. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In our effort to track that data, we have written a summary of the betting data from last week, Week 4 of this 2014 season. There were 57 FBS college football games played in Week 4. As you read this article, It is important to understand that the breakeven point in college football betting is to “win” at a rate of 52.38%. (The standard sportsbook requires bettors to wager $110 for every $100 won.)

Therefore, any percentage above 52.38% should be considered a winner, while any percentage below 52.38% should be considered a loss to anyone’s college football teams.

Against-the-Spread (ATS) Favorites and Underdogs

In week 4 of the college football season, the favorite beat the spread 32 times, while the underdog beat the spread 24 times. (One game was a “pick ’em” game, meaning there were no favorites.) Therefore, the favorites overcame the gap 57.14% of the time. Extreme college football favorites, defined as teams favored by at least three touchdowns (21 points), have beaten the spread 12 times and lost just 6 of those games. Therefore, extreme favorites outperform the spread 66.67% of the time. The small favorites, defined as teams favored by a single touchdown (seven points) or less, have beaten the spread 6 times but lost 12 of those matchups, exactly the reverse results of the extreme favorites. Therefore, the small favorites outperform the spread only 33.33% of the time.

How the public bets

How public betting can be revealing. Conventional wisdom in sports betting suggests that betting against the crowd is always best. We put that conventional wisdom to the test in this section. For the teams that had the majority of the public betting on their side, they beat the spread 35 times and lost 21 of those games. (One game was even, 50-50.) So the viewership was correct in 62.5% of the Week 4 games. That really goes against that conventional wisdom. Sometimes, however, a simple majority can be misleading. We also looked at teams that had at least 60% of the public betting on their side. They beat the spread 26 times and lost just 9 times. That 60% majority side beat the differential 74.29% of the time in Week 4! In even more extreme public betting, teams that receive at least 70% will exceed the spread 11 times and lose just 5 times. So those extreme public betting sides beat the spread 68.75% of the time.

Final Analysis: Week 4 ATS

An analysis of the college football betting data for Week 4 makes it clear that this was the week of the “public bettors.” That the majority of the public is right in all categories (simple majorities, 60% and 70%) is quite unusual. Sportsbooks would be out of business if such a phenomenon were the norm. We expect to see quite different results in the long run, and are particularly interested to see how sportsbooks “adjust” for this upcoming Week 5.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *