historical data was available for each - no small feat.

Holding to form, the 2008-09 bowl season was once again successful for this basket of situations, yielding a 12-6-1 record to add to 2007-08's 12-5-1 mark. Since their debut at MajorWager, these three simple systems have returned nearly 30% on investment, much better over that span than, for instance, the S&P 500.

While past results are certainly no indicator of future performance, these three simple handicapping situations are at least worth factoring into your college bowl handicapping this year, considering their long-term winning percentages over 67%, high Z-scores, and continued track record of success the past two years.

Here I recap each system's performance in last year's bowls and update their historical record, as well as provide the qualifying plays for this year's games. I'll keep the descriptions of each system brief; more details can be found in the prior articles. Z factors are listed for each record; for a refresher on what that means and why you should care, check here: http://www.majorwager.com/index.cfm?...how_column=665.

System 1: Play underdogs of 7.5 or more points in December Bowls
2008-09 record: 2-2: Memphis +10.5 (L), Miami +10 (W), Northwestern +14 (W), Minnesota +9.5 (L)
Historical record: 54-27-3 (67%) since 1983; Z-factor 3.0
2009-10 qualifiers: Wyoming +11.5, SMU +15.5, Boston College +9.5, Kentucky +7.5, Stanford +8
Notes: After going 4-0 in 2007, came back to earth with a 2-2 record last year. Texas A&M is on the bubble (+7) but may end up qualifying.

System 2: Play underdogs with higher Sagarin strength-of-schedule ratings than their opponents
2008-09 record: 7-3-1: Colorado State +2 (W), Southern Mississippi +4.5 (W), Miami Florida +10 (W), North Carolina State +6 (P), Maryland +2.5 (W), Air Force +5.5 (L), Vanderbilt +5 (W), South Carolina +3.5 (L), Virginia Tech +2.5 (W), Kentucky +3 (W), Oklahoma +5.5 (L)
Historical record: 65-34-2 (66%) since 1997; Z-factor 3.1
2009-10 qualifiers: Wyoming +11.5; Marshall +2.5; North Carolina +2.5; Idaho +2; Air Force +4; Stanford +8; Florida State +2.5; LSU +2.5; Michigan State +8
Notes: Followed a 6-3 record in 07-08 with another strong showing last year. If you played them early last year, you would have picked up two more winners (who closed as favorites and therefore didn't qualify based on closing lines) as well as turning a push into a win on North Carolina State, boosting the record to a very nice 10-3.

System 3: Play under the total in any January bowl game with a total above 50 where one team is favored by 3.5 or more
2008-09 record: 3-1: Michigan State-Georgia under 57 (W), Mississippi-Texas Tech under 65.5 (L), Ohio State-Texas under 52 (W), Florida-Oklahoma under 69 (W)
Historical record: 30-12-3 (71%) since 1995; Z-factor 2.8
2009-10 qualifiers: Northwestern-Auburn under 54.5, Ohio State-Oregon under 51, Florida-Cincinnati under 57, Northern Illinois-South Florida under 50, Connecticut-South Carolina under 51.5, Arkansas-East Carolina under 63.5, Texas Tech-Michigan State under 60.5, Boise State-TCU under 55, Georgia Tech-Iowa under 51
Notes: An unusually high number of games qualify this year (9) considering the annual average is close to 3.


Two years ago I also reported on the favorite bias in NCAA bowl games: (http://www.majorwager.com/index.cfm?...ow_column=602). In that article, I showed that underdogs strongly outperformed against the spread in bowl games, to the tune of 57% overall since 1997. I also showed that betting underdogs to win outright (on the moneyline) was the best way to take advantage of this mispricing in the lines. From 1997-98 through 2006-07, playing underdogs on the moneyline would have given you about 42% winners and a profit of over 50 units (considering a bet of 1 unit for each underdog on the moneyline).

Unfortunately, those trends have not continued in recent years. Underdogs greatly underperformed during the 2007-08 bowl season, notching a mere 14-17-1 record against the spread. Last year was fractionally better, yet still in the red, with the final tally standing at 16-17-1.

The real money to be made from bowl underdogs in the past was by wagering that they would win outright by betting on the moneyline. This trend hasn't held water either. In 07-08, underdogs were only 8-24 outright, for a loss of about 5.5 units for a bettor who wagered 1 unit on the moneyline of each game, the second worst performance of this angle since 1997. The 08-09 year saw but a single major upset, Utah as nearly a 10-point underdog, leading to a dismal 11-23 record and a loss of another 5 units.

As I mentioned last year, whether the underdog angle has finally run its course or is just in a short term losing streak, only time will tell. Underdogs were globally 52% against the spread this year, perhaps suggesting that underdogs will get a little extra respect during bowl season. That might spell another tough year for underdog backers, and once again goes to show that no good thing lasts forever, at least in the handicapping world.

12-17-09
Jay Graziani
MajorWager.com
graziani@majorwager.com

http://www.majorwager.com/frontline-788.html

[Iceman RX]

You like either dog tomorrow?

[ATX]

Originally Posted by Iceman RX

You like either dog tomorrow?

I haven't looked at anything yet. I'll probably just play mainly closing numbers, or close.