[seaborneq]

An initial look, it seems as though you would hit well over 60% of the games.

[IWishIWasRich]

I took the dogs with a friend a few years back. He was REALLY ANGRY to have to pay me 7 games. He thought I had tricked him some way. I have not followed this but I think you will be correct, only more than 60%.

[bmac]

interesting concept...... anyone else tried this before?

[BuddyBear]

50/50 over the long run. Some years better than others (2005 was a great year for dog bowl bettors, but 2006 came back down) but if you go throughout bowl history, you'll find that it is 50/50 like virtually everything else.

[pokernut9999]

Best thing to do for bowl games is to look at who is glad to be there and the teams that are not happy to be there. Works well year to year.

[etothep]

Anyway To Find Lines From Last Yrs Bowl Games??

last year's bowl faves were 14-18 ats

[Ganchrow]

From the 1998/99 - 2006/07 bowl seasons, according to covers.com data, dogs went went 135-90-2, for a win rate (over non-pushed outcomes) of 60% and a standard error of 3.28%.

This corresponds to 3.05 standard errors above 50% and 2.32 standard above 52.38% (breakeven at -110).

So (for what it's worth) based solely on this data, we can reject the null hypothesis (at > 95% confidence) in favor of the alternative that blindly betting on bowl underdog spreads is a profitable strategy when paying -110.

[LT Profits]

But dogs are just a shade over 53% since 1985.

[seaborneq]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

From the 1998/99 - 2006/07 bowl seasons, according to covers.com data, dogs went went 135-90-2, for a win rate (over non-pushed outcomes) of 60% and a standard error of 3.28%.

This corresponds to 3.05 standard errors above 50% and 2.32 standard above 52.38% (breakeven at -110).

So (for what it's worth) based solely on this data, we can reject the null hypothesis (at > 95% confidence) in favor of the alternative that blindly betting on bowl underdog spreads is a profitable strategy when paying -110.

Is this a yes or no-go? Ganch, remember some of us only understanding winning and losing.

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by seaborneq

Is this a yes or no-go? Ganch, remember some of us only understanding winning and losing.

I'm not going to call it either a go or a no-go. That's just not my style.

What I will say is that a traditional low-level interpretation of the 1998/99 - 2006/07 covers.com win/loss ATS data provides no compelling rationale for not blindly betting on all the underdogs.

[Willie Bee]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

From the 1998/99 - 2006/07 bowl seasons, according to covers.com data, dogs went went 135-90-2, for a win rate (over non-pushed outcomes) of 60% and a standard error of 3.28%.

Ganch, wasn't there one year that the dogs went ape and ran up some 17-5 record?

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by Willie Bee

Ganch, wasn't there one year that the dogs went ape and ran up some 17-5 record?

Here's the yearly breakdown:

New Year	Dog Wins	Fave Wins	%
1999	13	8	61.90%
2000	16	6	72.73%
2001	13	9	59.09%
2002	13	9	59.09%
2003	15	11	57.69%
2004	13	12	52.00%
2005	17	11	60.71%
2006	17	10	62.96%
2007	18	14	56.25%
TOTAL	135	90	60.00%

[seaborneq]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

Here's the yearly breakdown:

New	Dog	Fave
Year	Wins	Wins
1999	13	8	61.90%
2000	16	6	72.73%
2001	13	9	59.09%
2002	13	9	59.09%
2003	15	11	57.69%
2004	13	12	52.00%
2005	17	11	60.71%
2006	17	10	62.96%
2007	18	14	56.25%
------------------------------
Total	135	90	60.00%

This does NOT look like a 50/50 probability to me. If it does to others, oh well. The proof seems to be in the pudding, dogs win at a better % than faves during the bowl season.

[cartay]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

I'm not going to call it either a go or a no-go. That's just not my style.

What I will say is that a traditional low-level interpretation of the 1998/99 - 2006/07 covers.com win/loss ATS data provides no compelling rationale for not blindly betting on all the underdogs.

