Looking back over football ATS records, I noticed that the two worst teams over the past 11 years have been Oakland and San Francisco. do you think that's a product of their having been really bad, or a product of their proximity to Las Vegas? Some bad teams have bad ATS records (Arizona) but others are average (Detroit) or pretty good (Buffalo, The Beloved). Any thoughts?

I'd say Oakland is bad because of crazy Al. He could be in Timbuktu and it wouldn't matter.

Good observation. I think it's a little of both. California teams are often over-bought in Vegas. But in the NFL over the last several years, there has been a growing gap between the good, the blob in the middle, and the bad teams. Recently, there have been more teams at the bottom of the league that are very uncompetitive and the lines have not reacted fast enough to reflect how bad these teams are. For all the talk of parity at the top and in the middle of the NFL, there have been teams every year recently that have been very very bad. (Not the same teams every year though)

A few years ago, favorites covered at a very high rate and big favorites covered at a high rate also. Double digit favorites and especially double digit road favorites have historically been rare in the NFL. However, in the last 3-5 years, my sense is (I have not done the analysis) the number of teams winning by double digits has been unusually high when viewed in a long-term context. I just went back and looked at my power ratings from last year. The top four teams in the league would all have been double digit neutral field favorites over the bottom four. And a few other teams would have been double digit neutral favorites over the worst two. Oakland and SF have both been in that bottom four category a few years in the last ten. And the lines haven't been boosted enough during some seasons to reflect that they were under-performing the line.

I love ugly, real ugly dogs because historically they have been under-valued by bettors. Two years ago was an absolute nightmare for dog bettors, though last year was much better. Lines were adjusted faster last year to reflect how bad the worst teams were. LInesmakers have learned from this and adjusted much quicker last year. If they continue to do that this year, then I expect ugly dogs to become even more profitable. The trend of big dogs not covering is not a trend I would hang my hat on anyway. (But then I'm an ugly dog bettor so my bias is clearly in that direction anyway).

I think a a more significant trend to discover is college basketball teams that don't cover the spread at a high clip.

Irish, if you're asking if the Raiders and 49ers are on the take, I can guarentee you that's not the case. Money in the NFL is too good for them to risk it. The starters make enough money. It doesn't happen in the NFL.

College basketball players is whom gamblers can get. Or the players just do it on their own. Some college players have been caught. We've heard those stories in recent years. There are plenty of other cases where they haven't been caught. I'll guarentee that.

No, I don't think they're on the take. I was just wondering whether there was any thought that the California proximity was creating a can't lose situation over the long term, like betting against the local team with the local bookie. I found it funny that the two worst teams ATS were the two closest to Vegas and thought maybe the closeness was playing a role.

Will check out the big dog over time question in the next couple of days and get back to you Coast, but I think that the sample sizes will be small and the Patriots last year not covering the big numbers at the end of the year may throw things off a bit.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

Road teams giving 3.5 points or more since 1997: 219-243-16 ATS (47.5%)
Road teams giving 7 points or more since 1997: 79-112-11 ATS (41.8%) [editors note: wow]

Let's see if there's been a trend over the past few years:

Road teams giving 3.5 points or more 1997-2002: 108-135-10 ATS (44.7%)
Road teams giving 7 points or more 1997-2002 (beware- small sample size): 41-64-8 (39.8%) (!!)

Road teams giving 3.5 points or more 2003-2007: 111-108-6 (50.7%)
Road teams giving 7 points or more 2003-2007: 38-48-3 (44.3%)

The numbers might be too small to point to anything truly significant, but let's look at just the last two years:

Road teams giving 3.5 points or more last two years: 40-56-1 (41.7%)
Road teams giving 7 points or more last two years: 13-23 (36.1%)

Any long-term trends hanging around 42-45% (or 55-58%) are real angles for NFL betting (I'm excited when I find anything above 54% or below 46%, provided a significant sample size.)

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

NFL home dogs getting 7 or more are an almost automatic take in my world, and your numbers bear that out. Even if the Raiders and niners had losing ATS marks in those spots, that tells you how profitable the big home dog angle has been for everybody else.

If you went back and looked at the dog angle each year, you'll find one bad year (2005?) and the rest profitable. There will be that occasional aberration, but playing ugly dogs is seemingly profitable 9 years out of 10.