NCAA Seed Performance Distribution

[wrestleknownothing]

WTT is in the rear view mirror and Final X is weeks away, so I dusted off some NCAA data to keep myself entertained in the between times.

The Seed (Round) rows group the seeds into the rounds they would finish if everything went chalk (or at least if their individual results went chalk).

The Round columns are where they actually finished. So the top 8 seeds finish as AA's 74% of the time, finish in the blood round 16% of the time, etc.

The data is from the 33 seed era only (2019 - 2025). The averages sum horizontally, not vertically.

• For the gamblers in the audience it looks like the 9-12 seeds are the value play as they finish on the podium more often than the blood round. The opposite should be expected.
  
  
• On the flip side, avoid they 13-16 seeds who finish one round short of expectations more often than on seed-based expectations.

 

[MSU158]

WTT is in the rear view mirror and Final X is weeks away, so I dusted off some NCAA data to keep myself entertained in the between times.

The Seed (Round) rows group the seeds into the rounds they would finish if everything went chalk (or at least if their individual results went chalk).

The Round columns are where they actually finished. So the top 8 seeds finish as AA's 74% of the time, finish in the blood round 16% of the time, etc.

The data is from the 33 seed era only (2019 - 2025). The averages sum horizontally, not vertically.

• For the gamblers in the audience it looks like the 9-12 seeds are the value play as they finish on the podium more often than the blood round. The opposite should be expected.
  
  
• On the flip side, avoid they 13-16 seeds who finish one round short of expectations more often than on seed-based expectations.

Actually, depending on how you bet, 13-16 actually finishes at or better 52% of the time. Meanwhile, R12 is "only" 6% better. 17-24 would actually look like the "value" bet, finishing at or better 71% of the time!

Assuming "at" is a push with no juice:

9-12 has a 34% chance of winning, but a 43% chance of losing.

13-16 has a 24% chance of winning, but a 48% chance of losing.

17-24 has a 32% chance of winning, exceeding the 29% chance of losing.

25-33 I don't see how or why any book would offer this type of bet when there is no way for them to do worse...

1-8 is harder, considering you would need the breakdown of each seed and if you were only betting them to AA, I would assume the top seeds would get much less than even money to do so..

 

[wrestleknownothing]

Actually, depending on how you bet, 13-16 actually finishes at or better 52% of the time. Meanwhile, R12 is "only" 6% better. 17-24 would actually look like the "value" bet, finishing at or better 71% of the time!

Assuming "at" is a push with no juice:

9-12 has a 34% chance of winning, but a 43% chance of losing.

13-16 has a 24% chance of winning, but a 48% chance of losing.

17-24 has a 32% chance of winning, exceeding the 29% chance of losing.

25-33 I don't see how or why any book would offer this type of bet when there is no way for them to do worse...

1-8 is harder, considering you would need the breakdown of each seed and if you were only betting them to AA, I would assume the top seeds would get much less than even money to do so..

You are assuming all of these bets would be priced the same. They would not.

I am assuming the 9-12 seed bet would be priced such that 9-12 is the most common outcome and 13-16 seed bet would be priced such that 13-16 is the most common outcome.

Perhaps it would be. Perhaps not. If a book did the same analysis it would not. I assume they would not do the analysis that closely based on lines I saw for team finishes at the last tournament. The one that stood out then as the value play was Nebraska +600 to finish second.

 

[MSU158]

You are assuming all of these bets would be priced the same. They would not.

I am assuming the 9-12 seed bet would be priced such that 9-12 is the most common outcome and 13-16 seed bet would be priced such that 13-16 is the most common outcome.

Perhaps it would be. Perhaps not. If a book did the same analysis it would not. I assume they would not do the analysis that closely based on lines I saw for team finishes at the last tournament. The one that stood out then as the value play was Nebraska +600 to finish second.

I hear ya. Nearly all betting organizations are smart enough to look at data like what you have above(at the very least). I would then assume they would adjust the odds accordingly. Which is why I try to avoid betting ANYTHING that I have little to no control over. If I bet, it is pretty much on myself, be it cards or some other physical activity. That way I at least feel I have done all I can to influence the results....

 

[12tdsaw]

did not read

 

[MSU158]

did not read

Your loss. Very simple information showing percentages of the ranges certain seeds finish in. Pretty cool to see the 9-12 seed range AA's 1/3 of the time...

 

[wrestleknownothing]

I hear ya. Nearly all betting organizations are smart enough to look at data like what you have above(at the very least). I would then assume they would adjust the odds accordingly. Which is why I try to avoid betting ANYTHING that I have little to no control over. If I bet, it is pretty much on myself, be it cards or some other physical activity. That way I at least feel I have done all I can to influence the results....

So that is the thing I wonder about.

As the online betting has exploded they seem to want to offer more and more sports and props. But have they done more than cursory work on a niche sport like wrestling? If not, maybe there are small inefficiencies to be exploited. It probably helps that the data is impossible to come by without a tremendous amount of work.

The example I saw last tourney was the odds for second place. Draft Kings had UNI at +350, VT at +550 and Nebraska at +600. Anyone studying the data (especially after B1G), would know Nebraska had a much better chance at second than either UNI or VT.

There were only 3 teams with any shot at second, but Nebraska had the fifth lowest price. It should have been second or third, at worst.

I imagine there are size limits on the niche sports such that you could not make a living exploiting any inefficiencies, but you could probably pick up some good beer money.

Now, if you could short some of those, that would be where the real money is....

 

[wrestleknownothing]

did not read

Iowa Separating From The Pack (Intermat 1/14/25 rankings)

Iowa just keeps grinding higher. Credit Kyle Parco's move from #4 to #3 this week and Joey Cruz's return to the rankings. Next stop Penn State (not shown but expected points = 139.6) Oklahoma State took a breather this week. While Reece Witcraft, Carter Young, and Caleb Fish saw incremental...

iowa.forums.rivals.com

it is not like I didn't warn you.