LOL. OK, I'm dumb enough to need a #2 interpretation. Just to be sure I got this right, your double-negative is indicating that:

if one wants to blindly bet all the dogs, there is nothing in the data that says "No, don't do it!"

At the same time, it's not enough to say "Do it!"

Or to look at it another way, it wouldn't be the worst thing one ever tried

[Willie Bee]

Must've been the 2000 season I was thinking of. It would seem to be as reliable a 'trend' as those come, but I'd sure like to factor in a few other stats -- Conference v. Conference for one -- before I bet 32 games 'blind.'

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by cartay

if one wants to blindly bet all the dogs, there is nothing in the data that says "No, don't do it!"

Exactly.

Originally Posted by cartay

At the same time, it's not enough to say "Do it!"

I don't think that it's fair to say "it's not enough" in that I'm not sure any amount of data should ever be considered "enough" to convince an advantage bettor to make a play without regard to price.

Originally Posted by cartay

Or to look at it another way, it wouldn't be the worst thing one ever tried

To be fair, that would be highly dependent on what else one has been tried.

[jjgold]

You cannot go wrong doing it and will always outperform guys that study day and night.

Betting all dogs in the bowl games is the single most cannot miss strategy ever and it takes no time.

[tblues2005]

I think I take dogs against teams that are upset about where they went. I would bet Arkansas vs. Missouri because I think Missouri thinks they got hosed and they probably will not be able to stop McFadden anyways and he wants to be a top draft pick also.

[jjgold]

NCAA basketball tourney also it is fairly effective tool

It is becoming a dog world out there now due to parity

[Dreambig]

I like to bet dogs before new years and the favs after new years

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by seaborneq

This does NOT look like a 50/50 probability to me. If it does to others, oh well. The proof seems to be in the pudding, dogs win at a better % than faves during the bowl season.

That's correct.

As I previously noted, the dog frequency of 60.00% over the entire 9-year period is 3.05 standard errors above 50%.

[purecarnagge]

Whats the break down with dogs before new years and favs after?

[Ganchrow]

Following is the complete covers.com data set used in the above analysis. For the sake of completeness I've also included pick 'em games, for which the determination of an underdog would of course be arbitrary. These games were ignored when calculating the historical underdog win rates ATS.

