CBB totals gravy train derailed?

[Pokerjoe]

Using my KenPomish numbers, my win rate, which has been about 56% for the past 4 years, is down to 51.6% this year (which, yes, is losing), and the number of games bet is cut in half, and the opening line is about an average 1.75 pts closer to my projected line than it has been in previous years.

An adjustment, in one year, of this magnitude, is pretty interesting. I'm thinking some sharp linemaker somewhere finally crunched the numbers in a Kenpomish way and got the openers up to speed.

Of course I'm unaware of any market where the books got beat so bad so long as in CBB totals the past years (there's a reason they got scared to open at all), and it never was that big a mystery as to the source of their ass whipping, so I'm really only surprised that it took them this long to sharpen up.

But, also, of course, it might just be me. So, is anyone else, who's been beating CBB totals these past years, picking off the low-hanging fruit that the market has been giving there, noticing a sea change in their results? Cause it could just be me, no doubt.

But it's at least RAS, too. Their record on CBB totals this year is 45-52.
Last year: 128-76
Previous year: 161-111

[Pokerjoe]

BTW, this is certainly not meant as a dig at RAS. I know a guy who worked with him for a while, and another who became friends through sharing an affection of West Coast b-ball, and both speak well of him.

[benjy]

This is very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I hope others chime in too.

[wrongturn]

What is KenPomish number?

[goucla]

I like betting the smaller schools, lines seem to be way off sometimes. I pretty much only bet totals but I have had a decent year.

[ScreaminPain]

Pokerjoe, I am experiencing the very same thing. Using KenPom's formula for totals is so accurate lately, it's the same as setting the line.......very, very few wagering opportunities.

I started using his numbers to evaluate matchups a couple of years ago. Hitting 58% was easy and streaks over 60% were not rare. My success rate was a little higher because I filtered games that showed a difference of 5 pts from my books line....Fewer plays but higher win%.

This year I moved the difference down to 3.1 pts off and I still have fewer plays AND the win% is not as good. I can only assume the market has caught up.

I wish I had kept better records in the past as I now am working on additional filters and I could use the data to backtest. I'm currently looking at some correlations, hoping something will pop. FWIW, StatFox and Sagarin are not doing so well either. I track their plays using the set criteria that each suggests for HCA. I then use 3.1 pts differential to determine a potential "play". I tracked the number of games for each AND the plays where there were matching selections. Here are the results for each and the combinations for January

Pomeroy 52-46 53.1%
StatFox 58-55 51.3%
Sagarin 52-48 52%

Pomeroy and Sagarin 23-18 56.1%
StatFox and Sagarin 19-13 59.4%%

*--I didn't track the combination of Pomeroy and Sagarin in Jan.

Currently in Feb.

Pomeroy 25.23 51.1%
StatFox 19-14 57.6%
Sagarin 16-9 64%

Pomeroy and Sagarin 13-9 59.1%
StatFox and Sagarin 2-3 40.0%
Pomeroy and StatFox 2-7 22.2%

All in all, its' a disappointing season. That airplane I was planning on buying two yrs ago is definately on hold..LMAO!!

[Pokerjoe]

What is KenPomish number?

My model is somewhat like Ken Pomeroy's. More accurate, tbh, in that mine has been profitable ATS and I don't think his has ever been. But the difference between mine and his is in some important tweaking, and at this point, it doesn't matter, my ratings for totals isn't working any better than his, after gazillions of successful bets the previous 4 years.

Like Screamingpain, I'm no longer buying a jet with my CBB totals winnings. I have spent the entire last week poring over the numbers and today am basically throwing in the towel. The easy money is just gone. I blame Pinnacle, actually.

NBA, fwiw, is better than ever for me, knock on wood, so I'm not in tears. But I don't remember ever seeing such a dramatic change in a market before. Maybe summer of 2000, or 2001, or whatever it was, in MLB, when the linemakers finally learned how to spell sabermetric. But I can't quantify that change like I can this one, because I wasn't betting MLB.

BTW, screamingpain, and in re RAS as well, I booked "only" 56% wins because I really press small edges. My best bets would win at RAS-like numbers, but only betting those extreme edges was leaving a lot of money on the table. And I was almost always on the same page as RAS, too. I don't think any of us who were beating it were doing anything that brilliant or different, just variations on a theme, which is now dead and buried, most likely. Life goes on.

