PAC10 Tournament Breakdown
Posted by SportsObjective in Betting, Featurific, NCAAB, Pac10, Tournaments, efficiency on March 11, 2010
Official CBSSPORTS bracket is here.
Bracket Project has only two PAC10 teams in (California 8, Washington 12), with Arizona State on the wrong end of the S-curve. This rather arbitrary and frivolous placement of teams on/off/in the bubble by the orgy of outlets that think it wise to exert much effort on the matter takes on a somewhat promiscuous quality. Now lets breakdown the PAC10 bubble situation.
Just going to post the tables, no rhetoric necessary to deliberate on any sort of conference resolve. The league is awful.
| PAC10 TOURNAMENT EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE | |||||||||||
| Round 1 | Round 2 | Round 3 | Final | ||||||||
| Team / Spread | ML | Team / Spread | ML | Team / Spread | ML | Team / Spread | ML | ||||
| Oregon 0.5 | -101 | ||||||||||
| Washington St -0.5 | -119 | Washington St 12.5 | 561 | ||||||||
| California -12.5 | -686 | ||||||||||
| California -4.5 | -225 | ||||||||||
| UCLA 4.5 | 180 | Arizona 4.5 | 184 | ||||||||
| Arizona -4.5 | -219 | ||||||||||
| California -1 | -129 | ||||||||||
| Stanford 7 | 259 | Washingon 1 | 106 | ||||||||
| Arizona St -7 | -317 | ||||||||||
| Arizona St 2 | 122 | ||||||||||
| Oregon St 7.5 | 284 | Washington -2 | -149 | ||||||||
| Washington -7.5 | -347 | ||||||||||
| PAC10 Efficiency Odds | ||||
| Team | True Odds | SBET | GREEK | 5DIMES |
| California | 198 | 140 | 125 | 135 |
| Washington | 357 | 200 | 200 | 250 |
| Arizona State | 648 | 250 | 500 | 360 |
| Arizona | 868 | 700 | 800 | 850 |
| Oregon State | 4796 | 3000 | 500 | 4000 |
| UCLA | 5049 | 900 | 650 | 1200 |
| Stanford | 7880 | 2500 | 500 | 2500 |
| Washington St | 26527 | 4500 | 500 | 5500 |
| Oregon | 36146 | 5000 | 500 | 7500 |
MWC Tournament Odds Comparison
Posted by SportsObjective in Betting, Featurific, MWC, NCAAB, efficiency on March 11, 2010
CBS bracket is here.
The Bracket Project currently has UNLV (11), BYU (4), and New Mexico (3) in lock status, obviously. San Diego State is hanging by a loose thread, and to ensure their place among the field of 65, may need to at least come away with a convincing win over 5 seed Colorado State. SDSU’s best argument is the avoidance of the bad loss to obliterate any other season accomplishments. While the two point loss to Wyoming in Laramie looks egregious, that is essentially the only scar on a very bubble-esque resume. IMO they need chalk to win the conference tournaments, lest their tourney spot be ousted owning to the imminent displacement induced by major conference mediocrity.
Here are their tournament offshore odds accompanied by the odds set forth by the formulaic conditions:
| MWC Average Spread Odds | ||||
| Team | True Odds | SIA | GREEK | 5DIMES |
| BYU | 152 | -164 | -250 | 100 |
| New Mexico | 395 | 200 | 200 | 235 |
| UNLV | 554 | 300 | 220 | 240 |
| San Diego State | 717 | 500 | 600 | 700 |
| Utah | 8121 | 1500 | 1500 | 15000 |
| Colorado St | 32808 | 3000 | 2800 | 10000 |
| TCU | 54724 | 5000 | 5000 | 50000 |
| Wyoming | 262186 | 5000 | 5000 | 200000 |
| Air Force | 1144392 | 5000 | 5000 | 200000 |
| MWC Efficiency Odds | ||||
| Team | True Odds | SIA | GREEK | 5DIMES |
| BYU | -106 | -164 | -250 | 100 |
| UNLV | 439 | 300 | 220 | 240 |
| San Diego State | 848 | 500 | 600 | 700 |
| New Mexico | 886 | 200 | 200 | 235 |
| Utah | 14621 | 1500 | 1500 | 15000 |
| Colorado St | 43162 | 3000 | 2800 | 10000 |
| TCU | 233784 | 5000 | 5000 | 50000 |
| Wyoming | 845602 | 5000 | 5000 | 200000 |
| Air Force | 23586166 | 5000 | 5000 | 200000 |
CUSA Tournament Odds Comparison
Posted by SportsObjective in Betting, CUSA, Featurific, NCAAB, Tournaments, efficiency on March 11, 2010
Official Bracket is here.
