Paying Attention to Big Line Moves
One of the things you hear a lot is to make sure you’re always getting the best number. I’m guilty of it, and I’ve never broken down how it’s done historically, because there isn’t really readily available opening line data out there. Paying attention to big line moves sometimes is smoke and mirrors. Big bettors can manipulate the market on a Thursday to move lines so they can come back later at higher limits and bet the other side on Saturday. If you have perfect information, you could track these types of plays. For my analysis, all I’m really concerned with is how would you do if you bet these big line moves. For example, if Oregon opened -7 against Stanford and got bet up to -10.5, historically, are you better off following the move or fading it?
I pulled the data for the last 5 seasons. I decided to start with a minimum 2 point move from open to close after seeing an exchange on twitter on Adam Kramer’s timeline (h/t @SkatingTripods). There were 1301 games that had a line move of at least 2 points from open to close (based on consensus open/closing lines most books would have offered). Simply betting the closing line and tailing the move would have resulted in a 692-609 record ATS (53.19%) and assuming -110 odds, would put you up 22.1 units over that time. Several sportsbooks offer reduced juice, so you could potentially do even better at shorter odds. Below is the list of each team’s record ATS given the above scenario.
Team | Record ATS | ATS % | Rank |
Notre Dame | 4-0 | 100.00% | 1 |
Alabama | 13-2 | 86.67% | 2 |
Purdue | 6-1 | 85.71% | 3 |
Vanderbilt | 5-1 | 83.33% | 4 |
Akron | 8-2 | 80.00% | 5 |
Marshall | 7-2 | 77.78% | 6 |
San Diego State | 7-2 | 77.78% | 6 |
Utah State | 16-5 | 76.19% | 8 |
North Carolina State | 6-2 | 75.00% | 10 |
Penn State | 6-2 | 75.00% | 10 |
UNLV | 6-2 | 75.00% | 10 |
Baylor | 8-3 | 72.73% | 13 |
Cincinnati | 8-3 | 72.73% | 13 |
Ohio State | 8-3 | 72.73% | 13 |
UAB | 8-3 | 72.73% | 13 |
Tulsa | 5-2 | 71.43% | 16 |
Kansas State | 7-3 | 70.00% | 17 |
New Mexico | 7-3 | 70.00% | 17 |
Syracuse | 9-4 | 69.23% | 19 |
Arizona State | 11-5 | 68.75% | 20 |
Ball State | 6-3 | 66.67% | 25 |
Buffalo | 4-2 | 66.67% | 25 |
Eastern Michigan | 6-3 | 66.67% | 25 |
Kentucky | 4-2 | 66.67% | 25 |
Minnesota | 4-2 | 66.67% | 25 |
North Texas | 8-4 | 66.67% | 25 |
Northwestern | 6-3 | 66.67% | 25 |
tcu | 6-3 | 66.67% | 25 |
Texas State | 2-1 | 66.67% | 25 |
BYU | 7-4 | 63.64% | 31 |
Louisiana-Monroe | 7-4 | 63.64% | 31 |
Mississippi | 7-4 | 63.64% | 31 |
Auburn | 5-3 | 62.50% | 34 |
Louisiana Tech | 10-6 | 62.50% | 34 |
Texas Tech | 5-3 | 62.50% | 34 |
Fresno State | 8-5 | 61.54% | 36 |
Georgia Tech | 3-2 | 60.00% | 39 |
Houston | 6-4 | 60.00% | 39 |
Massachusetts | 3-2 | 60.00% | 39 |
Pittsburgh | 3-2 | 60.00% | 39 |
Tennessee | 3-2 | 60.00% | 39 |
Western Michigan | 3-2 | 60.00% | 39 |
Connecticut | 7-5 | 58.33% | 43 |
Kent State | 4-3 | 57.14% | 46 |
Louisiana-Lafayette | 4-3 | 57.14% | 46 |
San Jose State | 4-3 | 57.14% | 46 |
Southern Mississippi | 4-3 | 57.14% | 46 |
Texas A&M | 8-6 | 57.14% | 46 |
Oregon | 13-10 | 56.52% | 49 |
Florida State | 10-8 | 55.56% | 51 |
Iowa State | 5-4 | 55.56% | 51 |
Michigan | 5-4 | 55.56% | 51 |
Nebraska | 5-4 | 55.56% | 51 |
Boston College | 6-5 | 54.55% | 55 |
Rice | 6-5 | 54.55% | 55 |
Rutgers | 6-5 | 54.55% | 55 |
Arizona | 7-6 | 53.85% | 58 |
Missouri | 7-6 | 53.85% | 58 |
SMU | 7-6 | 53.85% | 58 |
Toledo | 7-6 | 53.85% | 58 |
Boise State | 8-7 | 53.33% | 61 |
Ohio | 8-7 | 53.33% | 61 |
Arkansas State | 9-8 | 52.94% | 63 |
Florida Atlantic | 9-8 | 52.94% | 63 |
Bowling Green | 6-6 | 50.00% | 75 |
Clemson | 5-5 | 50.00% | 75 |
Colorado | 5-5 | 50.00% | 75 |
Florida | 6-6 | 50.00% | 75 |
Florida International | 3-3 | 50.00% | 75 |
Georgia State | 2-2 | 50.00% | 75 |
Idaho | 5-5 | 50.00% | 75 |
Illinois | 4-4 | 50.00% | 75 |
Indiana | 5-5 | 50.00% | 75 |
Kansas | 6-6 | 50.00% | 75 |
LSU | 6-6 | 50.00% | 75 |
Maryland | 7-7 | 50.00% | 75 |
Miami (Florida) | 1-1 | 50.00% | 75 |
