2017 Proves it Once Again--Betting on Losing Teams Leads to Disaster

[TahoeLegend]

I started keeping these records more than 20 years ago when I heard guys around a sports book make dumb bets and then claim “well, it’s all money whether you win on a team with a bad record or a good record.”
The reason it is dumb is they leave out the fact it is impossible to win in the long run betting losing teams.
Since I started keeping records the outcome has never varied.
Teams with the best record SU always have a winning percentage ATS of 60% or above and teams with a losing record SU always have losing record ATS of 70 percent or above.
This year, teams with 8 SU wins or more won ATS at a 70% + rate, while teams with 4 SU wins or fewer lost at a 90% + rate ATS.
There is usually one team among the losers SU who has a winning record ATS and usually two to three teams among the winners SU who have losing records ATS. That held this year, although 4 teams among the winners were losers, a little higher than normal.
Betting football is no different than any other casino game. If you consistently bet propositions that have a big house edge you are going to lose.
Listed first are the best and worst SU, along with their ATS records.

Best SU-- ATS
Wisconsin 12-0 8-4
UCF 11-0 7-4
Bama 11-1 5-7
Clemson 11-1 7-4-1
Georgia 11-1 8-4
Oklahoma 11-1 7-4-1
Memphis 10-1 7-4
Miami 10-1 5-6
Auburn 10-2 5-6
San Diego St 10-2 8-4
USC 10-2 4-8
Washington 10-2 7-4-1

(USC is the outlier this year. Note that Bama is only on this list because the public loves them so much they are always giving more points than they should, and they always relax against the little guys and almost never cover. They WERE above .500 against major opponents).

Worst SU ATS
UTEP 0-12 2-10
Baylor 1-11 4-8
Kansas 1-11 4-8
Oregon St 1-11 3-8-1
Ball State 2-10 3-9
Texas State 2-10 3-8-1
Tulsa 2-10 5-7
Coastal Carolina 2-9 4-7
Ga Southern 2-9 4-7
E Carolina 3-9 3-9
Hawaii 3-9 1-10
Rutgers 4-8 8-4

(Rutgers is the outlier. Of the rest, only Tulsa had an ATS winning percentage above the 30’s. With all other teams you were bucking a 70% + house edge).

To expand it even further:
Teams that won at least 8 games—28 above .500 ATS, 10 below (over 70% winning %)
Teams that won 4 games or fewer—3 above. 500 ATS, 28 below (over 90% losing %)

The correlation between winning SU and ATS continues right down the line, although the closer you get to .500 the lower the ATS winning percentage.
Of teams that won 7 games, 11 were above .500 ATS, 6 below
Of teams that won 5 games, 7 were above ,500 ATS, 8 below

 

[RetroVK]

Even worse ..1 of those utep wins i lost with a bad number. School haunts me.

Nice post

 

[Frank Costanza]

Great information, thanks.

 

[B.A.R.]

:shake:

 

[B.A.R.]

Needs to be bumped next summer (mental note).

 

[ProV1Colt]

Beautiful

 

[s--k]

Good stuff.

I would say that you can pick and choose your spots on bad teams, just as you do on the good teams. Unless somebody is riding a 'good' or 'winning' team or weekly fading a bad team , most everyone is looking for value and spots to play on or against a team. Maybe just always betting every game for a winning team vs a losing team is a good strategy, but I don't think anyone does that across the board. We are all on and off teams throughout the season, some teams higher or lower frequency than others.

Take Texas State, I have them 5-7 ATS rather than 3-8-1. Now they started the season 2-5 ATS, but after their bye week they upset Coastal Carolina as DD dog and with that upset finished the year 3-2 ATS. So if somebody was betting them weekly, sure, you would lose money on Texas State this year. But if you had some opportunities you liked them, saw some improved play from them that wasn't reflected in the point spreads you could make money on them.

Definitely agree it is more difficult and risky to try and determine when the bad team will over achieve rather than when the good team is going to underachieve.

If somebody told me "I never bet on bad teams" I would totally get that and it could be a wise thing to do for that person's overall philosophy - and I think that is what you are saying. Your evidence is very good and could probably be added to some kind of fundamental principles of betting. With that said, I enjoy trying to find the bad teams that will surprise, would I recommend that strategy to others, no - it's just something I've become comfortable with.

