Bet on Home Teams Facing Elimination in

the NBA Playoffs?

by King Yao Two Plus Two Magazine, Vol. 8, No. 5
Consider this line of thought:
NBA playoff teams that are facing elimination fight back hard and often win the
game to extend the series. Their backs are up against the wall and they fight
together like mad. Their sense of urgency dominates the other team's sense of
complacency. This is especially the case when playing at home where their fans
are at their loudest and most intimidating behavior against the road team. It is
simple human psychology; the home team facing elimination focuses, fights for
every loose ball, plays well as a team without selfish play, and plays hard for their
home crowd.
On the other hand, the away team that could finish the series with a win has
another out if they do not win this game. Thus, they could not possibly be as
focused, or fight as hard for loose balls as the home team. The away team is
more likely to play selfishly as stars look to pad their stats when they know a win
in this game is not necessary to win the series. Additionally, if crowds matter, or
if crowds influence referees, as some academics suggest, then home elimination
games are the games when they should matter most. Bet on home teams in
elimination games and you will take money to the bank.
That makes sense, doesn't it? This is the type of rationale commonly espoused
by bettors, touts and NBA TV/radio analysts. Without any data or historical
backing, they offer a seemingly reasonable premise as rationale for a bet or
voicing an opinion. In dealing with pointspreads and betting markets, they do not
take into account that what may seem logical and reasonable to them is likely to
seem logical and reasonable to others too. If the angle is logical, the market may
have already incorporated it into the betting price. Worse, the market may have
overcompensated for this reasoning and the betting price may be skewed too
much the other way.
The fact is that this angle has been a terrible loser historically. Home teams
facing elimination in 7-game series, but not including game 7s when both teams
are facing elimination, have gone 69-95 against-the-spread in the last 20 years,
for a measly 42% winning percentage. The angle makes sense, but historical
results do not back it up. Instead, historical results suggest the market may be
overcompensating for the angle.
Small Sample Size
The sample size for these home team elimination games is low, only 164 games.
These results could very well be due to bad luck. I have certainly had records

this bad, or conversely, this good, over a stretch of 164 bets that are close to
even money. In those circumstances, even with a horrendous or great record
over the course of 164 bets, I knew similar bets made in the future were likely to
be within a few percentages of 50%. It is possible that bad luck was the main
reason for the home team's poor record in elimination games. Maybe the true
winning percentage expectation for the next 164 games is 50%.
Another problem is that this result is data mined. If the results were closer to
expectations, say a winning percentage of 48% instead of 42%, it would not be
eye-catching and would not be a worthwhile topic for an article. Readers do not
know how many angles were filtered through to get this one with such an
extreme result.
With that said, there are pros to small sample sizes. If there were more samples,
then the angle would be more widely understood and there would not be any
potential edge at all. If there truly is an edge in betting against home teams
facing elimination, then it is good that the small sample size is small and the
results unclear to others. The difficulty is in determining what the results of the
small sample size means. As counterintuitive as it sounds, I will attempt to shed
some light by breaking down the record in subsets, with even smaller sample
sizes.
Breaking it Down by Game
Let's break down the record by game number in the series. Home teams in game
5 are teams that were the better seed in the playoff matchup, and they have the
home court advantage throughout the series. If the series extends to 7 games,
they will play a total of four games at home and three games on the road.
Home teams in games 4 and 6 are teams that were the worse seed in the playoff
matchup, and they do not have the home court advantage throughout the
series.
The table below shows the against-the-spread (ATS) record broken down by game
number. The average pointspread in these games is included.
Game#
ATS W
ATS L
ATS W%
Avg Pointspread
4
17
31
35.4%
1.9
5
20
15
57.1%
-4.1
6
32
49
39.5%
-2.1
As mentioned previously, the low sample size is a concern. Breaking it down by
game number means even smaller sample sizes, and a higher chance of random
fluctuation tricking us with numbers that look meaningful but may not be. The
advantage of breaking it down by game number is the ability to analyze the
average pointspreads for the same game number.
Game 4
Home teams facing elimination in game 4 are down 3 games to 0. Not only are
they the worse seed, but by being down 3 games to 0, it means they are likely a
very poor team relative to their opponent. The average point spread of +1.9 is