The latest Bracket Project has two CUSA teams firmly in the tournament. UTEP and Memphis sitting at 9 and 12 seed respectively. Tulsa and UAB both having poor ends to the season, and Marshall lacking in quality wins, has really marred any chance the conference had of commandeering spots otherwise reserved for disappointing SEC and the gorgeously mediocre PAC10.
Here are how the true odds played out using the system I’ve had in place with all these tournament breakdowns (ACC, Big12, Big East, A10).
| CUSA Championship Efficiency Odds | ||||
| Team | True Odds | SBET | GREEK | 5DIMES |
| UTEP | 260 | 175 | 175 | 175 |
| Memphis | 330 | 275 | 200 | 275 |
| Marshall | 394 | 450 | 300 | 675 |
| UAB | 1642 | 400 | 500 | 450 |
| Houston | 2219 | 1700 | 2500 | 2800 |
| Tulsa | 6268 | 350 | 750 | 575 |
| SMU | 10168 | 7500 | 2500 | 8000 |
| Southern Miss | 13353 | 1400 | 2000 | 2000 |
| UCF | 157085 | 2200 | 2500 | 50000 |
| Tulane | 418262 | 8000 | 2500 | 100000 |
| East Carolina | 1629584 | 10000 | 2500 | 100000 |
| Rice | 5160035 | 10000 | 2500 | 100000 |
| CUSA Championship Average Spread Odds | ||||
| Team | True Odds | SBET | GREEK | SIA |
| Memphis | 273 | 275 | 200 | 275 |
| UTEP | 303 | 175 | 175 | 175 |
| UAB | 876 | 400 | 500 | 450 |
| Marshall | 1077 | 450 | 300 | 675 |
| Tulsa | 1099 | 350 | 750 | 575 |
| Houston | 1846 | 1700 | 2500 | 2800 |
| Southern Miss | 9338 | 1400 | 2000 | 2000 |
| UCF | 26606 | 10000 | 3000 | 3000 |
| SMU | 27891 | 7500 | 2500 | 8000 |
| Tulane | 128732 | 8000 | 2500 | 100000 |
| Rice | 549871 | 10000 | 2500 | 100000 |
| East Carolina | 2867292 | 10000 | 2500 | 100000 |
Houston appears to have real value here. Again like I pointed out before, don’t be fooled by the odds set by sportsbooks, unless you can actually find an advantage. The Cougars might be playing for the sake of their coach, Tom Penders, who has seemingly underachieved to a degree. Houston usually has excellent guard play. A shortage of a competitive mentality that is bred by unrelenting hustle and defense, invariably leads to their perennial disappointment. They are however 1st in the country in protecting the basketball, pretty impressive for a team that pushes tempo. Impressive wins over the top two teams in the league, UTEP and Memphis. There really is some value with Houston.
UAB and Tulsa should to a degree draw inspiration from desperation, yet the future value is nonexistent. Look for open parlays if you feel inclined to take a shot on either.