Congrats, Pinny. If it's you, and I strongly suspect it is, you earned it.

[Pokerjoe]

Actually, I shouldn't say KenPom has never been successful ATS. When I studied it, it wasn't, over a broad sample. But I'm a sample size freak. It may have been successful ATS in a tightly drawn sample, the absolute best bets or something, or at some time when I wasn't studying it, I don't know. No disparagement intended.

[Justin7]

I noticed that totals drastically tightened this year as well. Backtesting, I was betting 1 in 10 games. This year, it dropped to about 1 in 30.

[greg66]

It has definitely been a lot more work and a lot less fun. Really think Pinnacle opening with low limits and adjusting # based on targeted accounts has tightened the market significantly.

[Pokerjoe]

I agree with that, greg, but I also think that their openers are sharper than in the past. IIRC, it was always Olympic and CRIS opening the earliest, not Pinny. So I think Pinny improved their linemaking, and then went into open-first-get-smoothed-out-cheap mode.

[byronbb]

Newsflash: Public information that used to beat the betting lines no longer works.

[Pokerjoe]

Newsflash: Public information that used to beat the betting lines no longer works.

More interesting news flash: information publicly available worked well for years.

Dog bites man is not news, bryonbb. The fact that the linesmakers were so easily beaten for so long by so many with so much that was so public is what's interesting.

Also, I may be giving Pinny too much credit. It may be as simple as them merely tweaking KenPom's lines with injuries and recency and market-smoothing.

As I said, it isn't shocking that they derailed the gravy train. It's shocking that it took them so long.

[Dark Horse]

I noticed that totals drastically tightened this year as well. Backtesting, I was betting 1 in 10 games. This year, it dropped to about 1 in 30.

Same in the NBA. Started last year. If it stays this way I can't beat totals anymore, which was always easy in the past.

Time to upgrade everything.

[Wrecktangle]

I noticed that totals drastically tightened this year as well. Backtesting, I was betting 1 in 10 games. This year, it dropped to about 1 in 30.

So, you don't think your book had anything to do with this?

[ArcadeFire]

All in all, its' a disappointing season. That airplane I was planning on buying two yrs ago is definately on hold..LMAO!!

This.

[Justin7]

So, you don't think your book had anything to do with this?

Heh. I don't think it even discussed totals -- just basket sides. The old method gave crappy totals.

[Wrecktangle]

I started in on a new NCAA BB model this year that had worked in back-testing; I just assumed that something was not done right and dropped it to (maybe) pick it up next year.

But frankly, like pokerjoe, I'm more surprised it worked this long with open knowledge of it being easily beatable. With the computer power and math techniques being so widely available, I've long felt that in a few more years all the "beatable" markets will become unbeatable.

[horsiehung]

i think i heard someone had a model that would generate turnover totals..good for props

[PRC]

Do you think KenPom himself had anything to do with this? Not necessarily him betting, but the proliferation of his ideas and numbers.

[Wrecktangle]

Do you think KenPom himself had anything to do with this? Not necessarily him betting, but the proliferation of his ideas and numbers.

Absolutely. Today any bonehead with a computer can generate his own lines or simply scrape any of more than 50 raters (in college football at least) to help in their handicapping. With Excel, one need not "program."

Soon, Justin7 and all the other so-called sharps will be living downtown with the homeless dudes. And then before you know it, Bill Gates will start a "feed the former Sharps" fund to get them off the streets.

[Pokerjoe]

Absolutely. Today any bonehead with a computer can generate his own lines or simply scrape any of more than 50 raters (in college football at least) to help in their handicapping. With Excel, one need not "program."

Soon, Justin7 and all the other so-called sharps will be living downtown with the homeless dudes. And then before you know it, Bill Gates will start a "feed the former Sharps" fund to get them off the streets.

Fortunately, there's still poker.

Justin, you know rank of hands?

[lostmarbles]

I'm surprised that no one said this.. especially J7.