DATE	FAVE	SPREAD	DOG	TOTAL	FAVE SCORE	DOG SCORE
20001229	COLORADO STATE	0	LOUISVILLE	53.5	22	17
20010101	PURDUE	0	WASHINGTON	60	24	34
20011220	NORTH CAROLINA STATE	0	PITTSBURGH	47.5	19	34
20020101	OHIO STATE	0	SOUTH CAROLINA	41	28	31
20020101	VIRGINIA TECH	0	FLORIDA STATE	51	17	30
20021231	MARYLAND	0	TENNESSEE	46	30	3
20060102	IOWA	0	FLORIDA	50	24	31
19991225	ARIZONA STATE	-1	WAKE FOREST	47	3	23
19991230	LOUISVILLE	-1	BOISE STATE	63	31	34
20000101	ALABAMA	-1	MICHIGAN	48.5	34	35
20001227	TEXAS TECH	-1	EAST CAROLINA	53	27	40
20001231	AIR FORCE	-1	FRESNO STATE	53	37	34
20041228	IOWA STATE	-1	MIAMI (OHIO)	50	17	13
20050104	SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA	-1	OKLAHOMA	52	55	19
20071227	TEXAS	-1	ARIZONA STATE	62	52	34
20001231	MISSISSIPPI STATE	-1.5	TEXAS A&M	43.5	43	41
20011229	TEXAS TECH	-1.5	IOWA	58	16	19
20020101	LOUISIANA STATE	-1.5	ILLINOIS	56	47	34
20030101	MICHIGAN	-1.5	FLORIDA	47	38	30
20030101	NORTH CAROLINA STATE	-1.5	NOTRE DAME	42	28	6
20041223	MARSHALL	-1.5	CINCINNATI	52.5	14	32
20041231	ALABAMA	-1.5	MINNESOTA	46.5	16	20
20061229	PURDUE	-1.5	MARYLAND	56	7	24
20070101	AUBURN	-1.5	NEBRASKA	47	17	14
20070101	MICHIGAN	-1.5	SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA	46	18	32
20071229	WAKE FOREST	-1.5	CONNECTICUT	46.5	24	10
20040101	FLORIDA STATE	-2	MIAMI	46	14	16
20051231	TEXAS CHRISTIAN	-2	IOWA STATE	51	27	24
20061228	OKLAHOMA STATE	-2	ALABAMA	48.5	34	31
20071222	NEW MEXICO	-2	NEVADA	57	23	0
20011219	MARSHALL	-2.5	EAST CAROLINA	67	64	61
20011231	NORTH CAROLINA	-2.5	AUBURN	44	16	10
20021218	MARSHALL	-2.5	LOUISVILLE	63	38	15
20021226	PITTSBURGH	-2.5	OREGON STATE	44.5	13	38
20021231	WASHINGTON	-2.5	PURDUE	56.5	24	34
20031224	NEW MEXICO	-2.5	OREGON STATE	51	14	55
20031231	COLORADO STATE	-2.5	BOSTON COLLEGE	54	21	35
20031231	UTAH	-2.5	SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI	44	17	0
20041230	NORTH CAROLINA	-2.5	BOSTON COLLEGE	54	24	37
20061223	UTAH	-2.5	TULSA	48	25	13
20070101	ARKANSAS	-2.5	WISCONSIN	46	14	17
20071229	CENTRAL FLORIDA	-2.5	MISSISSIPPI STATE	53	3	10
19981230	NEBRASKA	-3	ARIZONA	55	20	23
19981231	VIRGINIA	-3	GEORGIA	49	33	35
19990101	MICHIGAN	-3	ARKANSAS	44	45	31
19990101	NOTRE DAME	-3	GEORGIA TECH	52	28	35
19991227	MARSHALL	-3	BRIGHAM YOUNG	55.5	21	3
19991229	KENTUCKY	-3	SYRACUSE	52	13	20
19991230	CLEMSON	-3	MISSISSIPPI STATE	40.5	7	17
19991230	VIRGINIA	-3	ILLINOIS	56.5	21	63
19991231	MINNESOTA	-3	OREGON	53	20	24
20000101	FLORIDA	-3	MICHIGAN STATE	47.5	34	37
20001228	PITTSBURGH	-3	IOWA STATE	53	29	37
20010101	OREGON STATE	-3	NOTRE DAME	50	41	9
20011225	SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA	-3	UTAH	44	6	10
20011231	LOUISVILLE	-3	BRIGHAM YOUNG	67	28	10
20020101	TENNESSEE	-3	MICHIGAN	46	45	17
20020101	COLORADO	-3	OREGON	62	16	38
20031216	MEMPHIS	-3	NORTH TEXAS	47.5	27	17
20031226	VIRGINIA TECH	-3	CALIFORNIA	56.5	49	52
20031227	VIRGINIA	-3	PITTSBURGH	56	23	16
20031229	NEBRASKA	-3	MICHIGAN STATE	49.5	17	3