Big 12 Tourney Efficiency and Average Spread Odds
Posted by SportsObjective in Betting, Big12, Featurific, NCAAB, Tournaments, efficiency on March 11, 2010
I’ve received like 5 emails in history, and every single one I’ve offered sensible reciprocation embedded within post. My methods were questioned, and my level of intelligence attacked as well, as some emailer struggled to evince reason behind the verbiage before I was able to decipher the drivel. In so many words, he (I can only assume it was male, I hope for the sake of all women it was a male) questioned my ability to create true odds, when the odds differ drastically from what the books are offering. Sportsbooks/Vegas/Linesmakers, whatever you want to call them, they feed of the collective laziness often synonymous with the common degenerate. These future odds are sucker bets, unless you can find value. Which is the main objective behind my little formulations here. The odds I have put forth are actually exactly or very close to what you would find if you left an open parlay slot for each relevant game a team must navigate in order to win the championship. But some people are lacking the mental capacity by way of brain to understand such measures. Survey the model and table I’ve constructed below of the Big 12, and enter the MLs for Kansas State into a Parlay Calculator. The payout ends up being 1025. And I’ve even adjusted the higher odds by 25% vig, as is common throughout the industry, so the standard nature of regression can be integrated into the numbers.
Here is the Big 12 Efficiency Performance Bracket (official bracket here):
| BIG12 TOURNAMENT EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE | |||||||||||
| Round 1 | Round 2 | Round 3 | Final | ||||||||
| Team / Spread | ML | Team / Spread | ML | Team / Spread | ML | Team / Spread | ML | ||||
| Colorado -4 | -198 | ||||||||||
| Texas Tech 4 | 162 | Colorado 16 | 977 | ||||||||
| Kansas -16 | -1195 | ||||||||||
| Missouri -12.5 | -749 | Kansas -9 | -417 | ||||||||
| Nebraska 12.5 | 613 | Missouri PK | -113 | Missouri 9 | 341 | ||||||
| Texas A&M PK | -107 | ||||||||||
| Oklahoma St -12 | -640 | Kansas -4.5 | -208 | ||||||||
| Oklahoma 12 | 524 | Oklahoma St 2.5 | 128 | Texas 4.5 | 171 | ||||||
| Kansas St -2.5 | -156 | ||||||||||
| Texas -8.5 | -394 | Kansas St 2 | 115 | ||||||||
| Iowa State 8.5 | 322 | Texas 4.5 | 179 | Baylor -2 | -141 | ||||||
| Baylor -4.5 | -218 | ||||||||||
ACC Tournament Efficiency and Spread Odds
Posted by SportsObjective in ACC, Betting, Featurific, NCAAB, Tournaments, efficiency on March 10, 2010
ACC bracket can be found here. Using the exact same model laid out in the Big East Tournament breakdown, I’ve created a chalk stipulation, predicting the odds and lines if the favorite advanced in each round. Here is how the tournament plays out using efficiency ratings:
| ACC TOURNAMENT EFFICIENCY | |||||||||||||
| Round 1 | Round 2 | Round 3 | Finale | ||||||||||
| Team / Spread | ML | Team / Spread | ML | Team / Spread | ML | Team / Spread | ML | ||||||
| Boston College PK | -108 | ||||||||||||
| Virginia PK | -112 | Virginia 15 | 997 | ||||||||||
| Duke -15 | -1194 | ||||||||||||
| Wake Forest -6 | -270 | Duke -9 | -439 | ||||||||||
| Miami 6 | 221 | Wake Forest 2 | 124 | Virginia Tech 9 | 359 | ||||||||
| Virginia Tech -2 | -151 | ||||||||||||
| Georgia Tech -6 | -286 | Duke -3 | -174 | ||||||||||
| UNC 6 | 234 | Georgia Tech 7.5 | 282 | Maryland 3 | 142 | ||||||||
| Maryland -7.5 | -345 | ||||||||||||
| Clemson -8 | -382 | Maryland -6 | -280 | ||||||||||
| NC State 8 | 312 | Clemson -1.5 | -136 | Clemson 6 | 229 | ||||||||
| Florida State 1.5 | 111 | ||||||||||||
And the accompanying odds with offshore comparison:
| ACC Championship Efficiency Performance Odds | ||||
| Team | True Odds | SBET | GREEK | BODOG |
| Duke | 111 | 100 | -175 | -150 |
| Maryland | 336 | 250 | 280 | 300 |
| Virginia Tech | 2207 | 900 | 800 | 800 |
| Clemson | 3026 | 800 | 1200 | 1200 |
| Florida State | 4076 | 450 | 650 | 650 |
| Georgia Tech | 5628 | 1200 | 1500 | 1500 |
| Wake Forest | 7219 | 1400 | 1200 | 1200 |
| Virginia | 51622 | 10000 | 1500 | 15000 |
| Boston College | 54550 | 2500 | 3000 | 1500 |
| North Carolina | 144719 | 3000 | 1500 | 1200 |
| Miami | 157120 | 4000 | 1500 | 1500 |
| NC State | 186614 | 7000 | 1500 | 1500 |
I’ll apply opinionated epistolatory efforts at length. For now I am exercising the intermittent posting style to accommodate my work schedule.
