2-Year College ATS Discovery Results

I finished the calculations for the ATS results over the past two years. I analyzed and extrapolated the data, trying to find a correlation between my system picks and Vegas oddsmaker data. I currently pull oddsmaker data from every Vegas and every offshore book for every week of seasonal play. The goal is not to prove or disprove anything. The overall goal is to find an edge within the results that provides inherent value.

I personally did not do well last year. During previous years, I focused on ML values and was doing fine. However, the last two years I've been trying to shift to an ATS only format as the return value is greater. The results below show a great deal of promise for 2017. The data below is accurate.



In the topmost case, if the spread was an oddsmaker favorite between -31 and -37.5 and it was a also a system favorite on my site, picking the opponent to cover produced a 73.33% winning pct.

In the second and third cases, if the spread was an oddsmaker favorite between the ranges posted above and it was also a system favorite on my site, picking the favorite to cover produced 72.38% and 78.31% respectively. The majority of games were posted in the -1 to -9.5 bracket.

In the final case, if the spread was an oddsmaker underdog between +24 and +35 and the underdog was considered a system favorite on my site (contradicting the oddsmaker), picking the underdog to cover produced a 77.78% result.

The overall number of games for the past two years that fit the criteria was 548 games. 412 won, 125 lost, 11 pushed. The overall winpct was 76.72%. If using a $100 game wager per game as a flat bet per game, discounting the pushes (since no money would be won or lost), $53,700 would have been wagered. The total gains would be $37,080 and the total losses would be $12,500. The net gains would be $24,580.

The goal this year is to use a similar wagering structure and ATS criteria. However, I'm still working through all of the losses to find any correlating trends that worked against the system. My goal is to produce a 3-5% additive value to the current results.

The ATS calculations for all other markers showed little to no promise as providing an edge when comparing them against both systems. Therefore, those ATS markers are not posted.

These are for College Only. I'll post the NFL results by next weekend.

Quote: JoelDeze

The overall number of games for the past TWO YEARS that fit the criteria was 548 games. 412 won, 125 lost, 11 pushed. The overall winpct was 76.72%.

Congratulations Joel. That is a fairly large sample. I think you may have certified yourself as the greatest college football handicapper of all time. I can't wait to read about how you crushed with your NFL bets too.

Here's what you said about last year re college football: " I personally did not do well last year."


That means you may have hit on close to 90% in the year before that. Absolutely superb.

Quote: JoelDeze

I finished the calculations for the ATS results

I don't bet on sports, but Joel apparently lives, eats, and breathes the stuff. So, if you're like me, you may be confused by his (undefined) reference to "ATS."

I was confused about why he would be referencing the All-Tall-Small craps bet. Possible, as Joel has previously indicated he sometimes plays craps. But, in this case, he was (almost certainly, I'm pretty durn sure) referring to "Against The Spread," something (probably) well-understood by those who bet on sports (and other various) contests.

Joel, please correct me if I am still confused. I'm no ATS expert.

Joel...... 412-125. Seriously, if I told you I had a system that achieved those results, and published a large table (GIVING NOT A SINGLE SPECIFIC) "proving" that I achieved those results, what would you think?

Do you think you have now found a 'system'that will repeatedly achieve the 77% results you say you got? If so, please buy me a Maserati after you get your Lamborghini.....

Quote: lilredrooster

Congratulations Joel. That is a fairly large sample. I think you may have certified yourself as the greatest college football handicapper of all time. I can't wait to read about how you crushed with your NFL bets too.

Here's what you said about last year re college football: " I personally did not do well last year."


That means you may have hit on close to 90% in the year before that. Absolutely superb.

Haha. Such a perfect response.

Quote: SOOPOO

Joel...... 412-125. Seriously, if I told you I had a system that achieved those results, and published a large table (GIVING NOT A SINGLE SPECIFIC) "proving" that I achieved those results, what would you think?

Do you think you have now found a 'system'that will repeatedly achieve the 77% results you say you got? If so, please buy me a Maserati after you get your Lamborghini.....

Two years of results is a very small sample size. All I said was that I'm "hopeful" for 2017 based on the discovery data.

I will put together a table summary for all of the data and post it today.

Best of luck during March Madness, Joel. We look forward to hearing how you crushed the books and went 25-0 in hopes of gaining someone to sign up to your site.

Quote: SM777

Best of luck during March Madness, Joel. We look forward to hearing how you crushed the books and went 25-0 in hopes of gaining someone to sign up to your site.

I don't bet on basketball. I don't post links to my site or tout my site. Every bit of information I share has no reference, links, or pointers (direct or indirect) to my site. I did that "once" when I first joined as an intro and have never done so again.

I've never understood the hate when someone posts information. No where in the information I posted in this topic did I ever once said I crushed or won all of the picks. In fact, I stated very clearly, for anyone that read it, that I did not do well last year. My ATS picks were average at best last year.

As far as my site is concerned, it is mainly a "research site" filled with a ton of data for people to comb through. Most people have an idea of what they want to do as far as wagering. All I do is provide them the data so they can determine if they have an advantage on a game.

What I like about the Wizard and this site is that it contains a lot of easy to read data for many types of games. It's number 1 in my book. My site only focuses on football (college and pro). My goal is to provide as much data as possible on any team or game. I have more than 150 data models where I perform detailed regression analysis to help define and determine predictors.

Since we had a rough start last year SM777, I'll offer my apologies to you for anything negative that I said or implied in any conversation where we differed in opinion. I'm really tired of fighting. It's not productive.

I can guarantee that next year there will be some angle that wins 400 out of 500 against the spread. I can also guarantee that the chance of it being the same angle as last year is near zero

Quote: JoelDeze

Two years of results is a very small sample size. All I said was that I'm "hopeful" for 2017 based on the discovery data.

I will put together a table summary for all of the data and post it today.

412-125 on even money bets is NOT a small sample size. The likelihood of that win % over 537 events randomly is 1 out of a number with LOTS of zeroes. Most distressing is a man who claims to know a lot about betting NOT realizing that a 412-125 record would likely be the best record over 537 even money bets in the history of human gambling.

Quote: SOOPOO

412-125 on even money bets is NOT a small sample size. The likelihood of that win % over 537 events randomly is 1 out of a number with LOTS of zeroes. Most distressing is a man who claims to know a lot about betting NOT realizing that a 412-125 record would likely be the best record over 537 even money bets in the history of human gambling.

The sample size of games within a specific ATS bracket (-1, -1.5, -2, etc.) is small over a 2-year period, no matter how many total combined games are tallied. The end result, after going through all of the data and running multiple tests is:

A net result of more than 480 games that combine for a 63.32% win pct. This includes combining betting on favorites or underdogs via brackets. I'll post the results over the next few days because I'm busy. I'll start at the top of the favorites and work towards underdogs, only providing data that houses an advantage.

Bracket One: ATS of -31 to -37.5 (betting on the Vegas underdog and the System Underdog) (73.9% win pct)

Games	Wins on Opponent	Losses on Opponent	Pushes on Opponent	Win Pct
47	34	12	1	0.739130435

The qualifier on the bracket has to be a minimum of 40 games uninterrupted from one ATS point to the next ATS point. I don't care if I only find 1, 3, or even 7 brackets of advantage data. All I care is that it produces a positive advantage. Any ATS points not shown produced avg return values.

The columns that are important are the ATS and the Cov. If betting on the opponent ATS we look for the 0 values under the COV. If betting on the favorite, we look for the 1 values under the COV.

