NBA Playoff Zig-Zag results

[ComptrBob]

For those interested in this well-worn theory.

Using a "representative WA" opening line.

Round 1: W/L: 3-5
Bos -8 L, Det +11 L, Por -6 L, SA -5 W,
Utah +11.5 W, Orl -10 L, Miami +5 W, New O +5.5 L

[Contrarian]

Theory whose time has come and gone, obv.

I'm still a believer in certain zig-zag spots, such as Portland's G2 situation.....which despite the loss, was about as strong a situation as you will see in these playoffs.

[Jeff Jones]

If Zig-Zag fails in the first round, it will be lambasted as just another tout-gimmick, feel and sound-good strategy, like so many others.

Two days later.....

If Zig-Zag wins in the second round, it will be heralded as a totally Sharp, failsafe betting system that nobody can deny.

That's just the nature of Internet posting boards.

[ComptrBob]

Update:

W/L: 13-18

Round 1:
Game 2
Bos -8 L, Det +11 L, Por -6 L, SA -5 W,
Utah +11.5 W, Orl -10 L, Miami +5 W, New O +5.5 L
Game 3
Chi -1.5 L, Det +4.5 L, Hou -5.5 L, Dal -4 W,
Utah +2.5 W, 76ers +3.5 W, Atl -4 L, New O -4 L
Game 4
SA +4 L, LAL -4 W, Chi -2.5 W, Det +8 L,
Orl -4 L, Por +4 W, Atl +5 W, Den +3 W
Game 5
Utah +12 W, Bos -8 L, 76ers +8.5 L, SA -5 L,
Port -5.5 W, Mia +5.5 L, NO +10.5 L

[The Chaperone]

Home teams are 12-13 ats fwiw.

[Jeff Jones]

This just in, on MSNBC...(where else?)

A spokesman for the Zig-Zag Corporation, Junior VP Michael Phelps, has issued a statement this evening on the Zig-Zag controversy..

"As many of you know, we here at Zig-Zag have produced quality rolling papers and other smoking accessories for decades. We made a business decision early on to allow 'The Sports Information Industry' to usurp our company name in an effort to crossbrand drug degeneracy with gambling degeneracy. But we are now at the end of our hemp.

A 6-11 W-L record affects our sales, reputation and "good-will value." We will be issuing a cease and desist order requiring an end to the use of "Zig-Zag," and a return to the more tout-worthy, hallowed '20-star pick.'"

[ComptrBob]

Update:

Overall W/L: 17-20

Round 1: 17-20
Game 2: 3-5
Bos -8 L, Det +11 L, Por -6 L, SA -5 W,
Utah +11.5 W, Orl -10 L, Miami +5 W, New O +5.5 L
Game 3: 3-5
Chi -1.5 L, Det +4.5 L, Hou -5.5 L, Dal -4 W,
Utah +2.5 W, 76ers +3.5 W, Atl -4 L, New O -4 L
Game 4: 5-3
SA +4 L, LAL -4 W, Chi -2.5 W, Det +8 L,
Orl -4 L, Por +4 W, Atl +5 W, Den +3 W
Game 5: 2-5
Utah +12 W, Bos -8 L, 76ers +8.5 L, SA -5 L,
Port -5.5 W, Mia +5.5 L, NO +10.5 L
Game 6: 2-2
Chi -3 L, 76ers -4 L, Hou -5.5 W, Mia -5 W
Game 7: 2-0
Bos -6.5 W, Atl -5 W

Round 2: 0-0
Game 2: 0-0
Dal +6.5, Bos -3.5, LAL -9.5

[Jackie Peanuts]

If Zig-Zag fails in the first round, it will be lambasted as just another tout-gimmick, feel and sound-good strategy, like so many others.

Two days later.....

If Zig-Zag wins in the second round, it will be heralded as a totally Sharp, failsafe betting system that nobody can deny.

That's just the nature of Internet posting boards.

Understatement of the year......so far

[rhinoceros]

Bob,

Am I correct in assuming that the Zig-Zag theory you are tracking is to bet every game in each series (after G1), fading the ATS winner of the previous game?

If that is indeed correct, perhaps you are being unfair to this strategy. I am more interested in the results of a modified zig-zag--where you define some threshhold of a "big" win, and fade only winners of a "big" win in their next game of that series. I realize that by carefully selecting the definition of a "big" win, you could readily prove or disprove the theory as desired. I also expect that you can avoid this problem by considering a few alternate definitons chosen with fair judgement. My personal bias would be to choose a definition that considers both ATS win size and SU win size. But using 2 independent variables greatly increases the problem of datamining.

I'm not sufficiently interested in the zig-zag to do the work. I'm hoping you are;-)

[ComptrBob]

Bob,

Am I correct in assuming that the Zig-Zag theory you are tracking is to bet every game in each series (after G1), fading the ATS winner of the previous game?


No, the original (as propounded by the Gold Sheet) Zig-zag theory bets the SU loser of the previous game.

[Jeff Jones]

Bob,

Am I correct in assuming that the Zig-Zag theory you are tracking is to bet every game in each series (after G1), fading the ATS winner of the previous game?

If that is indeed correct, perhaps you are being unfair to this strategy. I am more interested in the results of a modified zig-zag--where you define some threshhold of a "big" win, and fade only winners of a "big" win in their next game of that series. I realize that by carefully selecting the definition of a "big" win, you could readily prove or disprove the theory as desired. I also expect that you can avoid this problem by considering a few alternate definitons chosen with fair judgement. My personal bias would be to choose a definition that considers both ATS win size and SU win size. But using 2 independent variables greatly increases the problem of datamining.

I'm not sufficiently interested in the zig-zag to do the work. I'm hoping you are;-)

Oh my goodness, can there be a more pretentiious and self-absorbed first post than by rhinocerous?

