Be cautious when betting on NBA streaks

I can’t cook, I’m terrible. If I was the head cook at Leavenworth Federal Prison, inmates on death row would turn down their last meal. Every time I go near the stove, our dog howls. Since I work out of my house (never late for work!), I do a fair amount of cooking dinner for my wife and I.

Before I went off to college (40 miles from home), my mom (probably the worst cook there is) tried to teach me everything I needed to know to survive on my own. Unfortunately, along with sewing buttons on a shirt, I never got the grasp of how to prepare a meal very well. However, last week was different.

On Monday I looked up a recipe for cooking salmon. I had never heard of putting mayonnaise on a fish before, but Rachael Ray swears by it, so who am I to argue. I mean, she has a TV show, I don’t. With some seasonings, it was surprisingly good.

Tuesday, I decided to finally pull the crock pot out of storage that my Aunt June (also, a terrible cook) had gotten us as a wedding gift. I cooked a rump roast that was so tender and tasty my wife thought I should open a restaurant. Three consecutive great meals, I’m on a roll!

That streak of fine food ended abruptly the next night cooking steaks on the grill. First, I accidentally seasoned them with taco spice instead of pepper. I went inside, got distracted by an intriguing episode of “Cops”, and forgot about the food. The asparagus and mushrooms had literally turned to ashes and the filet mignons were now part of the grill itself. I was on a streak, everything was looking great. But then I failed miserably, the streak was over.

There probably isn’t a sports handicapper out there that doesn’t look at streaks. Everybody loves to bet the team on the winning streak or against the team on the losing streak. And why not? That seems logical.

I had a friend call me Sunday saying he didn’t understand why the Lakers were only favored by 3.5 points at Atlanta. He stated the Lakers had won their last 5 games covering their last 4 while Atlanta had lost 2 games in a row. He wanted to back the truck up and put it all on LA. I tried talking him out of the wager saying that just because a team is on a streak cannot be the only criteria to use to handicap an NBA game.

I quickly did a database query and found that teams on a three-game or longer winning streak when playing a team on a two-game losing streak only cover the spread 42.9% of the time. I also looked at a team winning more than 60% of the time was on a 5 game winning streak and were away faves, just like LA. They only beat the number 14 out of 36 times, 38.9%. I know my friend didn’t like to hear what I was saying, but hopefully he listened as underdog Atlanta beat the Lakers outright by ten points.

To further understand how teams do when on a streak, I looked at teams who had lost three straight games. To get any worthwhile results, you have to know whether the team is at home or on the road. I did find a spot where betting against the losing team is correct, assuming they are playing at home. Betting against the 3 straight game losers at home is winning at a 57.0% rate, 151-114. Even more profitable is to take the Over in this situation, a 153-112 mark, 57.7%. Just the opposite results occur if our 3-game losers are on the road, they cover at a 54.0% clip.

I expanded the streak to include teams losing straight-up 3 to 5 consecutive games. Again, it depended upon whether the team was home or on the road. Betting against the home team streaking downward provided 57.6% winners with 54.9% of those games going Over the total.

Again, the other end of the spectrum prevailed if our bad streaking team was on the road, 56.2%, 318-248.To determine whether good teams perform differently than bad teams in streaks, I added a team’s winning percentage range to my query. Unless otherwise stated, all records start with the 2005 season and do not include playoffs.

Starting with the smallest of streaks, one game, I looked at how bad teams, ones with a below 40% season record, perform. Remember, a streak starts when you have the opposite result of the previous game. A one-game winning streak means the team lost their game before that. Bad teams that just started a winning streak cover their next game only 48.2% of the time. Bad teams beginning a losing streak of one do better and cover their next game 53.9% of the time.

Good teams, higher than a 60% record, have an unusual pattern after a one-game streak. There is nothing of note on the ATS side, but there is an interesting O/U trend. If our good team has a one-game losing streak and their game is at home, the Under has a 151-118 mark, 56.1%. Even better is if the streak is a winning one—gamer and the game is away: the Under cashes 57.8% of the time.

