Do trends really dominate?

[BChrisB]

I've heard this over and over but it true, or are trends only something that is put together after the fact?


I can understand trends in any short term period such as winning streaks in baseball. Overall how can past events have bearing on future results in Sports Betting when:

1. Trends are often based off of past results of players and coaches no longer playing on/with a team?
2. In reference to #1, each new year opponents or often never the same as the team(s) teams of the past?
3. Circumstances and conditions are never exactly the same such as weather, current records, injuries, etc, etc....

I'm sure there is much more to add as these are only a few examples. So if trends somehow dominate, how reliable are they?

[nash13]

Trends dominate if they are independent from team specific or player specific defining variables.
For instance since 2014 in the NBA scoring has gone up drastically. Pace increased and number of 3PA are higher.
This leads to loopholes in the handicapping process which you can use to your advantage.

[byronbb]

Real trends are something drawn from data that no one else recognises. Interesting anecdote from the book "Winning Sports Betting".

[stevenash]

The trick is to spot a trend right as it begins to develops.
That’s easier said than done though.

You ever say to yourself after a game “this might be the beginning of a trend here”?

I’m not sure if I’m making my point clear here.

[gojetsgomoxies]

good comments.

yes, you have to be early on a trend, and the trend has to make some behavioural sense i.e. not data mining.

i see the poster with the japanese baseball stadium UNDER's being gold, yet people would still be the OVER.

a similar example is army-navy UNDER.... why would you bet the OVER? i can see NO PLAY but not the OVER....... i see the total open at 47 and close at 39. who is playing the OVER at 47? let alone 42??

[TommieGunshot]

If you track roulette numbers or craps results, lots of clear trends will emerge. It does not mean that betting on them will help you earn money. "Trends" are just pieces of data. The data needs to be combined with correct theory for it to help anyone earn a profit. Otherwise it's just trying to bet patterns on coin flips.

[stevenash]

Trend
Noun

A general direction in which something is developing or changing.

[gojetsgomoxies]

If you track roulette numbers or craps results, lots of clear trends will emerge. It does not mean that betting on them will help you earn money. "Trends" are just pieces of data. The data needs to be combined with correct theory for it to help anyone earn a profit. Otherwise it's just trying to bet patterns on coin flips.

excellent comment

[stevenash]

What's the Law of Averages say?

That long term future events are likely to balance any past deviation from a presumed average?

I don't buy into that though.
It's a misconception.

[gojetsgomoxies]

you can definitely come up with arguments why a 3+ game ATS streak win or loss can have significance for future performance... for 3+, i mean X >=3. that seems just about correct. 4 game streak is too rare, 2 game streak too common......

players, coaches and even fans have an effect.

bettors have a big effect.

but you have to really think as to why different sports might be different, different quality of teams, seasonality (earlier vs. late in season) etc. etc.

[stevenash]

you can definitely come up with arguments why a 3+ game ATS streak win or loss can have significance for future performance... for 3+, i mean X >=3. that seems just about correct. 4 game streak is too rare, 2 game streak too common......

players, coaches and even fans have an effect.

bettors have a big effect.

but you have to really think as to why different sports might be different, different quality of teams, seasonality (earlier vs. late in season) etc. etc.

I'm straying way off topic here but I've found that when I like a 2 point or 2.5 point dog I have a ton of success betting the money line around +130 or more instead of grabbing the points.

Why?
Chances are if the dog covers the tiny spread they'll win the game outright.
Why give the book the juice?

Sometimes you get dinged and the dog loses by one, but not very often does that happen.

[semibluff]

I'm straying way off topic here but I've found that when I like a 2 point or 2.5 point dog I have a ton of success betting the money line around +130 or more instead of grabbing the points.

Why?
Chances are if the dog covers the tiny spread they'll win the game outright.
Why give the book the juice?

Sometimes you get dinged and the dog loses by one, but not very often does that happen.

That was, strictly speaking, off-topic. However the information was still valid. What your post suggests is you've identified an unspecified sport where favourite in a -150; +130 line, (60% vs 43.48%) wins by 1 or 2 less than the 7.62% to 8.90% range than would be indicated in a 2.5 points handicap line at -110; -110 , (52.38% either side). If the favourite is winning by 1 or 2 points only 5.45% of the time then the line ought to be the favourite -2.5 @ -120 with the underdog +2.5 @ +104.4. Either that or the money line is wrong with the underdog too big a price.

[stevenash]

That was, strictly speaking, off-topic. However the information was still valid. What your post suggests is you've identified an unspecified sport where favourite in a -150; +130 line, (60% vs 43.48%) wins by 1 or 2 less than the 7.62% to 8.90% range than would be indicated in a 2.5 points handicap line at -110; -110 , (52.38% either side). If the favourite is winning by 1 or 2 points only 5.45% of the time then the line ought to be the favourite -2.5 @ -120 with the underdog +2.5 @ +104.4. Either that or the money line is wrong with the underdog too big a price.

