Is the zigzag betting theory dead?
Chad Millman
ESPN Insider
Hollywood Boulevard is a magical place. I know because I spent 20 minutes there during my vacation, getting pulled in every direction by my kids.
The older one wanted to get a picture with the actor dressed as Darth Vader. It was a warm day and we were there in the afternoon, so Darth had his helmet off. Needless to say, he was a bit de-mystified. But my 7-year-old didn't care. In fact he jumped at the chance to put the helmet on himself. By the look on his face when he took it off, I imagine it smelled something like a cross between the inside of a hockey locker room and Lady Gaga's egg. Didn't matter. He handed the helmet back to Darth and, right in front of Mann's Chinese Theater, I snapped a pic of my boy pretending to gut the evil one with a toy lightsaber. It cost me two bucks. But it was clear from the photo that all that time my kid has spent playing "Star Wars" games on the *** has really paid off, just like he always told me it would.
But it was the younger one who was truly astonished by the collection of characters. Spider-Man was climbing a light post. The Hulk was posing like a supermodel. Stormtroopers were walking all over the walk of fame. He wanted a picture with everyone, which meant I had to keep walking into novelty shops so I could break a $10 bill, which meant I had to buy multiple 38-cent postcards of the Hollywood sign. These guys gotta make a living, right?
It was Batman and his totally smoking feline friend Catwoman (decked out in shiny patent leather number, wearing lipstick the color of roses and holding a whip) who kept his attention the most. First my little guy asked for a picture ($2). Then we walked away, but he had to go back. He wanted to talk to Batman and tell him about how he likes to dress up as Batman (another $1 for the caped crusader's time). I pulled him away to visit a friend at "Jimmy Kimmel Live" studios across the street. But after watching the JKL pop-a-shot rehearsal for Ricardo the Bus Boy versus Kevin Love, we had to hit the Boulevard one more time so he could ask Batman if he played "Lego Batman" on the *** (another $1, and the realization that I let my kids play way too much ***). Finally, as we walked away, my precious little boy asked his hero, "Where's Superman?" Batman answered, "He's in Las Vegas."
To that, my son looked at me and said, "Daddy, he is in your favorite place."
Wow, I thought, he has been paying attention all these years. What I don't think the youngster realizes is how much Sin City is really always on my mind. Even while on vacation, it was impossible for me to ignore what was happening in the gambling world. The online poker industry cratered (more on that in coming weeks and a pod this Wednesday). Hockey playoffs started (I'll get to that, too). And, as I watched late night, West Coast, NBA playoff games on mute in a hotel room while the rest of my family slept I wondered: Is the zigzag theory dead?
For those who don't remember or don't know, the zigzag theory is a longtime NBA playoff betting theory. The principle is that wiseguys would bet on whichever team lost or didn't cover the previous game. For example, in Game 1 of their series with the Heat, the Sixers were 10.5-point underdogs. They lost the game 97-89, but covered the spread. So, the next night, in theory, the sharp play would have been on the Heat, who were now nine-point faves. Sure enough, the Heat covered, winning the game by 21.
<OFFER>The logic is simple: Motivation is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, factors when it comes to NBA playoff basketball. In a multi-game series, teams know each other so well they can call out each other's plays. There are no surprises. The only difference will be how motivated one team is to perform better knowing it had lost the previous game and can't afford to lose two in a row.
Of course, here's the catch: Bookmakers have known for years that wiseguys like to zig and then zag. And they plan accordingly, adjusting spreads for the zag game to make it less attractive to the professionals. For example, in Game 1 of their series with the Mavs, the Blazers were five-point 'dogs and lost the game by eight. A square bettor would see the relatively easy win, in Dallas, and think: Hmmm, Dallas just beat the Blazers and the spread was five. I bet it will be higher in Game 2.
And that is where the square would be wrong. Because the spread for that second game between the Mavs and Blazers was actually four, a point lower than Game 1.
It was the score of that game -- and several zag games in the first round -- that made me ask my original question: Is the zigzag theory dead? Because the Blazers, as wiseguys would have expected years ago, didn't cover that four-point spread. In fact, they lost by 12.
"The zigzag just doesn't surprise anyone anymore as a handicapping tool," the Hilton's Jeff Sherman emailed me last night. "It's built into the line. If one wagers that way, they lose any value on the concept."
