When floundering Fordham (+14¹/₂, Over/Under 119) lost to Saint Louis 55-39 Sunday, it was the fourth time the Rams had scored 46 points or less in regulation this season, the 12th time they had scored 61 or less, and the eighth time a full-game betting combination of “opponent and Under” would have swept.
Entering the 2019-20 season, bettors prescient enough to anticipate the power of that combo would have a record of 25-13. They’d be 12-7 fading Fordham, 13-6 taking the Under. More recently, the approach is 18-6 … with both opponents and Unders sporting 9-3 records vs. the market.
Should anyone have been that prescient? Before the season began, was a 66 percent strategy (25-13) there for the taking? Was it possible to foresee that more recent 75 percent tear (18-6) after a 7-7 beginning? Looking forward, is it betting smart to take that combination Wednesday night when Fordham hosts St. Bonaventure in The Bronx, or Saturday at No. 7 Dayton?
A big problem with those types of trends or angles is that they get “credit” for being successful beginning with an arbitrary cutoff point drawn with 20/20 hindsight. They’re “something that happened” rather than something certain to continue happening.
Many recreational gamblers jump on a “bandwagon” after it has lost a wheel. Maybe the market caught up. Maybe team dynamics changed. Whatever. A square “discovery” only leads to a 50/50 record moving forward (which loses money after accounting for the 10 percent vigorish on lost bets), or creates devastation when a regression reversal turns hard the other way.
This is why sharps tend to ignore such approaches. They focus on skill sets, create an expectation for the game based on those skill sets, then see if posted odds accurately reflect their expectations.
Sharps are aware Fordham has horrible offensive skill sets. The Rams entered the week ranked No. 344 in adjusted offensive efficiency according to tabulations posted by Ken Pomeroy (kenpom.com). “Efficiency” is points adjusted for pace, which Pomeroy then also adjusts for schedule strength. There are 353 teams in the database, only a few worse than Fordham.
Watching Fordham play is particularly ugly because the Rams rank 343th in adjusted pace. So, they patiently work the ball around to create a shot, then they miss the shot. (Marist is similar. The Red Foxes rank 349th in adjusted offensive efficiency, 308th in adjusted pace, but have won some Over games recently thanks to improved scoring).
But, sharps won’t fade Fordham or bet Unders unless market prices aren’t capturing current reality. If lines have adjusted, there’s no value … no matter how appealing a trend or angle might seem.
College basketball is particularly conducive to creating illusions for squares seeking shortcuts. So many teams, so many games, so easy to spot stuff that would have worked after the fact. Betting smart means avoiding shortcuts to properly assess teams and the marketplace.