Wk	Year	* P-Winner	Opponent	ATS	ML	Score	Won Gm?	Diff	Cov?
4	2015	Alabama	La.-Monroe	-37.5	-33010	34 - 0	yes	34	0
5	2016	Alabama	Kentucky	-37.5	-30000	34 - 6	yes	28	0
3	2015	TCU	SMU	-37	-35100	56 - 37	yes	19	0
8	2015	Baylor	Iowa St.	-37	-32400	45 - 27	yes	18	0
2	2016	Washington	Idaho	-37	-37000	59 - 14	yes	45	1
1	2015	Baylor	SMU	-36.5	-27000	56 - 21	yes	35	0
8	2016	Washington	Oregon St.	-36.5	-31050	41 - 17	yes	24	0
1	2015	Georgia	La.-Monroe	-35.5	-27000	51 - 14	yes	37	1
3	2015	Michigan	UNLV	-35.5	-29700	28 - 7	yes	21	0
13	2015	Oregon	Oregon St.	-35.5	-20655	52 - 42	yes	10	0
2	2016	Michigan	UCF	-35.5	-30000	51 - 14	yes	37	1
3	2016	Wisconsin	Georgia St.	-35.5	-21000	23 - 17	yes	6	0
2	2015	Alabama	Middle Tenn.	-35	-27000	37 - 10	yes	27	0
3	2015	Ohio St.	Northern Ill.	-35	-27000	20 - 13	yes	7	0
7	2016	Louisville	Duke	-35	-25000	24 - 14	yes	10	0
11	2016	Louisville	Wake Forest	-35	-23000	44 - 12	yes	32	0
12	2016	Western Mich.	Buffalo	-35	-23000	38 - 0	yes	38	1
13	2016	Stanford	Rice	-35	-31500	41 - 17	yes	24	0
1	2015	Florida	New Mexico St.	-34.5	-27000	61 - 13	yes	48	1
3	2015	Wisconsin	Troy	-34.5	-19475	28 - 3	yes	25	0
7	2015	Western Ky.	North Texas	-34.5	-16700	55 - 28	yes	27	0
8	2015	Boise St.	Wyoming	-34.5	-22600	34 - 14	yes	20	0
8	2015	Oklahoma St.	Kansas	-34.5	-20825	58 - 10	yes	48	1
1	2016	Florida	Massachusetts	-34.5	-30000	24 - 7	yes	17	0
7	2016	Baylor	Kansas	-34.5	-19475	49 - 7	yes	42	1
4	2015	Baylor	Rice	-34	-21500	70 - 17	yes	53	1
12	2015	Auburn	Idaho	-34	-21500	56 - 34	yes	22	0
3	2016	Florida	North Texas	-34	-18600	32 - 0	yes	32	0
3	2016	Baylor	Rice	-33.5	-20000	38 - 10	yes	28	0
9	2016	Louisville	Virginia	-33.5	-12500	32 - 25	yes	7	0
1	2015	Arizona	UTSA	-33	-15000	42 - 32	yes	10	0
4	2015	Ohio St.	Western Mich.	-33	-14005	38 - 12	yes	26	0
6	2015	Ohio St.	Maryland	-33	-16775	49 - 28	yes	21	0
3	2015	Texas A&M	Nevada	-32.5	-11790	44 - 27	yes	17	0
7	2015	Texas Tech	Kansas	-32.5	-13210	30 - 20	yes	10	0
5	2016	Auburn	La.-Monroe	-32.5	-14010	58 - 7	yes	51	1
1	2015	Oklahoma	Akron	-32	-15888	41 - 3	yes	38	1
2	2016	Baylor	SMU	-32	-13650	40 - 13	yes	27	0
10	2016	West Virginia	Kansas	-32	-21500	48 - 21	yes	27	0
1	2015	Arkansas	UTEP	-31.5	-16775	48 - 13	yes	35	1
9	2015	Memphis	Tulane	-31.5	-10155	41 - 13	yes	28	0
11	2015	Boise St.	New Mexico	-31.5	-13500	31 - 24	no	7	0
4	2016	Houston	Texas St.	-31.5	-18125	64 - 3	yes	61	1
7	2016	Toledo	Bowling Green	-31.5	-11375	42 - 35	yes	7	0
10	2016	Appalachian St.	Texas St.	-31.5	-11375	35 - 10	yes	25	0
12	2015	Florida	Fla. Atlantic	-31	-11375	20 - 14	yes	6	0
4	2016	Louisville	Marshall	-31	-10000	59 - 28	yes	31	push

Bracket 2: ATS of -27.5 to -30.5 (Betting on the Vegas Favorite and the System Favorite) (63.4% win pct)

Games	Wins on Favorite	Losses on Favorite	Pushes on Favorite	Win Pct
44	26	15	3	0.634146341

Qualifier must be 40+ games uninterrupted from one ATS point to another ATS point.

The columns that are important are the ATS and the Cov. If betting on the opponent ATS we look for the 0 values under the COV. If betting on the favorite, we look for the 1 values under the COV.

Wk	Year	* P-Winner	Opponent	ATS	ML	Score	Won Gm?	Diff	Cov?
2	2015	Georgia Tech	Tulane	-30.5	-9100	65 - 10	yes	55	1
2	2015	Ole Miss	Fresno St.	-30.5	-11375	73 - 21	yes	52	1
2	2015	UCLA	UNLV	-30.5	-7980	37 - 3	yes	34	1
2	2015	Texas A&M	Ball St.	-30.5	-8635	56 - 23	yes	33	1
3	2015	Oklahoma	Tulsa	-30.5	-7280	52 - 38	yes	14	0
6	2015	Mississippi St.	Troy	-30.5	-10025	45 - 17	yes	28	0
7	2015	Ga. Southern	New Mexico St.	-30.5	-8550	56 - 26	yes	30	0
11	2015	Clemson	Syracuse	-30.5	-10025	37 - 27	yes	10	0
6	2016	Michigan	Rutgers	-30.5	-7915	78 - 0	yes	78	1
9	2016	Louisiana Tech	Rice	-30.5	-8500	61 - 16	yes	45	1
10	2015	Louisiana Tech	North Texas	-29.5	-9100	56 - 13	yes	43	1
10	2016	Michigan	Maryland	-29.5	-9335	59 - 3	yes	56	1
4	2015	Notre Dame	Massachusetts	-29	-8500	62 - 27	yes	35	1
7	2015	Toledo	Eastern Mich.	-29	-7306	63 - 20	yes	43	1
12	2015	Clemson	Wake Forest	-29	-6863	33 - 13	yes	20	0
1	2016	Nebraska	Fresno St.	-29	-8000	43 - 10	yes	33	1
3	2016	Arkansas	Texas St.	-29	-8300	42 - 3	yes	39	1
6	2016	TCU	Kansas	-29	-7500	24 - 23	yes	1	0
10	2016	Boise St.	San Jose St.	-29	-7306	45 - 31	yes	14	0
11	2016	Alabama	Mississippi St.	-29	-10000	51 - 3	yes	48	1
2	2015	Florida St.	South Fla.	-28.5	-6465	34 - 14	yes	20	0
10	2015	Texas	Kansas	-28.5	-6400	59 - 20	yes	39	1
2	2016	Ohio St.	Tulsa	-28.5	-6863	48 - 3	yes	45	1
11	2016	Western Ky.	North Texas	-28.5	-7500	45 - 7	yes	38	1
12	2016	Boise St.	UNLV	-28.5	-6400	42 - 25	yes	17	0
12	2016	BYU	Massachusetts	-28.5	-7500	51 - 9	yes	42	1
1	2015	Florida St.	Texas St.	-28	-4910	59 - 16	yes	43	1
8	2015	Marshall	North Texas	-28	-450	30 - 13	yes	17	0
8	2015	Northern Ill.	Eastern Mich.	-28	-5513	49 - 21	yes	28	push
1	2016	Mississippi St.	South Ala.	-28	-8500	21 - 20	no	1	0
2	2016	Notre Dame	Nevada	-28	-7000	39 - 10	yes	29	1
2	2016	Alabama	Western Ky.	-28	-6400	38 - 10	yes	28	push
5	2016	Texas Tech	Kansas	-28	-4000	55 - 19	yes	36	1
5	2016	Houston	UConn	-28	-4500	42 - 14	yes	28	push
6	2016	Ohio St.	Indiana	-28	-5745	38 - 17	yes	21	0
7	2016	Boise St.	Colorado St.	-28	-6400	28 - 23	yes	5	0
12	2016	Wisconsin	Purdue	-28	-4000	49 - 20	yes	29	1
1	2015	Southern California	Arkansas St.	-27.5	-10000	55 - 6	yes	49	1
2	2015	Nebraska	South Ala.	-27.5	-3320	48 - 9	yes	39	1
1	2016	Iowa	Miami (OH)	-27.5	-10000	45 - 21	yes	24	0
1	2016	Ohio St.	Bowling Green	-27.5	-8500	77 - 10	yes	67	1
11	2016	Ohio St.	Maryland	-27.5	-9100	62 - 3	yes	59	1
12	2016	Texas A&M	UTSA	-27.5	-4100	23 - 10	yes	13	0
13	2016	Troy	Texas St.	-27.5	-4000	40 - 7	yes	33	1

Bracket 3: ATS of -21 to -24.5 (Betting on Vegas Underdog and System Underdog) (60.6% Win pct)

Games	Wins on Opponent	Losses on Opponent	Pushes on Opponent	Win Pct
95	57	37	1	0.606382979

Qualifier must be 40+ games uninterrupted from one ATS point to another ATS point.

The columns that are important are the ATS and the Cov. If betting on the opponent ATS we look for the 0 values under the COV. If betting on the favorite, we look for the 1 values under the COV.

