Going Contrarian: Picking the NFL ATS

[Subby]

I have a new system that I put into place a few weeks ago that I use to pick NFL games against the spread. So far after three weeks I have gone 11-6-1 after breaking even during weeks 1 and 2. For those who don't read our blog (so, like...most of you) the system is simple. Using the ESPN Pigskin Pickem Against the Spread Contest, pick the teams that are overwhelming favorites of the approximately 80,000 contestants and pick the opposite team. The idea is predicated on the belief that a) the general betting public doesn't know shit and b) vegas knows this and sets lines appropriately. This results in a ton of good value each week.

This week there are a whopping 9 games where the public like one team by at least a 65-35 margin (the minimum standard for picking a team).

Here are the picks (I go into more detail about each game in our blog):

1) Atlanta (3-2) -4½ @ New Orleans (2-3) ESPN Pigskin Pick ‘Em ATS Players: 90% in favor of the Falcons on the road

2) Cincinnati (4-1) -3½ @ Tennessee (2-3)

ESPN Pigskin Pick ‘Em ATS Players: 83% in favor of the Bengals on the road coming off a loss.

3) Washington (3-1) @ Kansas City (2-2) -5½

ESPN Pigskin Pick ‘Em ATS Players: 76% like the Chiefs at home versus a banged up ‘Skins secondary and a team coming off a tough loss at Mile High last week.

4) Carolina (3-2) @ Detroit (2-2) -1½

ESPN Pigskin Pick ‘Em ATS Players: 74% in favor of pre-season darling Carolina. Never mind that they barely beat the spread against a horrible ARI team last week.

5) Miami (2-2) @ Tampa Bay (4-1) -4½

ESPN Pigskin Pick ‘Em ATS Players: 86% in favor of TB at home giving 4.5

6) Jacksonville (3-2) @ Pittsburgh (3-1) -5½

ESPN Pigskin Pick ‘Em ATS Players: 83% like the Steelers at home against an inconsistent JAX squad.

7) New York NYJ (2-3) @ Buffalo (2-3) -3½

ESPN Pigskin Pick ‘Em ATS Players: 69% in favor of Buffalo in the “closest” of the nine games.

8) Houston (0-4) @ Seattle (3-2) -9½

ESPN Pigskin Pick ‘Em ATS Players: 96% in favor of Seattle at home. I don’t think I have ever seen the public bullrush something so heavily.

9) St. Louis (2-3) @ Indianapolis (5-0) -13½

ESPN Pigskin Pick ‘Em ATS Players: 96% like the unbeaten Colts giving almost two touchdowns at home.

So there you go. I'll probably go 0-9 this week...but it's a fun approach for sure - especially when you hit on a huge underdog.

Comments, thoughts, taunts all welcome.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Subby

Using the ESPN Pigskin Pickem Against the Spread Contest, pick the teams that are overwhelming favorites of the approximately 80,000 contestants and pick the opposite team. The idea is predicated on the belief that a) the general betting public doesn't know shit and b) vegas knows this and sets lines appropriately. This results in a ton of good value each week.

Interesting concept... I'm trying to think it through.

The vegas line is set not to dupe lots of bettors into making the wrong pick, but rather to create a balanced betting pool, with half the money on each side of the bet. That way, the house isn't gambling, they are just handling the action between the winners and losers -- just the way they like it.

So, if there truly are lines where the ESPN Pickem players are overwhwlmingly on one side (whioch I absolutely do not dispute), that suggests to me one of a few things:

- ESPN isn't doing a good job updating their spreads
- ESPN Pickem players have different attitudes that the betting universe as a whole
- There is some other bias in place (like default picks being made for people who are not active in the pickem game)


I haven't thought through which of these seems most likely -- but to me, one (or more) of those seems almost a necessary element in understanding the split.

I don't have a problem with a betting system, as long as I can understand and agree with the underlying principle. Here, I think your principle (as stated above) is misleading... the betting houses who set point spreads don't do so to lure in stupid people (where they would esentially be gambling themselves), they do so to get even action.

Still thinking...

[rkmsuf]

Theoretically you don't need any skill whatsoever to pick games. If the goal is even action on both sides and you accept that vegas is sharp in it's line setting than each selection you make is essentially a 50/50 proposition.

I mean sure you can get a point here and there bargain but that in the long run won't matter.

I like the contrarian attitude though.