20031230	UCLA	-3	FRESNO STATE	43	9	17
20031231	ARKANSAS	-3	MISSOURI	54	27	14
20031231	AUBURN	-3	WISCONSIN	46	28	14
20040102	MISSISSIPPI	-3	OKLAHOMA STATE	59.5	31	28
20041222	BOWLING GREEN	-3	MEMPHIS	67	52	35
20041230	NEW MEXICO	-3	NAVY	37	19	34
20041230	TROY	-3	NORTHERN ILLINOIS	43.5	21	34
20051221	TOLEDO	-3	TEXAS EL PASO	62	45	13
20051222	NAVY	-3	COLORADO STATE	59.5	51	30
20051228	BOSTON COLLEGE	-3	BOISE STATE	55.5	27	21
20051229	OREGON	-3	OKLAHOMA	55.5	14	17
20051230	UCLA	-3	NORTHWESTERN	74	50	38
20060102	TEXAS TECH	-3	ALABAMA	47	10	13
20061221	BRIGHAM YOUNG	-3	OREGON	62.5	38	8
20061223	NEW MEXICO	-3	SAN JOSE STATE	48.5	12	20
20061228	CALIFORNIA	-3	TEXAS A&M	54	45	10
20061230	VIRGINIA TECH	-3	GEORGIA	37.5	24	31
19981223	MARSHALL	-3.5	LOUISVILLE	70	48	29
19981225	AIR FORCE	-3.5	WASHINGTON	50.5	25	45
19981226	MISSOURI	-3.5	WEST VIRGINIA	56.5	34	31
19981231	TULANE	-3.5	BRIGHAM YOUNG	64	41	27
19991231	OKLAHOMA	-3.5	MISSISSIPPI	56.5	25	27
20001225	ARIZONA STATE	-3.5	BOSTON COLLEGE	54	17	31
20001227	CINCINNATI	-3.5	MARSHALL	52	14	25
20001228	MISSISSIPPI	-3.5	WEST VIRGINIA	51.5	38	49
20021231	COLORADO STATE	-3.5	TEXAS CHRISTIAN	48	3	17
20040101	GEORGIA	-3.5	PURDUE	41	34	27
20041224	HAWAII	-3.5	ALABAMA-BIRMINGHAM	77	59	40
20051224	NEVADA	-3.5	CENTRAL FLORIDA	64.5	49	48
20051231	NORTH CAROLINA STATE	-3.5	SOUTH FLORIDA	42	14	0
20061227	UCLA	-3.5	FLORIDA STATE	38	27	44
20061229	OREGON STATE	-3.5	MISSOURI	53	39	38
20061231	MIAMI	-3.5	NEVADA	42	21	20
20070101	TENNESSEE	-3.5	PENN STATE	41.5	10	20
20071221	FLORIDA ATLANTIC	-3.5	MEMPHIS	67.5	44	27
20000102	NEBRASKA	-4	TENNESSEE	45	31	21
20001228	MINNESOTA	-4	NORTH CAROLINA STATE	56.5	30	38
20010101	KANSAS STATE	-4	TENNESSEE	53.5	35	21
20011228	GEORGIA	-4	BOSTON COLLEGE	51.5	16	20
20021226	BOSTON COLLEGE	-4	TOLEDO	58.5	51	25
20040101	FLORIDA	-4	IOWA	46.5	17	37
20041227	TOLEDO	-4	CONNECTICUT	66.5	10	39
20041229	OKLAHOMA STATE	-4	OHIO STATE	48	7	33
20041229	COLORADO	-4	TEXAS EL PASO	55.5	33	28
20041231	MIAMI	-4	FLORIDA	55	27	10
20051223	KANSAS	-4	HOUSTON	49	42	13
20051226	MEMPHIS	-4	AKRON	52.5	38	31
20051230	SOUTH CAROLINA	-4	MISSOURI	51	31	38
20060102	OHIO STATE	-4	NOTRE DAME	56.5	34	20
20071228	OREGON STATE	-4	MARYLAND	46.5	21	14
19981229	VIRGINIA TECH	-4.5	ALABAMA	41	38	7
20000101	MIAMI	-4.5	GEORGIA TECH	69	28	13
20011228	TEXAS A&M	-4.5	TEXAS CHRISTIAN	41	28	9
20011229	TOLEDO	-4.5	CINCINNATI	60	23	16
20011231	FRESNO STATE	-4.5	MICHIGAN STATE	62.5	35	44
20021223	TEXAS TECH	-4.5	CLEMSON	66	55	15
20030102	SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA	-4.5	IOWA	55.5	38	17
20040101	MARYLAND	-4.5	WEST VIRGINIA	50	41	7
20041228	OREGON STATE	-4.5	NOTRE DAME	51.5	38	21
20050101	TEXAS A&M	-4.5	TENNESSEE	55.5	7	38
20061222	RICE	-4.5	TROY	54	17	41
20061229	SOUTH CAROLINA	-4.5	HOUSTON	56	44	36
20071230	ALABAMA	-4.5	COLORADO	51.5	30	24
19981225	OREGON	-5	COLORADO	54.5	51	43
20000101	TEXAS	-5	ARKANSAS	51	6	27
20010101	OHIO STATE	-5	SOUTH CAROLINA	43.5	7	24
