Was it true that March Madness game winners went 61-2 ATS?

[Taxman]

I think this is correct, but want confirmation.

Thanks!

[trytrytry]

i had not heard that..i will have a look..

[Bettorsworld]

No.....I counted more than 2 ATS losers who won straight up in the first two days, although there was a high percentage of winners who also covered. On the first day, Kentucky and Temple won but did not cover. On the 2nd day, North Carolina, Wash, ND, Arizona, Texas and Kansas won but didnt cover. Now, on some, the opening number may have been a winner, but that would only be a couple of those and that's 8 games on just the first two days.

I didn't look at the rest, but you can use our database here:

http://www.bettorsworld.com/web/data/record.htm/

[Bettorsworld]

you can add Duke only getting by Michigan by 2........then you have North Carolina over Wasington by 3, the game opened -3.5 and UCONN over Arizona by 2 in a game that opened -2 and closed -2.5....now, those were close to the number, but still the best I see is a push on those.

So, my conclusion would be, yes, the winning team covered at a high rate in the tournament. At quick glance there were at least 11 losers.......teams that won and didn't cover. A few of those were near the number and you could make an argument that you could have gotten a push, possibly a win or two.

But, not 61-2.

Impressive nonetheless. This has held true in the NFL for many years. Concentrate and picking straight up winners as the winner also covers like 80% of the time..........ah, but if only picking straight up winners was THAT easy

[Taxman]

Thanks for the feed back. I overlooked day 2.