Marc Lawrence

Marc Lawrence has authored thousands of articles expounding on the three primary forms of sports handicapping: Fundamental, Statistical and Technical. To be a successful handicapper, blending all three forms of analysis into the handicapping equation. Marc relies heavily on a proprietary powerful database of scores, stats and results of games played since 1980, both College and Pro Football and College and Pro Basketball.

Marc has been handicapping sports professionally since 1975, having won more documented Top 10 Handicapping Achievement awards than any handicapper in the nation. He won the 2005 STARDUST FOOTBALL INVITATIONAL Contest and was a SEMI-FINALIST in the 2006 $100,000 LEROYS' MONEY TALKS Contest last season. He finished the 2006 season as the No. 1 handicapper in the NFL as documented by SPORTS WATCH in Las Vegas. Marc also finished No. 1 in the nation in College Football win percentage in 2005 as documented by both the SPORTS MONITOR in Oklahoma and SPORTS WATCH in Las Vegas. He was named HANDICAPPER OF THE YEAR in 2005 by FOOTBALL NEWS.

In 2008, he finished No. 1 in NFL win percentage according to SPORTS WATCH and also captured 1st place honors in the 2008 PLAYBOOK WISE GUYS CONTEST.

Marc has hosted a national radio show "MARC LAWRENCE AGAINST THE SPREAD" for each of the last 16 years on over 100 stations syndicated in the USA. He is a tireless handicapper who works a minimum 60-hour week during the football and basketball seasons. As a handicapper he firmly believes that three things can happen when you bet an underdog, and two of them are good. He enjoys helping others to become better informed.

Marc married his high school sweetheart 40 years ago and has one son, Marc Jr., who works with him in the industry. Aside from publishing the PLAYBOOK Football Yearbook magazine and Weekly Newsletters, Marc enjoys golf and horse racing.

Most recent entries

Monthly Archives

Syndicate




Wednesday, February 23, 2011


NBA AT THE BREAK… The Best and Worst Team Trends


Some say the NBA is simply an acronym for Nothing But Aggravation. Others contend it’s merely a Nice Bankroll Additive. Whatever your take, there is no better time than the present – with the NBA taking a time out for the All-Star break - to examine the condition of each team in the league at this stage of the season. From the surprise teams to the disappointments, the run to the 2011 playoffs is about to take off.

For openers, what we’ve seen thus far is that some teams have excelled against foes that do not own a winning record, such as the 76ers (18-12 ATS) and the Spurs (17-12-1 ATS), while others have struggled in games against lousy competition, such as the Thunder (4-14 ATS) and the Nets (8-20-1 ATS).

On the flip side, a handful of teams have risen to the occasion when squaring off against quality, winning opposition – teams like the Bulls (15-6 ATS), the Mavericks (18-8-1 ATS), the Grizzlies (18-8-1 ATS), the 76ers (17-9 ATS and the Spurs (17-8-1 ATS). Meanwhile, the Magic (8-14-1 ATS and the Nuggets 9-15 ATS) are the biggest money burners in games against winning teams season to date.

FYI: teams that have responded exceptionally well in same season revenge affairs include the Grizzlies (12-4 ATS), the 76ers (12-4 ATS) and the Thunder (7-3 ATS), while the teams that have struggled in these same games include the Suns (6-16 ATS), the Suns (3-10 ATS) and the Raptors (6-14 ATS).



Here’s a quick look at some of the GOOD, BAD, and UGLY team trends on every team and how they have fared SU (Straight Up) and ATS (Against The Spread) this season in games played through the All-Star break. In addition, I also break down performance records for each team in games versus .500 or less and greater than .500 opponents this campaign.