20040102	TENNESSEE	-5	CLEMSON	47	14	27
20041227	VIRGINIA	-5	FRESNO STATE	52.5	34	37
20050101	LOUISIANA STATE	-5	IOWA	42	25	30
20061223	SOUTH FLORIDA	-5	EAST CAROLINA	43	24	7
20071228	BOSTON COLLEGE	-5	MICHIGAN STATE	59	24	21
20071229	PENN STATE	-5	TEXAS A&M	51.5	24	17
19990104	TENNESSEE	-5.5	FLORIDA STATE	42	23	16
19991222	EAST CAROLINA	-5.5	TEXAS CHRISTIAN	46	14	28
20000101	PURDUE	-5.5	GEORGIA	62.5	25	28
20000104	FLORIDA STATE	-5.5	VIRGINIA TECH	49	46	29
20030101	OKLAHOMA	-5.5	WASHINGTON STATE	53	34	14
20031231	MINNESOTA	-5.5	OREGON	60	31	30
20041221	GEORGIA TECH	-5.5	SYRACUSE	45	51	14
19981229	NORTH CAROLINA STATE	-6	MIAMI	67	23	46
20001229	WISCONSIN	-6	UCLA	55	21	20
20011227	STANFORD	-6	GEORGIA TECH	60.5	14	24
20011229	KANSAS STATE	-6	SYRACUSE	45	3	26
20021228	WEST VIRGINIA	-6	VIRGINIA	52	22	48
20031226	BOWLING GREEN	-6	NORTHWESTERN	56	28	24
20050103	AUBURN	-6	VIRGINIA TECH	44.5	16	13
20051230	MIAMI	-6	LOUISIANA STATE	41	3	40
20071222	BRIGHAM YOUNG	-6	UCLA	46	17	16
19990101	MISSISSIPPI STATE	-6.5	TEXAS	53	11	38
20010101	VIRGINIA TECH	-6.5	CLEMSON	61.5	41	20
20011227	IOWA STATE	-6.5	ALABAMA	51	13	14
20011231	LOUISIANA TECH	-6.5	CLEMSON	60	24	49
20011231	WASHINGTON STATE	-6.5	PURDUE	48	33	27
20021231	GEORGIA TECH	-6.5	FRESNO STATE	49	21	30
20040104	OKLAHOMA	-6.5	LOUISIANA STATE	47	14	21
20041214	SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI	-6.5	NORTH TEXAS	53.5	31	10
20070107	SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI	-6.5	OHIO	42.5	28	7
20071228	TEXAS CHRISTIAN	-6.5	HOUSTON	57	20	13
19990102	FLORIDA	-7	SYRACUSE	62.5	31	10
19991228	PENN STATE	-7	TEXAS A&M	45	24	0
19991231	COLORADO	-7	BOSTON COLLEGE	55.5	62	28
19991231	SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI	-7	COLORADO STATE	44	23	17
20001220	TEXAS CHRISTIAN	-7	SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI	43.5	21	28
20001229	TEXAS	-7	OREGON	55	30	35
20010102	MIAMI	-7	FLORIDA	58.5	37	20
20021227	NEBRASKA	-7	MISSISSIPPI	53.5	23	27
20021228	COLORADO	-7	WISCONSIN	53.5	28	31
20040101	SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA	-7	MICHIGAN	58	28	14
20040102	KANSAS STATE	-7	OHIO STATE	42	28	35
20040103	GEORGIA TECH	-7	TULSA	46.5	52	10
20050101	GEORGIA	-7	WISCONSIN	41	24	21
20051230	MINNESOTA	-7	VIRGINIA	62	31	34
20060102	GEORGIA	-7	WEST VIRGINIA	47	35	38
20060104	SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA	-7	TEXAS	70	38	41
20070101	OKLAHOMA	-7	BOISE STATE	50.5	42	43
20070106	CINCINNATI	-7	WESTERN MICHIGAN	41.5	27	24
20070108	OHIO STATE	-7	FLORIDA	47	14	41
19990101	PENN STATE	-7.5	KENTUCKY	62.5	26	14
20021217	CINCINNATI	-7.5	NORTH TEXAS	44	19	24
20030101	GEORGIA	-7.5	FLORIDA STATE	49	26	13
20030101	PENN STATE	-7.5	AUBURN	48.5	9	13
20050101	TEXAS	-7.5	MICHIGAN	54.5	38	37
20051231	FRESNO STATE	-7.5	TULSA	62	24	31
20071226	PURDUE	-7.5	CENTRAL MICHIGAN	71.5	51	48
20010101	MICHIGAN	-8	AUBURN	48.5	31	28
20061229	TEXAS TECH	-8	MINNESOTA	63	44	41
