[polson22]

wondering about this as a quantitative strategy.

basically FADING absolutely hopeless teams or those with terrible ATS trends

anyone else done work on this type of idea........ i do alot of analysis on the lesser games and it just seems like the same teams get absolutely crushed each week and the market is slow to catch on as to the magnitude that these teams sucking (sorry couldn't come up with better word).

if you look at the better power ratings, it seems like there's 5-6 teams clear at the bottom that are just god-awful beyond the vast number of mediocres above them. and then you could sprinkle in a few terrible ATS teams or teams with bad trends from further above.

these teams come to mind:

rice
western kentucky
tulane
rutgers
miami ohio
new mexico state
illinois
wake

one problem is that before this week i'd probably have had texas a&m and eastern michigan on this list. probably would have had rutgers but certainly wouldn't have played army as they should probably be on the list too.

this gold sheet article has some of the same ideas, but less focus on team being terrible

http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-...m/story/915353

BTW, does anyone know where i can automatically track a team's last 3 games vs. ATS? i.e. a spreadsheet with all 120 teams. i don't think statfox does it. i know one place that does a 5 game ATS trend report, but that's most of the season right now (which i already have), and i think that's too slow in picking up trends.

anyway, thanks in advance for any suggestions!!

[polson22]

BTW, here's an ATS streak snippet from before yesterday's games.

5- Ill, UNLV; 4-EMU, Rice; 3-Fla St, Haw,Kan, NCS, SJSU, UCLA, Vandy, A&M 0-2-1 last 3; 2-Aub, MTSU, Mizzou, UNC, Stan, Syr, Tulane, Wake, WKU, Wisc. from gold sheets

so

EMU WIN
Rice lost
FSU win
hawaii loss
ncs dnp?
kan LOSS
sjsu dnp
ucla lost
vandy can't find this result on first page i checked. will update later. win?
A&M win

time constrained, but 2* teams look like losers yesterday

[mebaran]

Keep going with this, I'm interested.

[polson22]

just to elaborate. i've already been doing this, i think to good results (my overall win rate is good for the year, but i've been very good on totals, so not totally sure)

just thinking it's something i should stress even more.

and sorry, i'm sure if i said it properly but those 2 week ATS losers (it wasn't 4*, 3*, 2* but 4, 3, 2 week streaks) were more winning bets than losers (not winning teams on ATS)....... so the research looks promising. i look at all sorts of these things already, but i want to get sharper