March Madness 2014
December 5th, 2013 at 8:54:21 PM
permalink
I just hand entered the outcome of every March Madness game since the 64-team system started in 1985. When the props come out, I'll be rip roaring and ready to analyze them. I know a frequent one is over/under total wins in the x conference. For example, over/under 9.5 wins in the PAC 10. We don't know who is playing or the seeds yet, but this table shows the expected wins according to seed. With this, we should get a decent estimate by summing the seeds for any given conference. The average wins column shows the exact average number of wins for that seed. However, there is a problem. Note, for example, the average is higher for a six seed than five. I would attribute that to a small sample size problem. The right column smooths out the ups and down.
Any other props or questions you'd like to examine while we're waiting for the props to come out?
| Seed | Avg. Wins | Estimate |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.35 | 3.19 |
| 2 | 2.41 | 2.39 |
| 3 | 1.86 | 1.93 |
| 4 | 1.53 | 1.60 |
| 5 | 1.13 | 1.34 |
| 6 | 1.19 | 1.13 |
| 7 | 0.83 | 0.95 |
| 8 | 0.71 | 0.80 |
| 9 | 0.57 | 0.66 |
| 10 | 0.63 | 0.54 |
| 11 | 0.51 | 0.43 |
| 12 | 0.53 | 0.33 |
| 13 | 0.27 | 0.24 |
| 14 | 0.16 | 0.15 |
| 15 | 0.08 | 0.07 |
| 16 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Any other props or questions you'd like to examine while we're waiting for the props to come out?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 5th, 2013 at 9:21:34 PM
permalink
Sure, at what point would you consider a Moneyline fair on a 16th seed to win a game, since it has never happened?
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
December 5th, 2013 at 9:24:43 PM
permalink
Quote: Mission146Sure, at what point would you consider a Moneyline fair on a 16th seed to win a game, since it has never happened?
Around 200 to 1.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 5th, 2013 at 10:40:07 PM
permalink
You also have to keep in mind that the seeding committee is allowed to move a team one seed up or down in order to, for example, prevent two teams in the same conference from playing each other before the Elite Eight (unless the conference gets nine teams).
December 5th, 2013 at 11:22:17 PM
permalink
I don't think the lower seeds having more wins than a higher seed is that unusual at all. Here's why..
They don't reseed after each round. So for example, let's say for a given region the 10 and the 12 seed both pull off upsets, while the other six higher seeds all win. In round 2 the 10 seed actually has to face a more difficult team (the 2 seed), than the 12 seed (who now faces the 4 seed).
So I'd say that if you did that table for just Round 1 wins, you get a uniform distribution of wins vs seed. But since after round 1 it's not reseeded, you can't really say that a higher seed is more likely to win in round 2 or thereafter.
Also, once you get to the 6th and 7th seeds, your talking the 21st best team, 22nd best, etc.. And I honestly don't think the tournament committe has only clue whose better than whom
They don't reseed after each round. So for example, let's say for a given region the 10 and the 12 seed both pull off upsets, while the other six higher seeds all win. In round 2 the 10 seed actually has to face a more difficult team (the 2 seed), than the 12 seed (who now faces the 4 seed).
So I'd say that if you did that table for just Round 1 wins, you get a uniform distribution of wins vs seed. But since after round 1 it's not reseeded, you can't really say that a higher seed is more likely to win in round 2 or thereafter.
Also, once you get to the 6th and 7th seeds, your talking the 21st best team, 22nd best, etc.. And I honestly don't think the tournament committe has only clue whose better than whom
December 6th, 2013 at 6:07:12 AM
permalink
Quote: michael99000I don't think the lower seeds having more wins than a higher seed is that unusual at all. Here's why..
Good point. Here is a table showing the probability of winning the first round.
| Seed | Wins | Prob. Win | Estimate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 116 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 2 | 108 | 0.93 | 0.93 |
| 3 | 99 | 0.85 | 0.87 |
| 4 | 91 | 0.78 | 0.80 |
| 5 | 75 | 0.65 | 0.73 |
| 6 | 78 | 0.67 | 0.67 |
| 7 | 70 | 0.60 | 0.60 |
| 8 | 58 | 0.50 | 0.53 |
| 9 | 58 | 0.50 | 0.47 |
| 10 | 46 | 0.40 | 0.40 |
| 11 | 38 | 0.33 | 0.33 |
| 12 | 41 | 0.35 | 0.27 |
| 13 | 25 | 0.22 | 0.20 |
| 14 | 17 | 0.15 | 0.13 |
| 15 | 8 | 0.07 | 0.07 |
| 16 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Note those 6-seeds have more wins than 5-seeds. The column on the right, again, smooths the ups and downs, for better or worse.