20061230	BOSTON COLLEGE	-8	NAVY	48	25	24
19991225	OREGON STATE	-8.5	HAWAII	57.5	17	23
20020103	MIAMI	-8.5	NEBRASKA	55	37	14
20021230	ARKANSAS	-8.5	MINNESOTA	46.5	14	29
20041231	PURDUE	-8.5	ARIZONA STATE	56	23	27
20051222	CALIFORNIA	-8.5	BRIGHAM YOUNG	59.5	35	28
20061224	HAWAII	-8.5	ARIZONA STATE	72.5	41	24
20061226	CENTRAL MICHIGAN	-8.5	MIDDLE TENNESSEE ST.	51	31	14
20061228	RUTGERS	-8.5	KANSAS STATE	44.5	37	10
19990101	UCLA	-9	WISCONSIN	62	31	38
20001228	BOISE STATE	-9	TEXAS EL PASO	67	38	23
20021230	OREGON	-9	WAKE FOREST	60	17	38
20051227	ARIZONA STATE	-9	RUTGERS	64	45	40
20051229	GEORGIA TECH	-9	UTAH	46.5	10	38
20061230	TEXAS	-9	IOWA	53.5	26	24
20070103	LOUISIANA STATE	-9	NOTRE DAME	56	41	14
20071220	UTAH	-9	NAVY	63.5	35	32
19981231	TEXAS TECH	-9.5	MISSISSIPPI	44	18	35
20001224	GEORGIA	-9.5	VIRGINIA	47.5	37	14
20001229	GEORGIA TECH	-9.5	LOUISIANA STATE	55	14	28
20031230	TEXAS	-9.5	WASHINGTON STATE	58	20	28
20060103	PENN STATE	-9.5	FLORIDA STATE	47	26	23
20070101	WEST VIRGINIA	-9.5	GEORGIA TECH	47	38	35
19991229	KANSAS STATE	-10	WASHINGTON	50.5	24	20
20021225	UCLA	-10	NEW MEXICO	51.5	27	13
20021227	OKLAHOMA STATE	-10	SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI	47.5	33	23
20031230	TEXAS TECH	-10	NAVY	72	38	14
20050101	FLORIDA STATE	-10	WEST VIRGINIA	45	30	18
20051228	MICHIGAN	-10	NEBRASKA	48	28	32
20060102	VIRGINIA TECH	-10	LOUISVILLE	55	35	24
20060102	AUBURN	-10	WISCONSIN	53	10	24
20030101	TEXAS	-10.5	LOUISIANA STATE	47	35	20
20051227	CLEMSON	-10.5	COLORADO	48	19	10
20070102	LOUISVILLE	-10.5	WAKE FOREST	53	24	13
20010103	FLORIDA STATE	-11	OKLAHOMA	57	2	13
20011218	NORTH TEXAS	-11	COLORADO STATE	45	20	45
20031222	NORTH CAROLINA STATE	-11	KANSAS	65	56	26
20031225	HAWAII	-11	HOUSTON	75.5	54	48
20041230	CALIFORNIA	-11	TEXAS TECH	65	31	45
20021231	VIRGINIA TECH	-11.5	AIR FORCE	57.5	20	13
20041231	LOUISVILLE	-11.5	BOISE STATE	78.5	44	40
20061229	CLEMSON	-11.5	KENTUCKY	58	20	28
20071222	CINCINNATI	-11.5	SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI	55.5	31	21
20071223	BOISE STATE	-11.5	EAST CAROLINA	66	38	41
20020101	OKLAHOMA	-12	ARKANSAS	42	10	3
20021231	BOISE STATE	-12	IOWA STATE	65	34	16
20030103	MIAMI	-12	OHIO STATE	48	24	31
20061219	TEXAS CHRISTIAN	-12	NORTHERN ILLINOIS	46	37	7
20021225	HAWAII	-12.5	TULANE	64.5	28	36
20041223	UCLA	-12.5	WYOMING	57	21	24
19981229	KANSAS STATE	-13.5	PURDUE	68	34	37
19990101	OHIO STATE	-13.5	TEXAS A&M	50	24	14
20011228	TEXAS	-13.5	WASHINGTON	56	47	43
20000101	WISCONSIN	-14	STANFORD	59	17	9
20001230	NEBRASKA	-14	NORTHWESTERN	64.5	66	17
20050101	UTAH	-14	PITTSBURGH	66.5	35	7
20020102	FLORIDA	-14.5	MARYLAND	58	56	23
20051220	SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI	-14.5	ARKANSAS STATE	50	31	19
19981231	SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA	-16.5	TEXAS CHRISTIAN	42.5	19	28
19981230	SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI	-17.5	IDAHO	58	35	42
20021227	KANSAS STATE	-17.5	ARIZONA STATE	62	34	27

