WHEN S/U WINNERS & ATS WINNERS = MONEY LOSERS

Years and years ago, we began preaching the merits of ignoring the spread when wagering on NFL games.

You can click on past articles (Pointspread Fallacy) and see plenty of money making examples why we are advocates of such a practice.

This concept does not have the same merits when placing wagers on college football, basically, by the very nature of the final point differentials in college ball as compared to pro ball.

In recent years, we have seen more and more handicappers use this S/U (straight up) method in their cravings for ATS (Against The Spread) winners, but even more so, they use these amazing numbers to sensationalize and sell.

The problem with all of this is that for the purpose of sensationalism, which helps sell their services, some of these college S/U and ATS winners do NOT equal winning wagers.

How is that possible, you ask. Well, we are glad you are asking that question.

Knowing when to apply these amazing 80% and 90% numbers to the various teams is the art of proper handicapping. Wagering blindly, based upon a stat that is 44- 2 ATS, can be a money losing proposition, unless one knows when these numbers actually apply.

Consider the following example:

This past (9/20/04) Monday night, the Eagles entertained the Vikings. Many people bet the game based upon the three point spread, however, as usual, we told people to forget the spread for the following reasons:

1. Minny was 1-16 S/U their last 17 games played on grass.
2. Minny was 5-44 ATS in their last 49 S/U losses.
3. Philly was 11-1 ATS their last12 S/U wins & 36-4 ATS their prior 40 S/U wins.

With those high percentage numbers in hand, it seemed fairly certain that if Philly were to win the game on the field (S/U) there would be little doubt, based upon history, that they would also cover the spread and win the money.
Final score: Eagles 27 Vikings 16

Now, let’s switch our attention to the Rutgers vs Kent State game, which was played this past weekend also.

The most popular stat thrown around by some of the biggest name sports handicapping services in the country, was the fact that Rutgers was a near perfect 19-0-1 ATS in their previous 20 S/U wins.

With that number tattooed on their brain, bettors all over the country ran to the window with hands full of green, figuring there is no way that Rutgers would not win this game S/U over Kent --- Especially when one takes into consideration that Rutgers would be playing at home and they were also coming off a most embarrassing home loss to Div 1-AA, University of New Hampshire --- and when they win S/U we know they always get the money .... Or do they?

As things turned out, the ‘players’ were all correct and Rutgers did indeed win the game S/U on the field. The problem was --- Rutgers won the game 29-21, falling short of the 12 point spread and costing their backers those 'hands full of cash'.

Why was it foolish to wager on Rutgers, based solely upon that 19-0-1 ATS stat and why was it dead wrong for sports services to use such a number to entice their players with that sort of sensationalism for this particular game?

The answer: In those 20 games in question, in which Rutgers won the games S/U and got the money in all but that one ‘push’, they were the underdog in all but five of those games. Translation: If you win the game S/U as a dog, obviously you win ATS and get the money. What we need to know, in the case of teams such as Rutgers, when they are installed as favorites, is what their ATS record is when they win the game S/U as a favorite and/or what their ATS record is when they LOSE the game S/U as dogs. That would be a better indicator to help us wager on such teams, because, as a dog, we want to know if they fail to cover the number in their losses, or if they have a tendency to play within the number when installed as that dog.

This works conversely as well. Telling me that Team A, which is a favorite in the majority of their games, has an ATS record of 4-35, in their last 39 S/U losses, does not really impress me, because when they lose S/U, in most cases, they automatically fail to cover the spread, because they were the favorites in the majority of those games.

Bottom line --- Not all S/U & ATS winners equal money winning wagers.
The time for thinking is before you wager, not after.