By the way, what is this kind of tournament called, where the best plays the worst, the second best plays the second worst, and so on? When I was in the Baltimore chess club they did the first round in the tournaments this way.
Also, here is Stanford Wong's estimated wins from Sharp Sports Betting (page 202) alongside the actual average.
| Seed | Avg. Wins | Wong |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.35 | 3.7 to 4.2 |
| 2 | 2.41 | 2.70 |
| 3 | 1.86 | 1.90 |
| 4 | 1.53 | 1.30 |
| 5 | 1.13 | 1.00 |
| 6 | 1.19 | 0.80 |
| 7 | 0.83 | 0.70 |
| 8 | 0.71 | 0.60 |
| 9 | 0.57 | 0.50 |
| 10 | 0.63 | 0.50 |
| 11 | 0.51 | 0.50 |
| 12 | 0.53 | 0.50 |
| 13 | 0.27 | 0.40 |
| 14 | 0.16 | 0.20 |
| 15 | 0.08 | 0.10 |
| 16 | 0.00 | 0.10 |
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 6th, 2013 at 6:12:27 AM
permalink
Quote: michael99000I don't think the lower seeds having more wins than a higher seed is that unusual at all. Here's why..
They don't reseed after each round. So for example, let's say for a given region the 10 and the 12 seed both pull off upsets, while the other six higher seeds all win. In round 2 the 10 seed actually has to face a more difficult team (the 2 seed), than the 12 seed (who now faces the 4 seed).
So I'd say that if you did that table for just Round 1 wins, you get a uniform distribution of wins vs seed. But since after round 1 it's not reseeded, you can't really say that a higher seed is more likely to win in round 2 or thereafter.
Also, once you get to the 6th and 7th seeds, your talking the 21st best team, 22nd best, etc.. And I honestly don't think the tournament committe has only clue whose better than whom
Without having statistics in front of me, it's been my strong perception in recent years that the 12 and 13 seeds perform well above expectations as a group. I'd be interested in knowing whether that's a true trend over time. OTOH, it may just be that those teams get more attention because they're upsets by definition.
There also tends to be a bias towards certain conferences, specifically the ACC, in filling berths going to non-conference champions. I think an interesting prop bet might be to determine how many berths go to non-champion teams, and then pick how many additional teams from each of the 8 or 10 strongest conferences make the dance (before the brackets are announced). The bet could also include a field bet for those that get there without being from one of the named conferences.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
December 6th, 2013 at 7:50:30 AM
permalink
Be sure to take into account that sometimes teams are "mis-seeded" due to bracket rules and committee errors.
Two years ago an 11 seed was a 2 point favorite over a 6 seed. I have much more confidence in the Vegas line than the committee.
Since the four worst teams in the field play each other for the chance to make the 64 team field, the quality of 16 seed that get to actually play the 1 seed, has slightly improved since the two worst teams (in theory) have already been eliminated. This also pushes other teams down (as 6 teams have a 16 seed instead of 4 or 5), thus 15 seeds are better relative to the field than they were before the field expanded.
I have had generally positive results betting on conference totals. I bet the ACC under 7.5 +145 in 2012. Duke going out after the first round really helped and then my Jayhawks finished it off when they beat UNC. In 2013, I didn't think any of the totals had enough of an edge to place a bet. I did like the Mountain West not to win the championship at -5000 and the WCC not to win the championship at -1800 or so.
I have not had success on the will a 14,15 or 16 seed win a game prop. My numbers have said NO is a strong wager both years as historical data indicated that a 1,2, or 3 seed loses in the round of 64 about every other year. I've failed to cash with odds of +300 and +210.
Edited for 1st/2nd Round Confusion.
Two years ago an 11 seed was a 2 point favorite over a 6 seed. I have much more confidence in the Vegas line than the committee.
Since the four worst teams in the field play each other for the chance to make the 64 team field, the quality of 16 seed that get to actually play the 1 seed, has slightly improved since the two worst teams (in theory) have already been eliminated. This also pushes other teams down (as 6 teams have a 16 seed instead of 4 or 5), thus 15 seeds are better relative to the field than they were before the field expanded.
I have had generally positive results betting on conference totals. I bet the ACC under 7.5 +145 in 2012. Duke going out after the first round really helped and then my Jayhawks finished it off when they beat UNC. In 2013, I didn't think any of the totals had enough of an edge to place a bet. I did like the Mountain West not to win the championship at -5000 and the WCC not to win the championship at -1800 or so.
I have not had success on the will a 14,15 or 16 seed win a game prop. My numbers have said NO is a strong wager both years as historical data indicated that a 1,2, or 3 seed loses in the round of 64 about every other year. I've failed to cash with odds of +300 and +210.
Edited for 1st/2nd Round Confusion.
December 6th, 2013 at 8:38:05 AM
permalink
The 1st round has 4 or 8 teams playing for the last two or four seeds.