[Draft Dodger]

if KC is favored, shouldn't you be picking the Skins?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I like the contrarian attitude though.

You should work on setting betting lines by ball bearings.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

You should work on setting betting lines by ball bearings.

and gauze pads. those are key.

What I do is have a mildly retarded, left handed monkey throw it's own feces at the football matchups. Whichever team he gets the most feces on is the one I bet.

[Huckleberry]

QS nailed it regarding "money" going heavy to one side against the spread.

I have a question along similar lines, though. We've all seen lines that come out and then move heavily one way or the other. Does anyone have historical data regarding these results?

Is the betting public more often ahead of the curve with updated information and are they taking advantage of lines that were poorly set at opening? Or is the betting public more often simply making the sucker bets we all hear about and the oddsmakers didn't fully account for that in these situations?

Because I've never heard of this strategy I would think that it comes out to 50/50. But I've always wondered if the team the spread is moving toward wins ATS more often or the team it's moving away from.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

QS nailed it regarding "money" going heavy to one side against the spread.

I have a question along similar lines, though. We've all seen lines that come out and then move heavily one way or the other. Does anyone have historical data regarding these results?

Is the betting public more often ahead of the curve with updated information and are they taking advantage of lines that were poorly set at opening? Or is the betting public more often simply making the sucker bets we all hear about and the oddsmakers didn't fully account for that in these situations?

Because I've never heard of this strategy I would think that it comes out to 50/50. But I've always wondered if the team the spread is moving toward wins ATS more often or the team it's moving away from.

More often than not the betting public is behind vegas. At least that's my guess.

[Subby]

It just makes sense to me that if everyone loves Pittsburgh @ -5.5 they would just as happily take them at the less advantageous -6.5. Your point about Vegas setting the lines to ensure income from the vig makes sense though.

ESPN does not update their lines in that game to my knowledge though - so you definitely get full information on which way the public money is falling. I don't think picks are automatically filled in either - if you miss your picks for a week, you get a 0.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

if KC is favored, shouldn't you be picking the Skins?

I am - I mis-bolded there.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

QS nailed it regarding "money" going heavy to one side against the spread.

I have a question along similar lines, though. We've all seen lines that come out and then move heavily one way or the other. Does anyone have historical data regarding these results?

Is the betting public more often ahead of the curve with updated information and are they taking advantage of lines that were poorly set at opening? Or is the betting public more often simply making the sucker bets we all hear about and the oddsmakers didn't fully account for that in these situations?

Because I've never heard of this strategy I would think that it comes out to 50/50. But I've always wondered if the team the spread is moving toward wins ATS more often or the team it's moving away from.

didn't read the whole thing but it looks like what you might be looking for.

hxxp://www.armchairanalysis.com/linemovement.html

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

- ESPN Pickem players have different attitudes that the betting universe as a whole

This may be it. Other than the Carolina/Detroit game (with a 1 1/2 pt line), the majority of people are picking the favored team (I think the bolding on the KC game is wrong). The people playing this game seem to be answering the question "Will Indianapolis beat St. Louis," not the question "Will Indianapolis beat St. Louis by two touchdowns."

At least--they seem to be answering that question more than people who actually have money on the line do.

[stevew]

I'm suprised there is even a line on the Steelers game this week, with Roethlisburger's status unconfirmed. Tommy Gun starting at QB scares me as a fan.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

More often than not the betting public is behind vegas. At least that's my guess.

Mine too and that feeling was really instilled in me when I read a book called The Odds by Chad Millman. Vegas linesmakers are rarely worried about the public money - that usually isn't what moves lines. The lines get moved by action from sharp players - huge bets on one or another team. Thousands of $50 bets don't move the action one way or another.

Vegas sees the public - "the squares" as guys who are just betting for the thrill of it - going on limited information, anecdotal evidence, homerism. There was interesting story about one guy who made book on a college campus and made a ton of money on the home team - simply because homers would plunk money down on a team regardless of how ridiculous a spread might be.

I realize that Vegas operates in a much bigger pool, but it makes sense to me that the general public will often take the favorites and be on the wrong side of a manipulated line...

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by stevew

I'm suprised there is even a line on the Steelers game this week, with Roethlisburger's status unconfirmed. Tommy Gun starting at QB scares me as a fan.

They were pretty good with him back there however he hasn't played in quite some time.

