Does "trending" really matter in sports betting?

[ms61853]

You've heard the stats. Say like, "The Boomtown Rats have covered 8 of their last 9 road games when 3 or more point underdogs. They're a lock."

So if I flip a coin and get 8 heads out of 9 tosses, does that mean the meteorlogical conditions and the metallurgy of the coin favors heads?

Does anybody really take seriously the idea of considering trends when betting sports?

[The HG]

Trending doesn't matter on its own, unless of course there is an underlying cause for the trend, which there sometimes is. Although because people want to find meaningful trends, they often assume underlying cause when there is none.

So of course, if there is a trend in a sport that teams starting with the letter M cover the spread 65% on Mondays, that means nothing (unless of course there's only one team that starts with M, and there is a meaningful underlying reason why they are covering 65% of all their games).

But many trends do of course have underlying causes, and they are meaningful. In basketball for instance, teams often become over or underrated at various times, and you would expect to see a "trend" of them winning or losing, ATS.

So no, "trends" should never be bet blindly, on their own, but if you see a trend somewhere, it is wise to ask if that trend has an underlying cause or not.

And sometimes, a trend can be big enough, and known enough, and meaningless enough, that it can create value on the other side. A perfect example of that happened very recently in MLB, where a trend was bandied around that the LA Dodgers were 1-20 in interleague road games, in their last 21 games. A lot of people knew about it, on the board, in game previews, everywhere. And it is interesting. Why would that be the case? I won't get into the specifics, but to me, it had zero bearing on their series with Toronto, and it was the perfect example of a known trend that was in fact meaningless, and probably influenced the line. The Dodgers, of course, won 2 out of 3.

Although of course, trends that do have meaning and underlying causes eventually correct themselves. A good example of that was the trend of first and second round NCAA tournament underdogs covering, which corrected itself this past year. There was a conscious decision to adjust the lines. So you have to be aware of what caused a trend in the past, and where the situation is now. Predicting future trends is, of course, much more valuable than looking at past trends.

[Bill Dozer]

ms61853,

That's a good analogy with the coin flip. Most trends don't apply because each spin on the wheel or coin flip is independent of the previous. Those trends or streaks only take shape when looking back over history and do not apply to the future. There are trends that carry weight and are factored in the line, like the pace of a Pistons game after a four game road trip. I always ignored the ATS stuff while weighing in the cause and effect trends.

[ms61853]

Trending doesn't matter on its own, unless of course there is an underlying cause for the trend, which there sometimes is. Although because people want to find meaningful trends, they often assume underlying cause when there is none.

One trend I found useful for a while is the idea that California road teams are under valued when playing another California team.


I won't play that anymore.

[20Four7]

The only 2 trends I pay attention to are:

Jets always seem to play Miami tough so if they are dogs I bet them.

And the bears can't seem to play on Monday nights. If I like them I won't play them and if I don't like them it's a good sign.