[demens]

Seems like a lot of people use this logic as a good indicator for a spot when a team will win/lose.

Some recent examples of a plays on let down game after a big win angle. Lots of people liked Det to lose to Den because they were coming off an unexpected dog win @ Orlando. Today Atl is getting a lot of love, Knicks to lose after the big Heat upset. The other angle at work in this game is Atl having a bounce back game after blowing a big lead in the 4th to the Bucks. Utah was another big play based on a bounce back angle, people were thinking they blow out the Wolves before DWill was announced out.

So i went digging for some stats to see if there is anything to back these angles up or if its just another make believe non factors like b2bs for example that should only apply to individual teams and even then taken with caution.

Its hard to define the exact criteria for these angles but i tried my best so hopefully it makes sense.

For let down after a big win i used next game results by a dog of 3 or more points winning.

A quick look shows the typical results floating around 50% ATS. Last 3 years its 50%, 45%, and 47%. I guess the 2008 this angle would have produced 55% winners. But can you really call that an angle? Long term results would put you on the minus side. So why do so many people swear by it?

This year has been completely out of the ordinary when it comes to this. Teams after big wins are covering the next games at 65% rate!!!!! Almost unreal. I'm sure you've seen the stats of how well teams do after beating the Heat which falls right inline with this stat. I would assume that % will regress as the season goes on but still, if you were basing your plays and factoring in a let down spot for a team after an impressive win then you are betting into 35%.

So what what the other side of things. The favorite that got upset.

Last 3 seasons its 53,48,52%. That would give you just 1 barely profitable year. Long term tells the same story as before. 50% is what you'd be looking at. This season just like with the other angle, completely abnormal 45% which makes it the lowest ever.

I guess its possible to manipulate these numbers a bit. Maybe just look at +.600 (elite) teams as a filter for bounce backs, and use only bad teams for let downs. Maybe the numbers would get better. But as many of these mythical angles as i've backtested, I never find an edge in anything. Its always 50% with a ton of variance year to year.

So what do people think? Numbers lying? You gotta pick the right spots to look at them? Or next time you hear people talking about a team due for a big loss because they just won a big game, take it for what its worth, a 50/50 guess?

[suicidekings]

The numbers aren't lying. It's just that you can't apply the angle to such a broad group of games and expect results that deviate far from 50%. Situational betting is not about picking one angle and betting it everytime it can be applied, but rather developing a family of betting angles that look at games from as many perspectives as possible. When those start to agree with each other, you might have something for a particular game.

I feel like a lot of people take a particular data set and draw conclusions from it to form leans as to what situations are +EV, however sports stats are dynamic, not static. Each past event becomes less and less relevant as time goes on as it becomes further removed from the team's current form. Long story short, "systems" don't work because they're too rigid, but concepts give you the framework to make educated decisions based on game-specific data.

[BernardMadoff]

U didn't really look at every team for 3 years did u that would be exhausting also many things to consider zeemsit would be better to see if those teams coveted and not win SU. Good research demens.