It wasn't just the Blazers-Mavs where games went zigzig, instead of zigzag. The Pacers covered the first two games of their series with the Bulls; the Knicks covered the first two against Boston; the Hawks covered the first two against Orlando. And I can go on, so I will. The Grizz went 2-0 ATS against the Spurs. So did the Hornets (versus the Lakers). The only teams that actually zagged in the first round were the Thunder (versus Denver) and the Heat (versus Philly), who didn't cover in Game 1 but did in Game 2.
As of Monday, the trend was performing a little better. But I mean a little. The Celtics bounced back to cover in Game 3, but the Knicks didn't zag in Game 4, as the Celtics covered again. The Sixers lost two straight against the spread before zagging back in Game 4. Meanwhile, the Hawks and Grizzlies continued their ATS domination, which is one reason they are leading their respective series. And the Thunder have won two straight ATS against the Nuggets. Two teams -- the Blazers and Pacers -- pushed as 'dogs in Game 3 and then won outright while covering in Game 4. In fact, the only series showing a somewhat true zigzag pattern at this point is the Hornets-Lakers, who traded ATS wins in Games 3 and 4.
In fact, because it can be confusing to follow all this in paragraph form, here's a chart showing the final scores and who covered in each playoff series so far. Pay attention to when the prices on the games change, often moving in favor of the team that did not cover the previous game. Also, I highlighted the zigzag theory wins with an asterisk and in green.
East
Chicago Bulls vs. Indiana Pacers
Game 1: Bulls minus-11.5.
Final score: Bulls 104, Pacers 99.
ATS win: Pacers
Game 2: Bulls minus-11.5.
Final score: Bulls 96, Pacers 90.
ATS win: Pacers
Game 3: Bulls minus-4.
Final score: Bulls 88, Pacers 84.
ATS win: Push
Game 4: Bulls minus-4.5.
Final score: Pacers 89, Bulls 84.
ATS win: Pacers
<HR style="WIDTH: 50%">
Miami Heat vs. Philadelphia 76ers
Game 1: Heat minus-10.5.
Final score: Heat 97, Sixers 89.
ATS win: Sixers
Game 2: Heat minus-9.
Final score: Heat 94, Sixers 73.
ATS win: Heat*
Game 3: Heat minus-4.5.
Final score: Heat 100, Sixers 94.
ATS win: Heat
Game 4: Heat minus-5.5.
Final score: Sixers 86, Heat 82.
ATS win: Sixers*
<HR style="WIDTH: 50%">
Boston Celtics vs. New York Knicks
Game 1: Celtics minus-6.
Final score: Celtics 87, Knicks 85.
ATS win: Knicks
Game 2: Celtics minus-6.5.
Final score: Celtics 96, Knicks 93.
ATS win: Knicks
Game 3: Knicks minus-3.5.
Final score: Celtics 113, Knicks 96.
ATS win: Celtics*
Game 4: Celtics minus-3.5.
Final score: Celtics 101, Knicks 89.
ATS win: Celtics
<HR style="WIDTH: 50%">
Orlando Magic vs. Atlanta Hawks
Game 1: Magic minus-8.5.
Final score: Hawks 103, Magic 93.
ATS win: Hawks
Game 2: Magic minus-9.
Final score: Magic 88, Hawks 82.
ATS win: Hawks
Game 3: Magic minus-1.5.
Final score: Hawks 88, Magic 84.
ATS win: Hawks
Game 4: Magic minus-1.5.
Final score: Hawks 88, Magic 85.
ATS win: Hawks
<HR style="WIDTH: 50%">
West
San Antonio Spurs vs. Memphis Grizzlies
Game 1: Spurs minus-6.5.
Final score: Grizzlies 101, Spurs 98.
ATS win: Grizzlies
Game 2: Spurs minus-8.
Final score: Spurs 93, Grizzlies 87.
ATS win: Grizzlies
Game 3: Grizzlies minus-2.
Final score: Grizzlies 91, Spurs 88.
ATS win: Grizzlies
<HR style="WIDTH: 50%">
Los Angeles Lakers vs. New Orleans Hornets
Game 1: Lakers minus-10.
Final score: Hornets 109, Lakers 100.
ATS win: Hornets
Game 2: Lakers minus-12.
Final score: Lakers 87, Hornets 78.
