ATS Margin

ATS Margin

In our initial installment of our football handicapping blog let’s take a look at ATS Margin for the last 2 years broken down in a couple segments.  First off, for those that are not aware, ATS Margin is simply the ending margin for a game minus the closing line: for example, if Denver is favored by 3pts over Oakland, and Denver wins the game 30-20, that is a +7 for Denver ATS Margin, and a (7) for Oakland.

Let’s first look at the 2009 & 2010 seasons combined ATS Margin by team:

TEAM	ATS RECORD	SU RECORD	ATS MARGIN	ATS MARGIN/GM
SEATTLE	13-19	12-20	(127.0)	(3.97)
ST LOUIS	18-14	8-24	(115.0)	(3.59)
JACKSONVILLE	14-18	15-17	(105.5)	(3.30)
NY GIANTS	13-19	18-14	(97.0)	(3.03)
ARIZONA	14-18	15-17	(87.0)	(2.72)
DENVER	15-17	12-20	(60.0)	(1.88)
CAROLINA	12-20	10-22	(57.0)	(1.78)
BUFFALO	17-14-1	10-22	(54.5)	(1.70)
WASHINGTON	15-13-4	10-22	(42.5)	(1.33)
MIAMI	16-16	14-18	(41.5)	(1.30)
TENNESSEE	14-18	14-18	(34.5)	(1.08)
CINCINNATI	14-18	14-18	(32.0)	(1.00)
DALLAS	15-16-1	17-15	(16.5)	(0.52)
DETROIT	16-15-1	8-24	(8.5)	(0.27)
CLEVELAND	15-16-1	10-22	(6.0)	(0.19)
KANSAS CITY	16-16	14-18	(5.0)	(0.16)
HOUSTON	12-18-2	15-17	(1.0)	(0.03)
MINNESOTA	15-16-1	18-14	6.5	0.20
INDIANAPOLIS	17-14-1	24-8	9.5	0.30
SAN FRANCISCO	18-12-2	14-18	13.0	0.41
NEW ORLEANS	14-16-2	24-8	16.0	0.50
SAN DIEGO	16-15-1	22-10	17.5	0.55
CHICAGO	15-16-1	18-14	18.0	0.56
PITTSBURGH	15-16-1	21-11	25.0	0.78
TAMPA BAY	15-15-2	13-19	27.5	0.86
PHILADELPHIA	17-15	21-11	30.5	0.95
OAKLAND	16-16	13-19	33.5	1.05
BALTIMORE	17-14-1	21-11	69.5	2.17
ATLANTA	22-10	22-10	98.5	3.08
NY JETS	17-15	20-12	123.0	3.84
GREEN BAY	20-12	21-11	166.0	5.19
NEW ENGLAND	21-11	24-8	176.0	5.50

At a high level some keys to the analysis:

·         ATS Record:

o   BEST: ATL 22-10, NE 21-11, GB 20-12

o   WORST:  CAR 12-20, HOU 12-18-2, SEA & NYG 13-19

·         SU Record:

o   BEST: NE & NO & IND 24-8

o   WORST: STL & DET 8-24, CLE & CAR & BUF &WAS 10-22

·         ATS Margin:o   BEST: NE 176, GB 166, NYJ 123

o   WORST: SEA (127), STL (115), JAC (106)

New England leads the way in almost every vital category when discussing the NFL from either a gambling, or SU world with the 2^nd best ATS record, the best SU record, and the best ATS Margin the last two seasons.  The Patriots are also a heavily wagered on team [the most wagered team in NFL the last 2 seasons], so they appear to also be a bookie’s worst nightmare as they see a ton of action on them, and they cover at an staggeringly high clip the last two seasons. 

