|
|
|
Home  News NFL WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT NFL TOTALS MARKET (10-18-2008)
|
|
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT NFL TOTALS MARKET (10-18-2008) |
|
|
|
|
Friday, 17 October 2008 |
MREAST takes a look at the NFL Totals market, and where the money is.
While it is very infrequent you can sift through 20 years of data and come up with something that shows a very consistent high frequency of winning, and is based on logic, not coincidence. I'd like to share my thoughts on one such discovery, and it has proven it's validity over time. I guess the best place to start is with the mindset of both the oddsmakers, and the betting public they deal with. Let's start with the betting public. It's no secret that the typical sports gambler likes to play the over when choosing a position on an NFL game total. It is partly based on psychology. That psychology perhaps has been felt by you when making such a decision. There is nothing better than watching a game that you have bet the over on, and midway through the 3rd quarter, the game goes soaring over the total, and your an instant winner. By the same token, there is nothing worse, watching a game where you have bet the under, and midway through the 3rd quarter you watch your bet go up in flames. Been there? The lasting impression plays on the psychology of the bettor. The second caveat, is those overtime games. It makes a winner out of a bad over bet, and a loser out of a good under bet. Been there? We all have. So now we look into the oddsmakers mind. We have an over crazed consensus of gamblers when it comes to totals, and that can only mean one thing. When we get a game total that is posted in only about 5.1% of all NFL games over the last 20 years, those pitting two teams that put a lot of points on the board, there is only one thing to do. Pad the total upward, because the betting public, that likes the over, is going to tag the game as high scoring, and will fear the under. So how do we prove this theory? There is only one way. Isolate the data of games where just 5% of all games fall into this catergory, do the research, and make your conclusion, that the premise is a solid one. That 5% mark is reached when the closing total on a game reaches 47.5 or higher. While this system works for the last 20 years, the games with posted totals of 47.5 or higher from 1988-1995 totals just 30. To put that in perspective there was 44 games in 2004 alone, so I'm going to use numbers from 1996 forward. Totals of 47.5 or higher have gone under to an ATS record of 132-99 or 57.1%. There is however evidence to believe, and this is just theory, I'll let you decide what you choose to believe, that the time of year plays a factor in this as well. This could simply be coincidence, but I tend to believe the following theory lends credence to the fact that timing is a mitigating factor to the performance at certain times of year, that enhance the value here. Let me explain, using the data for support. The beginning of the season (weeks 1-4), teams are not in full stride offensively. New players, perhaps a new system, getting in sync, may make an offense that is ultimately a scoring machine, show some signs of rust, and not performing at peak level yet. Once we reach weeks 5-9, any offense that has a high caliber propensity for scoring is going to be doing so during this stretch of the season, and in particular if you add in weather factors. Cool weather is made for football, and this is prime football weather pretty much throughout the country for games played outdoors. Then we reach week 10 and on. Injuries usually become a factor, and weather begins to change for the wors in many locations, and those offenses that were clicking, may still be scoring, but the rate begins to decline, or become less consistent. The data supports this perfectly. If you played every under in the NFL during weeks 1-4 since 1996 you would be 24-15 ATS 61.5%. If you played every under over the same period from weeks 10-17 you would be 73-44 ATS 62.4. Combing weeks 1-4 with weeks 10-17 gives you a final toatl of 97-59 ATS or 62.2%!!!! I don't know about you, but those are some pretty strong numbers. If you played these same games in weeks 5-9 your final results would be 26-35 ATS or 42.6%. So the numbers support my above theory, but is it coincidence? It may well be, but it just seems to be an extraordinary coincidence that all the bad weeks run back-to-back for 5 consecutive weeks. If you turn the system around and play the OVER in weeks 5-9 then your left with 132-85 or just about 61% winners. Playing the system as follows: under in weeks 1-4, over in weeks 5-9, and under in weeks 10-17, the 20 year result is 16 winning years, 2 losing years, and 2 breakeven years, so you would avoid a losing season in the NFL 90% of the time. How many could claim that over 20 years? I won't tell you how to play this, because if the weeks 5-9 are just a coincidence, then I am guilty of backfitting data to fit a better system, which is what you see so often when someone posts a system, which immediately downgrades the value. If you believe the logic, then play it to its fullest potential at 62.1%. If you just want to play under all season, then 20 years worth of 57.1% is certainly huge. You make the call!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