ATS win: Hornets
Game 3: Lakers minus-5.
Final score: Lakers 100, Hornets 86.
ATS win: Lakers*
Game 4: Lakers minus-6.
Final score: Hornets 93, Lakers 88.
ATS win: Hornets*
<HR style="WIDTH: 50%">Dallas Mavericks vs. Portland Trail Blazers
Game 1: Mavs minus-5.
Final score: Mavs 89, Blazers 81.
ATS win: Mavs
Game 2: Mavs minus-4.
Final score: Mavs 101, Blazers 89.
ATS win: Mavs
Game 3: Blazers minus-5.
Final score: Blazers 97, Mavs 92.
ATS win: Push
Game 4: Blazers minus-4.
Final score: Blazers 84, Mavs 82.
ATS win: Mavs
<HR style="WIDTH: 50%">
Oklahoma City Thunder vs. Denver Nuggets
Game 1: Thunder minus-6.
Final score: Thunder 107, Nuggets 103.
ATS win: Nuggets
Game 2: Thunder minus-4.5.
Final score: Thunder 106, Nuggets 89.
ATS win: Thunder*
Game 3: Nuggets minus-5.
Final score: Thunder 97, Nuggets 94.
ATS win: Thunder
<HR style="WIDTH: 50%">
Counting the stars, that's only six zigzag wins -- not a lot. While on vacation -- because, as my kids know, this stuff is never far from my mind -- I was cruising the web to research this idea I had about the demise of the zigzag. I ran across this stat that Teddy Covers wrote on Covers.com: Since 2000, betting the zigzag only won 51 percent of the time. Even the dullest bettor knows you need to win 52.4 percent of the time to beat the book.
So, for the love of predictability, when can a poor bettor trying to beat The Man count on the zigzag theory? Well, since I got home from vacation late and didn't have time to call a lot of people, I am going to steal something else that Teddy Covers wrote the other day: "The zig-zag theory does very well in competitive series. ... When there is a confidence differential and/or a talent differential, the zig-zag theory tends to crash and burn."
Man, I really hope Superman knows all this. I wouldn't want his trip to Vegas to be ruined. My son would be crushed.
Chad Millman
ESPN Insider
Hollywood Boulevard is a magical place. I know because I spent 20 minutes there during my vacation, getting pulled in every direction by my kids.
The older one wanted to get a picture with the actor dressed as Darth Vader. It was a warm day and we were there in the afternoon, so Darth had his helmet off. Needless to say, he was a bit de-mystified. But my 7-year-old didn't care. In fact he jumped at the chance to put the helmet on himself. By the look on his face when he took it off, I imagine it smelled something like a cross between the inside of a hockey locker room and Lady Gaga's egg. Didn't matter. He handed the helmet back to Darth and, right in front of Mann's Chinese Theater, I snapped a pic of my boy pretending to gut the evil one with a toy lightsaber. It cost me two bucks. But it was clear from the photo that all that time my kid has spent playing "Star Wars" games on the *** has really paid off, just like he always told me it would.
But it was the younger one who was truly astonished by the collection of characters. Spider-Man was climbing a light post. The Hulk was posing like a supermodel. Stormtroopers were walking all over the walk of fame. He wanted a picture with everyone, which meant I had to keep walking into novelty shops so I could break a $10 bill, which meant I had to buy multiple 38-cent postcards of the Hollywood sign. These guys gotta make a living, right?
It was Batman and his totally smoking feline friend Catwoman (decked out in shiny patent leather number, wearing lipstick the color of roses and holding a whip) who kept his attention the most. First my little guy asked for a picture ($2). Then we walked away, but he had to go back. He wanted to talk to Batman and tell him about how he likes to dress up as Batman (another $1 for the caped crusader's time). I pulled him away to visit a friend at "Jimmy Kimmel Live" studios across the street. But after watching the JKL pop-a-shot rehearsal for Ricardo the Bus Boy versus Kevin Love, we had to hit the Boulevard one more time so he could ask Batman if he played "Lego Batman" on the *** (another $1, and the realization that I let my kids play way too much ***). Finally, as we walked away, my precious little boy asked his hero, "Where's Superman?" Batman answered, "He's in Las Vegas."
To that, my son looked at me and said, "Daddy, he is in your favorite place."