ATS Margin is a very fascinating stat to breakdown as you have some teams that have an above .500 ATS record, yet they are exceedingly negative in the ATS Margin.  How does this happen you may ask?  It’s quite simple – what it means is a good majority of their games are finishing close to the Vegas line – however, in their losses vs. the spread they are getting blown out.  Let’s take a closer look at the best example for this phenomenon, St. Louis – who was 18-14 ATS the last 2 seasons but a (115) [2^nd worst in NFL] in ATS Margin.  Focusing on 2010 for ease of explanation:

• In 10 wins ATS: +8.0/gm [avg. line +2]
• In 6 losses ATS: (14.4)/gm [avg. line +2]

This shows that STL averaged almost a TD worse in their losses vs. the line (which ironically was identical when rounding to closest integer) compared with their wins – suggesting perhaps a few plays here or there and their triumphant ATS campaign of 2010 could swing back to below .500 in 2011 – especially also considering many view this team as an “up and coming” successful team, which will influence the lines Vegas puts on their games in the coming seasons.  Those comparisons are something an experienced, savvy NFL bettor pays attention to – regression to the mean, and standard deviations.

In addition, here is a breakdown of ATS Margin performance in grass vs. turf games.  Another key metric that should be used on Sunday morning’s when you are breaking down your games – they will hold the truth for a handful of teams.  Again, this cannot be used as a exclusive determining factor – and also cannot be used for every team in the league – but there are CERTAINLY teams in the NFL who favor one field over another. 

Here is what these numbers looked like the last 2 seasons on grass:

TEAM	ATS MARGIN	GAMES PLAYED	ATS MARGIN/GAME
SEATTLE	(98.0)	10	(9.8)
JACKSONVILLE	(125.5)	24	(5.2)
ARIZONA	(96.0)	24	(4.0)
TENNESSEE	(79.5)	25	(3.2)
CAROLINA	(65.0)	22	(3.0)
MINNESOTA	(32.5)	11	(3.0)
DALLAS	(32.0)	11	(2.9)
DETROIT	(22.0)	9	(2.4)
ST LOUIS	(21.5)	11	(2.0)
DENVER	(54.5)	31	(1.8)
MIAMI	(43.0)	26	(1.7)
TAMPA BAY	(35.0)	26	(1.3)
CLEVELAND	(37.0)	28	(1.3)
KANSAS CITY	(35.0)	29	(1.2)
HOUSTON	(8.5)	27	(0.3)
CHICAGO	(3.5)	23	(0.2)
WASHINGTON	1.5	24	0.1
SAN DIEGO	5.0	27	0.2
SAN FRANCISCO	10.0	25	0.4
PHILADELPHIA	20.5	26	0.8
NY GIANTS	9.0	11	0.8
CINCINNATI	27.0	27	1.0
PITTSBURGH	40.5	29	1.4
OAKLAND	58.0	30	1.9
BALTIMORE	70.0	29	2.4
INDIANAPOLIS	33.5	13	2.6
ATLANTA	23.5	9	2.6
BUFFALO	34.5	12	2.9
NY JETS	42.0	11	3.8
NEW ORLEANS	47.5	11	4.3
GREEN BAY	117.0	25	4.7
NEW ENGLAND	182.5	25	7.3

New England, just as many would expect since they are the #1 ATS Margin team of the last two seasons and play their home games on grass once again leads the way.  But keep in mind, just because a team plays their home games on a grass field DOES NOT mean they favor that surface [which we can see by comparing the data above and below].  You will also notice from the data the NFC has a lot more turf teams compared with the AFC – there are 9 teams that played 11 or less grass games over the last two seasons, and 8 of them are from the NFC – the NY Jets are the only AFC team who has played that little on grass.  That piece of data, the inexperience of most AFC teams in turf, can be a nice “edge” factor when breaking down inter-conference matchups.  Seattle was UNDOUBTEDLY the worst team on grass – and they were also much poorer on grass than turf during last 2 seasons – getting outplayed by nearly 10ppg to the number in ten grass surface games.