2nd round is the round of 64.
2nd round is the round of 64.
Buffering...
December 6th, 2013 at 8:57:56 AM
permalink
Quote: wrobersonThe 1st round has 4 or 8 teams playing for the last two or four seeds.
The NCAA changed the round numbering system in 2011 when it added 3 more games to what was previously the Play-In game. The 1st round, round of 68 or "first four" (referring to number of games not teams) is played in Dayton, OH on the Tuesday and Wednesday (2 games per night) between the announcement of pairings on Sunday and the beginning of the round of 64 (the new 2nd round, old 1st round) on Thursday.
The lowest four automatic qualifiers play on the s-curve and the last four at-large selections play in the round of 68. The automatic qualifiers are assigned to play another automatic qualifier, while the at-large selections are assigned to play another at-large selection.
I don't think calling it the round of 64 the 2nd round will catch on until the field is to 96 or 128. If half the teams played I think it could be legitimately called a "round", but when only 8 of 68 teams are playing it hardly seems worthy of a "round" designation.
December 6th, 2013 at 10:42:10 AM
permalink
Quote: 1arrowheaddrI have not had success on the will a 14,15 or 16 seed win a game prop. My numbers have said NO is a strong wager both years as historical data indicated that a 1,2, or 3 seed loses in the round of 64 about every other year. I've failed to cash with odds of +300 and +210.
I show the probability of at least one 14-16 seed winning is 62.1%, making the fair line -164. I'm surprised you saw such good odds for that.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 6th, 2013 at 10:49:47 AM
permalink
I never fill out a bracket because I love rooting for the 9 to 16 seed.
Its great that they have the 1-8 seed wear home white and 9-16 seeds visiting dark.
When I channel surf between games, I root for all the dark uniforms.
Its great that they have the 1-8 seed wear home white and 9-16 seeds visiting dark.
When I channel surf between games, I root for all the dark uniforms.
When somebody doesn't believe me, I could care less. Some get totally bent out of shape when not believed. Weird. I believe very little on all forums
December 6th, 2013 at 11:35:38 AM
permalink
I would be interested in knowing what percentage of the time does each seed make it to the final four?
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
December 6th, 2013 at 1:08:54 PM
permalink
Quote: DRichI would be interested in knowing what percentage of the time does each seed make it to the final four?
Your wish is my command. The following table shows the probability of any ONE team making it to each level, according to its seed.
| Seed | Top 32 | Sweet 16 | Elite 8 | Final Four | Terrific Two | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 100% | 87.07% | 68.97% | 40.52% | 23.28% | 15.52% |
| 2 | 93.1% | 65.52% | 46.55% | 21.55% | 10.34% | 3.45% |
| 3 | 85.34% | 51.72% | 25.86% | 12.07% | 7.76% | 3.45% |
| 4 | 78.45% | 43.97% | 15.52% | 11.21% | 2.59% | 0.86% |
| 5 | 64.66% | 33.62% | 6.9% | 5.17% | 2.59% | 0% |
| 6 | 67.24% | 34.48% | 12.07% | 2.59% | 1.72% | 0.86% |
| 7 | 60.34% | 16.38% | 6.03% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 8 | 50% | 8.62% | 6.03% | 3.45% | 1.72% | 0.86% |
| 9 | 50% | 4.31% | 1.72% | 0.86% | 0% | 0% |
| 10 | 39.66% | 17.24% | 6.03% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 11 | 32.76% | 12.07% | 3.45% | 2.59% | 0% | 0% |
| 12 | 35.34% | 17.24% | 0.86% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 13 | 21.55% | 5.17% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 14 | 14.66% | 1.72% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 15 | 6.9% | 0.86% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 16 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
The next table isn't quite what you wanted, but shows the expected number of each seed to attain each level.
| Seed | Top 32 | Sweet 16 | Elite 8 | Final Four | Terrific Two | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4 | 3.4828 | 2.7586 | 1.6207 | 0.931 | 0.6207 |
| 2 | 3.7241 | 2.6207 | 1.8621 | 0.8621 | 0.4138 | 0.1379 |
| 3 | 3.4138 | 2.069 | 1.0345 | 0.4828 | 0.3103 | 0.1379 |
| 4 | 3.1379 | 1.7586 | 0.6207 | 0.4483 | 0.1034 | 0.0345 |
| 5 | 2.5862 | 1.3448 | 0.2759 | 0.2069 | 0.1034 | 0 |
| 6 | 2.6897 | 1.3793 | 0.4828 | 0.1034 | 0.069 | 0.0345 |
| 7 | 2.4138 | 0.6552 | 0.2414 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | 2 | 0.3448 | 0.2414 | 0.1379 | 0.069 | 0.0345 |
| 9 | 2 | 0.1724 | 0.069 | 0.0345 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | 1.5862 | 0.6897 | 0.2414 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 11 | 1.3103 | 0.4828 | 0.1379 | 0.1034 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | 1.4138 | 0.6897 | 0.0345 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 13 | 0.8621 | 0.2069 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 14 | 0.5862 | 0.069 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | 0.2759 | 0.0345 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
This table shows the probability at least one team of each seed will make each level. You can see these probabilities jump in 3.45% increments, because there are only 29 years of data.