Wk	Year	* P-Winner	Opponent	ATS	ML	Score	Won Gm?	Diff	Cov?
4	2015	Wisconsin	Hawaii	-24.5	-2100	28 - 0	yes	28	1
8	2015	Navy	Tulane	-24.5	-3000	31 - 14	yes	17	0
8	2015	Western Mich.	Miami (OH)	-24.5	-3000	35 - 13	yes	22	0
9	2015	Southern Miss.	UTEP	-24.5	-3500	34 - 13	yes	21	0
9	2015	Western Ky.	Old Dominion	-24.5	-3500	55 - 30	yes	25	1
10	2015	Western Ky.	Fla. Atlantic	-24.5	-2500	35 - 19	yes	16	0
10	2015	Oklahoma	Iowa St.	-24.5	-4000	52 - 16	yes	36	1
10	2015	Michigan	Rutgers	-24.5	-2100	49 - 16	yes	33	1
1	2016	Arkansas	Louisiana Tech	-24.5	-4000	21 - 20	yes	1	0
3	2016	TCU	Iowa St.	-24.5	-3000	41 - 20	yes	21	0
3	2016	North Carolina St.	Old Dominion	-24.5	-3000	49 - 22	yes	27	1
8	2016	Nebraska	Purdue	-24.5	-2000	27 - 14	yes	13	0
9	2016	Michigan	Michigan St.	-24.5	-3000	32 - 23	yes	9	0
11	2016	Wisconsin	Illinois	-24.5	-2300	48 - 3	yes	45	1
12	2016	Michigan	Indiana	-24.5	-2200	20 - 10	yes	10	0
13	2016	Pittsburgh	Syracuse	-24.5	-3500	76 - 61	yes	15	0
3	2015	Minnesota	Kent St.	-24	-2200	10 - 7	yes	3	0
9	2015	Appalachian St.	Troy	-24	-1800	44 - 41	yes	3	0
11	2015	San Diego St.	Wyoming	-24	-1700	38 - 3	yes	35	1
12	2015	Kentucky	Charlotte	-24	-4000	58 - 10	yes	48	1
2	2016	Oregon	Virginia	-24	-3000	44 - 26	yes	18	0
5	2016	Boise St.	Utah St.	-24	-3000	21 - 10	yes	11	0
8	2016	Northern Ill.	Buffalo	-24	-2000	44 - 7	yes	37	1
12	2016	Clemson	Wake Forest	-24	-2000	35 - 13	yes	22	0
13	2016	Western Ky.	Marshall	-24	-2000	60 - 6	yes	54	1
14	2016	Alabama	Florida	-24	-3000	54 - 16	yes	38	1
7	2015	Wisconsin	Purdue	-23.5	-2000	24 - 7	yes	17	0
10	2015	Ohio St.	Minnesota	-23.5	-2000	28 - 14	yes	14	0
12	2015	Middle Tenn.	North Texas	-23.5	-4000	41 - 7	yes	34	1
13	2015	Central Mich.	Eastern Mich.	-23.5	-2200	35 - 28	yes	7	0
13	2015	Appalachian St.	La.-Lafayette	-23.5	-2000	28 - 7	yes	21	0
13	2015	South Fla.	UCF	-23.5	-2000	44 - 3	yes	41	1
2	2016	Wisconsin	Akron	-23.5	-1650	54 - 10	yes	44	1
3	2016	Arizona	Hawaii	-23.5	-2500	47 - 28	yes	19	0
8	2016	Oklahoma St.	Kansas	-23.5	-2600	44 - 20	yes	24	1
12	2016	Texas	Kansas	-23.5	-2500	24 - 21	no	3	0
9	2015	UCLA	Colorado	-23	-2500	35 - 31	yes	4	0
13	2015	Bowling Green	Ball St.	-23	-2000	48 - 10	yes	38	1
8	2016	San Diego St.	San Jose St.	-23	-2500	42 - 3	yes	39	1
12	2016	Georgia	Ul Lafayette	-23	-2000	35 - 21	yes	14	0
13	2016	Tulsa	Cincinnati	-23	-2500	40 - 37	yes	3	0
14	2016	Arkansas St.	Texas St.	-23	-2000	36 - 14	yes	22	0
1	2016	Penn St.	Kent St.	-22.5	-2000	33 - 13	yes	20	0
4	2016	Mississippi St.	Massachusetts	-22.5	-2000	47 - 35	yes	12	0
11	2016	San Diego St.	Nevada	-22.5	-1800	46 - 16	yes	30	1
11	2016	Louisiana Tech	UTSA	-22.5	-1600	63 - 35	yes	28	1
5	2015	Ohio St.	Indiana	-22	-1500	34 - 27	yes	7	0
5	2015	Arkansas St.	Idaho	-22	-1400	49 - 35	yes	14	0
5	2015	Temple	Charlotte	-22	-2000	37 - 3	yes	34	1
15	2015	Navy	Army West Point	-22	-1500	21 - 17	yes	4	0
5	2016	Louisiana Tech	UTEP	-22	-2000	28 - 7	yes	21	0
7	2016	Florida St.	Wake Forest	-22	-1600	17 - 6	yes	11	0
8	2016	Houston	SMU	-22	-2000	38 - 16	no	22	0
11	2016	Clemson	Pittsburgh	-22	-2000	43 - 42	no	1	0
12	2016	Ohio St.	Michigan St.	-22	-1600	17 - 16	yes	1	0
1	2015	Northern Ill.	UNLV	-21.5	-1800	38 - 30	yes	8	0
1	2015	Oklahoma St.	Central Mich.	-21.5	-1600	24 - 13	yes	11	0
1	2015	Tennessee	Bowling Green	-21.5	-1500	59 - 30	yes	29	1
2	2015	Arkansas	Toledo	-21.5	-1400	16 - 12	no	4	0
3	2015	Missouri	UConn	-21.5	-1800	9 - 6	yes	3	0
5	2015	Michigan St.	Purdue	-21.5	-1700	24 - 21	yes	3	0
6	2015	Air Force	Wyoming	-21.5	-1500	31 - 17	yes	14	0
7	2015	Temple	UCF	-21.5	-1300	30 - 16	yes	14	0
8	2015	Houston	UCF	-21.5	-1500	59 - 10	yes	49	1
11	2015	Cincinnati	Tulsa	-21.5	-1500	49 - 38	yes	11	0
11	2015	California	Oregon St.	-21.5	-1600	54 - 24	yes	30	1
12	2015	Iowa	Purdue	-21.5	-1500	40 - 20	yes	20	0
12	2015	Southern Miss.	Old Dominion	-21.5	-1500	56 - 31	yes	25	1
13	2015	Memphis	SMU	-21.5	-1500	63 - 0	yes	63	1
13	2015	Ga. Southern	South Ala.	-21.5	-1300	55 - 17	yes	38	1
2	2016	Air Force	Georgia St.	-21.5	-1400	48 - 14	yes	34	1
2	2016	Auburn	Arkansas St.	-21.5	-2000	51 - 14	yes	37	1
3	2016	Arizona St.	UTSA	-21.5	-2000	32 - 28	yes	4	0
9	2016	Western Ky.	Fla. Atlantic	-21.5	-1600	52 - 3	yes	49	1
11	2016	Michigan	Iowa	-21.5	-1600	14 - 13	no	1	0
11	2016	Western Mich.	Kent St.	-21.5	-2000	37 - 21	yes	16	0
11	2016	Boise St.	Hawaii	-21.5	-2000	52 - 16	yes	36	1
12	2016	Florida St.	Syracuse	-21.5	-1600	45 - 14	yes	31	1
1	2015	Mississippi St.	Southern Miss.	-21	-1400	34 - 16	yes	18	0
2	2015	Georgia	Vanderbilt	-21	-1250	31 - 14	yes	17	0
2	2015	Florida	East Carolina	-21	-1200	31 - 24	yes	7	0
4	2015	Nebraska	Southern Miss.	-21	-1200	36 - 28	yes	8	0
8	2015	Ohio St.	Rutgers	-21	-1400	49 - 7	yes	42	1
9	2015	Ga. Southern	Texas St.	-21	-1600	37 - 13	yes	24	1
11	2015	Navy	SMU	-21	-1600	55 - 14	yes	41	1
14	2015	Ga. Southern	Georgia St.	-21	-2000	34 - 7	no	27	0
14	2015	Baylor	Texas	-21	-1300	23 - 17	no	6	0
1	2016	Ohio	Texas St.	-21	-1600	56 - 54	no	2	0
3	2016	Memphis	Kansas	-21	-1450	43 - 7	yes	36	1
7	2016	Houston	Tulsa	-21	-1600	38 - 31	yes	7	0
8	2016	Appalachian St.	Idaho	-21	-1600	37 - 19	yes	18	0
9	2016	Arkansas St.	La.-Monroe	-21	-1300	51 - 10	yes	41	1
10	2016	Troy	Massachusetts	-21	-1600	52 - 31	yes	21	push
13	2016	Indiana	Purdue	-21	-1300	26 - 24	yes	2	0
13	2016	Temple	East Carolina	-21	-1500	37 - 10	yes	27	1

There is no value on -15.5 to -20.5 ATS. The cover win % is 50% with both favorites and opponents covering evenly (83-83, 50%). Therefore, this bracket is not posted.

The next bracket was tough. I said it had to contain 40+ games and be continuous but the high and low ends are more advantageous on this bracket.

ATS	WinPct
-15	72.22%
-14.5	56.67%
-14	56.67%
-13.5	69.57%

Bracket 4: ATS of -13.5 to -15 (Betting on Vegas Favorite and System Favorite) (62.3% Win pct)

Games	Wins on Favorite	Losses on Favorite	Pushes on Favorite	Win Pct
101	63	38	0	0.623762376

Qualifier must be 40+ games uninterrupted from one ATS point to another ATS point.