Miami (Ohio) | 2-2 | 50.00% | 75 |
Michigan State | 5-5 | 50.00% | 75 |
North Carolina | 8-8 | 50.00% | 75 |
Northern Illinois | 5-5 | 50.00% | 75 |
Oregon State | 8-8 | 50.00% | 75 |
Stanford | 8-8 | 50.00% | 75 |
Temple | 8-8 | 50.00% | 75 |
Washington State | 6-6 | 50.00% | 75 |
Wyoming | 4-4 | 50.00% | 75 |
uCF | 7-8 | 46.67% | 87 |
Troy | 6-7 | 46.15% | 88 |
Wisconsin | 5-6 | 45.45% | 89 |
Texas | 4-5 | 44.44% | 92 |
UTEP | 4-5 | 44.44% | 92 |
Wake Forest | 4-5 | 44.44% | 92 |
West Virginia | 4-5 | 44.44% | 92 |
Western Kentucky | 4-5 | 44.44% | 92 |
California | 3-4 | 42.86% | 96 |
Middle Tennessee | 6-8 | 42.86% | 96 |
Oklahoma State | 6-8 | 42.86% | 96 |
Washington | 6-8 | 42.86% | 96 |
Virginia | 5-7 | 41.67% | 99 |
Air Force | 4-6 | 40.00% | 103 |
Colorado State | 2-3 | 40.00% | 103 |
Duke | 2-3 | 40.00% | 103 |
Georgia | 4-6 | 40.00% | 103 |
Louisville | 4-6 | 40.00% | 103 |
Memphis | 4-6 | 40.00% | 103 |
UCLA | 6-9 | 40.00% | 103 |
Nevada | 5-8 | 38.46% | 107 |
Oklahoma | 5-8 | 38.46% | 107 |
East Carolina | 3-5 | 37.50% | 110 |
Navy | 6-10 | 37.50% | 110 |
Virginia Tech | 3-5 | 37.50% | 110 |
Iowa | 4-7 | 36.36% | 113 |
South Alabama | 4-7 | 36.36% | 113 |
Utah | 4-7 | 36.36% | 113 |
South Florida | 6-11 | 35.29% | 115 |
Central Michigan | 8-15 | 34.78% | 116 |
Mississippi State | 5-10 | 33.33% | 117 |
New Mexico State | 1-2 | 33.33% | 117 |
hawai’i | 2-5 | 28.57% | 119 |
Tulane | 2-5 | 28.57% | 119 |
Arkansas | 3-9 | 25.00% | 122 |
Army | 4-12 | 25.00% | 122 |
USC | 2-6 | 25.00% | 122 |
South Carolina | 0-4 | 0.00% | 124 |
What about bigger line moves? There were 658 games that had a line move of at least 3 points from open to close. Tailing the moves again is profitable and at a little larger percentage going 352-306 ATS (53.50%). However, once you get to 4 points or higher, the results get a little random partly due to a smaller sample size of games and my assumption that some of those big moves could have been artificial, an injury or suspension announced midweek, etc.
Pretty interesting stuff. Had you done this each of the past 5 seasons, only last year would have resulted in a losing season. I’ll definitely circle back to this during the season to see how things play out during 2014.
Tags betting on college footballBetting ResourcesBetting strategies
- Previous The Five Money Burning Bluebloods Of College Football
- Next SEC Teams That Will Make Big Jumps Offensively/Defensively
Interesting stuff Josh. I wonder what the trends are in the first month of the season when the Vegas opening lines seem to be off the most with these teams?
Shhhhh 😉
IF we Knew which of the Big moves that Billy Walters was on for REAL, we would Never have a loseing week. Walters and a select few groups are the only Real line movers.
Pretty sure BW has losing weeks just like anyone else, he just has more winning weeks over the course of a year. I know of several groups that are market movers, and I highly doubt I know all of them, so that would lead me to believe there are many more than you think.
BW “might” have a loseing week, but very very few.
I myself am not a fan of any of the others that have the power of moveing a line, matter of fact i usually take the other side. IF i know its not BW, and believe me its difficult to tell for sure until post time.
Okay I’ll just ask straight up – how do you know it’s BW (as opposed to others) primarily responsible for the move? Unless you reliably know someone in his organization, how do you know who is responsible? 🙂 thx….
Jeff in past many seasons watching the DonBest screen, and also knowing someone off shore has really helped. The ones i really like are the games that the public drives the number past a point where BW buys his back, and sometimes alot more as it was the wrong side to begin with.
Pardon as i left the “others” out.
The main reason is i really dont care about the others. One must have sleepy locals to ever get the order number anyway. Most if not ALL offshore joints move close to the same time as most are hit at the same time if its BW for real.