[h=1]Week 13 contrarian NFL betting strategy[/h]David Solar
Special to ESPN.com
ESPN INSIDER
It's an undeniable fact that casual bettors and weekend warriors overwhelmingly pound favorites and overs, which is why contrarian bettors have historically found value by taking underdogs and unders.
Using our Bet Labs software, I found that since 2003, only 19.32 percent of regular-season games have seen action in which more bettors are on the underdog than the favorite. There has been even more one-sided public betting on the total, with more of the public supporting the under than the over in just 11.61 percent of regular-season games.
It's important to realize that the value of betting against the public is directly correlated with the volume of bets placed on the game, which often <offer style="box-sizing: border-box;"></offer>makes it problematic to apply a contrarian philosophy when betting totals. There's roughly three times more money wagered on the spread than the total, which mitigates the impact of public betting. However, I have consistently found that contrarian bettors can find value by capitalizing on public perception. If oddsmakers are almost always anticipating public money on the over, what happens when it comes down on the under?
"When most of the betting public is playing the under, we react with a surprised look on our faces," Scott Cooley, an odds consultant for Bookmaker joked. "It certainly doesn't happen too often. I think we are pretty good at anticipating when the public is going to look hard at the under, usually when you've got two teams that the media tabs as 'defensive-minded' or 'offensively challenged.' And if we have a situation like that, we may shade slightly toward the under, but those types of games are usually when the sharps see value in the over."
It was promising to learn that oddsmakers lower their total when public bettors hammer the under, and it was even more encouraging to learn sharp bettors frequently gravitate toward these contrarian overs. Unfortunately, this strategy hasn't been profitable -- at least not in the most basic sense. My research found that when the majority of public bettors are taking the under, the over has gone just 191-203 (48.5 percent) during the regular season.
Although this basic contrarian system hasn't been effective, I wanted to know what happens when examining games with extremely one-sided public betting. I previously discovered a direct correlation with lower public support and higher return on investment (ROI) when betting against the public on the spread. Why wouldn't the same principle be effective in regard to the total?
There have been only 43 games in our database in which less than 35 percent of bettors took the over, which represents just 1.27 percent of all regular-season games. In these games, the over has been highly profitable, posting a 27-16 (62.8 percent) record. Despite the infrequency of this occurrence, there are three games fitting that criterion in Week 13.
Fitting this basic system would be enough to justify placing a wager, but there are several common threads among all three of our Week 13 system matches, and that further validates these picks. For starters, there are no divisional matchups this week, which is beneficial for over bettors. Since 2003, the over has hit at a 47.5 percent rate in divisional rivalries and a 51.9 percent rate in all other games.
Additionally, my Week 10 analysis explained that high wind speeds greatly impacted scoring -- a condition detrimental to over bettors. Since 2003, the over has hit at a 44.2 percent rate when the wind is blowing at least 10 mph and at 51.9 percent rate in all other games. When there are low wind speeds in a nondivisional game, the win rate jumps to 53.2 percent.
By eliminating division games, we ensure the two teams have not previously played each other and therefore have limited familiarity. By avoiding games with strong wind speeds, we eliminate one of the biggest impediments to scoring.
The final consideration involves the Sports Insights money percentages, which were implemented before the start of the season. My past analysis has typically focused on the percentage of tickets at seven contributing offshore sportsbooks, because there's a larger sample size to draw from, but it's crucial to know where the money is going.
Sportsbooks are far more likely to adjust their lines if they have serious liability on one side, and these money percentages provide valuable information. This season, the over has gone 4-1 when at least 70 percent of money has been bet on the under. This falls in line with similar small sample trends for other major sports.
After taking last week off due to the Thanksgiving holiday, we'll try to come out strong this week with three current game matches.
<aside class="inline inline-table" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: BentonSans, -apple-system, Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; border: 1px solid rgb(220, 221, 223); clear: both; margin: 6px 0px 18px; padding: 15px; width: 565px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
Special to ESPN.com
ESPN INSIDER
It's an undeniable fact that casual bettors and weekend warriors overwhelmingly pound favorites and overs, which is why contrarian bettors have historically found value by taking underdogs and unders.