Here is what these numbers looked like the last 2 seasons on turf:

TEAM	ATS MARGIN	GAMES PLAYED	ATS MARGIN/GAME
OAKLAND	(24.5)	2	(12.3)
CINCINNATI	(59.0)	5	(11.8)
WASHINGTON	(44.0)	8	(5.5)
DENVER	(5.5)	1	(5.5)
PITTSBURGH	(15.5)	3	(5.2)
NY GIANTS	(106.0)	21	(5.0)
ST LOUIS	(93.5)	21	(4.5)
BUFFALO	(89.0)	20	(4.5)
NEW ORLEANS	(31.5)	21	(1.5)
SEATTLE	(29.0)	22	(1.3)
INDIANAPOLIS	(24.0)	19	(1.3)
NEW ENGLAND	(6.5)	7	(0.9)
BALTIMORE	(0.5)	3	(0.2)
MIAMI	1.5	6	0.3
SAN FRANCISCO	3.0	7	0.4
DETROIT	13.5	23	0.6
DALLAS	15.5	21	0.7
CAROLINA	8.0	10	0.8
ARIZONA	9.0	8	1.1
HOUSTON	7.5	5	1.5
PHILADELPHIA	10.0	6	1.7
MINNESOTA	39.0	21	1.9
CHICAGO	21.5	9	2.4
SAN DIEGO	12.5	5	2.5
JACKSONVILLE	20.0	8	2.5
ATLANTA	75.0	23	3.3
NY JETS	81.0	21	3.9
TENNESSEE	45.0	7	6.4
GREEN BAY	49.0	7	7.0
CLEVELAND	31.0	4	7.8
KANSAS CITY	30.0	3	10.0
TAMPA BAY	62.5	6	10.4

Turf is much tougher to reach any solid conclusions when dissecting it alone.  For most teams it is just a very small sample size, but some conclusions can be reached.  For example, let’s take a look at New Orleans.  The Saints are a +16/+0.5 overall from the first table, yet played 2/3 of their games on turf (including their home games) and checked in at (31.5)/(1.5).  Despite what many may think when listening to the “analysts” on television, believing that their fast paced offense works best on turf vs. grass, that apparently is not the case – at least in the ATS world.  How about Denver, only playing 1 turf game in two seasons?  The worst team on turf with any substantial amount of games is the NY Giants checking in at (5)/gm.  That makes the Seahawks poor play on grass mentioned above even more astounding – having played double digit games on the surface and failing to cover those games by almost 10 full points on average for each contest!  Also of note is TB, checking in at the top turf performance spot with 6 games – included in those 6 is 2 each vs. ATL & NO, two of the top teams of the last two seasons – which makes their performance all the most robust – and a very strong basis to be bullish on this team as their young core develops and increases their playing time and experience.

In addition to breaking down ATS Margin above into several buckets, and using that information for handicapping purposes, I also use this information as a “barometer” which can predict when teams are prone to play a bad game, and vice versa.  Without divulging the specifics as that will remain for my eyes only, using this barometer style analysis provided the following records over the last 3 seasons (note we have removed Week 17 games for all 3 seasons as we do not use this technique in those games when many teams will rest their key players as they prepare for playoffs):

2008	Due to Play Well			Due to Play Poor				TOTALS
	W	L	%	W	L	%		W	L	%
Initial	10	15	40.0%	19	11	63.3%		29	26	52.7%
2nd Progression	8	3	72.7%	4	4	50.0%		12	7	63.2%
Final Progression	3	0	100.0%	2	2	50.0%		5	2	71.4%
Total	21	18	53.8%	25	17	59.5%		46	35	56.8%

2009	Due to Play Well			Due to Play Poor				TOTALS
	W	L	%	W	L	%		W	L	%
Initial	15	7	68.2%	7	9	43.8%		22	16	57.9%
2nd Progression	1	2	33.3%	6	2	75.0%		7	4	63.6%
Final Progression	2	0	100.0%	1	4	20.0%		3	4	42.9%
Total	18	9	66.7%	14	15	48.3%		32	24	57.1%

2010	Due to Play Well			Due to Play Poor				TOTALS
	W	L	%	W	L	%		W	L	%
Initial	18	7	72.0%	12	7	63.2%		30	14	68.2%
2nd Progression	3	2	60.0%	4	1	80.0%		7	3	70.0%
Final Progression	2	0	100.0%	0	0	N/A		2	0	100.0%
Total	23	9	71.9%	16	8	66.7%		39	17	69.6%

08+09+10	Due to Play Well			Due to Play Poor				TOTALS
	W	L	%	W	L	%		W	L	%
Initial	43	29	59.7%	38	27	58.5%		81	56	59.1%
2nd Progression	12	7	63.2%	14	7	66.7%		26	14	65.0%
Final Progression	7	0	100.0%	3	6	33.3%		10	6	62.5%
Total	62	36	63.3%	55	40	57.9%		117	76	60.6%

Referencing the data above, over the last 3 seasons this handicapping technique has had a 61% win rate – which is better than most if not all “systems” you will find out there.  Breaking down this analysis to be a little clearer for the reader, “due to play well” means a specific team played poorly in their ATS Margin in recent games, reaching a specific “threshold” I have come up with through intense analysis.  When teams reach that level they become a team I want to “play on” in their upcoming games as Vegas has over-adjusted lines against these teams due to their poor performance, so it’s a “value” play along with a “due to play well” play as teams will eventually play a solid game vs. the number after so many poor performances in a row.  To be clear, that is not to say teams are “due to win or due to play a strong game” because that is not a legitimate thought in the sports world – even though many people like to believe teams are ready to play a great game after a couple poor outings, or vice versa – that is not something that is proven and also not a good reason to put your hard earned money on a team.  However, playing a solid game “to the number” is legitimate, and often happens, as we can see from the data above.  “Due to play poor” is exactly the opposite of the situation discussed immediately before, meaning a team has played a few recent games very solid vs. the number, their spreads have likely been adjusted in their favor a smidge, and these teams are likely to play a poor game vs. the number shortly – whether that be a good team that winds up giving a few more points as a favorite and doesn’t cover the inflated number, or a poor team that winds up getting a few less points as an underdog and gets blown out.  The three terms on the left of each table mean: “initial” is the first time we are playing on or against a team; “2^nd progression” is the second straight week we are playing on or against that same team if they did not cover the week before; “Final progression” is the third straight week and any week thereafter we play on or against a certain team until they finally win the bet for us. 

Over the last 3 seasons there has only been 2 instances of teams that went past their first “final progression”: the 2009 Broncos kept covering to start their season, and covered (we were fading them so it was a LOSS) their “final progression”, covered their “2^nd step final progression”, and finally failed to cover in their “3^rd step final progression” – a 30-7 loss @ Baltimore as 4.5pt dogs; the 2009 Saints ran a similar streak to start that season as well by covering their “final progression”, but in their “2^nd step final progression” they failed to cover 11.5 at home vs. Atlanta.

When breaking down these numbers into more focused buckets we can also see “due to play well” seems to be a better focal point then the opposite.  These teams are hitting a 63.3% clip the last 3 seasons, which is extremely solid as any experienced gamer knows.  What’s more, if you remove the “initial progression” games and just focus on the 2^nd and Final portion of the analysis, these “due to play well” teams are hitting an astonishing 19-7 73.1%!  Clearly, this handicapping technique and analysis hits at a very high rate – and trust me when I tell you this has been back-tested for years and years, and the results are very similar to what we have seen the last 3 seasons – so this isn’t something that is new, or groundbreaking. 

It’s simply taking advantage of other players – their money will follow the teams that are hitting and winning big – the “public teams” as we have always heard.  But what else have we always heard?  The “public” rarely wins over the long haul, especially considering the fact they take mostly favorites because they do not understand the true value of points in a football game.  Hopefully some of these numbers in this article will assist you next season when you start breaking down your own games, and look for that “extra edge” over the competition.