[Senator7]

Does anyone here use trends in their handicapping? If so, which trends are most profitable and how many contests need to be included before you trust that trend?

Would something like Green Bay is 10-30 ATS at home over the last 5 years (for example only) be a reliable trend? I know that I should include them in my handicapping to some extent. I just don't know which ones to include and how to factor them in. As always, any help would be appreciated.

Senator 7

[square]

can't help too much senator but do factor ats in as an added ingredient in my stuff,
however remember with all with all the player/personal changes from year to year it can make that ats # a little un-reliable so factor that in as well.

Also take into consideration the other sides road/ home record with it.

[BuddyBear]

Would something like Green Bay is 10-30 ATS at home over the last 5 years (for example only) be a reliable trend? I know that I should include them in my handicapping to some extent. I just don't know which ones to include and how to factor them in. As always, any help would be appreciated.

Senator 7

Sorry Senator to overrule you here but this is certainly not a trend you should follow! Let me brieftly explain.

1) you have a sample of only 40 which is way to small to infer anything meaningful. It is just as likely that the Packers could go 30-10 in their next five years at Lambeau and even it out. If you had a sample of 200 you may have something but this is really nothing.

2) Over the course of those five years, a lot has changed from year to year in terms of players and personal. You can't really look at team trends. Ask yourself, does the Green Bay Packer team of 1999 have any bearing on how the 2005 Packers are going to do ATS wise this football season? Of course, the logical answer is absolutely not. You'll be lucky to have 4 or 5 players from the 1999 team that are on the 2005 team and it would be a miracle if that same coaching staff was there.

3) In terms of trends, you'll want to focus on situational as opposed to team trends. Situational trends are more robust in that they offer bigger sample sizes and that they encompass the entire league. Finding a trend that says, for example, over the past 20 years teams that lose by 10 points or more who were favored by 7 points or more and are underdogs the following week are 124-91 is far more reliable than the Packer trend you just gave.

4) It's important to understand that a lot of what i am saying is grounded in probability theory and statistics and not personal biases. If you are going to bet trends, that's the way you'll have to approach it.

[Mudcat]

You could also check this out

[Senator7]

I'm not looking to bet trends, I just sometimes feel like certain trends are strong enough that they should included in my handicapping. I hear everyone talking so much about trends and since I'm not using them, I'm assuming that I'm missing something or I'm an inferior handicapper because of it. I'm just looking for certain trends or situations that are important enough to factored into my handicapping. Anybody else have an opinion or any help?

Senator 7

[Ganchrow]

Yeah, I'd definitely have to agree with BuddyBear that one could find a better signal than results ATS.

That being said, however, the one manner in which results ATS could potentially have value is to determine money flows. Back in the old days, when money grew on trees, one could often do quite well betting against big market teams (which would imply poor results ATS for such organizations), but now of course it's not nearly so simple.