Unless I am reading it wrong here. We should remember that the books were slow learners in the past. Now, they should be more quicker to learn new styles of research, books (including J7's), spreadsheets, etc., that we are using. So, maybe we need to throw more at them to confuse their research while they are on here seeing what we are doing to get the edge. (even tho they are suppose to make lines, spreads even on both side for betting purposes). It was the reasons why the sharps did not want these formulas on here for the books to see. But, it was bound to happened soon anyways. However, we can still use the +EV at the food banks, welfare office, and even mating purposes. So, not everything is lost... LOL!

[Dark Horse]

Absolutely. Today any bonehead with a computer can generate his own lines or simply scrape any of more than 50 raters (in college football at least) to help in their handicapping. With Excel, one need not "program."

Soon, Justin7 and all the other so-called sharps will be living downtown with the homeless dudes. And then before you know it, Bill Gates will start a "feed the former Sharps" fund to get them off the streets.

This would not be a bad thing. The only ones left standing would be the original thinkers.

[Wrecktangle]

Unless I am reading it wrong here. We should remember that the books were slow learners in the past. Now, they should be more quicker to learn new styles of research, books (including J7's), spreadsheets, etc., that we are using. So, maybe we need to throw more at them to confuse their research while they are on here seeing what we are doing to get the edge. (even tho they are suppose to make lines, spreads even on both side for betting purposes). It was the reasons why the sharps did not want these formulas on here for the books to see. But, it was bound to happened soon anyways. However, we can still use the +EV at the food banks, welfare office, and even mating purposes. So, not everything is lost... LOL!

ummm, for some reason folks think that the linesmakers are generating the lines, they may start it, but very rapidly the market forces (players) take over.

The market is essentially "set" by the smarter players driving it to equilibrium points that are closer to the true differences and totals of the games. Since we have fewer squares these days and more "sharps" (almost any clown with an Excel sheet and an internet connection can get sharp-er these days), the market is sharper, IMO.

So, go look in the mirror: you are the enemy.

pokerjoe, let me get this straight: flushes beat straights, right?

[demens]

which is now dead and buried, most likely. Life goes on.

If its dead and buried how about to share the model with the rest if us fools, it shouldn't be a big secret anymore. Might not be smart enough to figure it out from scratch but could make some use from it using it as a starting point to backward engineering something different.

[Peregrine Stoop]

Do you think KenPom himself had anything to do with this? Not necessarily him betting, but the proliferation of his ideas and numbers.

If it wasn't him, it would have been someone else. Tempo adjusted stats and expected possessions/game are all the rage. Deservedly so.

[TimmyD]

I agree. The market sets the price.

There is an opportunity if you make your bet earlier than others - before the majority of people get in and the line moves.

ummm, for some reason folks think that the linesmakers are generating the lines, they may start it, but very rapidly the market forces (players) take over.

The market is essentially "set" by the smarter players driving it to equilibrium points that are closer to the true differences and totals of the games. Since we have fewer squares these days and more "sharps" (almost any clown with an Excel sheet and an internet connection can get sharp-er these days), the market is sharper, IMO.

So, go look in the mirror: you are the enemy.

pokerjoe, let me get this straight: flushes beat straights, right?

[Edward-RAS]

But it's at least RAS, too. Their record on CBB totals this year is 45-52.
Last year: 128-76
Previous year: 161-111

I don't think there is any doubt that the market has tightened in recent years. Openers have been better, but more so the market itself corrects easy mistakes faster and more efficiently.

The biggest difference from this year to last year is the wide availability of non-TV totals. We've pretty much had them from day 1 this year, and even CRIS started posting everything in early December, about two full months sooner than last year.

We're 59-39, +16.10 units, 60.20% so far this year on totals, and that is after starting 9-16, so 50-23 since, after finishing 105-107 last year.

I am interested to know if anyone else has seen improved results this year over last?

[Wrecktangle]

RAS: started slow, but improving as we go.

[Pokerjoe]

Using my revamped model, which closed out last year well, I'm 25-18 ytd. But I don't start betting until Dec 1.

CLV and bet% are about the same. I bet by about 10 am, and don't challenge closers in CBB totals (or NBA totals, for that matter).

I think the market has settled, and I hope it stays open.

Edward, if your success means the market closes again--and it might--then I have to root against you, LOL.

