The Madness, folks, is ultimately upon us. The most beautiful three weeks of sports while the year. When the nation's productivity drops 50 percent, as employees wear out the refresh button and increase their lunch breaks to catch the waning seconds of a first round game where some pimple faced kid from "Where the Hell is That?" college is about to send their bracket up in flames.
Yes, the Ncaa Tournament is ultimately upon us! And while we can't help you fill out a excellent bracket, we have been holed up for weeks dissecting the stats and trends from the old eight tournaments to help pad your communal wallets. So without further ado...
A Seemingly easy Challenge
Before we jump into the numbers, let us pose a seemingly simply challenge. Could you pick the level up winner of each and every Ncaa tournament game at a 55 percent or good rate? How about a 60 percent or good rate? We are talking about just identifying the level up winner with no point spread involved. You know... Like who will win out between Duke and "We are production our first Tournament appearance ever" College? Presumably, most would assume that even a monkey could pick the Su winners at a higher rate. Our examine then becomes: why don't you?
One of the most glaring trends we have ever come over is the frequency in which level up winners also cover the spread in the Ncaa tournament. In fact, level up winners are an imaginable 376-116-13 Ats (76 percent) over the past eight years while March Madness. This simply means that if you were able to identify who was going to win the game, irrespective of the spread, than you would be cashing tickets at a 3:1 ratio!
Since money talks, let us put it another way. A "nickel" player who bets 0 to win 0 would be 4,200 wealthier if he or she were to perform this feat over the past eight tournaments. A "half dollar" player risking the proper to win would be ,420 closer to retirement.
Someone once said, "There are more leading things in life to worry about than just money; how to get a hold of it, for example." Well, picking level up winners in the Ncaa Tournament appears like a darn good place to start. Right?
As one preeminent annoying football interpreter likes to say, "not so fast, my friend." As is so often the case, if it looks to good to be true; it probably is. Let us swiftly shed some light on why this ostensibly easy feat is anyone but.
By definition, Su Winners Can Be Broken Down Into Two Categories:
1. Favorites who win and cover.
2. Underdogs who win outright.
Why then, do we not simply play the beloved in every single tournament game and head to Hawaii for the rest of April, and maybe part of May for that matter? As one preeminent professor, A. J. Carlton, wisely noted; "Let us keep our mouths shut and our pens dry until we know the facts."
This rather callous remark for real segues perfectly into our next observation.
In the simplest of terms, underdogs are still a good bet than favorites. Specifically, underdogs were 265-224-15 Ats (54 percent) over the past eight tournaments combined. Conversely, this implies that of policy favorites were an unprofitable 46 percent winning proposition while the same time period.
If you know anyone about how odds are set, this should hardly come as a surprise. After all, John Q. communal still bets favorites at a higher ratio than underdogs. In other words, most folks are curious in betting the hot or most preeminent teams. And do not think this fact is lost on the oddsmakers!
Keep in mind that March Madness brings in as many quadrate bettors this side of the Super Bowl. Almost every Tom, Dick and Harry will place a bet on this tournament and rest assured they are laying the wood more often than taking the points. If the lines makers did not adjust for this fact, then the books and Vegas would be wiped out.
Conclusion: it may be a good idea to take notice in the teams no one else is curious in.
Underdogs That Lose Su
One of the more engaging trends we uncovered is that favorites who won Su were a imaginable 222-117-13 Ats (65 percent). This trend makes some sense when you remember, as we pointed out above, that Su winners covered at a 76 percent clip. And favorites while the past eight tournaments were 351-151-2 Su (70 percent). (Note that the two pushes were games in which the final spread was a "pick.")
In other words, since Su winners cover at such a high rate and most Su winners are favorites, then it would stand to reason that favorites ordinarily cover from these observations alone. However, the implication here is startling. Namely, underdogs who lose Su were a measly 35 percent Ats!
So if you are going to play an underdog, you might be good served to play them on the money line. But be realistic. Please do not go out and play the No. 16 seed against a No. 1 seed on the money line and expect to come away with a lottery marker and then bang on our door for a repayment when it does not come in.