A good situation to go against the streak is when you have a good team, over 60% winning percentage, which has a losing streak of 2, 3, or 4 games and is an away favorite. Their ATS mark in their next game is 32-12, 72.7%. Since the 2005 season began, a four game losing streak is as long as there has been with a team still favored on the road. If our good team had been a road dog in that exact same scenario, their ATS record has been 22-25.

To emphasize the dichotomy of wagering results home and away, let’s look at how a bad team, below 40%, does on a 5-game losing streak. If their game is on the road, betting on our losers to cover cashes your tickets at a 67.1% frequency, 47-23. Not too far behind is also betting the Over, 43-28, 60.6%. However, if our team is at home, just the opposite happens, they only cover 36.8% of the games.

I believe it is going to be worthy looking for a team that’s dropped 5 straight. Some cappers put more validity in an ATS streak: beating the point spread in consecutive games. They aren’t worried if a team is not winning straight-up, just beating the number. There is virtually no advantage on blindly betting against a team on a streak not covering the number or betting on one that is. I stopped at 5 game streaks, both winning and losing, with the only streak with at least a 5% edge being when teams have covered 5 straight games, 65-53 ATS, 55.1%.

Sometimes you should do the opposite of what seems like the correct wager. Instead of betting against bad teams, less than 40% W/L record, that are on an ATS losing streak of 1 to 5 games and are away, bet on them and you cash that ticket 57.4% of the time, 364-270. It’s kind of like when George Costanza on Seinfeld started doing the opposite of what he thought was right and everything worked out great.

Taking it a step deeper, how about teams that have won and covered in equal streaks: 3 straight wins and 3 straight covers for example. I did the losing side of these streaks also. The results? Goose egg, zilch, nada, nothing! To illustrate, a team that has a streak of 4 in SU and ATS wins has a 50-55 ATS record in their next game. A streak of 3 losses and non-covers has a 122-115 ATS mark in their following contest.

Using teams with correlating and equal streaks gives you no advantage if that is your only handicapping tool. Sure, it’s easy to believe that a team that has won and covered three straight is a good bet. The 3-year results of 131-131 says no.

A statement I hear frequently is to ride out the hot streaks and bet against the cold streaks. Only using a SU or ATS streak as your sole reason for betting on an NBA game is an extremely lazy method to handicap a game and will cost you lots of money.

Jim Kruger of Vegas Sports Authority created this article.

Late Season Betting on Ranked Teams

The other day had a conversation with a close friend and we were talking about the good old days. Among the topics of discussion were our gambling exploits from years ago. We laughed talking about all the cash we made just following certain teams late in the year. It seemed (the years make the memories fuzzy) no matter if we having a bad year, a great year or just ordinary in progress, we always cashed big late in the season.

Tennessee was a team we made a mint on, since they were always peaking at the end of the season and played several weak teams in those days to close the year, often covering the bookie’s number by two touchdowns or more. Florida State in their prime under Bobby Bowden was another, more in their Independent days and the early years of being a member of the ACC.

Their were other gift spots we knew about, like playing against Notre Dame no matter how good they were (that’s been awhile) in the last home game or a number of Georgia/Georgia Tech and South Carolina/ Clemson games when the home team it seemed never covered.

After laughing ourselves silly thinking about how he once gave a guy 54-points and Kansas (if memory serves correct) against Oklahoma, with the Sooners covering 62-7 for a few Ben Franklin’s, our discussion turned to betting on ranked teams late in the season. He believed ranked teams were good at home and bad on the road.

His rationale was as long as a team was of quality to be highly ranked late in the season; they should be a good bet at 21 or fewer points. Any pointspread above 21 the team has to be playing extremely well or the opponent so bad, the favorite can’t help but win and be very close to covering the number.