The columns that are important are the ATS and the Cov. If betting on the opponent ATS we look for the 0 values under the COV. If betting on the favorite, we look for the 1 values under the COV.

Wk	Year	* P-Winner	Opponent	ATS	ML	Score	Won Gm?	Diff	Cov?
4	2015	Ga. Southern	Idaho	-15	-700	44 - 20	yes	24	1
6	2015	Temple	Tulane	-15	-700	49 - 10	yes	39	1
6	2015	Toledo	Kent St.	-15	-650	38 - 7	yes	31	1
6	2015	Arizona St.	Colorado	-15	-700	48 - 23	yes	25	1
8	2015	Southern Miss.	Charlotte	-15	-700	44 - 10	yes	34	1
12	2015	Utah St.	Nevada	-15	-700	31 - 27	yes	4	0
12	2015	Washington	Oregon St.	-15	-700	52 - 7	yes	45	1
12	2015	Washington St.	Colorado	-15	-700	27 - 3	yes	24	1
2	2016	Louisville	Syracuse	-15	-725	62 - 28	yes	34	1
4	2016	Washington	Arizona	-15	-600	35 - 28	yes	7	0
4	2016	Tulsa	Fresno St.	-15	-650	48 - 41	yes	7	0
5	2016	Troy	Idaho	-15	-700	34 - 13	yes	21	1
6	2016	South Fla.	East Carolina	-15	-700	38 - 22	yes	16	1
8	2016	Western Ky.	Old Dominion	-15	-700	59 - 24	yes	35	1
9	2016	Tennessee	South Carolina	-15	-650	24 - 21	no	3	0
9	2016	North Carolina St.	Boston College	-15	-700	21 - 14	no	7	0
12	2016	Temple	Tulane	-15	-700	31 - 0	yes	31	1
13	2016	Miami (FL)	Duke	-15	-700	40 - 21	yes	19	1
4	2015	Rutgers	Kansas	-14.5	-600	27 - 14	yes	13	0
4	2015	South Carolina	UCF	-14.5	-700	31 - 14	yes	17	1
4	2015	Penn St.	San Diego St.	-14.5	-800	37 - 21	yes	16	1
5	2015	Michigan	Maryland	-14.5	-700	28 - 0	yes	28	1
5	2015	TCU	Texas	-14.5	-700	50 - 7	yes	43	1
6	2015	FIU	UTEP	-14.5	-600	52 - 12	yes	40	1
7	2015	Georgia	Missouri	-14.5	-700	9 - 6	yes	3	0
8	2015	Alabama	Tennessee	-14.5	-700	19 - 14	yes	5	0
8	2015	Toledo	Massachusetts	-14.5	-700	51 - 35	yes	16	1
8	2015	Oklahoma	Texas Tech	-14.5	-600	63 - 27	yes	36	1
8	2015	Michigan St.	Indiana	-14.5	-700	52 - 26	yes	26	1
10	2015	Western Mich.	Ball St.	-14.5	-650	54 - 7	yes	47	1
11	2015	Northwestern	Purdue	-14.5	-700	21 - 14	yes	7	0
11	2015	Arkansas St.	La.-Monroe	-14.5	-650	59 - 21	yes	38	1
11	2015	Michigan St.	Maryland	-14.5	-700	24 - 7	yes	17	1
12	2015	East Carolina	UCF	-14.5	-650	44 - 7	yes	37	1
13	2015	Alabama	Auburn	-14.5	-700	29 - 13	yes	16	1
13	2015	Arkansas	Missouri	-14.5	-600	28 - 3	yes	25	1
1	2016	Temple	Army West Point	-14.5	-700	28 - 13	no	15	0
1	2016	Stanford	Kansas St.	-14.5	-700	26 - 13	yes	13	0
4	2016	UNLV	Idaho	-14.5	-650	33 - 30	no	3	0
4	2016	Iowa	Rutgers	-14.5	-600	14 - 7	yes	7	0
6	2016	Tulsa	SMU	-14.5	-600	43 - 40	yes	3	0
7	2016	Louisiana Tech	Massachusetts	-14.5	-700	56 - 28	yes	28	1
7	2016	Texas	Iowa St.	-14.5	-550	27 - 6	yes	21	1
11	2016	Michigan St.	Rutgers	-14.5	-600	49 - 0	yes	49	1
12	2016	Utah	Oregon	-14.5	-600	30 - 28	no	2	0
12	2016	LSU	Florida	-14.5	-600	16 - 10	no	6	0
13	2016	Louisiana Tech	Southern Miss.	-14.5	-550	39 - 24	no	15	0
13	2016	Wisconsin	Minnesota	-14.5	-600	31 - 17	yes	14	0
1	2015	Ohio St.	Virginia Tech	-14	-800	42 - 24	yes	18	1
2	2015	Colorado	Massachusetts	-14	-550	48 - 14	yes	34	1
2	2015	California	San Diego St.	-14	-600	35 - 7	yes	28	1
3	2015	Utah	Fresno St.	-14	-600	45 - 24	yes	21	1
4	2015	Louisiana Tech	FIU	-14	-650	27 - 17	yes	10	0
4	2015	Stanford	Oregon St.	-14	-600	42 - 24	yes	18	1
8	2015	FIU	Old Dominion	-14	-550	41 - 12	yes	29	1
9	2015	TCU	West Virginia	-14	-700	40 - 10	yes	30	1
10	2015	Louisville	Syracuse	-14	-600	41 - 17	yes	24	1
11	2015	Louisville	Virginia	-14	-650	38 - 31	yes	7	0
12	2015	Ohio St.	Michigan St.	-14	-600	17 - 14	no	3	0
13	2015	West Virginia	Iowa St.	-14	-600	30 - 6	yes	24	1
16	2015	Virginia Tech	Tulsa	-14	-550	55 - 52	yes	3	0
2	2016	South Fla.	Northern Ill.	-14	-600	48 - 17	yes	31	1
3	2016	South Fla.	Syracuse	-14	-600	45 - 20	yes	25	1
5	2016	North Carolina St.	Wake Forest	-14	-550	33 - 16	yes	17	1
6	2016	Alabama	Arkansas	-14	-550	49 - 30	yes	19	1
7	2016	Air Force	New Mexico	-14	-600	45 - 40	no	5	0
7	2016	Georgia	Vanderbilt	-14	-600	17 - 16	no	1	0
8	2016	Ga. Southern	New Mexico St.	-14	-600	22 - 19	yes	3	0
9	2016	Central Mich.	Kent St.	-14	-650	27 - 24	no	3	0
9	2016	Air Force	Fresno St.	-14	-550	31 - 21	yes	10	0
9	2016	Washington St.	Oregon St.	-14	-600	35 - 31	yes	4	0
9	2016	Penn St.	Purdue	-14	-550	62 - 24	yes	38	1
11	2016	Virginia Tech	Georgia Tech	-14	-550	30 - 20	no	10	0
11	2016	Tennessee	Kentucky	-14	-550	49 - 36	yes	13	0
13	2016	Middle Tenn.	Fla. Atlantic	-14	-550	77 - 56	yes	21	1
13	2016	Maryland	Rutgers	-14	-600	31 - 13	yes	18	1
16	2016	Mississippi St.	Miami (OH)	-14	-600	17 - 16	yes	1	0
16	2016	Alabama	Washington	-14	-700	24 - 7	yes	17	1
5	2015	UCLA	Arizona St.	-13.5	-550	38 - 23	no	15	0
5	2015	Stanford	Arizona	-13.5	-550	55 - 17	yes	38	1
6	2015	Michigan St.	Rutgers	-13.5	-550	31 - 24	yes	7	0
6	2015	Duke	Army West Point	-13.5	-500	44 - 3	yes	41	1
6	2015	Bowling Green	Massachusetts	-13.5	-550	62 - 38	yes	24	1
6	2015	LSU	South Carolina	-13.5	-500	45 - 24	yes	21	1
7	2015	East Carolina	Tulsa	-13.5	-550	30 - 17	yes	13	0
7	2015	Appalachian St.	La.-Monroe	-13.5	-550	59 - 14	yes	45	1
8	2015	Bowling Green	Kent St.	-13.5	-550	48 - 0	yes	48	1
13	2015	Northern Ill.	Ohio	-13.5	-600	26 - 21	no	5	0
2	2016	Ga. Southern	South Ala.	-13.5	-550	24 - 9	yes	15	1
4	2016	Southern Miss.	UTEP	-13.5	-550	34 - 7	yes	27	1
4	2016	Virginia Tech	East Carolina	-13.5	-600	54 - 17	yes	37	1
6	2016	California	Oregon St.	-13.5	-550	47 - 44	no	3	0
6	2016	Oklahoma	Texas	-13.5	-500	45 - 40	yes	5	0
7	2016	Alabama	Tennessee	-13.5	-550	49 - 10	yes	39	1
7	2016	Oklahoma	Kansas St.	-13.5	-550	38 - 17	yes	21	1
11	2016	Northwestern	Purdue	-13.5	-500	45 - 17	yes	28	1
12	2016	Southern California	UCLA	-13.5	-500	36 - 14	yes	22	1
12	2016	Nebraska	Maryland	-13.5	-550	28 - 7	yes	21	1
13	2016	Bowling Green	Buffalo	-13.5	-550	27 - 19	yes	8	0
13	2016	Old Dominion	FIU	-13.5	-550	42 - 28	yes	14	1
16	2016	Air Force	South Ala.	-13.5	-550	45 - 21	yes	24	1

There is no advantage value on -4.5 to -13 ATS for either betting the favorite or the opponent The cover wins and losses is (247 wins and 259 losses). Therefore, this bracket is not posted.