| Seed | Top 32 | Sweet 16 | Elite 8 | Final Four | Terrific Two | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 100% | 100% | 100% | 93.1% | 75.86% | 62.07% |
| 2 | 100% | 100% | 93.1% | 68.97% | 41.38% | 13.79% |
| 3 | 100% | 96.55% | 72.41% | 37.93% | 27.59% | 13.79% |
| 4 | 100% | 93.1% | 51.72% | 37.93% | 10.34% | 3.45% |
| 5 | 100% | 86.21% | 24.14% | 17.24% | 10.34% | 0% |
| 6 | 96.55% | 79.31% | 37.93% | 10.34% | 6.9% | 3.45% |
| 7 | 96.55% | 51.72% | 24.14% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 8 | 89.66% | 31.03% | 20.69% | 10.34% | 6.9% | 3.45% |
| 9 | 93.1% | 17.24% | 6.9% | 3.45% | 0% | 0% |
| 10 | 89.66% | 55.17% | 24.14% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 11 | 82.76% | 41.38% | 13.79% | 10.34% | 0% | 0% |
| 12 | 89.66% | 65.52% | 3.45% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 13 | 75.86% | 20.69% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 14 | 51.72% | 6.9% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 15 | 24.14% | 3.45% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 16 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 6th, 2013 at 1:42:29 PM
permalink
Quote: 1arrowheaddrThe NCAA changed the round numbering system in 2011 when it added 3 more games to what was previously the Play-In game. The 1st round, round of 68 or "first four" (referring to number of games not teams) is played in Dayton, OH on the Tuesday and Wednesday (2 games per night) between the announcement of pairings on Sunday and the beginning of the round of 64 (the new 2nd round, old 1st round) on Thursday.
The lowest four automatic qualifiers play on the s-curve and the last four at-large selections play in the round of 68. The automatic qualifiers are assigned to play another automatic qualifier, while the at-large selections are assigned to play another at-large selection.
I don't think calling it the round of 64 the 2nd round will catch on until the field is to 96 or 128. If half the teams played I think it could be legitimately called a "round", but when only 8 of 68 teams are playing it hardly seems worthy of a "round" designation.
The problem is, what do you call it? The NCAA won't call them "play-in games" because that implies that the losers were not officially in the tournament. (In fact, in the days of the 65-team field, the NCAA called the Dayton game something like the "opening round game", but never used the term "play-in". There was a time the NCAA had play-ins; when they went to 64 for the first time, the six or so weakest conferences had their champions play each other before the brackets were announced, so the losers were never seeded into the tournament.) I have heard the term "First Four" being used quite often.
("What's so important about who's actually in the tournament?" Money - each conference gets a share of the money for each team in each of the previous six tournaments, plus one for each win outside of the Final Four. Originally, the Dayton game didn't get its winner an exta share, but for some reason the NCAA changed it.)
January 15th, 2014 at 2:03:56 PM
permalink
Anybody think Arizona can really win it all this year?
January 16th, 2014 at 11:09:03 AM
permalink
Wizard, do you have any idea why the first seed is so dominant in the championship? Is there that much of a difference between the one seed and everyone else; especially the second seed?
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
January 16th, 2014 at 11:12:12 AM
permalink
Quote: AyecarumbaWizard, do you have any idea why the first seed is so dominant in the championship? Is there that much of a difference between the one seed and everyone else; especially the second seed?
I believe it is because in years where you have two number one seeds they win 100% of the time.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
January 16th, 2014 at 12:05:32 PM
permalink
Quote: AyecarumbaWizard, do you have any idea why the first seed is so dominant in the championship? Is there that much of a difference between the one seed and everyone else; especially the second seed?
I am guessing because 1-seeds are typically the best teams that year.
January 16th, 2014 at 6:56:06 PM
permalink
Quote: sodawaterI am guessing because 1-seeds are typically the best teams that year.
That, and they "only" usually have to beat the 16, 8, 4, and 2 seeds to get to the Final Four. Meanwhile, a 2 seed usually has to beat both a 3 and a 1 to get to the Final Four.
January 16th, 2014 at 7:56:20 PM
permalink
Quote: AyecarumbaWizard, do you have any idea why the first seed is so dominant in the championship? Is there that much of a difference between the one seed and everyone else; especially the second seed?
