MARCH MADNESS, STRATEGY, LATERGY and a very MODERN MAJOR GENERAL

Spent quiet some time last year studying the NCAAB tournament which the bottom line was that the Official seedings have a strike rate comparable to the Books. This eliminated the lazy bastards view that the Books lines are weighted towards the Favourites and that the Seedings are not worth a second look. What is certain is each seeding has a historical points spread and when combined with Two confirmed Power Ratings, a very exact figure can be attained for each Team.

There are many ways one can use these figures when the Books prices are added to the mix. By this time of the Season the Books are very confident in their prices and obviously hold an advantage over stat numbers because of injuries and so on. However, it is Human nature to over estimate these small changes so an open minded approach gives us a head start, good line shopping magnify's our chances in having a successful Tournament.

The Power ratings seperate the same number seedings, giving you an insight of their value and the Books prices will clearly show their bias in the Matches. Once all the figures are out We can debate each Match from a strong position, this will also show knee jerk reactions sas the rounds progress.

At the start of the Tournament I will post the seeding figures and the Power ratings, then await the books view. :drink:

Spent some time looking at the last 2 Years Tournaments which show some good bias in the Numbers. They show that while various ratings vary with no sound predictabity, they lag behind due to an overall seasonal view. These numbers are taken on board by the Books and then tweaked to perceived up to date form and outlook.

The problem is for the Books is the dreaded regression to the league normal. While it may seem that they are on top of their game, the fact is that the latest ratings are a finer tune going into the Tournament. As i said earlier, I will post the numbers according to the seedings as early as possible and then work out the best bets. :drink:

Spreads for Seeding 1st Round Games
These are the historical values of each seed in the First Round regardless of matchings. While it may look very basic to allot these standard spreads, its incredible how well they do in comparison to any other numbers. These will be the Figures I use to start the assessments of the First round games.

1) -20
2) -18.5
3) -14.5
4) -10
5) -9.5
6) -6.5
7) -4
8) -1.5

Thanks for all the replies, which shows the majority of Posters on here prefer some sort of analysis rather than the One line huge play post. :drink:

on that second post. Does that mean powerratings that take into account the full season are best for providing the larger sample size; or should more recent games be given more weight?

TomGshotput said:

on that second post. Does that mean powerratings that take into account the full season are best for providing the larger sample size; or should more recent games be given more weight?

Click to expand...

Tom,
Everybody, incuding myself assume that up to date knowledge is best and personally I always tend to lean to what the Books feel in most Sports on the reasoning that they are using the best brains available. However, it would appear that by the time the Tourny starts we have a unique situation where the overall thinking of everyone concerned comes up with what evolves to the Seedings and if you have ever read anything about the wisdom of crowds, this is the epitome.
The bottom line is that these historical seedings spreads are better than any other thinking, Books or Ratings. The reasoning for this can be found in not only the regression theories but the Human instinct of over estimating views. Normally its the punter who over does recent results, hence the Books success in using league long averages in their pricing but the NCAAB Tourny is a one off which bucks the normal trends.
Hopefully over the next few weeks we can work out some solid reasoning for bets as this is one of the best times of the Year for Books, mainly because People bet purely with their Hearts on lines that for thr majority are as tight as a Ducks Arse.:drink:

I,m a bit disappointed that nobody has any views on the topic and that there's no discussion. I've since unearthed a strong Bookmakers bias in their numbers that suggest (for reasons unknown to me) a worry of certain brackets(eg, west, south etc) While overall, they are willing to take on favourites in one bracket, the opposite occurs in another. Even taking on inflated spreads in these brackets give a substantial profit which suggest that where the Books view concurs with the Historical spread of the seeds, winning is pronounced.

At this juncture, looking for seed spreads matching almost the Books number, especially in one bracket, has a winning formula. :drink:

Keep posting.