 

[mogo]

Needs to be bumped next summer (mental note).

Better yet , I'm stickying this.

Now next year , tell me which teams will have the best SU records so I can bet them

 

[bull]

I would welcome any comment about when a bad team is playing a bad team. The title of the thread tells me Don’t bet the game. That takes the Sunbelt Conference completely out of play. Well, just about. My problem is that I do very poorly on high profile games, always have. Just ask me to pick a side in all the January 1 games, and then fade me.
Betting bad teams selectively is what keeps me afloat.
Having said that, I do have records going back years of all my bets. Come the ides of March, I am making a written note in my calendar to take a look at this.

Excellent post.

 

[RetroVK]

Great post.

The one hard thing is ... when do we know they suck? Some of those teams, we know are gonna suck ...

I have Baylor as 5-7 ATS based on the closing numbers.

But some of them we don't know just how bad they will be. For instance, Baylor lost to Liberty, UTSA and Duke to start the year and were DD faves in the first two. If you figured out they suck after the first two, you went 5-5 ATS fading them each week, losing money. If you figured out they sucked after Duke, you went 4-5 ATS fading them each week.

It isn't quite as simple as it might seem from the end of year numbers.

UTEP just tanked to get a higher draft pick, btw

 

[TahoeLegend]

This does not occur merely at the end of the season. It's true you can not always tell bad teams and just as true teams you think are bound to be bad will turn out to be respectable (Cal this year for instance), but you quickly start to see which teams are bad after a few games. Some, like Kansas, Illinois, UTEP, you know are going to be bad.

Those teams are going to be bad ATS as well and a bet on them is like betting the field in craps. You don't know exactly which roll of the dice you are going to lose on, but if you play the field you know you are going to lose.

And this is not true merely in college games.

As of now in the NFL the four best teams SU are Vikes 10-3 SU, 9-4 ATS, Pats, 10-3 SU, 8-5, Steelers 11-2 SU, 6-6-1 ATS, Eagles, 11-2 SU, 9-4 ATS (Steelers and Pats are like Bama, they get bet up too high every game).

The four worst are (two tied at 4-9) T Bay 4-9 SU, 3-9 ATS, Bears 4-9 SU, 7-5 ATS, Colts 3-10 SU, 6-7 ATS, NYG 2-11 SU, 5-8 ATS, Browns 0-13 SU, 3-10 ATS.

You bet good teams you have a good chance to win, bet bad teams you have almost no chance.

One friend of mine advises betting ONLY the ATS numbers and thinks he can find winners by ignoring losing records SU if a team has a winning record ATS. He told me to send it on the Bears last week. I ignored, him but his advice was correct. He also told me to load up on the Cowboys who were winning at 60% ATS on the road while the Giants were 1-5 ATS at home. I took his advice on that one.

He told me today to take Indy in the Thursday night game because they are 4-2 ATS at home, Denver is 0-6 ATS on the road. I took his advice so we'll see if it works again.

He may have something. I haven't analyzed it, just taking his word on it, but it might have been wise to bet Rutgers this year when it was clear by mid-season they were not going to win games SU, but were so undervalued by the public they were a solid bet ATS.

So a more accurate statement may be, "don't bet on bad teams unless it is clear by their ATS records they are a lot better than the public believes they are."

I'm going to go back over the records when the season is over and see if I can find a way to test his theory, but right now all I can say for sure is you will lose money money betting on bad teams SU--no matter at what point of the season you identify them--and save money by avoiding them.

And just because a team is say, 1-2 at the beginning of the season does not mean they are a bad team if they have played a couple of loaded teams like a lot of the mid majors have to do. Fresno was a good example this year. They lost road games at Bama and Washington the first three weeks. I didn't judge them a bad team off that.

 

[Lexington 125]

great post :shake:

 

[s--k]

Interesting last post Tahoe, but when going by ATS records there are always inconsistencies in point spreads that make the records different. My ATS record, your ATS record and somebody else's ATS record for the same team could all be different. The straight up record is always going to be what it clearly is, the ATS record is pretty unreliable.

 

[bull]

I see your point, mr. s..k.