You can see from my table that a number-one seed wins 62.07% of the time, compared to 13.79% for number-two. How they assign the seeds I don't understand, but assume the number seeds are the best teams to begin with.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
January 16th, 2014 at 8:00:16 PM
permalink
Since I won last year, do I have to participate again or can I retire as champion? (thank you, Nate Silver)
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
January 16th, 2014 at 8:07:19 PM
permalink
Quote: AyecarumbaWizard, do you have any idea why the first seed is so dominant in the championship? Is there that much of a difference between the one seed and everyone else; especially the second seed?
A lot of the success can be attributed to getting there. Even if we consider the championship games a coin flip when we consider the teams playing in it the difference is not nearly as stark. 1 seeds have a >.500 winning percentage against every other seed. These advantages accumulate and help propel them to the FF4. Against 2 seeds head to head they are "only" 36-30.
Two sites if you want to deep dive into this stuff:
http://mcubed.net/ncaab/index.shtml
http://wp.bracketscience.com/
January 16th, 2014 at 8:26:39 PM
permalink
Quote: s2dbakerSince I won last year, do I have to participate again or can I retire as champion? (thank you, Nate Silver)
You're forced to make your own selections this year.
February 28th, 2014 at 9:00:35 AM
permalink
Is there any statistical data showing the average money line odds for each seed per round?
February 28th, 2014 at 9:24:24 AM
permalink
Quote: HomerslaststandIs there any statistical data showing the average money line odds for each seed per round?
No, but there is data on seed X vs seed Y win probs.
March 2nd, 2014 at 11:21:50 AM
permalink
Interesting day in college basketball yesterday! Amazing to see so many ranked teams lose.
March 2nd, 2014 at 11:22:53 PM
permalink
It's getting close to that time, did the forum ever agree on what style march madness pool would be best?
My only opinion is to NOT have members submit one bracket and use it for several different pool types, which was being bantered about.
My only opinion is to NOT have members submit one bracket and use it for several different pool types, which was being bantered about.
March 17th, 2014 at 3:33:40 PM
permalink
Hey! I have my bracket filled out. Where is the input form this year?
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
March 17th, 2014 at 11:13:50 PM
permalink
Quote: s2dbakerHey! I have my bracket filled out. Where is the input form this year?
PM MidwestAP for the link and password, if you're playing with the WoV group.
see this thread
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
March 18th, 2014 at 3:15:13 PM
permalink
Is there a free one? Technically, I'd be breaking the law in my state by participating in the linked contest.Quote: beachbumbabsPM MidwestAP for the link and password, if you're playing with the WoV group.
see this thread
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
March 19th, 2014 at 5:02:20 AM
permalink
Let's look at some March Madness props at 5 Dimes.
There are a bunch on the number of #1 seeds to make the final four. In the 29 seasons, here is how many times each total has made it:
The mean number is 1.62. The probability of any given number one seed making it to the final four is 40.5%. Using that probability, the odds for 0 to 4 Number One seeds in the final four looks as follows, using the binomial theorem.
Now let's look at some actual props.
All four #1 seeds in Final 4 +10000
Any #2-#16 seed in Final 4 -19000
The fair line is +3611, making the YES look like a great bet.
Exactly three #1 seeds in Final 4 +1158
Not exactly three #1 seeds in Final 4 -1815
Here the fair line is +532, again making the YES look great.
Exactly two #1 seeds in Final 4 +259
Not exactly two #1 seeds in Final 4 -317
There the fair line is +187, again making the YES look great.
Exactly one #1 seeds in Final 4 +124
Not exactly one #1 seeds in Final 4 -144
Fair line is +193
No #1 seeds in Final 4 +275
At least one #1 seed in Final 4 -335
Here the line on the no is -699, making the NO look like a great bet.
#1 seeds in Final 4 over 1½ +187
#1 seeds in Final 4 under 1½ -227
The fair line on the over is -114.
Pause. Either my math is wrong or the number one seeds this year stink compared to previous years.
Let's take a look at the number one seeds this year themselves. The following table shows all four, their Pinnacle odds to win the tournament, the "base" probability, which is the probability of winning to make the future odds a fair bet, and their actual probability of winning, after teasing out the 30.1% juice in the futures prices.
This suggests a #1 seed has only a 28.4% chance to win the whole thing. In the past 29 seasons a #1 seed has won 18 times, or 62.1% of the time.
So, my question for the forum is what is why does the market have so little respect for the number seeds this year?