Ranked teams on the road were dicier, starting with the fact they’re favored about 80 percent of the time. A home underdog can make their season late in the year with an upset. These can be very dangerous opponents, especially ones that have the ability to score points, since they can feed off the momentum of the crowd and often play over their heads. Additionally he noted, the coaches and players of ranked teams on the road are probably still playing for some conference positioning and will get tight if pushed by lesser foe.

All this talked about ranked teams late in the year, led to research to determine answers. Here are the three questions that were formulated to be answered.

1) How do ranked teams perform in the last three games of the regular season?

2) How do ranked teams perform at home?

3) How do ranked teams perform on the road?

The answers were to be determined both straight up and seeing this is tip sheet is information driven for sports bettors, how the teams do against the spread.

The answer to the first question was slightly surprising on a couple of points. Of the 293 games played by ranked teams over the last five years (2003-07) in the last three weeks of the season, the Top 25 teams are 224-69, 76.4 percent. What was mildly surprising was my preconceived notion these schools actually won more frequently, closer to 80 percent. When thinking about it more, the number made more sense, as like anyone; you tend to think about the top end, not the bottom. Any team ranked #18-25, likely has a couple of losses or plays in a weaker conference and is more vulnerable to being defeated.

One aspect that did not catch me off-guard was the spread record of these teams. Of the 293 games, the actual record was 148-135-10 against the spread, a 52.2 percent mark, which would cause bettors to have betting accounting accounts similar to many people’s 401K plans, less than what you started with.

Let’s move along to question two, how do ranked teams play at home. This is where the numbers kind of get weird, not in a bad way, just peculiar. Home teams were 135-39 straight up 77.5 percent, almost the same percentage as the overall number, meaning ranked teams played almost the same home or away late in the year.

My friend was accurate in his belief that the elite teams in the country are a good bet at home with a 95-73-6 ATS record, good for 56.5 percent. Among the leaders carrying the torch for this group is USC at 9-0 and 7-2 ATS, Louisville at 5-0 and 4-1 ATS and Boise State at 4-0 SU and against the spread as home favorites the last five years.

I was somewhat stunned ranked teams were so good on the road at 89-30, 74.7 percent. However, when digging into the spread number, the real truth came out. With rare exception, Top 25 teams when listed as road favorites ended up being 52-62-5 ATS, a rather lousy percentage of 45.6 percent, particularly when you consider these teams won nearly three out of four games. As my pal so accurately described, ranked teams have something to play for and might be more conservative, compared to home team underdogs that can play all out with nary a reason to hold anything back.

In doing the research, two other questions came to mind. What is the outcome when both teams are ranked and does it matter if one team has a higher ranking?

The first question offered a staggering result in my opinion. When two highly ranked squads are facing off late in the year, the presumption is the home team has the edge. From a wagering perspective, the road team might offer more value since the two teams are probably fairly close in talent as most positions, at least that would be the traditional method of thinking. Here, either the more focused or relaxed visitor won 21 of 38 games played and covered the spread an astonishing 60 percent of the time at 21-14-3 ATS.

Taking it one step further, how does a higher ranked team do, no matter where the contest is held? Though most Top 25 ratings of any kind are believed superficial, they do mean a great deal to those seeking to add money to wagering accounts. The higher ranked school is 25-13 overall with an almost matching 24-13-1 against the spread record. That is good for a delectable 64.8 winning percentage. This seems contrary to the previous question, but does point out the differences in the two teams. Place two similar teams by ability on the field, each with the same motivation and willingness to perform at peak performance, the better team is without question the better wager.

In conclusion, a wise old goat like my friend has been through enough battles to understand what happens late in the year. Playing visitors when two teams are in the Top 25 is smarter than a 6th grader and forget Warren Buffet and others trying to figure out unstable stock market, buy higher ranked teams when matched versus other ranked clubs to really make money.