Bracket 5: ATS -4 only. It's a sizeable bracket. (Betting on Vegas Favorite and System Favorite) (68.2% Win pct)

Games	Wins on Favorite	Losses on Favorite	Pushes on Favorite	Win Pct
43	28	13	2	0.682926829

Qualifier must be 40+ games uninterrupted from one ATS point to another ATS point.

The columns that are important are the ATS and the Cov. If betting on the opponent ATS we look for the 0 values under the COV. If betting on the favorite, we look for the 1 values under the COV.

Wk	Year	* P-Winner	Opponent	ATS	ML	Score	Won Gm?	Diff	Cov?
2	2015	Michigan St.	Oregon	-4	-175	31 - 28	yes	3	0
2	2015	Syracuse	Wake Forest	-4	-180	30 - 17	yes	13	1
4	2015	Southern California	Arizona St.	-4	-185	42 - 14	yes	28	1
4	2015	San Jose St.	Fresno St.	-4	-200	49 - 23	yes	26	1
4	2015	Bowling Green	Purdue	-4	-175	35 - 28	yes	7	1
5	2015	North Carolina St.	Louisville	-4	-170	20 - 13	no	7	0
5	2015	Virginia Tech	Pittsburgh	-4	-185	17 - 13	no	4	0
5	2015	UTSA	UTEP	-4	-175	25 - 6	yes	19	1
6	2015	Minnesota	Purdue	-4	-165	41 - 13	yes	28	1
6	2015	Florida	Missouri	-4	-175	21 - 3	yes	18	1
6	2015	La.-Lafayette	Texas St.	-4	-175	49 - 27	yes	22	1
7	2015	Ohio	Western Mich.	-4	-185	49 - 14	no	35	0
7	2015	Alabama	Texas A&M	-4	-180	41 - 23	yes	18	1
7	2015	Oklahoma	Kansas St.	-4	-180	55 - 0	yes	55	1
9	2015	Texas	Iowa St.	-4	-180	24 - 0	no	24	0
10	2015	Michigan St.	Nebraska	-4	-200	39 - 38	no	1	0
10	2015	Nevada	Fresno St.	-4	-185	30 - 16	yes	14	1
10	2015	Illinois	Purdue	-4	-170	48 - 14	yes	34	1
10	2015	North Carolina St.	Boston College	-4	-200	24 - 8	yes	16	1
11	2015	Toledo	Central Mich.	-4	-185	28 - 23	yes	5	1
12	2015	North Carolina	Virginia Tech	-4	-175	30 - 27	yes	3	0
12	2015	Kansas St.	Iowa St.	-4	-200	38 - 35	yes	3	0
12	2015	Akron	Buffalo	-4	-200	42 - 21	yes	21	1
13	2015	Fla. Atlantic	Old Dominion	-4	-180	33 - 31	yes	2	0
13	2015	Georgia	Georgia Tech	-4	-180	13 - 7	yes	6	1
13	2015	Duke	Wake Forest	-4	-175	27 - 21	yes	6	1
14	2015	Houston	Temple	-4	-180	24 - 13	yes	11	1
14	2015	Stanford	Southern California	-4	-180	41 - 22	yes	19	1
1	2016	Vanderbilt	South Carolina	-4	-185	13 - 10	no	3	0
2	2016	Navy	UConn	-4	-175	28 - 24	yes	4	push
3	2016	UConn	Virginia	-4	-185	13 - 10	yes	3	0
4	2016	Middle Tenn.	Louisiana Tech	-4	-185	38 - 34	yes	4	push
7	2016	Pittsburgh	Virginia	-4	-175	45 - 31	yes	14	1
7	2016	Illinois	Rutgers	-4	-210	24 - 7	yes	17	1
7	2016	Idaho	New Mexico St.	-4	-190	55 - 23	yes	32	1
8	2016	UCF	UConn	-4	-190	24 - 16	yes	8	1
9	2016	Stanford	Arizona	-4	-185	34 - 10	yes	24	1
9	2016	UTSA	North Texas	-4	-185	31 - 17	yes	14	1
10	2016	Rice	Fla. Atlantic	-4	-185	42 - 25	no	17	0
10	2016	Wyoming	Utah St.	-4	-175	52 - 28	yes	24	1
16	2016	UCF	Arkansas St.	-4	-190	31 - 13	no	18	0
16	2016	Troy	Ohio	-4	-180	28 - 23	yes	5	1
16	2016	Miami (FL)	West Virginia	-4	-145	31 - 14	yes	17	1

There is no value on -3.5 to -1 ATS. Wagering on either the favorite or the opponent would net a (94 - 95) record. Therefore, this bracket is not posted.

This is the first bracket that deals with underdogs.

Bracket 6: ATS +1 to +3.5. (Betting against the Vegas favorite and instead betting on the System Favorite (which is also a Vegas Underdog) (60.1% Win pct)).

Games	Wins on System Favorite	Losses on System Favorite	Pushes on System Favorite	Win Pct
113	65	43	5	0.601851852

Qualifier must be 40+ games uninterrupted from one ATS point to another ATS point.

The columns that are important are the ATS and the Cov. If betting on the opponent ATS we look for the 0 values under the COV. If betting on the favorite, we look for the 1 values under the COV.