I still don't like that Jax team much but they seem to hang around a lot of games. They look very pedestrian on offense but somehow have gotten it done.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Subby

Mine too and that feeling was really instilled in me when I read a book called The Odds by Chad Millman. Vegas linesmakers are rarely worried about the public money - that usually isn't what moves lines. The lines get moved by action from sharp players - huge bets on one or another team. Thousands of $50 bets don't move the action one way or another.

Vegas sees the public - "the squares" as guys who are just betting for the thrill of it - going on limited information, anecdotal evidence, homerism. There was interesting story about one guy who made book on a college campus and made a ton of money on the home team - simply because homers would plunk money down on a team regardless of how ridiculous a spread might be.

I realize that Vegas operates in a much bigger pool, but it makes sense to me that the general public will often take the favorites and be on the wrong side of a manipulated line...

heh, the link I posted talks about the "squares".

Prime example I think is NE. Go look at their ATS record the past 2 or 3 years. Public was way behind giving them enough respect at the windows.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

They were pretty good with him back there however he hasn't played in quite some time.

I still don't like that Jax team much but they seem to hang around a lot of games. They look very pedestrian on offense but somehow have gotten it done.

6-10 the last year he was starter, plus their line looks like shit, and tommy is as mobile as a corded telephone. Jacksonville's line is gonna blow up the steelers right side, and it could be ugly. With Maddox, i strongly doubt that they will cover.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by stevew

6-10 the last year he was starter, plus their line looks like shit, and tommy is as mobile as a corded telephone. Jacksonville's line is gonna blow up the steelers right side, and it could be ugly. With Maddox, i strongly doubt that they will cover.

could be. I guess my feeling is more doubting the Jags than liking Pitt.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Subby

I don't think picks are automatically filled in either - if you miss your picks for a week, you get a 0.

When I set up a league for this this season, I had an option what to do if someone makes no selections. There were options -- including select home team, select road team, and maybe the "no pick" as you mention. I don't know what is the default selection there, nor what is the most common -- but I'm sure that a sizable number of people registered to play this game walk away from it and end up with their picks being made by some sort of default. If neither home nor road is the absolute default, then it might just cancel out... but it's a factor of some sort, I reckon.

[mrsimperless]

Don't they also update the spread based on betting? If they failed in their attempts to to even out the bets and got 50,000 for one team and 500 for the other don't they update the spread to get more people onto the other side? I always thought that was why they changed the lines and not so much on information.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

When I set up a league for this this season, I had an option what to do if someone makes no selections. There were options -- including select home team, select road team, and maybe the "no pick" as you mention. I don't know what is the default selection there, nor what is the most common -- but I'm sure that a sizable number of people registered to play this game walk away from it and end up with their picks being made by some sort of default. If neither home nor road is the absolute default, then it might just cancel out... but it's a factor of some sort, I reckon.

Yeah but I dont think that kicks in until game time...the Who Picked Who screen updates throughout the week. I used the numbers as they stood today.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Subby

It just makes sense to me that if everyone loves Pittsburgh @ -5.5 they would just as happily take them at the less advantageous -6.5.

But think this through. You can't be saying that the spread doesn't matter, and that people just take whatever pick they like, right? Of course not.

If they all love Pitt -5.5, but nobody would bet on them at -14.5... then the loss of bettors is just a cumulative function of what you'd lose at every increment up the chain. Sure, some links might be bigger than others (round figures like 7 points, for example) but you're damned right there are some people who will give 5.5, but not 6.5. There have to be, even if they don't realize it.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Subby

Yeah but I dont think that kicks in until game time...the Who Picked Who screen updates throughout the week. I used the numbers as they stood today.

Ah... I see. Good to know, and if true (and I believe thaqt it is, now that you mention it), that probably eliminates this as a factor then. Thanks.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

But think this through. You can't be saying that the spread doesn't matter, and that people just take whatever pick they like, right? Of course not.

If they all love Pitt -5.5, but nobody would bet on them at -14.5... then the loss of bettors is just a cumulative function of what you'd lose at every increment up the chain. Sure, some links might be bigger than others (round figures like 7 points, for example) but you're damned right there are some people who will give 5.5, but not 6.5. There have to be, even if they don't realize it.

Right but there's a significant segment that wouldn't.

For every move of a point that discourages a heavy bettor there are tons of fish that continue swimming with their original pick.

[rkmsuf]

Good thread, I'm now compelled to follow your results.


*edit, I mean your supergay results.

