Author: horse-racing-free-tips

How to handicap College Hoops NCAA March Madness Tournament Edition

It is the time of year when conference championships are almost upon us and there are several keys that should be looked at when handicapping the tournaments during March Madness.
Experience pays off:

One has to look at teams that have played in championships to get back to the championship round. In the last five years teams that have won the championship has made it back to the big game 63% of the time. This has to do with being able to handle the pressure of the big game.

Depth:

Depth is a must for the championship tournament as it will always give an edge to a team when it comes to late in the tournament when teams have played several games over several days. Teams that are strong in depth allow players to be fresher longer and eat up precious time as well as fouls at any given time.

Rebounding:

This one is rather obvious has teams that rebound the ball well get a second chance at missed shots and will often control the tempo of the game for the most part. The teams in conference that have had the rebounding edge has gone to the championship round more often than not.

Free Throws:

Another obvious one is free throws. Teams that can shoot free throws will win games down the stretch and in conference tournaments they are invaluable. With the basics of picking a winner in the conference tournaments out of the way let’s look at some of the intangibles that will make you money ATS.

Ride the Streak:

Hot teams coming into the tournament are always a play in my book. These teams usually get all the bounces, play the game the hardest and take advantage of teams playing out the string. However a note here is if the team is undefeated in conference play when they enter the tournament I suggest a play against them SU and ATS.

Stay away from the last team to make the tournament:

The #8 seed is a dangerous go of things in conference tournaments. They have played the #1 seed before (often twice) and so the #1 seed knows exactly what to expect and is not surprised by the play or the temp unlike March Madness when the lower seeds surprise more often. The #8 seed is not a money maker ATS either as they are just 51% ATS in conference tournaments.

Your upsets will be from the middle of the pack:

This makes sense as the teams ranked #4-#6 are often playing opposition with equal talent or close to it. This is where the dog will become more valuable than not and will have an easier path to getting to the conference championship and often cashing as an underdog along the way.

The conference tournaments to me are very valuable when considering the big dance in March. The reason is simple. When you play close attention to the conference tournaments you are watching teams that will make the Big Dance and you will get insight on how to play them when March Madness starts. For up to date information on March Madness stop by Bang The Book Sports Handicapping Forum at http://www.bangthebook.com

About this time two years ago, I watched as on one of the fine betting sites there was a not-so-subtle back and forth of the validity of the so-called zigzag NBA playoff system.

The method simply says go with the team off of a loss. A critic came back after the first week or so gleaming over the fact the technique zagged and sagged more than it zigged. It lost money. Then as the playoffs went on, the proponent got the last laugh while the cynic wrote articles on other topics telling you he is smarter than everyone else.

Having been in the industry since the 1980s and having been a supporter of computer systems since prominent statistician Dr. Mike Orkin wrote his Pointspread Analyzer software, where does Center of the Handicapping Universe stand?

We agree with the theory, but less so the etched-in-stone considerations. First of all, let us give a quick refresher of the difference. A system can be measured objectively because the parameters are concrete. The zigzag is an example. Going with a double digit favorite off a single digit loss would be another hypothetical.

Of course there can be modest variances depending on when and where a database gathers lines, but over any statistically significant period it does not make a huge difference.

A theory is much like a system but does not have objective parameters. Our theory is the better the team is that the zigzag system favors and the bigger the margin the loss was, the more compelling it is to “go with the team off a loss.”

True one could come up with a system to measure our upgrading of the methodology. An example would be going with a team with a winning percentage of .575 or higher off a loss of eight or more. The problem is we believe a mental sliding scale combining and most importantly, weighing the two factors works best. It allows for a mixing and matching of the two parameters.

For example, this year as in most years, it would not apply or would only be weighed slightly if we are talking about the bottom three seeds in each conference off a loss. There is a reason they are called “mismatches”.

No. 4 versus five and the next three rounds of the playoffs (barring huge first round upsets), it is weighed much heavier. Remember we told you the mocker grew conspicuously quieter as the postseason went on. Now you know why.

It’s one of those theories that almost make too much sense. During the regular season of every sport we remind you of the Golden Rule to not merely go with the “team that needs it more” if said team is fighting just to make the playoffs.

We call attention to the fact if a team were proficient at winning “must win” games they would not be playing in must-win games late in the year.

Conversely, a one through five seed, especially as the playoffs go deeper, has shown the ability to rebound from adversity and respond when their backs are to the wall.

To the handicapper there is a titanic difference between desperate elite teams and equally desperate inferior teams playing in a crucial contest. It’s like the difference between seeing Jennifer Lopez and Rosie O’Donnell in a string bikini.

Okay, I don’t follow the analogy myself, but the exemplification of the distinction is infallible. From a handicapping standpoint one can’t measure the success of the zigzag if Phoenix coming off a loss is given the same weight (no pun intended Rosie) as Washington or Golden State following a setback.

Likewise, the margin of the loss is applicable for at least two obvious reasons. As we have said many times, nothing affects public perception more than the last game they have seen. It’s not uncommon for a blowout in the previous game to influence an opening line by 2-3 points and more times than not, the closing line by more.

Plus, no matter how motivated and well-coached a squad is, it defies human nature to approach a game with as much vengeance off a 22-point win as it is for the team off the huge setback.

So to friends and foes alike of zigzag, a .700 or better team off a loss is not even close to being the same as the below .520 teams zigging. Nor is mindset the same for a team that lost a game that went down to the wire the same as one that got humiliated on national television.