Here are the results of the tournament purely by using the team’s average conference spread appropriated throughout the season:
| ACC TOURNAMENT AVERAGE SPREAD |
||||||||||
| Round 1 | Round 2 | Round 3 | Finale | |||||||
| Team / Spread | ML | Team / Spread | ML | Team / Spread | ML | Team / Spread | ML | |||
| Boston College PK | -107 | |||||||||
| Virginia PK | -113 | Virginia 13 | 638 | |||||||
| Duke -13 | -780 | |||||||||
| Wake Forest -1.5 | -134 | Duke -9.5 | -470 | |||||||
| Miami 1.5 | 109 | Wake Forest 0.5 | -104 | Virginia Tech 9.5 | 385 | |||||
| Virginia Tech -0.5 | -117 | |||||||||
| Georgia Tech PK | -108 | Duke -7.5 | -340 | |||||||
| UNC PK | -112 | UNC 3 | 137 | Maryland 7.5 | 278 | |||||
| Maryland -3 | -168 | |||||||||
| Clemson -7.5 | -340 | Maryland PK | -111 | |||||||
| NC State 7.5 | 278 | Clemson PK | -110 | Clemson PK | -109 | |||||
| Florida State PK | -110 | |||||||||
And the odds that materialized from the aforementioned formulation:
| ACC Championship Average Spread Odds | ||||
| Team | True Odds | SBET | GREEK | BODOG |
| Duke | -104 | 100 | -175 | -150 |
| Maryland | 926 | 250 | 280 | 300 |
| Florida State | 1173 | 450 | 650 | 650 |
| Clemson | 1574 | 800 | 1200 | 1200 |
| Virginia Tech | 1755 | 900 | 800 | 800 |
| Wake Forest | 3783 | 1400 | 1200 | 1200 |
| North Carolina | 5299 | 3000 | 1500 | 1200 |
| Georgia Tech | 5611 | 1200 | 1500 | 1500 |
| Miami | 6843 | 4000 | 1500 | 1500 |
| Virginia | 10411 | 10000 | 1500 | 15000 |
| Boston College | 11416 | 2500 | 3000 | 1500 |
| NC State | 55409 | 7000 | 1500 | 1500 |
Comparing the two modeled brackets, its easier to discern some marked differences in performance versus the vegas number. Here is the table to satisfy your curiosity on how the season played out. Maryland played well above general expectation, exemplified by an outstanding against the spread record of 13-3. While the Tarheels operate on the other extreme to a substantial degree. Their disappointing season, betrayed by a 5-11 against the spread mark at conference season’s end, was emblazoned by a crippling effort @ Cameron Indoor. Though the average against the spread aggregated bracket approaches a possible element of hidden value in the Tarheels compared to offshore numbers, their rich tradition, history, and recent championship accounts for inflated lines during conference play, which wears any semblance of value to its core.
Duke has just been so dominant and impressive, from expectation and to a lesser extent performance (though still remarkable), value in this tournament is virtually nonexistent.
Record
Recent Comments