Note: The above horse racing examples are fictional. Seems would need a lot of personal system programming to track trends like this. Just curious. Not sure if it would work in horse racing. — Jim Pommier
Great idea for discussion.
It has been a main part of my handicapping for over 20 years, but probably not quite what you'd expect - and possibly not what you mean.
Most people see "trends" as a synonym for "patterns." There's a lot of jumping at shadows with that - seeing patterns when there really isn't one.
___________________
Howard Sartin once told me something really profound:
- "Most changes in the BIAS are perceived rather than real."
That one was
HUGE!
___________________
We were discussing keeping
Winner models.
Specifically, the current model at SA, 6-furlongs, dirt.
One of his clients, Milt, a Reno dentist, had loudly proclaimed that the bias had clearly changed because 3 winners in a row had run from off the pace, when the bias had been early for a couple of weeks.
I explained how I kept 4 models at each track-surface-distance, based upon how many 7/8 point horses there were.:
- 3 or more (type 3+)
- 2 (type 2)
- 1 (type 1)
- 0 (type 0)
Those particular 3 races had all been
types 0 or 1.
Sure, there is at least one front runner in every race - after all, somebody's got to be on the lead. But those wanna be closers who often find themselves on the lead are why you see turf miles in AUS go 52+ seconds to 4 furlongs: NOBODY REALLY WANTS THE LEAD!
(Aren't you glad you asked this question? LOL)
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
THE POINT
Trends are huge for me - but usually they really are
PATTERNS that are attributable to
SPECIFIC SCENARIOS that repeat themselves with great regularity.
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
Back to BASKETS.
Do you recall the angle called
Win & Travel?
That's where a team wins at home and plays the next night on the road.
For
YEARS that was a dead-bang winner back in the 80s as a bet against play.
(I actually wrote NBA & Hockey software for a private group back in the late 80s.)
It continued to work well into the 90s, even though it was well-publicized. Then, all of a sudden, some big players started to bet the angle huge and the line moved accordingly. Overnight it died. Maybe like 1993 or so.)
Another was how a team beats the spread for the first two games after a big star is injured or has limited playing time coming up. The belief was that it was caused by the other players get really pumped about having a game or 2 without playing in the shadow of the super star.
Typically the advantage went away after 2 games.
____________________________
Anybody else have thoughts?