Wow, I thought, he has been paying attention all these years. What I don't think the youngster realizes is how much Sin City is really always on my mind. Even while on vacation, it was impossible for me to ignore what was happening in the gambling world. The online poker industry cratered (more on that in coming weeks and a pod this Wednesday). Hockey playoffs started (I'll get to that, too). And, as I watched late night, West Coast, NBA playoff games on mute in a hotel room while the rest of my family slept I wondered: Is the zigzag theory dead?
For those who don't remember or don't know, the zigzag theory is a longtime NBA playoff betting theory. The principle is that wiseguys would bet on whichever team lost or didn't cover the previous game. For example, in Game 1 of their series with the Heat, the Sixers were 10.5-point underdogs. They lost the game 97-89, but covered the spread. So, the next night, in theory, the sharp play would have been on the Heat, who were now nine-point faves. Sure enough, the Heat covered, winning the game by 21.
<OFFER>The logic is simple: Motivation is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, factors when it comes to NBA playoff basketball. In a multi-game series, teams know each other so well they can call out each other's plays. There are no surprises. The only difference will be how motivated one team is to perform better knowing it had lost the previous game and can't afford to lose two in a row.
Of course, here's the catch: Bookmakers have known for years that wiseguys like to zig and then zag. And they plan accordingly, adjusting spreads for the zag game to make it less attractive to the professionals. For example, in Game 1 of their series with the Mavs, the Blazers were five-point 'dogs and lost the game by eight. A square bettor would see the relatively easy win, in Dallas, and think: Hmmm, Dallas just beat the Blazers and the spread was five. I bet it will be higher in Game 2.
And that is where the square would be wrong. Because the spread for that second game between the Mavs and Blazers was actually four, a point lower than Game 1.
It was the score of that game -- and several zag games in the first round -- that made me ask my original question: Is the zigzag theory dead? Because the Blazers, as wiseguys would have expected years ago, didn't cover that four-point spread. In fact, they lost by 12.
"The zigzag just doesn't surprise anyone anymore as a handicapping tool," the Hilton's Jeff Sherman emailed me last night. "It's built into the line. If one wagers that way, they lose any value on the concept."
It wasn't just the Blazers-Mavs where games went zigzig, instead of zigzag. The Pacers covered the first two games of their series with the Bulls; the Knicks covered the first two against Boston; the Hawks covered the first two against Orlando. And I can go on, so I will. The Grizz went 2-0 ATS against the Spurs. So did the Hornets (versus the Lakers). The only teams that actually zagged in the first round were the Thunder (versus Denver) and the Heat (versus Philly), who didn't cover in Game 1 but did in Game 2.
As of Monday, the trend was performing a little better. But I mean a little. The Celtics bounced back to cover in Game 3, but the Knicks didn't zag in Game 4, as the Celtics covered again. The Sixers lost two straight against the spread before zagging back in Game 4. Meanwhile, the Hawks and Grizzlies continued their ATS domination, which is one reason they are leading their respective series. And the Thunder have won two straight ATS against the Nuggets. Two teams -- the Blazers and Pacers -- pushed as 'dogs in Game 3 and then won outright while covering in Game 4. In fact, the only series showing a somewhat true zigzag pattern at this point is the Hornets-Lakers, who traded ATS wins in Games 3 and 4.
In fact, because it can be confusing to follow all this in paragraph form, here's a chart showing the final scores and who covered in each playoff series so far. Pay attention to when the prices on the games change, often moving in favor of the team that did not cover the previous game. Also, I highlighted the zigzag theory wins with an asterisk and in green.
East
Chicago Bulls vs. Indiana Pacers
Game 1: Bulls minus-11.5.
Final score: Bulls 104, Pacers 99.
ATS win: Pacers
Game 2: Bulls minus-11.5.
Final score: Bulls 96, Pacers 90.
ATS win: Pacers
Game 3: Bulls minus-4.
Final score: Bulls 88, Pacers 84.
ATS win: Push
Game 4: Bulls minus-4.5.
Final score: Pacers 89, Bulls 84.
ATS win: Pacers
<HR style="WIDTH: 50%">
Miami Heat vs. Philadelphia 76ers
Game 1: Heat minus-10.5.
Final score: Heat 97, Sixers 89.
ATS win: Sixers
Game 2: Heat minus-9.