Wk	Year	* P-Winner	Opponent	ATS	ML	Score	Won Gm?	Diff	Cov?
3	2015	Western Ky.	Indiana	1	100	38 - 35	no	3	0
8	2015	Texas St.	South Ala.	1	105	36 - 18	yes	18	1
8	2015	Colorado	Oregon St.	1	100	17 - 13	yes	4	1
12	2015	Louisville	Pittsburgh	1	100	45 - 34	no	11	0
2	2016	Texas Tech	Arizona St.	1	100	68 - 55	no	13	0
3	2016	Texas A&M	Auburn	1	105	29 - 16	yes	13	1
3	2016	Louisville	Florida St.	1	100	63 - 20	yes	43	1
9	2016	SMU	Tulane	1	100	35 - 31	yes	4	1
10	2016	Western Ky.	FIU	1	100	49 - 21	yes	28	1
11	2016	Southern Miss.	Old Dominion	1	100	51 - 35	no	16	0
12	2016	Arkansas	Mississippi St.	1	100	58 - 42	yes	16	1
4	2015	Mississippi St.	Auburn	1.5	105	17 - 9	yes	8	1
5	2015	Alabama	Georgia	1.5	105	38 - 10	yes	28	1
6	2015	Syracuse	South Fla.	1.5	105	45 - 24	no	21	0
6	2015	Wisconsin	Nebraska	1.5	105	23 - 21	yes	2	1
12	2015	Duke	Virginia	1.5	105	42 - 34	no	8	0
13	2015	Houston	Navy	1.5	100	52 - 31	yes	21	1
16	2015	Miami (FL)	Washington St.	1.5	105	20 - 14	no	6	0
3	2016	South Ala.	Ul Lafayette	1.5	105	28 - 23	no	5	0
8	2016	Memphis	Navy	1.5	105	42 - 28	no	14	0
8	2016	Colorado	Stanford	1.5	105	10 - 5	yes	5	1
8	2016	Kansas St.	Texas	1.5	105	24 - 21	yes	3	1
12	2016	Eastern Mich.	Northern Ill.	1.5	105	31 - 24	no	7	0
12	2016	Kansas St.	Baylor	1.5	105	42 - 21	yes	21	1
16	2016	Boston College	Maryland	1.5	105	36 - 30	yes	6	1
3	2015	Buffalo	Fla. Atlantic	2	110	33 - 15	yes	18	1
4	2015	Washington	California	2	110	30 - 24	no	6	0
4	2015	Arizona	UCLA	2	110	56 - 23	no	33	0
6	2015	San Diego St.	Hawaii	2	110	28 - 14	yes	14	1
7	2015	Kentucky	Auburn	2	110	30 - 27	no	3	0
12	2015	South Fla.	Cincinnati	2	110	65 - 27	yes	38	1
14	2015	Troy	La.-Lafayette	2	110	41 - 17	yes	24	1
5	2016	Washington St.	Oregon	2	110	51 - 33	yes	18	1
7	2016	Nevada	San Jose St.	2	115	14 - 10	no	4	0
11	2016	West Virginia	Texas	2	105	24 - 20	yes	4	1
11	2016	Tulsa	Navy	2	115	42 - 40	no	2	push
12	2016	Virginia Tech	Notre Dame	2	110	34 - 31	yes	3	1
3	2015	Southern Miss.	Texas St.	2.5	120	56 - 50	yes	6	1
4	2015	Missouri	Kentucky	2.5	115	21 - 13	no	8	0
6	2015	UConn	UCF	2.5	115	40 - 13	yes	27	1
7	2015	Vanderbilt	South Carolina	2.5	120	19 - 10	no	9	0
7	2015	South Fla.	UConn	2.5	120	28 - 20	yes	8	1
7	2015	Nebraska	Minnesota	2.5	115	48 - 25	yes	23	1
10	2015	Marshall	Middle Tenn.	2.5	125	27 - 24	no	3	0
10	2015	Arizona St.	Washington St.	2.5	120	38 - 24	no	14	0
10	2015	Akron	Massachusetts	2.5	120	17 - 13	yes	4	1
10	2015	Utah	Washington	2.5	125	34 - 23	yes	11	1
11	2015	Washington	Arizona St.	2.5	120	27 - 17	no	10	0
11	2015	La.-Lafayette	South Ala.	2.5	130	32 - 25	no	7	0
11	2015	Air Force	Utah St.	2.5	125	35 - 28	yes	7	1
11	2015	Oklahoma	Baylor	2.5	120	44 - 34	yes	10	1
12	2015	Indiana	Maryland	2.5	110	47 - 28	yes	19	1
16	2015	BYU	Utah	2.5	120	35 - 28	no	7	0
3	2016	East Carolina	South Carolina	2.5	115	20 - 15	no	5	0
8	2016	Miami (OH)	Bowling Green	2.5	115	40 - 26	yes	14	1
9	2016	New Mexico	Hawaii	2.5	125	28 - 21	yes	7	1
13	2016	Nebraska	Iowa	2.5	115	40 - 10	no	30	0
1	2015	Arizona St.	Texas A&M	3	140	38 - 17	no	21	0
3	2015	Colorado St.	Colorado	3	130	27 - 24	no	3	push
3	2015	New Mexico St.	UTEP	3	130	50 - 47	no	3	push
5	2015	FIU	Massachusetts	3	130	24 - 14	no	10	0
6	2015	North Carolina St.	Virginia Tech	3	130	28 - 13	no	15	0
8	2015	Duke	Virginia Tech	3	145	45 - 43	yes	2	1
8	2015	Temple	East Carolina	3	125	24 - 14	yes	10	1
11	2015	Western Mich.	Bowling Green	3	135	41 - 27	no	14	0
11	2015	Virginia Tech	Georgia Tech	3	140	23 - 21	yes	2	1
12	2015	South Ala.	Georgia St.	3	125	24 - 10	no	14	0
12	2015	Rice	UTSA	3	135	34 - 24	no	10	0
13	2015	UCLA	Southern California	3	130	40 - 21	no	19	0
13	2015	UTEP	North Texas	3	130	20 - 17	yes	3	1
16	2015	Duke	Indiana	3	140	44 - 41	yes	3	1
16	2015	Toledo	Temple	3	130	32 - 17	yes	15	1
1	2016	Boston College	Georgia Tech	3	140	17 - 14	no	3	push
4	2016	Eastern Mich.	Wyoming	3	130	27 - 24	yes	3	1
5	2016	Kansas St.	West Virginia	3	140	17 - 16	no	1	1
5	2016	UCF	East Carolina	3	140	47 - 29	yes	18	1
6	2016	Buffalo	Kent St.	3	130	44 - 20	no	24	0
6	2016	Vanderbilt	Kentucky	3	135	20 - 13	no	7	0
7	2016	Stanford	Notre Dame	3	130	17 - 10	yes	7	1
8	2016	Maryland	Michigan St.	3	125	28 - 17	yes	11	1
8	2016	Oregon	California	3	135	52 - 49	no	3	push
12	2016	Minnesota	Northwestern	3	130	29 - 12	yes	17	1
14	2016	Temple	Navy	3	120	34 - 10	yes	24	1
16	2016	Louisville	LSU	3	135	29 - 9	no	20	0
16	2016	Iowa	Florida	3	135	30 - 3	no	27	0
16	2016	Auburn	Oklahoma	3	125	35 - 19	no	16	0
16	2016	Kansas St.	Texas A&M	3	125	33 - 28	yes	5	1
2	2015	Ohio	Marshall	3.5	145	21 - 10	yes	11	1
4	2015	Wake Forest	Indiana	3.5	150	31 - 24	no	7	0
4	2015	Middle Tenn.	Illinois	3.5	150	27 - 25	no	2	1
7	2015	Pittsburgh	Georgia Tech	3.5	150	31 - 28	yes	3	1
10	2015	California	Oregon	3.5	150	44 - 28	no	16	0
11	2015	Charlotte	UTSA	3.5	155	30 - 27	no	3	1
13	2015	Notre Dame	Stanford	3.5	150	38 - 36	no	2	1
13	2015	Arizona St.	California	3.5	155	48 - 46	no	2	1
14	2015	Iowa	Michigan St.	3.5	155	16 - 13	no	3	1
16	2015	Memphis	Auburn	3.5	150	31 - 10	no	21	0
16	2015	Wisconsin	Southern California	3.5	145	23 - 21	yes	2	1
16	2015	Clemson	Oklahoma	3.5	155	37 - 17	yes	20	1
1	2016	Southern Miss.	Kentucky	3.5	155	44 - 35	yes	9	1
2	2016	Middle Tenn.	Vanderbilt	3.5	150	47 - 24	no	23	0
3	2016	BYU	UCLA	3.5	150	17 - 14	no	3	1
4	2016	Wisconsin	Michigan St.	3.5	155	30 - 6	yes	24	1
4	2016	Auburn	LSU	3.5	150	18 - 13	yes	5	1
5	2016	Minnesota	Penn St.	3.5	140	29 - 26	no	3	1
5	2016	Toledo	BYU	3.5	150	55 - 53	no	2	1
5	2016	FIU	Fla. Atlantic	3.5	145	33 - 31	yes	2	1
7	2016	Temple	UCF	3.5	155	26 - 25	yes	1	1
9	2016	Maryland	Indiana	3.5	155	42 - 36	no	6	0
11	2016	Vanderbilt	Missouri	3.5	155	26 - 17	no	9	0
11	2016	Memphis	South Fla.	3.5	140	49 - 42	no	7	0
12	2016	West Virginia	Oklahoma	3.5	145	56 - 28	no	28	0
14	2016	Kansas St.	TCU	3.5	155	30 - 6	yes	24	1

Bracket 7: ATS +4 to +6.5. (Betting on the system opponent (which is also a Vegas Favorite) (63.1% Win pct)).

Games	Wins on Opponent	Wins on Opponent	Pushes on Opponent	Win Pct
58	36	21	1	0.631578947

Qualifier must be 40+ games uninterrupted from one ATS point to another ATS point.

The columns that are important are the ATS and the Cov. If betting on the opponent ATS we look for the 0 values under the COV. If betting on the favorite, we look for the 1 values under the COV.

