By [http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=William_Foote]William Foote The Madness, folks, is finally upon us. The most beautiful three weeks of sports during the year. When the nations productivity drops 50 percent, as employees wear out the refresh button and extend 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 finally upon us! And while we cant help you fill out a perfect bracket, we have been holed up for weeks dissecting the stats and trends from the previous eight tournaments to help pad your collective wallets. So without further ado... A Seemingly Simple Challenge Before we jump into the numbers, let us pose a seemingly simply challenge. Could you pick the straight up winner of each and every NCAA tournament game at a 55 percent or better rate? How about a 60 percent or better rate? We are talking about just identifying the straight up winner with no point spread involved. You know like who will win out between Duke and We are making our first Tournament appearance ever College? Presumably, most would assume that even a monkey could pick the SU winners at a higher rate. Our question then becomes: why dont you? One of the most glaring trends we have ever come across is the frequency in which straight up winners also cover the spread in the NCAA tournament. In fact, straight up winners are an incredible 376-116-13 ATS (76 percent) over the past eight years during 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 $550 to win $500 would be $124,200 wealthier if he or she were to accomplish this feat over the past eight tournaments. A "half dollar" player risking the standard $55 to win $50 would be $12,420 closer to retirement. Someone once said, There are more important things in life to worry about than just money; how to get a hold of it, for example. Well, picking straight up winners in the NCAA Tournament appears like a darn good place to start. Right? As one notable annoying football analyst 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 quickly shed some light on why this ostensibly simple feat is anything 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 favorite in every single tournament game and head to Hawaii for the rest of April, and perhaps part of May for that matter? As one notable 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 actually segues perfectly into our next observation. In the simplest of terms, underdogs are still a better bet than favorites. Specifically, underdogs were 265-224-15 ATS (54 percent) over the past eight tournaments combined. Conversely, this implies that of course favorites were an unprofitable 46 percent winning proposition during the same time period. If you know anything about how odds are set, this should hardly come as a surprise. After all, John Q. Public still bets favorites at a higher ratio than underdogs. In other words, most folks are interested in betting the hot or most notable teams. And do not think this fact is lost on the oddsmakers! Keep in mind that March Madness brings in as many square bettors this side of the Super Bowl. Practically 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 better idea to take notice in the teams no one else is interested in. Underdogs That Lose SU One of the more interesting trends we uncovered is that favorites who won SU were a startling 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 during 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 generally 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 better 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 ticket and then bang on our door for a refund when it does not come in. William Foote is a documented member of the Professional Handicappers League.
Read all of his articles at http://www.procappers.com/William_Foote.htm Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=William_Foote http://EzineArticles.com/?March-Madness-Trends---Part-1&id=162287 buy xanax with no prescription
xanax prescriptions
xanax overnight no prescription
buy xanax online without a prescription