[suicidekings]

Do you think KenPom himself had anything to do with this? Not necessarily him betting, but the proliferation of his ideas and numbers.

Absolutely. Today any bonehead with a computer can generate his own lines or simply scrape any of more than 50 raters (in college football at least) to help in their handicapping. With Excel, one need not "program."

This would not be a bad thing. The only ones left standing would be the original thinkers.

All of the above. I'm only really a casual bettor of NCAAB, but it seems to me that Kenpom has really taken over the attention of a lot of CBB bettors as his site's popularity has dramatically increased as a "Must-Have" in the minds eye of many. Too many people now acting off of a single source of information ($20 and zero effort, or free with slightly more effort).

I've actually heard from a couple of different places that overall the volume on CBB this season has increased quite a bit compared to the last couple of years, and Alan Boston referred to it as having a markedly different feel this year with respect to the general behaviour of the market. I think that the NBA lockout could be partially responsible for this as well as a lot of bettors began looking to the NCAAB for action. This could then lead to further change as a lot of that money goes back into the upcoming NBA season, however I feel like Kenpom (or kenpom-like) approaches are probably not going to perform as well as they have in years past now that they've become so popularized.

[Pokerjoe]

Wow, I have tons of bets popping up for tomorrow, almost all overs.
Tons = 17 totals bets (by comparison, the same numbers are calling for only two sides bets).

My average projected total for the past week has been 134.8
My average projected total for tomorrow is 134.7
So it isn't me, although I actually spent a little time just now looking for bugs, my projections are so off.

The average total for the past week has been 134, so I've been a little tall anyway, but (not to be results oriented) 26-18 ATS YTD.
The average total for tomorrow is 132.4
The average result vs the total the past week has been -1.8, (and ~ -1.2 for the year, not including this past week) which is the cause of the dropping totals, obv.
Drop, from the expected scoring re totals, about another half point because average scores should come in about that much higher than totals, and, yes, scoring is way down this year.

Averages are one of the rougher measures you can use, but it serves a conversational purpose here.

Anyway it seems the market, or the linemaker I should say, because it's so early, has been dropping the totals a little the past week, and is dropping them a ton for tomorrow.

Kind of a classic quandary, isn't it? The linesmakers are basically saying that the latest results are a trend, and not mere variance (~135' being the average total for last year and this). My lean is always toward variance, not trend, but this is a dramatic conflict. I just don't ever come up with this many bets. And in fact I won't make this many bets (36% of possible is redic), I'll probably try to find a balance between completely embracing this reactionary drop in totals, and completely ignoring it.

[Wrecktangle]

Poker, in my modeling, this sort of thing ^^^^ is a warning sign. Most of the time, certainly greater than 60% of the time, this signals a new market trend that I have not accounted for, or some modeling issue has cropped up. But a balls out approach usually does not work. BOL.

[Pokerjoe]

I agree, Wreck.
I really, really first thought there must be a bug in my program somewhere, LOL.

My solution is, first, to scale back my bets today (basically, to just lop off 2 points off my projections and bet what remains, which is a heavy handed solution, but quickly done, anyway), and second, see what happens, and third, well, I'm more concerned with the fact that my model apparently hasn't kept up with the change, automatically, than anything else. That's problematic, and a sign of a design flaw. I don't incorporate scores (does anyone anymore?) so mere lower scoring rates might not directly affect my projections, with good reason. Nonetheless, in CBB, the internal stats used to estimate scoring should also quickly correlate to scoring, and if they aren't fitting so well ...

This issue would not arise with the model I was using for the many years prior to last (and at the start of last). But my new model, which worked very well from about early January of last season, was pretty quickly developed, so I'm going to spend the CFB/NBA-less day to check through it.

Always, in this biz, we don't want to over or under react, and I've obv been too far in the underreaction side of things. That's not horrible--I'd take underreaction ahead of overreaction, generally--but it isn't optimal, either, obv.

Funny how I really got tipped off, it was because last night I had a game over -128 that closed -125. That's not good, and fortunately pretty rare. So, there was that, then today I see that I'm projecting all these overs bets, and I know I have a problem. Although I think I know what it is, and it won't be hard to fix.