{"id":1273,"date":"2007-04-20T19:37:08","date_gmt":"2007-04-21T00:37:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/2007\/04\/nba-playoffs-zigzag-the-definitive-answer\/"},"modified":"2011-04-25T21:42:46","modified_gmt":"2011-04-25T21:42:46","slug":"nba-playoffs-zigzag-the-definitive-answer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/2007\/04\/nba-playoffs-zigzag-the-definitive-answer\/","title":{"rendered":"NBA Playoffs Zigzag, The Definitive Answer"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

About this time two years ago, I watched as on one of the fine betting sites there was a not-so-subtle back and forth of the validity of the so-called zigzag NBA playoff betting<\/a> system.<\/p>\n

The method simply says go with the team off of a loss.\u00a0 A critic came back after the first week or so gleaming over the fact the technique zagged and sagged more than it zigged.\u00a0 It lost money. Then as the playoffs went on, the proponent got the last laugh while the cynic wrote articles on other topics telling you he is smarter than everyone else.<\/p>\n

Having been in the industry since the 1980s and having been a supporter of computer systems since prominent statistician Dr. Mike Orkin wrote his Pointspread Analyzer software, where does the top NBA handicapping service<\/a> GodsTips stand?<\/p>\n

We agree with the theory, but less so the etched-in-stone considerations. First of all, let us give a quick refresher of the difference.\u00a0 A system can be measured objectively because the parameters are concrete.\u00a0 The zigzag is an example.\u00a0 Going with a double digit favorite off a single digit loss would be another hypothetical in beating the NBA playoff scores<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Of course there can be modest variances depending on when and where a database gathers lines, but over any statistically significant period it does not make a huge difference.<\/p>\n

A theory is much like a system but does not have objective parameters. Our theory is the better the team is that the zigzag system favors and the bigger the margin the loss was, the more compelling it is to \u201cgo with the team off a loss\u201d.<\/p>\n

True one could come up with a system to measure our upgrading of the methodology. An example would be going with a team with a winning percentage of .575 or higher off a loss of eight or more.\u00a0 The problem is we believe a mental sliding scale combining and most importantly, weighing the two factors works best. It allows for a mixing and matching of the two parameters.<\/p>\n

For example, this year as in most years, it would not apply or would only be weighed slightly if we are talking about the bottom three seeds in each conference off a loss. There is a reason they are called \u201cmismatches\u201d in basketball betting<\/a>.<\/p>\n

No. 4 versus five and the next three rounds of the playoffs (barring huge first round upsets), it is weighed much heavier. Remember we told you the mocker grew conspicuously quieter as the postseason went on. \u00a0Now you know why.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s one of those theories that almost make too much sense. During the regular season of every sport we remind you of the Golden Rule to not merely go with the \u201cteam that needs it more\u201d if said team is fighting just to make the playoffs.<\/p>\n

We call attention to the fact if a team were proficient at winning \u201cmust win\u201d games they would not be playing in must-win games late in the year.<\/p>\n

Conversely, a one through five seed, especially as the playoffs go deeper, has shown the ability to rebound from adversity and respond when their backs are to the wall.<\/p>\n

To the handicapper there is a titanic difference between desperate elite teams and equally desperate inferior teams playing in a crucial contest. It\u2019s like the difference between seeing Jennifer Lopez and Rosie O\u2019Donnell in a string bikini.<\/p>\n

Okay, I don\u2019t follow the analogy myself, but the exemplification of the distinction is infallible. From a handicapping standpoint one can\u2019t measure the success of the zigzag if Phoenix coming off a loss is given the same weight (no pun intended Rosie) as Washington or Golden State following a setback.<\/p>\n

Likewise, the margin of the loss is applicable for at least two obvious reasons.\u00a0 As we have said many times, nothing affects public perception more than the last game they have seen.\u00a0 It\u2019s not uncommon for a blowout in the previous game to influence an opening line by 2-3 points and more times than not, the closing line by more.<\/p>\n

Plus, no matter how motivated and well-coached a squad is, it defies human nature to approach a game with as much vengeance off a 22-point win as it is for the team off the huge setback.<\/p>\n

Others\u00a0So to friends and foes alike of zigzag, a .700 or better team off a loss is not even close to being the same as the below .520 teams zigging. Nor is mindset the same for a team that lost a game that went down to the wire the same as one that got humiliated on national television.<\/p>\n

can debate the \u201csystem\u201d but we will tell you the rationale behind it has a lot of validity if and only if the caveats are utilized and the impact applied appropriately.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

About this time two years ago, I watched as on one of the fine betting sites there was a not-so-subtle back and forth of the validity of the so-called zigzag NBA playoff betting system. The method simply says go with the team off of a loss.\u00a0 A critic came back after the first week or … Continue reading NBA Playoffs Zigzag, The Definitive Answer<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1273","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sports_gambling_strategy_articles"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1273","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1273"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1273\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11226,"href":"https:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1273\/revisions\/11226"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1273"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1273"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1273"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}