There are a bunch on the number of #1 seeds to make the final four. In the 29 seasons, here is how many times each total has made it:
| Number One Seeds in Final Four | Count | Probability |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | 1 | 3.4% |
| 3 | 3 | 10.3% |
| 2 | 11 | 37.9% |
| 1 | 12 | 41.4% |
| 0 | 2 | 6.9% |
| Total | 29 | 100.0% |
The mean number is 1.62. The probability of any given number one seed making it to the final four is 40.5%. Using that probability, the odds for 0 to 4 Number One seeds in the final four looks as follows, using the binomial theorem.
| Number One Seeds in Final Four | Probability |
|---|---|
| 4 | 2.7% |
| 3 | 15.8% |
| 2 | 34.9% |
| 1 | 34.1% |
| 0 | 12.5% |
| Total | 100.0% |
Now let's look at some actual props.
All four #1 seeds in Final 4 +10000
Any #2-#16 seed in Final 4 -19000
The fair line is +3611, making the YES look like a great bet.
Exactly three #1 seeds in Final 4 +1158
Not exactly three #1 seeds in Final 4 -1815
Here the fair line is +532, again making the YES look great.
Exactly two #1 seeds in Final 4 +259
Not exactly two #1 seeds in Final 4 -317
There the fair line is +187, again making the YES look great.
Exactly one #1 seeds in Final 4 +124
Not exactly one #1 seeds in Final 4 -144
Fair line is +193
No #1 seeds in Final 4 +275
At least one #1 seed in Final 4 -335
Here the line on the no is -699, making the NO look like a great bet.
#1 seeds in Final 4 over 1½ +187
#1 seeds in Final 4 under 1½ -227
The fair line on the over is -114.
Pause. Either my math is wrong or the number one seeds this year stink compared to previous years.
Let's take a look at the number one seeds this year themselves. The following table shows all four, their Pinnacle odds to win the tournament, the "base" probability, which is the probability of winning to make the future odds a fair bet, and their actual probability of winning, after teasing out the 30.1% juice in the futures prices.
| Team | Odds | Base | Prob |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1001 Florida | 601 | 14.3% | 10.0% |
| 1002 Virginia | 1279 | 7.3% | 5.1% |
| 1003 Arizona | 684 | 12.8% | 8.9% |
| 1004 Wichita St | 1475 | 6.3% | 4.4% |
| Total | 40.6% | 28.4% |
This suggests a #1 seed has only a 28.4% chance to win the whole thing. In the past 29 seasons a #1 seed has won 18 times, or 62.1% of the time.
So, my question for the forum is what is why does the market have so little respect for the number seeds this year?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
March 19th, 2014 at 6:43:02 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardLet's look at some March Madness props at 5 Dimes.
There are a bunch on the number of #1 seeds to make the final four. In the 29 seasons, here is how many times each total has made it:
Number One Seeds in Final Four Count Probability 4 1 3.4% 3 3 10.3% 2 11 37.9% 1 12 41.4% 0 2 6.9% Total 29 100.0%
The mean number is 1.62. The probability of any given number one seed making it to the final four is 40.5%. Using that probability, the odds for 0 to 4 Number One seeds in the final four looks as follows, using the binomial theorem.
Number One Seeds in Final Four Probability 4 2.7% 3 15.8% 2 34.9% 1 34.1% 0 12.5% Total 100.0%
Now let's look at some actual props.
All four #1 seeds in Final 4 +10000
Any #2-#16 seed in Final 4 -19000
The fair line is +3611, making the YES look like a great bet.
Exactly three #1 seeds in Final 4 +1158
Not exactly three #1 seeds in Final 4 -1815
Here the fair line is +532, again making the YES look great.
Exactly two #1 seeds in Final 4 +259
Not exactly two #1 seeds in Final 4 -317
There the fair line is +187, again making the YES look great.
Exactly one #1 seeds in Final 4 +124
Not exactly one #1 seeds in Final 4 -144
Fair line is +193
No #1 seeds in Final 4 +275
At least one #1 seed in Final 4 -335
Here the line on the no is -699, making the NO look like a great bet.
#1 seeds in Final 4 over 1½ +187
#1 seeds in Final 4 under 1½ -227
The fair line on the over is -114.
Pause. Either my math is wrong or the number one seeds this year stink compared to previous years.
Let's take a look at the number one seeds this year themselves. The following table shows all four, their Pinnacle odds to win the tournament, the "base" probability, which is the probability of winning to make the future odds a fair bet, and their actual probability of winning, after teasing out the 30.1% juice in the futures prices.
Team Odds Base Prob 1001 Florida 601 14.3% 10.0% 1002 Virginia 1279 7.3% 5.1% 1003 Arizona 684 12.8% 8.9% 1032 Kentucky 4471 2.2% 1.5% Total 36.5% 25.5%
This suggests a #1 seed has only a 25.5% chance to win the whole thing. In the past 29 seasons a #1 seed has won 18 times, or 62.1% of the time.
So, my question for the forum is what is why does the market have so little respect for the number seeds this year?