I do apologize to the OP for staying off topic and I promise to get this thread back on topic......


Case in point.
If you like IPFW (and I'm leaning that way)
One might consider the money line at +135 (I'll wait another 90 minutes before tip and see if this line moves some)
Fort Wayne may win this game outright, but like I said I'll wait, if it moves to +2.5 points I'm assuming the money line will move to +130.
I'm not enamored with giving up the push at +3 however.

Mon 3/9		887 IPFW	+3 -107	+135	o141 -105
9:30PM		888 North Dakota	-3 -103	-145	u141 -105

Once again, apologies to the OP for hijacking his thread.

[gojetsgomoxies]

i like tight moneylines better too. seems so much cleaner as that's what the players/coaches are trying to achieve.

i juice-wise at least it's the same. not sure though

[gojetsgomoxies]

stevenash, i don't think you are off-topic at all.

not entirely clear what OP is asking....... basically, i'm thinking some permutation of "are trends real/useful?".... definitely a team that has lost (straight-up) 3 games in a row is feeling alot of pressure almost regardless of circumstance. might be some horrible ncaabk or ncaaf teams that are so bad that's the norm. but other than that, the psychology of losing comes into play...... big rebound or pack it in?

i always try to figure what the biggest square who thinks he's sharp (at a vegas sports book) thinks... and i think he doesn't want to associate with losers. his bet on losing team subconsciously reflects on him... but maybe they like reversals i.e. how long can this go on?

[danrubin12]

You're much better off with a fundamental analysis of team/player strength than relying on trends. You can find a trend for just about anything if you mine the data enough...

[semibluff]

I do apologize to the OP for staying off topic and I promise to get this thread back on topic......


Case in point.
If you like IPFW (and I'm leaning that way)
One might consider the money line at +135 (I'll wait another 90 minutes before tip and see if this line moves some)
Fort Wayne may win this game outright, but like I said I'll wait, if it moves to +2.5 points I'm assuming the money line will move to +130.
I'm not enamored with giving up the push at +3 however.

Mon 3/9		887 IPFW	+3 -107	+135	o141 -105
9:30PM		888 North Dakota	-3 -103	-145	u141 -105

Once again, apologies to the OP for hijacking his thread.

No problem as far as i'm concerned. I think the op answered his own question with the opening post. I was merely posting a math based response to your post. I can't give you an opinion on your case point, as 1) I don't follow basketball, 2) I don't follow US college sports, and 3) I wouldn't have a clue what IPFW stood for without looking it up. I can tell you without hesitation that i'd rather bet a -145; +135 line than a -107; -103 line as the former is subject to lower juice. Whether it is better value depends on how likely you think it is for the favourite to win by exactly 1 or 2 points...and of course exactly 3 points which would be a push.

[Gaze73]

This is how most trends end: https://www.sportsbookreview.com/for...rategy-p4.html

80% trend "unexpectedly" went 15-13 (21-23 including the second method). Every trend is a coin flip.

[stevenash]

This is how most trends end: https://www.sportsbookreview.com/for...rategy-p4.html

80% trend "unexpectedly" went 15-13 (21-23 including the second method). Every trend is a coin flip.

[nash13]

The best trend I know has a record of 1745-1344 in the NBA.
Simple logic bet on the AF if they are undervalued by the market and the bookies.
So far 124-100 this season.

http://prntscr.com/rei49g

[QuantumLeap]

good comments.

yes, you have to be early on a trend, and the trend has to make some behavioural sense i.e. not data mining.

i see the poster with the japanese baseball stadium UNDER's being gold, yet people would still be the OVER.

a similar example is army-navy UNDER.... why would you bet the OVER? i can see NO PLAY but not the OVER....... i see the total open at 47 and close at 39. who is playing the OVER at 47? let alone 42??

I have a saying about trends or systems. Some might say it's a "Yogi Berra-ism":

"Trends or systems work until they don't."



At face value that may sound obvious, but what I'm trying to say is that there are some valid trends out there that for some reason work for seasons and seasons and then stop. That doesn't mean you can't make money betting them before conditions change which makes it no longer valid.

Likewise, the opposite is true. That is, some systems will work for years and years but prior to a certain date are not valid. Something has changed that the books haven't accounted for. The rules may have changed or the way players play may have changed. If it works for seasons on end it must be worthwhile.

I think what you say about behaviors is what can drive valid systems or trends. If players behave differently and the books don't account for that change then you can have a valid system.

[QuantumLeap]

What's the Law of Averages say?