[gottimd]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Right but there's a significant segment that wouldn't.

For every move of a point that discourages a heavy bettor there are tons of fish that continue swimming with their original pick.

Exactly. "Houses" basically hedge their bets. If a substantial amount comes in, it will sway it the other way.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

But think this through. You can't be saying that the spread doesn't matter, and that people just take whatever pick they like, right? Of course not.

If they all love Pitt -5.5, but nobody would bet on them at -14.5... then the loss of bettors is just a cumulative function of what you'd lose at every increment up the chain. Sure, some links might be bigger than others (round figures like 7 points, for example) but you're damned right there are some people who will give 5.5, but not 6.5. There have to be, even if they don't realize it.

No - you are right - I didn't mean to make that sound like an absolute.

My artificial tipping point is 65% public support. So if there is a line that moves to a point where you have less than that percentage of the public taking it then it becomes a non-play. So if moving a line from -4 to -8 would change public support from 75% to 55%, I would get off the game.

I do think one of the problems with this is that I am not checking opening lines and then comparing them to where the public stands on Friday (or Saturday).

In the most basic sense, maybe this "System" is simply predicated on the fact that most people are dumb.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Right but there's a significant segment that wouldn't.

For every move of a point that discourages a heavy bettor there are tons of fish that continue swimming with their original pick.

Of course. And this doesn't contradict my argument at all. All I'm saying is that it's not an absolute. Subby acknowledged that he didn't mean it quite that starkly... that's fine by me.

My (original) point remains - the line is set to provide even action, and gets tweaked when it does not.

[rkmsuf]

It is amazing to me that 96% of the people feel comfortable giving up 14 pts with Indy vs the Rams.

Indy is America's team kind of and always garners too much respect. They may cover but I couldn't feel good about putting money on it. At least not 96% good.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Of course. And this doesn't contradict my argument at all. All I'm saying is that it's not an absolute. Subby acknowledged that he didn't mean it quite that starkly... that's fine by me.

My (original) point remains - the line is set to provide even action, and gets tweaked when it does not.

I concur.

[QuikSand]

Reading The Wisdom of Crowds this summer has me thinking about those concepts and their application to sports betting lines. I think Surowiecki (sp?) makes a few references to this in the book, but I don't recall any specifics. However... his argument is that many people, thinking independently, tend to reach better conclusions than even a very well-informed few.

If the underlying concept here is that "people are dumb," then you're either refuting the WOC concept, or else there's something else going on here (like the bettors are not actually acting independently?).

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Reading The Wisdom of Crowds this summer has me thinking about those concepts and their application to sports betting lines. I think Surowiecki (sp?) makes a few references to this in the book, but I don't recall any specifics. However... his argument is that many people, thinking independently, tend to reach better conclusions than even a very well-informed few.

If the underlying concept here is that "people are dumb," then you're either refuting the WOC concept, or else there's something else going on here (like the bettors are not actually acting independently?).

just thinking out loud but poll a group of 100 betting "experts" that is professional or agreed upon sharpies and I'd guess that at least for these NFL games you'd get a far more diverse set of opinions on the highlighted games above.

it is a weird phenomenon that in a game where you need to select the most winners that more than for example 4% of the players wouldn't chose St. Louis. I mean it's almost worth it to go the other way to gain a game. There's more than a 4% chance the Rams cover. To me this suggests a sharp player could crush this game.

I liken it to horse racing and setting your own betting lines.

[Huckleberry]

That article makes it seem like the best bet over the long haul w.r.t. moving lines would be to bet on the underdog on lines that move toward the underdog.

That indicates that the public is not, in fact, dumb. But it does go along with the premise that the squares bet the favorites. If the line is actually moving toward the dog, then there may be a reason.

Of course, a 54% hit rate isn't huge. But if you're a limited gambler that doesn't make many bets, as I am, it would be nice to know if one of the bets you're willing to make agrees with this info. Meaning that I'm about to bet on an underdog that the line has moved toward since opening.

[Raven]

I'm interested in seeing how this plays out.

[rkmsuf]

this hasn't fared so well this week

[Subby]

Yeah - bad week for sure...fwiw, this is the first week where the system has gone below .500...including weeks 1 and 2 where I didn't use it.

Will make a final judgement at the end of the season...

[Desnudo]

I think one of the factors that needs to be considered is that there is no money at stake in thr at ESPN contest, correct? People definitely make decisions differently when money is on the line.