Kentucky isn't a 1 seed
March 19th, 2014 at 6:48:04 AM
permalink
Besides the whole UK issue (their 1 seed is WSU)
-UVA hasn't gotten much respect all year due to the weakness of their schedule and early losses
-WSU see UVA, but with weaker schedule and no losses
-Zona lost a crucial player mid year. and while they have played well since, they are depleted from full strength.
-FLA has no glaring weaknesses, but they did play in SEC who was bad they did lay the smack down as hard as we would like considering ho they faced
Also the 2, 3, and even 4 seeds are getting a lot love due to name recognition and that they were higher in the polls earlier in the year.
-UVA hasn't gotten much respect all year due to the weakness of their schedule and early losses
-WSU see UVA, but with weaker schedule and no losses
-Zona lost a crucial player mid year. and while they have played well since, they are depleted from full strength.
-FLA has no glaring weaknesses, but they did play in SEC who was bad they did lay the smack down as hard as we would like considering ho they faced
Also the 2, 3, and even 4 seeds are getting a lot love due to name recognition and that they were higher in the polls earlier in the year.
March 19th, 2014 at 6:52:06 AM
permalink
To confirm your first bit of math (1 seed to make the FF) I would grab the odds on the props to win their region. From 5Dimes, most of those have standard juice, given the ML nature of the prop.
| Team | Odds to win region, yes | Odds to win region, no | Implied fair prob |
|---|---|---|---|
| FLA | +158 | -180 | 0.372 |
| UVA | +285 | -345 | 0.242 |
| WSU | +475 | -650 | 0.154 |
| ARIZ | +150 | -170 | 0.385 |
March 19th, 2014 at 7:21:24 AM
permalink
Quote: endermikeTo confirm your first bit of math (1 seed to make the FF) I would grab the odds on the props to win their region. From 5Dimes, most of those have standard juice, given the ML nature of the prop.
Team Odds to win region, yes Odds to win region, no Implied fair prob FLA +158 -180 0.372 UVA +285 -345 0.242 WSU +475 -650 0.154 ARIZ +150 -170 0.385
Using the odds I calculated, here is what I would throw out there for the 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 prop you were working (using your listed odds).
| Number to make FF | Odds of occurence | "Yes" odds | "No" odds | "Yes" value | "No" value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.25 | +275 | -335 | .9375 | .9739 |
| 1 | 0.43 | +124 | -144 | .9632 | .9658 |
| 2 | 0.26 | +259 | -317 | .9334 | .9734 |
| 3 | 0.064 | +1158 | -1815 | .8051 | .9875 |
| 4 | 0.0053 | +10000 | -19000 | .5353 | .9999 |
So in summary, people think:
1) The 1 seeds stink relative to history
2) The 2-4 seeds are good relative to history
3) These props are great value if you only use the historical data, but they are mediocre when you plug in this year's other prop data
March 19th, 2014 at 7:47:20 AM
permalink
Thank you for all the comments.
That is embarrassing about Kentucky. If we substitute Wichita State the #1 seed winner table looks like this:
That is still compared to 62.1% overall. This makes me very uneasy about betting March Madness props this year.
That is embarrassing about Kentucky. If we substitute Wichita State the #1 seed winner table looks like this:
| Team | Odds | Base | Prob |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1001 Florida | 601 | 14.3% | 10.0% |
| 1002 Virginia | 1279 | 7.3% | 5.1% |
| 1003 Arizona | 684 | 12.8% | 8.9% |
| 1004 Wichita St | 1475 | 6.3% | 4.4% |
| Total | 40.6% | 28.4% |
That is still compared to 62.1% overall. This makes me very uneasy about betting March Madness props this year.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
March 19th, 2014 at 7:48:54 AM
permalink
Quote: s2dbakerIs there a free one? Technically, I'd be breaking the law in my state by participating in the linked contest.
The site is free to enter, any prize money will be distributed among participants outside of the web site.
If you still have concerns and you want to join, PM me and I will provide you my email address and you can scan a braket and send it to me and I will manually enter it for you.
March 19th, 2014 at 8:14:36 AM
permalink
Quote: endermikeTo confirm your first bit of math (1 seed to make the FF) I would grab the odds on the props to win their region. From 5Dimes, most of those have standard juice, given the ML nature of the prop.
Team Odds to win region, yes Odds to win region, no Implied fair prob FLA +158 -180 0.372 UVA +285 -345 0.242 WSU +475 -650 0.154 ARIZ +150 -170 0.385
Good stuff. I use a different method to get the fair probability, equalizing the house edge on both the yes and no. That results in this chart of each team making the Final Four.
| Team | Prob Final 4 |
|---|---|
| FLA | 37.6% |
| UVA | 25.1% |
| WSU | 16.7% |
| ARIZ | 38.8% |
| Total | 1.182714 |
So, 1.183 teams number one seeds to make the Final Four. So, the binomial table now looks as follows.
| Number One Seeds in Final Four | Probability |
|---|---|
| 4 | 0.8% |
| 3 | 7.3% |
| 2 | 26.0% |
| 1 | 41.3% |
| 0 | 24.6% |
| Total | 100.0% |
Let's review those props I mentioned before:
Now let's look at some actual props.