further evidence (remember, these are home teams). Teams facing elimination in
game 4 are in a different mindset than teams facing elimination in game 6 even
though they are both the worse seed in the matchup. They have not won any
games thus far in the series and are facing the possibility of being embarrassed
by being swept out of the playoffs.
On the positive side, one could argue they do not want to be swept and are
playing for their pride and manhood. That should bring out the fight in any selfrespecting athlete. On the negative side, one could argue their season is over
and they know it. Why waste any energy trying to win game 4 only to travel and
lose in game 5 in an uncomfortable road setting? Historically, the negative
argument has soundly beaten the positive argument.
Home teams facing elimination in game 4 have gone 17-31 against-the-spread.
Even with this horrible record, the market did compensate against home teams in
this situation, but not enough. The average line in their previous home game,
game 3, was -0.4. On average, there was a change in the line of 2.3 points.
Perhaps this change in the pointspread is due to the market anticipating the
home team giving up in sweep situations. In general, the market moved the line
in the right direction, but the bad record suggests maybe not enough.
Game 5
Home teams facing elimination in game 5 are down 3 games to 1. They had the
first two games at home due to their better playoff seeding. An average
pointspread of -4.1 reflects the market thinks the two teams are roughly equal in
talent, but the home team gets a boost due to home court advantage.
On the positive side, one could argue these teams still think they have a chance
of winning the series. They are the better seed and will be favorites at home in
games 5 and 7. Their true test is in game 6 on the road. On the negative side,
one could argue they may not deserve to be the better seed due to the results in
the series thus far. Historically, the positive argument has beaten the negative
argument by a small margin.
Home teams facing elimination in game 5 have gone 20-15 against-the-spread.
It is the only subset to have a winning against-the-spread record.
Game 6
Home teams facing elimination in game 6 are down 3 games to 2. The series is
much closer than the other two subsets. It is possible both teams have merely
held their home court advantage and won at home. Therefore, it is interesting to
see that home teams in this subset had such a poor record, 32-49 against-thespread. It is only slightly better than the record of home teams facing elimination
in a sweep in game 4.
We could assign all sorts of descriptive reasons why home teams perform so
poorly in this subset. The away team is likely the better team since they have
the better seed, and the pointspread shows the home team is only a small

favorite even with the home court advantage. Perhaps the away team does play
with urgency in game 6 knowing they do not want to face an elimination game
themselves in game 7. Perhaps the home team knows the mountain is too high
to climb. After all, not only do they have to win game 6 at home, but they also
have to win game 7 on the road against a better team. These descriptive
reasons can make sense to many people, but given the descriptive reasons in the
first paragraph of this article, one has to wonder about its validity.
The bottom line is that while home teams facing elimination in game 6 have
performed poorly in the past, the sample size is so small that it is tough to be
confident that the record is a good indication of the true nature of this event. At
the same time, if the historical results are indeed a reflection of future results,
the small sample size is a positive. If the sample size were larger, the angle
would be better known and maybe incorporated into the betting line. There
would be less edge or no edge at all.
An interesting comparison is the average line in game 6 versus the average line
in game 3 and 4 in the same series. The table below shows the average
pointspreads in game 3, 4 and 6 in series when the home team is facing
elimination in game 6.
Game
Avg Pointspread
Game 3
-1.7
Game 4
-0.7
Game 6
-2.1
Unlike the results when home teams are facing elimination in game 4, teams
facing elimination in game 6 see the market betting on them more in their
elimination game than their prior home games. In general, the market has
moved the wrong way. Perhaps the market is making similar assumptions as
stated in the first paragraph of this article. Whether that assumption is correct or
not is not proven completely by the historical record, but even with just an 81
game sample size, the results suggest there is something to it. There is a
combination of a poor record and an incorrect line movement, albeit in only 81
games.
Art of Sports Betting
A tough aspect of making money in sports betting is determining how to handle
small sample sizes. My opinion is that no amount of math can answer this
question successfully by itself. This is where the art of sports betting comes into
play. If you can make correct choices in tough decisions where the sample size is
small, you are either very lucky (and did not have at true edge) or you are
talented in deciphering these situations. Ironically, your results in small sample
size situations may be a small sample size as well, making it tough to tell if you
are truly talented or just got lucky.
Conclusion
Fans and sports bettors like to play armchair psychiatrists. They often think they
know what the players are thinking and feeling and how they will react to certain

situations. While the sample size is low for elimination games in the playoffs, I
think the data suggests the possibility that these armchair psychiatrists be sued
for malpractice. They have mistreated the patient by betting on them in game 6
rather than against them. However, it is certainly possible they are truly right
and they just got unlucky. The answer is unclear due to the small sample size.
On the other hand, the small sample size makes this case interesting and
potentially profitable.
Going into the 2012 NBA playoffs, I plan on keeping careful track of the lines in
each game and comparing the elimination game lines with the previous lines in
the series. I am hoping they move as they did in the past, especially in game 6
home elimination games.