I’ve done my homework. Now, you do yours and enjoy the rest of the season…

ATLANTA
Good: 5-1 ATS dog off SU and ATS loss
Bad: 4-13 ATS off DD win
Ugly: 1-9 ATS home off BB wins
Vs. .500 or less: 28-9 SU, 18-19 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 6-12 SU, 7-11 ATS

BOSTON
Good: 4-0 ATS off BB SU and ATS wins
Bad: 6-14 ATS vs opp off SU and ATS win
Ugly: 1-10 ATS vs opp off BB wins
Vs. .500 or less: 25-7 SU, 13-18-1 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 15-7 SU, 12-9-1 ATS

CHARLOTTE
Good: 9-1 ATS vs opp off DD win
Bad: 3-7 ATS vs opp off BB SU and ATS wins
Ugly: 0-3 ATS with double-plus revenge
Vs. .500 or less: 17-16 SU, 17-16 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 7-16 SU, 12-10-1 ATS

CHICAGO
Good: 6-1 SU and ATS home vs same season revenge
Bad: 1-4-1 ATS off ATS win 15 more
Ugly: 1-6 ATS off BB wins vs opp off BB losses
Vs. .500 or less: 25-8 SU, 17-15-1 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 13-8 SU, 15-6 ATS

CLEVELAND
Good: 4-0 ATS off DD loss vs opp off SU favorite loss
Bad: 5-14 ATS vs opp with no rest
Ugly: 1-7 SU and ATS fav
Vs. .500 or less: 7-21 SU, 10-17-1 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 3-25 SU, 11-14-3 ATS

DALLAS
Good: 8-0 SU and ATS off DD win vs opp off win
Bad: 1-5 ATS away off BB SU and ATS losses
Ugly: 1-6 ATS off loss vs opp off BB wins
Vs. .500 or less: 22-7 SU, 14-15 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 18-9 SU, 18-8-1 ATS

DENVER
Good: 5-1 ATS off BB SU and ATS losses
Bad: 3-7-1 ATS home off SU and ATS wins
Ugly: 1-6-1 ATS off SU favorite loss
Vs. .500 or less: 22-11 SU, 15-15-3 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 10-14 SU, 9-15 ATS

DETROIT
Good: 4-0 ATS home vs division
Bad: 2-6 ATS vs opp off SU favorite loss
Ugly: 0-5 ATS home off division
Vs. .500 or less: 15-13 SU, 16-12 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 6-23 SU, 14-14-1 ATS

GOLDEN STATE
Good: 10-2 ATS vs opp off loss more 7 points
Bad: 2-6 ATS off DD win
Ugly: 1-5 ATS odd DD win
Vs. .500 or less: 18-14 SU, 9-13 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 8-15 SU, 11-11-1 ATS

HOUSTON
Good: 5-0 ATS away vs opp off DD loss
Bad: 1-5 ATS vs con opp off SU dog win
Ugly: 1-7 ATS home vs opp off BB wins
Vs. .500 or less: 17-11 SU, 16-11-1 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 9-20 SU, 12-16-1 ATS

INDIANA
Good: 5-1-1 off BB SU and ATS losses
Bad: 1-5 ATS off BB SU and ATS wins
Ugly: 1-6 ATS with no rest off loss
Vs. .500 or less: 18-11 SU, 16-11-2 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 6-19 SU, 10-14-1 ATS

LA CLIPPERS
Good: 5-1 ATS away off DD win
Bad: 1-6 ATS dog vs opp off BB SU and ATS wins
Ugly: 0-3 ATS off 3-0 SU and ATS wins
Vs. .500 or less: 13-19 SU, 15-17 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 8-16 SU, 12-12 ATS

LA LAKERS
Good: 5-1 ATS vs opp off BB SU and ATS wins
Bad: 3-15 ATS vs opp off DD win
Ugly: 1-10 ATS home vs non division
Vs. .500 or less: 22-11 SU, 11-21-1 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 16-8 SU, 14-10 ATS

MEMPHIS
Good: 11-1 ATS vs opp with no rest
Bad: 1-5 ATS away off BB SU and ATS wins
Ugly: 0-5 ATS away off DD win
Vs. .500 or less: 19-11 SU, 17-13 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 12-15 SU, 18-8-1 ATS

MIAMI
Good: 4-0 SU and ATS away vs opp off loss more 10
Bad: 1-5 ATS off BB losses
Ugly: 1-8 ATS home off loss
Vs. .500 or less: 29-5 SU, 17-17 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 12-10 SU, 10-11-1 ATS

MILWAUKEE
Good: 6-1 ATS dog with no rest
Bad: 1-5 ATS non con fav off SU and ATS win
Ugly: 0-6 ATS home off DD win
Vs. .500 or less: 13-15 SU, 14-14 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 8-19 SU, 11-15-1 ATS