Wk	Year	* P-Winner	Opponent	ATS	ML	Score	Won Gm?	Diff	Cov?
2	2015	Mississippi St.	LSU	4	165	21 - 19	no	2	1
5	2015	Colorado St.	Utah St.	4	160	33 - 18	no	15	0
8	2015	California	UCLA	4	160	40 - 24	no	16	0
12	2015	Southern California	Oregon	4	160	48 - 28	no	20	0
13	2015	La.-Monroe	Hawaii	4	160	28 - 26	no	2	1
2	2016	Penn St.	Pittsburgh	4	160	42 - 39	no	3	1
3	2016	Duke	Northwestern	4	160	24 - 13	no	11	0
3	2016	Pittsburgh	Oklahoma St.	4	155	45 - 38	no	7	0
6	2016	BYU	Michigan St.	4	155	31 - 14	yes	17	1
8	2016	Utah	UCLA	4	150	52 - 45	yes	7	1
11	2016	UTEP	Fla. Atlantic	4	155	35 - 31	no	4	push
1	2015	Fla. Atlantic	Tulsa	4.5	155	47 - 44	no	3	1
2	2015	Ga. Southern	Western Mich.	4.5	170	43 - 17	yes	26	1
3	2015	Eastern Mich.	Ball St.	4.5	170	28 - 17	no	11	0
6	2015	New Mexico	Nevada	4.5	170	35 - 17	no	18	0
9	2015	Arizona	Washington	4.5	170	49 - 3	no	46	0
12	2015	Illinois	Minnesota	4.5	170	32 - 23	no	9	0
13	2015	North Carolina St.	North Carolina	4.5	175	45 - 34	no	11	0
1	2016	San Jose St.	Tulsa	4.5	170	45 - 10	no	35	0
1	2016	Toledo	Arkansas St.	4.5	165	31 - 10	yes	21	1
4	2016	South Fla.	Florida St.	4.5	170	55 - 35	no	20	0
13	2016	Georgia Tech	Georgia	4.5	165	28 - 27	yes	1	1
2	2015	Colorado St.	Minnesota	5	180	23 - 20	no	3	1
4	2015	Arkansas St.	Toledo	5	180	37 - 7	no	30	0
9	2015	Illinois	Penn St.	5	180	39 - 0	no	39	0
10	2015	Eastern Mich.	Miami (OH)	5	175	28 - 13	no	15	0
10	2015	South Fla.	East Carolina	5	180	22 - 17	yes	5	1
12	2015	Mississippi St.	Arkansas	5	180	51 - 50	yes	1	1
16	2015	Central Mich.	Minnesota	5	180	21 - 14	no	7	0
4	2016	Florida	Tennessee	5	180	38 - 28	no	10	0
4	2016	UTSA	Old Dominion	5	180	33 - 19	no	14	0
6	2016	Colorado	Southern California	5	175	21 - 17	no	4	1
6	2016	FIU	UTEP	5	180	35 - 21	yes	14	1
7	2016	South Ala.	Arkansas St.	5	175	17 - 7	no	10	0
10	2016	Georgia St.	Arkansas St.	5	180	31 - 16	no	15	0
7	2015	Charlotte	Old Dominion	5.5	170	37 - 34	no	3	1
13	2015	Southern Miss.	Louisiana Tech	5.5	180	58 - 24	yes	34	1
4	2016	Nevada	Purdue	5.5	180	24 - 14	no	10	0
5	2016	Indiana	Michigan St.	5.5	180	24 - 21	yes	3	1
9	2016	Ga. Southern	Appalachian St.	5.5	190	34 - 10	no	24	0
13	2016	South Ala.	Idaho	5.5	180	38 - 31	no	7	0
3	2015	South Fla.	Maryland	6	210	35 - 17	no	18	0
5	2015	Air Force	Navy	6	190	33 - 11	no	22	0
7	2015	Cincinnati	BYU	6	190	38 - 24	no	14	0
7	2015	Buffalo	Central Mich.	6	210	51 - 14	no	37	0
8	2015	Texas A&M	Ole Miss	6	200	23 - 3	no	20	0
16	2015	North Carolina St.	Mississippi St.	6	200	51 - 28	no	23	0
3	2016	Boston College	Virginia Tech	6	200	49 - 0	no	49	0
10	2016	Missouri	South Carolina	6	200	31 - 21	no	10	0
12	2016	Oklahoma St.	TCU	6	200	31 - 6	yes	25	1
2	2015	Georgia St.	New Mexico St.	6.5	225	34 - 32	yes	2	1
5	2015	West Virginia	Oklahoma	6.5	220	44 - 24	no	20	0
6	2015	Central Mich.	Western Mich.	6.5	210	41 - 39	no	2	1
8	2015	Utah	Southern California	6.5	210	42 - 24	no	18	0
17	2015	Clemson	Alabama	6.5	220	45 - 40	no	5	1
6	2016	Army West Point	Duke	6.5	210	13 - 6	no	7	0
9	2016	Navy	South Fla.	6.5	225	52 - 45	no	7	0
12	2016	New Mexico	Colorado St.	6.5	200	49 - 31	no	18	0

Bracket 8: This is the final bracket but it does not have a 40-game qualifier. (+7 ATS) (71.4% win pct)

Games	Wins on System Favorite	Losses on System Favorite	Pushes on System Favorite	Win Pct
22	15	6	1	0.714285714

1	2015	Charlotte	Georgia St.	7	250	23 - 20	yes	3	1
3	2015	San Jose St.	Oregon St.	7	230	35 - 21	no	14	0
3	2015	Ole Miss	Alabama	7	250	43 - 37	yes	6	1
7	2015	Syracuse	Virginia	7	230	44 - 38	no	6	1
7	2015	Kent St.	Massachusetts	7	240	15 - 10	yes	5	1
7	2015	Florida	LSU	7	240	35 - 28	no	7	push
8	2015	Kansas St.	Texas	7	240	23 - 9	no	14	0
16	2015	Air Force	California	7	220	55 - 36	no	19	0
16	2015	TCU	Oregon	7	240	47 - 41	yes	6	1
16	2015	Houston	Florida St.	7	230	38 - 24	yes	14	1
2	2016	Illinois	North Carolina	7	235	48 - 23	no	25	0
3	2016	Michigan St.	Notre Dame	7	250	36 - 28	yes	8	1
4	2016	Georgia	Ole Miss	7	240	45 - 14	no	31	0
4	2016	BYU	West Virginia	7	250	35 - 32	no	3	1
4	2016	North Texas	Rice	7	240	42 - 35	yes	7	1
4	2016	Wake Forest	Indiana	7	250	33 - 28	yes	5	1
8	2016	Temple	South Fla.	7	220	46 - 30	yes	16	1
9	2016	UConn	East Carolina	7	230	41 - 3	no	38	0
9	2016	Army West Point	Wake Forest	7	240	21 - 13	yes	8	1
10	2016	Navy	Notre Dame	7	230	28 - 27	yes	1	1
11	2016	SMU	East Carolina	7	240	55 - 31	yes	24	1
16	2016	Navy	Louisiana Tech	7	220	48 - 45	no	3	1

The remainder +ATS nets a rough 52% which is not advantageous enough to post.

Totals:

63.6% was the final from the combined ATS brackets. The inconsistency in the first posting was that my first snapshot was from development data and not from production data and I had not accounted for all games played in that DB. I have not gone through the data to determine any type of additional filtering. So, I do believe this can be improved.

Final is (324 - 185, 14 pushes) (63.6% win pct)

Bracket	Games	Wins	Losses	Pushes	Win Pct
1	47	34	12	1	0.739130435
2	44	26	15	3	0.634146341
3	95	57	37	1	0.606382979
4	101	63	38	0	0.623762376
5	43	28	13	2	0.682926829
6	113	65	43	5	0.601851852
7	58	36	21	1	0.631578947
8	22	15	6	1	0.714285714
Totals	523	324	185	14	0.63654224

Quote: JoelDeze

Totals:

63.6% was the final from the combined ATS brackets. The inconsistency in the first posting was that my first snapshot was from development data and not from production data and I had not accounted for all games played in that DB. I have not gone through the data to determine any type of additional filtering. So, I do believe this can be improved.

Final is (324 - 185, 14 pushes) (63.6% win pct)

Bracket	Games	Wins	Losses	Pushes	Win Pct
1	47	34	12	1	0.739130435
2	44	26	15	3	0.634146341
3	95	57	37	1	0.606382979
4	101	63	38	0	0.623762376
5	43	28	13	2	0.682926829
6	113	65	43	5	0.601851852
7	58	36	21	1	0.631578947
8	22	15	6	1	0.714285714
Totals	523	324	185	14	0.63654224

Are you saying now that you WERE NOT 417-125, but rather 324-185? My brain hurts trying to go through all the charts....

Quote: SOOPOO

Are you saying now that you WERE NOT 417-125, but rather 324-185? My brain hurts trying to go through all the charts....

I'm saying that after researching and looking at all of the ATS data over the last 2 years that the charts above represent any advantage within each ATS bracket. The totals are the combined results for that research data. Read through the data and determine whether it has any value to you.

That is not my overall record. My overall win pct is barely above 52%. But, I've only been diving into ATS picks over the last two seasons.

I primarily just provide research. My research data over many years was built to provide high probability value for which team would win the outcome of a game. It was never designed to measure ATS. But, like insurance principles, everyone has a risk appetite and so some people like higher value on returns at the cost of more risk. Therefore, I am working more on ATS research data and profiling.

I hope that answers your question.

JD, Unless you are posting your picks prior to the games starting, you will not convert anyone here. Anyone can post whatever they want post games played where the results are as you wish them to be. If you have done this somewhere in this forum/thread, then my apologies for not reading all the mumbo jumbo.

Look at what Rising Dough are Steeldco are doing... they are posting their picks prior to game starting. These are the only picks I will pay attention to or give merit to.

btw, I went 19-1 the past two weeks in hoops. See what Im sayin?

Quote: WatchMeWin

JD, Unless you are posting your picks prior to the games starting, you will not convert anyone here. Anyone can post whatever they want post games played where the results are as you wish them to be. If you have done this somewhere in this forum/thread, then my apologies for not reading all the mumbo jumbo.

Look at what Rising Dough are Steeldco are doing... they are posting their picks prior to game starting. These are the only picks I will pay attention to or give merit to.

btw, I went 19-1 the past two weeks in hoops. See what Im sayin?

I'm not trying to convert anyone and I don't want to be viewed as a tout going forward. The data I posted is for informational purposes only. If you find the data useful then great.

My goal is finding discovery data that may provide an advantage. My sole concentration is on football.

Quote: JoelDeze

I'm not trying to convert anyone and I don't want to be viewed as a tout going forward. The data I posted is for informational purposes only. If you find the data useful then great.

My goal is finding discovery data that may provide an advantage. My sole concentration is on football.

Are you in the handicapping or sports picking business?