That long term future events are likely to balance any past deviation from a presumed average?

I don't buy into that though.
It's a misconception.

I agree that it's a misconception. Take flipping a coin for example. With certain exceptions, one is likely to get 50% heads and 50% tails. But what happens when the first 100 flips results in 55 heads and 45 tails. Heads has a 55% more prevalent result.

But let's say we flip the coin another 9900 times and out of those 9900 times we get an even 4950 heads and 4950 tails. Add the 55 heads from the first hundred flips along with the 45 tails from that same sample and you have 5005 heads and 4995 tails. The percentage of heads has now gone from 55% to 50.05%. Has the likelihood of the outcome of getting heads changed? No. But the actual percentage has come closer to 50%.

[Gaze73]

The best trend I know has a record of 1745-1344 in the NBA.
Simple logic bet on the AF if they are undervalued by the market and the bookies.
So far 124-100 this season.
http://prntscr.com/rei49g

Looks good, but what exactly is an undervalued favorite? Are you blindly betting on that trend?

[Vyasports]

Sometimes LUCK plays an important role....

[gojetsgomoxies]

away favorites have been GOLD in NBA for quite awhile.

A and line < -6 and season > 2006 and ...

115	70-44-1 (1.23, 61.4%)	-8.5	45-67-3 (-4.16, 40.2%)	200.6	91-24 (9.77, 79.1%)	season = 2007
106	51-54-1 (-0.14, 48.6%)	-8.3	47-57-2 (0.17, 45.2%)	198.3	80-26 (8.11, 75.5%)	season = 2008
89	48-39-2 (0.24, 55.2%)	-8.1	37-51-1 (-1.64, 42.0%)	199.7	71-18 (8.38, 79.8%)	season = 2009
80	47-33-0 (1.29, 58.8%)	-8.0	32-47-1 (-3.29, 40.5%)	197.8	69-11 (9.34, 86.2%)	season = 2010
83	47-36-0 (0.71, 56.6%)	-8.2	45-37-1 (0.25, 54.9%)	191.4	68-15 (8.95, 81.9%)	season = 2011
80	44-35-1 (0.98, 55.7%)	-8.2	36-41-3 (-0.09, 46.8%)	197.3	63-17 (9.14, 78.8%)	season = 2012
104	58-44-2 (1.25, 56.9%)	-8.7	46-58-0 (-1.47, 44.2%)	202.8	86-18 (9.96, 82.7%)	season = 2013
156	87-64-5 (0.50, 57.6%)	-8.6	71-80-5 (-1.11, 47.0%)	200.3	128-28 (9.10, 82.1%)	season = 2014
155	85-69-1 (0.84, 55.2%)	-9.2	76-73-6 (1.18, 51.0%)	206.7	131-24 (10.05, 84.5%)	season = 2015
114	57-52-5 (-0.35, 52.3%)	-8.8	60-52-2 (1.64, 53.6%)	215.1	92-22 (8.46, 80.7%)	season = 2016
131	71-58-2 (0.94, 55.0%)	-8.3	59-65-7 (-0.32, 47.6%)	214.6	106-25 (9.21, 80.9%)	season = 2017
140	82-56-2 (2.06, 59.4%)	-8.8	66-69-5 (1.30, 48.9%)	223.0	116-24 (10.85, 82.9%)	season = 2018
108	61-45-2 (1.31, 57.5%)	-8.5	58-47-3 (1.20, 55.2%)	223.8	90-18 (9.82, 83.3%)	season = 2019

[BChrisB]

Each and Everyone of You Makes Me Extra Happy I asked and Started this thread.

I mean as stated it the title.

I loved each and every angle, explanation, reasoning, etc, etc. VERY INFORMATIVE and it because of all of you!!!

[BChrisB]

You ever say to yourself after a game “this might be the beginning of a trend here”?

I’m not sure if I’m making my point clear here.

I see your point crystal clear. Hard to articulate into words, but I know what your saying.

[stevenash]

Sometimes LUCK plays an important role....

Luck is the residue of design.

By that I mean you start out with a plan, a line of reasoning if you will.
Let's use a hypothetical.
You bet the Cal Bears getting 10.5 points against a real good Oregon Duck team.
You like home teams getting points, as home 'dogs are a trendy wager.
Your California Bears are getting horribly blown out by 17 points.
Oregon just running out the clock at the end of the game when inexplicably the running back fumbles the ball and Cal runs it back for a TD making the final score 38-28.
You win the bet you had no business winning, but you win.
Let's face it, you got lucky.

Getting back to my original point being luck is the residue of design.
You had a plan designed, it failed but you still won, residue meaning the tiny part of your plan that remained.

Or am I just psycho babbling here?