Final score: Heat 94, Sixers 73.
ATS win: Heat*
Game 3: Heat minus-4.5.
Final score: Heat 100, Sixers 94.
ATS win: Heat
Game 4: Heat minus-5.5.
Final score: Sixers 86, Heat 82.
ATS win: Sixers*
<HR style="WIDTH: 50%">
Boston Celtics vs. New York Knicks
Game 1: Celtics minus-6.
Final score: Celtics 87, Knicks 85.
ATS win: Knicks
Game 2: Celtics minus-6.5.
Final score: Celtics 96, Knicks 93.
ATS win: Knicks
Game 3: Knicks minus-3.5.
Final score: Celtics 113, Knicks 96.
ATS win: Celtics*
Game 4: Celtics minus-3.5.
Final score: Celtics 101, Knicks 89.
ATS win: Celtics
<HR style="WIDTH: 50%">
Orlando Magic vs. Atlanta Hawks
Game 1: Magic minus-8.5.
Final score: Hawks 103, Magic 93.
ATS win: Hawks
Game 2: Magic minus-9.
Final score: Magic 88, Hawks 82.
ATS win: Hawks
Game 3: Magic minus-1.5.
Final score: Hawks 88, Magic 84.
ATS win: Hawks
Game 4: Magic minus-1.5.
Final score: Hawks 88, Magic 85.
ATS win: Hawks
<HR style="WIDTH: 50%">
West
San Antonio Spurs vs. Memphis Grizzlies
Game 1: Spurs minus-6.5.
Final score: Grizzlies 101, Spurs 98.
ATS win: Grizzlies
Game 2: Spurs minus-8.
Final score: Spurs 93, Grizzlies 87.
ATS win: Grizzlies
Game 3: Grizzlies minus-2.
Final score: Grizzlies 91, Spurs 88.
ATS win: Grizzlies
<HR style="WIDTH: 50%">
Los Angeles Lakers vs. New Orleans Hornets
Game 1: Lakers minus-10.
Final score: Hornets 109, Lakers 100.
ATS win: Hornets
Game 2: Lakers minus-12.
Final score: Lakers 87, Hornets 78.
ATS win: Hornets
Game 3: Lakers minus-5.
Final score: Lakers 100, Hornets 86.
ATS win: Lakers*
Game 4: Lakers minus-6.
Final score: Hornets 93, Lakers 88.
ATS win: Hornets*
<HR style="WIDTH: 50%">Dallas Mavericks vs. Portland Trail Blazers
Game 1: Mavs minus-5.
Final score: Mavs 89, Blazers 81.
ATS win: Mavs
Game 2: Mavs minus-4.
Final score: Mavs 101, Blazers 89.
ATS win: Mavs
Game 3: Blazers minus-5.
Final score: Blazers 97, Mavs 92.
ATS win: Push
Game 4: Blazers minus-4.
Final score: Blazers 84, Mavs 82.
ATS win: Mavs
<HR style="WIDTH: 50%">
Oklahoma City Thunder vs. Denver Nuggets
Game 1: Thunder minus-6.
Final score: Thunder 107, Nuggets 103.
ATS win: Nuggets
Game 2: Thunder minus-4.5.
Final score: Thunder 106, Nuggets 89.
ATS win: Thunder*
Game 3: Nuggets minus-5.
Final score: Thunder 97, Nuggets 94.
ATS win: Thunder
<HR style="WIDTH: 50%">
Counting the stars, that's only six zigzag wins -- not a lot. While on vacation -- because, as my kids know, this stuff is never far from my mind -- I was cruising the web to research this idea I had about the demise of the zigzag. I ran across this stat that Teddy Covers wrote on Covers.com: Since 2000, betting the zigzag only won 51 percent of the time. Even the dullest bettor knows you need to win 52.4 percent of the time to beat the book.
So, for the love of predictability, when can a poor bettor trying to beat The Man count on the zigzag theory? Well, since I got home from vacation late and didn't have time to call a lot of people, I am going to steal something else that Teddy Covers wrote the other day: "The zig-zag theory does very well in competitive series. ... When there is a confidence differential and/or a talent differential, the zig-zag theory tends to crash and burn."
Man, I really hope Superman knows all this. I wouldn't want his trip to Vegas to be ruined. My son would be crushed.