MINNESOTA
Good: 5-1 ATS DD con dog
Bad: 1-8 ATS vs opp off SU dog win
Ugly: 0-6 ATS away vs opp off BB SU and ATS wins
Vs. .500 or less: 11-17 SU, 14-14 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 2-26 SU, 11-17 ATS

NEW JERSEY
Good: 5-1 ATS dog more 10 points
Bad: 1-7-1 ATS vs division
Ugly: 0-6-1 ATS away vs opp off DD loss
Vs. .500 or less: 8-21 SU, 8-20-1 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 9-19 SU, 18-10 ATS

NEW ORLEANS
Good: 6-0 SU and ATS vs opp with 3+ days rest
Bad: 1-6 ATS con favorite vs opp off win
Ugly: 0-5 ATS favorite vs opp off BB SU and ATS losses
Vs. .500 or less: 18-11 SU, 13-15-1 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 15-14 SU, 14-13-2 ATS

NEW YORK
Good: 12-2 ATS dog off win
Bad: 1-6 ATS off SU favorite loss vs opp not off DD win
Ugly: 0-4-1 ATS off BB SU and ATS loss vs opp with rest
Vs. .500 or less: 18-12 SU, 19-11 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 10-14 SU, 14-9-1 ATS

OKLAHOMA CITY
Good: 5-0 ATS dog vs opp off DD win
Bad: 1-5 ATS fav vs opp off BB SU and ATS losses
Ugly: 0-6 ATS home off win vs greater .666 opp
Vs. .500 or less: 21-7 SU, 4-14 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 14-12 SU, 13-13 ATS

ORLANDO
Good: 5-1 ATS away vs less .333 opp
Bad: 1-5-1 ATS dog
Ugly: 0-5-1 ATS away vs opp off BB wins
Vs. .500 or less: 27-7 SU, 17-15-2 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 9-14 SU, 8-14-1 ATS

PHILADELPHIA
Good: 8-1 ATS off DD loss
Bad: 1-4 ATS fav vs opp off SU favorite loss
Ugly: 0-3 SU and ATS off 3 wins exact
Vs. .500 or less: 16-14 SU, 18-12 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 11-15 SU, 17-9 ATS

PHOENIX
Good: 5-0 ATS off division SU and ATS win
Bad: 2-7-2 ATS home vs opp with no rest
Ugly: 1-7-1 ATS away off BB losses
Vs. .500 or less: 16-13 SU, 12-17 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 11-14 SU, 9-13-3 ATS

PORTLAND
Good: 7-0 ATS road favorite off win
Bad: 1-4 ATS dog off division
Ugly: 0-4 ATS away off win vs opp off SU and ATS win
Vs. .500 or less: 24-10 SU, 18-14-2 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 21-8 SU, 15-12-2 ATS

SACRAMENTO
Good: 3-0 ATS with no rest vs opp with no rest
Bad: 2-8 ATS favorite
Ugly: 1-7 ATS off BB losses vs div opp
Vs. .500 or less: 7-17 SU, 9-15 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 6-23 SU, 13-16 ATS

SAN ANTONIO
Good: 10-1 ATS vs non division opp with no rest
Bad: 1-5 ATS off BB SU and ATS wins vs opp off BB losses
Ugly: 0-6 ATS favorite more 11 points
Vs. .500 or less: 28-2 SU, 17-12-1 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 18-8 SU, 17-8-1 ATS

TORONTO
Good: 5-1 ATS home off SU and ATS win
Bad: 1-4 ATS off division SU and ATS loss
Ugly: 0-8 SU and 1-7 ATS away with double-plus revenge
Vs. .500 or less: 10-17 SU, 10-15-2 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 5-24 SU, 14-15 ATS

UTAH
Good: 5-1 ATS off DD win vs non con opp
Bad: 1-6 ATS vs opp with no rest off win
Ugly: 1-7 ATS home vs opp off BB SU and ATS wins
Vs. .500 or less: 20-13 SU, 15-18 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 11-13 SU, 10-14 ATS

WASHINGTON
Good: 6-1 ATS DD dog off loss
Bad: 3-13 ATS vs opp off SU and ATS loss
Ugly: 1-14 ATS off win
Vs. .500 or less: 13-16 SU, 10-19 ATS
Vs. winning opp: 2-23 SU, 11-14 ATS


Written by Marc Lawrence

Marc Lawrence can also be found at Playbook.com - One Click Handicapping
Comments (0)

BallHype: hype it up!
 
