Question to Justin or anyone else... Seeding Odds/probability thread

[purecarnagge]

I've never seen any type of numbers regarding fading certain seeds at certain points of the tournament?

Example. Normally number 1 seeds lose prior to final 4. Is there any type of data that has been done that shows betting on a certain seed has X % chance of being profitable? Figured this might be up Justin's alley specifically and more than likely a little late this year.

PS

FML pitt.

[FourLengthsClear]

There are some (e.g. betting number 10 seeds against no 2 seeds on the ML would have been highly profitable, a number 1 seed has never lost to a number 16 seed or a number 12 seed etc.) but you can't use these for betting purposes.

1) The dataset is too small.
2) Seedings are subjective i.e many of those no. 10 seeds could just as easily have been seeded 8, 9, 11 etc.

[Chandler]

haven't been enough years to get a set of numbers that would be significant.

secondarily.

due to the growing parity, the numbers that ncaa tournaments generated in regards to seeding. are now obsolete.

you can't really try to come up with a predictive model. where so much personal interpretation is involved (the committee) and the Variance is problematic.

a 14 seed back in 1985 is not equal to a 14 seed in 2011. I dare say with the enlarged pool of talent that ncaa teams draw from. that a 14 seed today is the equivalent of a team that was seeded somthing in the area of 7-9th now.

obviously we see the seedings don't mean shit. these days we see Many lower seeded teams as favorites, pks, or close dogs to higher seeded teams....

[Chandler]

just heard this on the radio: this year will mark the first time a 10 seed has played an 11 seed in the sweet 16.

[purecarnagge]

so for the first 2 games betting 9-12 seeds wouldn't be profitable?

[Chandler]

so for the first 2 games betting 9-12 seeds wouldn't be profitable?

there's no way to tell

that is not enough back data to test it really at a significant level.

besides that. the nature of the NCAA is different. No longer do only blue chips and 1-4 seeds have a legit shot at making a deep run. these days because the talent pool being exponentially bigger. just 40-50 teams have some shot at getting to the final 4.

all in all, there are no systems to be had here.

you gotta look at matchups, lines, line movement, your own power rankings for the big dance. Seeding is about as arbitrary as they come.....

[Joe Sharp]

Assuming the Market it at least somewhat efficient the %'s you are looking for wouldn't matter. Take this year for example: the total sum of seeds is the highest ever (26). This data is an extreme and will sway the data since it is not a big enough sample. If this were to happen "more often" the line makers would be on top of it....

[Chandler]

who's to say it as not just an outlier but a trend that is continuing to build

[Joe Sharp]

Doesn't matter - you and I will be dead before the Sample Size is big enough.