Joel,

Can you post your NCAA data just for 2015 and then select the best trends where you think you system and the line correlate? Having found those trends, how did they do in 2016? If you can do this going back many years that would be indeed be impressive. Isn't it likely though that the correlations and trends are near random and that they don't hold up as well for the following seasons. However if you found a trend back in 2013 and then it worked in 2014-2016 that indeed would be interesting over 1000+picks.

Quote: bazooooka

Joel,

Can you post your NCAA data just for 2015 and then select the best trends where you think you system and the line correlate? Having found those trends, how did they do in 2016? If you can do this going back many years that would be indeed be impressive. Isn't it likely though that the correlations and trends are near random and that they don't hold up as well for the following seasons. However if you found a trend back in 2013 and then it worked in 2014-2016 that indeed would be interesting over 1000+picks.

I'll answer your question by posting the top 3 trends for college.

1. [2016] TSRS (True Statistical Rating of Strength): Accounts for 71.75% Win Probability
1. [2013,2014,2015] TSRS: Accounted for a 70.82% Win Probability

2. [2016] RERDiff (Rushing Efficiency Rating Difference): Accounts for 66.40% Win Probability
2. [2013,2014,2015] RERDiff: Accounted for a 65.88% Win Probability

3. [2016] PERDiff (Passing Efficiency Rating Difference): Accounts for 63.90% Win Probability
3. [2013,2014,2015] PERDiff: Accounted for a 63.99% Win Probability

I have more than 36 Trends that I forecast, with 22 of them accounting for greater than 50% Win Probability. But, since I posted the top 3, I'll explain what they are so I'm not asked the question at a later date.

TSRS

When facing an opponent, each stat category is compared against its opposite. If the opponent is stronger in the comparison, and the team facing them does not deviate from its measured potential, the team will increase slightly in its strength index. TSRS calculates strength of offensive, defensive, and special teams groupings, rates and assigns strength of schedule, and uses covariance between these groups to measure how much these areas change over time. I named it True Statistical Rating of Strength because it handles inflation/deflation values that come with raw statistics. All statistics, regardless of type are converted into a base floating point number. Standard Deviation is used to measure dispersion between teams and lower SD helps determine consistency and quality within each stat grouping. To date, just using TSRS alone produces a 70% or better win probability on any college game.

RERDiff

I created my own Rushing Efficiency Rating formula because it is highly likely you will not find one anywhere on the web, much less one that is accurate. In college, rushing efficiency is slightly more important than passing efficiency. The two are very close but unlike the NFL, rushing is very important in college football. Each offense has a rushing efficiency rating and each defense has a rushing efficiency rating. The greater the RER on offense, the stronger the team is at running the ball. The lower the RER on defense, the stronger the team is defensively at limiting the run. Subtract the two and you have an RERDiff. A team that has a very large RERDiff has a decided advantage over a team that does not.

PERDiff

Pass Efficiency Rating Difference is exact in detail when compared to RERDiff above. It has it's own formula, but the mechanics are pretty much the same as RERDiff so no need to explain this further.



SUMMARY


This year I've built out special AI scenarios for ML and ATS in College and NFL football. I have four unique AI programs that handle scenario driven data.

ML AI for College:

The ML AI for College which I call "Victor Argentum" goes through four base scenarios, and each scenario has up to 15 logic based criteria.

For instance, the four base start with: Power 5 vs. Power 5, Power 5 vs. Group of 5 or IA, Group of 5 or IA vs. Power 5 and finally, Group of 5 or IA vs Group of 5 or IA. Notre Dame is the only exclusion of the group and are considered Power 5 even though they are an Independent. If my system predicts a group of 5 team to beat a power 5 team, it goes through that part of the scenario and is matched to any of the criteria. If it doesn't have greater than a 78% probability after the process is completed, the game is tossed out. Each game fits its own scenario.

ATS is a lot more complicated and I'm pretty excited about all of the scenarios I have in place this year. I won't go into detail here.

--------

I hope that answers all of your questions.

JD,

I've read that 6 point favorites win 70% or more of the time in college football. Does you system add value by winning ML bets above 60% on games where the spread is between -5 and +5? And how does your system find edge on ATS bets?

Have you found your system predicted winners, especially if the books have them as a slight dog, or covering at 60%? And have you back-tested your algo on past seasons to see if the relationship has held to past regimes and increased data?

It would be impressive if you found over hundreds of system picks that your algo can cover more often than not if when books are +1 to +3 on a team yet you have it capped as a -3 situation. What other scenarios are you able to find edge?

Joel,

I'd assume your system and the bookmakers choose the same favorite over 80% (90%?) the time?

Given that; how is it possible your seeing 78% (even 60% would seem improbable) in the -1 to -9.5 games when this range covers half the D1 games (around 800)? Not to mention favorites only covered around 47% for the 2016 across all D1 games.

Your seemingly saying had you just bet your favorites (or even the Vegas favs since there will be huge overlap with your picks) in all games between +16 to -16 you'd have scored huge.

But surely as a seasoned gambler you know that this is false? What am I missing?

Quote: JoelDeze

I finished the calculations for the ATS results over the past two years. I analyzed and extrapolated the data, trying to find a correlation between my system picks and Vegas oddsmaker data. I currently pull oddsmaker data from every Vegas and every offshore book for every week of seasonal play. The goal is not to prove or disprove anything. The overall goal is to find an edge within the results that provides inherent value.

I personally did not do well last year. During previous years, I focused on ML values and was doing fine. However, the last two years I've been trying to shift to an ATS only format as the return value is greater. The results below show a great deal of promise for 2017. The data below is accurate.



In the topmost case, if the spread was an oddsmaker favorite between -31 and -37.5 and it was a also a system favorite on my site, picking the opponent to cover produced a 73.33% winning pct.

In the second and third cases, if the spread was an oddsmaker favorite between the ranges posted above and it was also a system favorite on my site, picking the favorite to cover produced 72.38% and 78.31% respectively. The majority of games were posted in the -1 to -9.5 bracket.

In the final case, if the spread was an oddsmaker underdog between +24 and +35 and the underdog was considered a system favorite on my site (contradicting the oddsmaker), picking the underdog to cover produced a 77.78% result.

The overall number of games for the past two years that fit the criteria was 548 games. 412 won, 125 lost, 11 pushed. The overall winpct was 76.72%. If using a $100 game wager per game as a flat bet per game, discounting the pushes (since no money would be won or lost), $53,700 would have been wagered. The total gains would be $37,080 and the total losses would be $12,500. The net gains would be $24,580.

The goal this year is to use a similar wagering structure and ATS criteria. However, I'm still working through all of the losses to find any correlating trends that worked against the system. My goal is to produce a 3-5% additive value to the current results.

The ATS calculations for all other markers showed little to no promise as providing an edge when comparing them against both systems. Therefore, those ATS markers are not posted.

These are for College Only. I'll post the NFL results by next weekend.

I was describing the breakdown example of the ML AI, not the ATS. 78% is the base probability for all ML scenarios the AI resolves.

ATS is much more complicated. What I want to see when I look at ATS is the following:

Breakdown comparison for each team by scenario.

If Team A is an power 5 team and an oddsmaker favorite playing at home against another power 5 team. If the ATS is -19.5 as an example -

What is the probability for Team A as a favorite?
What is the probability for Team A as a home team?
What is the probability for Team A against a P5 opponent?
What is the probability for Team A where a cover scenario is -19.5 or greater?
What is the historical cover scenario probability for a P5 vs P5 playing at home as a -19.5 favorite?

The same probability is shown for the opponent as well.

Additionally, I want to see the points avg for each scenario above or below the cover margin for each team.

Now I have a basic understanding of which team has shown a true advantage in this match-up.

Lastly, line movement has to be factored in as well.

Will this relationship help me win more on the ATS? It will be tested and adjusted. I won't assume anything at this point. Neither should you.

Joel,

I get your logic on the ML betting scenarios and if you can really pick near 80%, and get lines better than -350, then you can make a few nickles.

However, you clearly talked about ATS "cover" in the post (see below). Have you found correlations between your system picks and line covers?

I ask since picking winners in NCAA football is often easy. But picking ATS winners and beating the vig is a whole different story.

What has your backtests shown you? Seems like all the data work you do wouldn't be worth it just for betting ML favs whenever you find line value. Now, if you can pick ATS winners at 55-60% then you'd really have something. Historically how well have you done and are you going to post/track your picks going forward?


>>
>>
In the topmost case, if the spread was an oddsmaker favorite between -31 and -37.5 and it was a also a system favorite on my site, picking the opponent to ""cover"" produced a 73.33% winning pct.

In the second and third cases, if the spread was an oddsmaker favorite between the ranges posted above and it was also a system favorite on my site, picking the favorite to ""cover"" produced 72.38% and 78.31% respectively. The majority of games were posted in the -1 to -9.5 bracket.

In the final case, if the spread was an oddsmaker underdog between +24 and +35 and the underdog was considered a system favorite on my site (contradicting the oddsmaker), picking the underdog to ""cover"" produced a 77.78% result.