Using our Bet Labs software, I found that since 2003, only 19.32 percent of regular-season games have seen action in which more bettors are on the underdog than the favorite. There has been even more one-sided public betting on the total, with more of the public supporting the under than the over in just 11.61 percent of regular-season games.
It's important to realize that the value of betting against the public is directly correlated with the volume of bets placed on the game, which often <offer style="box-sizing: border-box;"></offer>makes it problematic to apply a contrarian philosophy when betting totals. There's roughly three times more money wagered on the spread than the total, which mitigates the impact of public betting. However, I have consistently found that contrarian bettors can find value by capitalizing on public perception. If oddsmakers are almost always anticipating public money on the over, what happens when it comes down on the under?
"When most of the betting public is playing the under, we react with a surprised look on our faces," Scott Cooley, an odds consultant for Bookmaker joked. "It certainly doesn't happen too often. I think we are pretty good at anticipating when the public is going to look hard at the under, usually when you've got two teams that the media tabs as 'defensive-minded' or 'offensively challenged.' And if we have a situation like that, we may shade slightly toward the under, but those types of games are usually when the sharps see value in the over."
It was promising to learn that oddsmakers lower their total when public bettors hammer the under, and it was even more encouraging to learn sharp bettors frequently gravitate toward these contrarian overs. Unfortunately, this strategy hasn't been profitable -- at least not in the most basic sense. My research found that when the majority of public bettors are taking the under, the over has gone just 191-203 (48.5 percent) during the regular season.
Although this basic contrarian system hasn't been effective, I wanted to know what happens when examining games with extremely one-sided public betting. I previously discovered a direct correlation with lower public support and higher return on investment (ROI) when betting against the public on the spread. Why wouldn't the same principle be effective in regard to the total?
There have been only 43 games in our database in which less than 35 percent of bettors took the over, which represents just 1.27 percent of all regular-season games. In these games, the over has been highly profitable, posting a 27-16 (62.8 percent) record. Despite the infrequency of this occurrence, there are three games fitting that criterion in Week 13.
Fitting this basic system would be enough to justify placing a wager, but there are several common threads among all three of our Week 13 system matches, and that further validates these picks. For starters, there are no divisional matchups this week, which is beneficial for over bettors. Since 2003, the over has hit at a 47.5 percent rate in divisional rivalries and a 51.9 percent rate in all other games.
Additionally, my Week 10 analysis explained that high wind speeds greatly impacted scoring -- a condition detrimental to over bettors. Since 2003, the over has hit at a 44.2 percent rate when the wind is blowing at least 10 mph and at 51.9 percent rate in all other games. When there are low wind speeds in a nondivisional game, the win rate jumps to 53.2 percent.
By eliminating division games, we ensure the two teams have not previously played each other and therefore have limited familiarity. By avoiding games with strong wind speeds, we eliminate one of the biggest impediments to scoring.
The final consideration involves the Sports Insights money percentages, which were implemented before the start of the season. My past analysis has typically focused on the percentage of tickets at seven contributing offshore sportsbooks, because there's a larger sample size to draw from, but it's crucial to know where the money is going.
Sportsbooks are far more likely to adjust their lines if they have serious liability on one side, and these money percentages provide valuable information. This season, the over has gone 4-1 when at least 70 percent of money has been bet on the under. This falls in line with similar small sample trends for other major sports.
After taking last week off due to the Thanksgiving holiday, we'll try to come out strong this week with three current game matches.
<aside class="inline inline-table" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: BentonSans, -apple-system, Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; border: 1px solid rgb(220, 221, 223); clear: both; margin: 6px 0px 18px; padding: 15px; width: 565px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px;">
CRITERIA | ATS RECORD | UNITS WON | ROI |
---|---|---|---|
All overs | 1,730-1,713 (50.2%) | -62.96 | -1.8% |
Overs that received less than 35% of public bets | 27-16 (62.8%) | +9.39 | 21.8% |
* Closing lines from Pinnacle were used to determine records. |