All four #1 seeds in Final 4 +10000
Any #2-#16 seed in Final 4 -19000
The fair line is +12983, making both sides negative.
Exactly three #1 seeds in Final 4 +1158
Not exactly three #1 seeds in Final 4 -1815
Here the fair line is +1273, again making both sides negative.
Exactly two #1 seeds in Final 4 +259
Not exactly two #1 seeds in Final 4 -317
There the fair line is +284, again making both sides negative.
Exactly one #1 seeds in Final 4 +124
Not exactly one #1 seeds in Final 4 -144
Fair line is +142. So both sides are negative again, although the no only barely.
No #1 seeds in Final 4 +275
At least one #1 seed in Final 4 -335
Here the line on the no is +306, making both sides negative.
#1 seeds in Final 4 over 1½ +187
#1 seeds in Final 4 under 1½ -227
The fair line on the under is -194. Again, both negative.
So, I didn't find any good bets, but at least I learned to not trust the seed value, at least for number one seeds, too much.
To look at another prop, 5Dimes has props on the sum of all seeds in the final four. The historical average is 10.79. If we assume that to be correct, and use the Poisson distribution, it appears like there are some fantastic bets. For example, 5 Dimes has under 12.5 at -105. Using 10.79 as the mean puts that bet fair at -246. However, with the little respect the number one seeds are getting, that would favor a high sum of seeds.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
March 19th, 2014 at 9:10:05 AM
permalink
I think the fact that everyone seems to love Louisville who is a 4 seed combined with the weakness of the 1 seeds has driven up that number.
March 19th, 2014 at 9:54:50 AM
permalink
Wizard, thank you.
This is great information and I really appreciate your hard work and that you are sharing with us.
This is great information and I really appreciate your hard work and that you are sharing with us.
At my age, a "Life In Prison" sentence is not much of a deterrent.
March 19th, 2014 at 12:32:57 PM
permalink
Quote: DRichWizard, thank you.
You're welcome!
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
March 20th, 2014 at 1:33:31 PM
permalink
Well, my Final Four date with Warren Buffet is off. Survived 2 bracket busters, but Harvard put me out of it. Be interested to hear if anybody else is still alive for the billion after today's games.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
March 20th, 2014 at 1:43:14 PM
permalink
I had Harvard right, but alas........my hopes were dashed early on with the Ohio St. loss.......now I have to return a billion dollars worth of goods that I had committed to buying.
DO NOT blindly accept what has been spoken.
DO NOT blindly accept what has been written.
Think. Assess. Lead. DO NOT blindly follow.
March 20th, 2014 at 1:43:37 PM
permalink
Quote: beachbumbabsWell, my Final Four date with Warren Buffet is off. Survived 2 bracket busters, but Harvard put me out of it. Be interested to hear if anybody else is still alive for the billion after today's games.
OSU lost me a game but I had 5 grand on Harvard by 3.5 so I'll take what I can get.
March 20th, 2014 at 2:44:37 PM
permalink
Now I've had my 2nd. loser of the day with BYU. But the good thing is my pick for champ is still in it.......the bad thing is that they haven't played yet.
DO NOT blindly accept what has been spoken.
DO NOT blindly accept what has been written.
Think. Assess. Lead. DO NOT blindly follow.
March 20th, 2014 at 2:59:11 PM
permalink
No billion for me. I am 3 out of 5 so far. I also picked Ohio State.
March 20th, 2014 at 9:37:02 PM
permalink
I got Harvard and Dayton, but I have Harvard to win again, and Dayton to exit.
And I'll probably screw-up tomorrow. I'm out... ND State wins.
And I'll probably screw-up tomorrow. I'm out... ND State wins.
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
March 21st, 2014 at 4:26:58 AM
permalink
I had Oklahoma. I should have went with my gut on that one, I blame Nate Silver.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
March 21st, 2014 at 5:58:58 AM
permalink
My 'perception' is that this is the most balanced tourney I can remember. Both Wichita State and Virginia would be considered amongst the weakest number one seeds in my 'memory'. Friends GF had Harvard and Dayton in her billion dollar bracket.... but she Didn't have Pittsburgh..... no billion... A good friend's son is an assistant coach at Harvard, they did an article on him in last Sunday's Buffalo news. So it is bizarre that we have a big Harvard rooting section now here in Buffalo.... At our local Tully's the next Harvard game will be on the big screen. The other friends GF is a Mich St. alum.... It will be fun!!!
