Spotting trends against the spread
You already know Las Vegas sports books are not stupid. They pick up on trends well ahead of the general public, and that is how they make their money.
One of the biggest keys to succeeding at handicapping games is spotting trends that Vegas may be discounting. A quick look at the against the spread (ATS) records from the last four years (2006 to 2009) indicate that most teams that performed very well against the spread this year did not fare well last year.
It makes perfect sense. Teams that are bad against the spread last year cost bettors money. Therefore, the next year people are determined to not pick that team anymore. To compensate, Vegas sets larger spreads.
Take a look at the Connecticut Huskies. In 2006, UConn was 5-6 against the spread, losing bettors money. Vowing not to bet on the Huskies anymore, a bettor fades them every game next year, no matter what the spread is. Except in 2007, UConn goes 8-3 against the spread. Everyone had underestimated the Huskies, so Vegas had to set smaller spreads when they were favorites, and larger spreads when they were underdogs. As a result, UConn did very well.
Now, in 2008, bettors are sure that UConn will be a good team against the spread again. Except they go 5-6, and lose people money. The pattern repeats as in 2009, UConn led the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision in wins against the spread with a 10-2 record.
If history is any indication, which it usually is, UConn will be bad against the spread next year. Vegas will not set spreads knowing that UConn will cover them every week, so when they are a favorite, they will have to cover more points. And when they are a big underdog, they won’t be as big as in years past.
Next year, if you fade the seven teams who performed the best ATS, you will make money. Whatever you do, do not bet on any team that was 8-4 or better ATS in 2009, as Las Vegas is going to make it more difficult for those teams to cover the spread in 2010. And it should go without saying that if two of these teams play each other, it is wise to lay off altogether.
A glance at some of the best ATS teams proves this pattern:
| 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Connecticut | 10-2 | 5-6 | 8-3 | 5-6 |
| Central Florida | 9-2 | 5-5-1 | 8-5 | 4-7 |
| Middle Tennessee St. | 9-3 | 5-7 | 6-4 | 7-4 |
| Ohio State | 9-3 | 5-6 | 7-4 | 9-3 |
| Wyoming | 8-3 | 2-9 | 2-9 | 6-6 |
| Houston | 8-4 | 4-7 | 4-7 | 8-4 |
| Louisiana Tech | 8-4 | 5-6 | 6-5 | 3-9 |
And the same is true in the reverse. The 18 teams that were the worst against the spread combined for a 60-152 record this year ATS. These teams should bounce back with a profitable season next year. Particularly Illinois, Western Michigan and San Jose State, who have suffered two losing seasons ATS in a row, and are due for a winning year ATS in 2010 – regardless of their final records.
| 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Akron | 4-8 | 6-6 | 6-5-1 | 3-9 |
| Eastern Michigan | 4-8 | 4-7 | 4-7 | 6-6 |
| Florida Atlantic | 4-8 | 7-5 | 7-5 | 5-6 |
| Florida Int'l | 4-8 | 8-4 | 5-7 | 3-9 |
| Georgia | 4-8 | 3-7-1 | 7-4 | 4-6-1 |
| Illinois | 4-8 | 4-7 | 7-4 | 5-6 |
| Notre Dame | 4-8 | 6-6 | 5-7 | 5-7 |
| San Diego State | 4-8 | 5-6 | 6-5 | 4-7 |
| Tulane | 4-8 | 5-7 | 5-6 | 4-8 |
| Kansas | 3-8 | 6-5 | 10-1 | 6-5 |
| UNLV | 3-8 | 6-5-1 | 5-7 | 4-6-1 |
| Florida State | 3-9 | 5-4-1 | 5-7 | 5-7 |
| Memphis | 3-9 | 5-5-1 | 6-4-1 | 4-6-1 |
| Southern California | 3-9 | 6-6 | 6-6 | 6-6 |
| Western Michigan | 3-9 | 5-6 | 2-8-1 | 7-5 |
| Arkansas State | 2-9 | 3-8 | 5-7 | 6-6 |
| Colorado State | 2-9 | 6-5 | 5-6 | 4-7 |
| San Jose State | 2-10 | 5-6 | 7-4 | 8-3 |