Can Computer Bob be any more clearer? He just gives you the W-L data.

In words to the Ivory Tower types, he reports what happens.

Now, if you want to fester your day away with "defining the threshold of big wins," or maybe "defiining both ATS win size and SU win size," you are welcome to it. Clusterfuck your day away.

Computer Bob just reports results. You decide.

[ComptrBob]

If that is indeed correct, perhaps you are being unfair to this strategy. I am more interested in the results of a modified zig-zag--where you define some threshhold of a "big" win, and fade only winners of a "big" win in their next game of that series.

Most subsets of the original Zig-zag (over the last 10 to 15 years) are, of course, by constuction +EV. Generally the Zig-zag has performed poorly in the last 3 or 4 years. I think if you define fading a "big win" as 20 or 25 points, the results are even better than the original Zig-zag although a relatively small sample.

[Jeff Jones]

It just gets comical.

"Unfair to the strategy?"

Can any sharp post a pick a day that can produce a winning record that perhaps could document "fair to the strategy?"

[red]

Even ESPN Gambling Guru Chad Millman (insert chuckle here) wrote about this:

This is what every wise guy and bookmaker is thinking about once the NBA playoffs tip off: Zig Zag Theory.

It's not some late-night plan cooked up by bettors who owe too much, own too little and need to avoid getting pinched. It's a philosophy combining pattern recognition and bettor's logic (aka, insanity) that dictates how every spread is made and how every sharp bets pro hoops for the next eight weeks.



Is he zigging or zagging?
The theory is pretty simple: If a team covers the spread in one game, bet against it to cover in the next. "You see a favorite that wins and covers, you would think they would be favored by more in Game 2," says my guy Scooch at the Orleans. "But they are almost always favored by less because other teams are expected to come out blazing."

Take a look at the patterns for the Heat-Hawks series. In Game 1, the Hawks were favored by five and won by 26. And yet, in Game 2, the spread actually dropped half a point, to Hawks minus-4.5. Most of the wise guy money came in on the Heat, and they easily covered. Same thing with the Mavs and Spurs. San Antonio was a 4.5-point fave in Game 1 and lost. But what happened in Game 2? The Spurs opened as a 5.5-point fave and got bet up by professionals to 6-point favorites. They won going away by 21.

Of course, the theory isn't foolproof. And the cat and mouse between bettors and bookmakers as they play Zig Zag is fascinating. Remember, bookmakers want to post a spread that makes people bet, not one that predicts the final point difference in a game. They know wise guys are going to consider the Zig Zag Theory when making their plays, so they need to decide how many points that is worth when making the spread. Is it one? Two? That can mean the difference between money earned and money lost.

Meanwhile, wise guys need to decide whether they're getting taken by inflated spreads. "I was betting the Zig Zag 30 years ago," one ornery, veteran wise guy told me. "Now the problem is the whole world knows about it and in most cases the line is overpriced. It is like betting into a stacked deck."

Take a look at the Pistons-Cavs series. In Game 1, Cleveland was favored by 11.5 points and blew out Detroit 102-84. But in Game 2, rather than using the 18-point win as a reason to increase the spread, bookmakers made the Cavs 11-point favorites. Then the wise guys bet so heavily on the Pistons the point spread dropped, from 11 to 10.5. Everyone expected the Pistons, down 1-0, to come out aggressive and desperate and, even if they didn't win, keep the game close. Of course, the bettors were wrong. Cleveland won Game 2 by 12, covering the opening line by just a point.

Same thing happened in the Magic-Sixers series. Even though the Sixers stole the series opener as nine-point dogs, bookmakers upped the number in Game 2, posting the Magic as 10-point favorites. "We just expected people to bet the Magic so we put up a high number," Scooch says. Sure enough, that's what happened. Then the Magic went out and won Game 2 by nine. The wise guys got suckered.


He then went on to point out examples in games that were played a week or so ago so I didn't copy that over.

Insider access only: http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/insider/news/story?id=4095633&addata=2009_insdr_mod_nba_xxx_xxx

[rhinoceros]

Bob,
Thanks for your considered response.

Jeff,
Thanks for your warm welcome.

[ComptrBob]

Update:

Overall W/L: 28-27-1

Round 1: 17-20

Round 2: 11-7-1
Game 2: 2-2
Dal +6.5 L, Bos -3.5 W, LAL -9.5 W, Atl +12.5 L
Game 3: 1-3
Dal -4 L, Orl -4.5 W, Hou +1.5 L, Atl +7.5 L
Game 4: 3-0-1
Dal -1.5 W, Bos +4.5 W, Hou +4 W, Atl +10 T
Game 5: 2-1
Orl +2 L, LAL -12 W, Den -8 W
Game 6: 2-0
Orl -6 W, Hou +7.5 W
Game 7: 1-1
Bos -2 L, LAL -12 W

[ComptrBob]

Update:

Overall W/L: 35-30-1

Round 1: 17-20
Round 2: 11-7-1
Conf finals: 7-3
Game 2: 1-1
Den +5.5 W, Clev -8.5 L
Game 3: 2-0
LAL +4 W, Orl -1.5 W
Game 4: 1-1
Den -4.5 W, Clev Pk L
Game 5: 2-0
LAL -6 W, Clev -7.5 W
Game 6: 1-1
Den -5 L, Orl -1.5 W

[ComptrBob]

Update:

Overall W/L: 37-31-2

Round 1: 17-20
Round 2: 11-7-1
Conf finals: 7-3
Finals: 2-1-1
Game 2: Orl +6.5 W
Game 3: Orl -4 T
Game 4: LAL +3 W
Game 5: Orl -3 L

[ComptrBob]

Its over

Overall W/L: 37-31-2