Data last updated 12/30/2007

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by purecarnagge

Whats the break down with dogs before new years and favs after?

After New Year's
38-34-1 (52.78%)

Before New Year's
97-56-1 (63.40%)

[seaborneq]

Before New Year's dogs here I come. Everybody else fade me.

[cartay]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

Exactly.

I don't think that it's fair to say "it's not enough" in that I'm not sure any amount of data should ever be considered "enough" to convince an advantage bettor to make a play without regard to price.

To be fair, that would be highly dependent on what else one has been tried.

[purecarnagge]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

After New Year's
38-34-1 (52.78%)

Before New Year's
97-56-1 (63.40%)

Thank you

[WileOut]

Looks like a strong trend. Even longterm trends change though, be careful. This could be just a case of a freak 9 year win streak for dogs. Favs could win the next 3. Who knows but I think I will play the dog theory for a small amount each game.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

I'm not going to call it either a go or a no-go. That's just not my style.

What I will say is that a traditional low-level interpretation of the 1998/99 - 2006/07 covers.com win/loss ATS data provides no compelling rationale for not blindly betting on all the underdogs.

Any split between dogs winning ratio before and after January 1st? (favorites before 1/1 disappointed at not playing in higher bowls)

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

Any split between dogs winning ratio before and after January 1st? (favorites before 1/1 disappointed at not playing in higher bowls)

Oops. Should have read the whole thread.

Dogs before New Year it is!

[BuddyBear]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

That's correct.

As I previously noted, the dog frequency of 60.00% over the entire 9-year period is 3.05 standard errors above 50%.

How much longer you think this is going to last? to have something be 3 SDs away from the mean is extraordinarily high for a 50/50 proposition outcome.

The way I would interpret this info is that the bowl lines are shaded heavily toward the dog more than anything the dog is doing.

[jjgold]

Dogs always have an edge in bowl games becauze of the long layoffs.

[HedgeHog]

What's the breakdown by lines? Curious as to how Bowl Dogs +7 and higher do.

[curious]

When betting on dogs I like to bet 2X on the spread and X on the Moneyline. Since this is a >54% proposition, it seems like this would payoff handsomely.

[LT Profits]

Originally Posted by BuddyBear

The way I would interpret this info is that the bowl lines are shaded heavily toward the dog more than anything the dog is doing.

DING DING DING, we have a winner! The thing is, this will probably continue to be the case as long as JQP continues to bet the chalk consistently, so this angle may still have some legs left.