 

Wednesday, February 16, 2011


COLLEGE HOOPS ATS AWARDS And The Winner Is…


With the 2010-11 College Hoops regular season one month away from the Big Dance, and the Academy Awards just around the corner, it’s important to get a pulse on how teams are performing at box office both home and on the road this campaign in the ever-popular ATS (Against The Spread) categories.

While there is no certainty that teams will continue over-or-under achieving in their best or worst roles, there is certainly no need to be hopping off the bandwagon at this stage of the season.

Let’s examine the Top Five best and the very worst results by teams in games played at home and on the road through Saturday, February 12 of this season. All results are ATS…



COLLEGE BASKETBALL HOME TEAMS

Moneymakers:
1. George Mason 10-1
2. Alabama 8-1
3. Purdue 6-1
4. Houston 5-1-1
5. Illinois 8-2

Moneyburners:
1. Ohio U 1-9
2. Loyola Cal 1-7
3. Central Florida 1-7
4. San Diego 1-7
5. UC Davis 1-6

COLLEGE BASKETBALL ROAD TEAMS

Moneymakers:
1. Georgia 6-0-1
2. UAB 9-1
3. Wichita State 7-1
4. Duquesne 6-1
5. Texas 6-1

Moneyburners:
1. Kansas State 1-7
2. Georgia State 1-6
3. NC State 1-6
4. Arkansas 1-5
5. Missouri, Wyoming 1-5

There you have it, nominations for the best and worst ATS performances by teams in a starring role to date this season. While not maybe not yet Oscar worthy, it’s best to remember that forewarned is forearmed…


Written by Marc Lawrence

Marc Lawrence can also be found at Playbook.com - One Click Handicapping
Comments (0)

BallHype: hype it up!
 
 

Wednesday, February 09, 2011


RUSTY HOME DOGS Too Much Rest Makes Rust


Generally speaking, the first rule most good handicappers look to apply is seeking out live dogs that have a realistic shot at winning the game. That’s because three things can happen when you bet on an underdog – and two of them are good.

There are, however, certain dogs that can bite the hand that feeds them if they are not conditioned to win. For the most part they are either bad teams with leaky defenses or fatigued to the point where their stats simply don’t matter.

Teams can surely become a bit too rusty due to an excessive amount of time off. This rule especially holds true to teams in College Basketball. We call them the Rust Brigade. That’s because…



COLLEGE HOOPS HOME DOGS WITH 7 OR MORE DAYS OF REST TURN TO RUST

Too much rest makes teams lethargic.

That’s confirmed by the fact that College Basketball teams playing at home as conference dogs with 7 or more days of rest during the regular season are 51-89-3 ATS since 1990.

That’s a dismal 36.4% ATS, making these teams prime ‘Play Against’ material. Worse…


RUSTY HOME DOGS OFF BACK-TO-BACK LOSSES DON’T CARE

Lethargic home dogs playing poorly continue to play badly.

Once again, the numbers do not lie. College Basketball teams playing off back-to-back losses at conference home as dogs with 7 or more days of rest during the regular season are 28-41 ATS since 1990.

Put them up against non-fatigued opponents (ones that have at least 3 days of rest) and they dip to 8-32 ATS in this role. Even worse…


RUSTY HOME DOGS OFF BACK-TO-BACK LOSSES GENERALLY DISAPPEAR AGAINST WINNING TEAMS

There is nothing worse than a team that knows it’s beat before they take the court.

That is born out by the fact that these rusty home dogs with a win percentage of less than .600, playing off back-to-back losses against well rested (three or more days of rest) winning conference opponents (those with a win percentage of more than .500), are just 3-24 ATS since 1990.

There you have it. A solid betting strategy to follow from now until the College Conference Tourneys begin later next month. Enjoy…


Written by Marc Lawrence

Marc Lawrence can also be found at Playbook.com - One Click Handicapping
Comments (0)

BallHype: hype it up!
 
 

Page 14 of 23 pages « FirstP  <  12 13 14 15 16 >  Last »