Saints Uncharacteristically Performed Much Better in the 2nd Half of Games During Alleged Wire Tapping

According to ESPN, the New Orleans Saints GM Mickey Loomis had an electronic device in his Superdome suite that had been secretly re-wired to enable him to eavesdrop on visiting coaching staffs for nearly three NFL seasons, from 2002-2004.

It’s been speculated by some that Loomis couldn’t do much with that information, such as notify his coaching staff of play calls prior to a play, and I tend to agree.  There would likely not be enough time to take information and provide it to the coaches in just a few seconds in order to make personnel adjustments on the fly.

However, there could be time during halftime for Loomis to share opposing coaches discussions with his coaching staff.  Not play specific, but moreso scheme, playcalling trend and other useful information.

To look at this more, I studied three periods, each were 3 seasons:

1.  1999-2001, the 3 yrs prior to allegations
2.  2002-2004, the 3 years that Loomis allegedly was listening to the opposing coaches
3.  2005-2007, the 3 years after Loomis stopped listening

Studying only home games (because he only could do it at home games), two interesting scoring trends emerged:

Points Scored by Opponents:  1st half vs 2nd half

99-01:  11 pts in 1st half, 11 pts in 2nd half
02-04:  14 pts in 1st half, 9 pts in 2nd half (a 36% decrease in 2nd half scoring)
05-07:  12 pts in 1st half, 11 pts in 2nd half (a 8% decrease in 2nd half scoring)

Points Scored by the Saints:  1st half vs 2nd half

99-01: 11 pts in 1st half, 8 pts in 2nd half (a 27% decrease in 2nd half scoring)
02-04: 11 pts in 1st half, 12 pts in 2nd half (a 9% increase in 2nd half scoring)
05-07: 11 pts in 1st half, 10 pts in 2nd half (a 9% decrease in 2nd half scoring)

These numbers definitely indicate some abnormal scoring in the 2nd half compared to what the Saints were able to do in the 3 yrs prior and the 3 yrs after the alleged wire tapping.

On defense, the Saints held opponents to 36% fewer points in the 2nd half than the first half, something they rarely did in the 3 seasons prior or after the 2002-2004 period.  And offensively, they were able to score more 2nd half points (though marginally) than they did in the other periods.

Another interesting stat to look at is how the Saints did in a same-season rematch game at home.  For whatever reason (wiretapping theoretically) the Saints were a dominant defensive machine at home in same-season rematches from 2002-2004, but not at all 3 yrs before or 3 yrs after:

Same Season Rematches in the Saints Home Game:

99-01: Opponents scored 11 second half points, the Saints lost 3 games by more than 1 TD, and went 3-4 SU
02-04: Held opponents to 5 second half points, the Saints lost 0 games by more than 1 TD, and went 3-3 SU
05-07: Opponents scored 13 second half points, the Saints lost 2 games by more than 1 TD, and went 1-3 SU

Clearly, the sample size is small.  3 years may seem like a lot, but it’s just 24 games involved (just the home games) and so it’s impossible to say anything concrete about these numbers.  But in the 2002-2004 period, holding 6 opponents to an avg of just 5 ppg in the second half is very uncharacteristic for the Saints.

But there definitely is something “different” about the 2002-2004 period.  The 1st half vs. the 2nd half is what sticks out.  It may be nothing, but if the numbers are an indication, Loomis wasn’t sharing much during the game (prior to plays), Loomis could have been sharing the pertinent information with his coaches next door in the coaching booth at halftime, which allowed the Saints to prepare a great 2nd half gameplan.  And they did much better in the 2nd half in the 3 years that he was taping than the period before or after.

MLB 100% Guaranteed “MLB Trend Plays” Package

MLB 100% Guaranteed  “MLB Trend Plays” Package

Term:  April thru June 2012

Price:  $50

Sport:  MLB


Delivery:  All plays will be posted on my blog using password protection.  Users will receive a password via email which they will use to access all plays.

Guarantee:  Because these MLB trend plays have done so well in prior years (read below), I thought I’d make things risk free for you as this is the first I roll out MLB:  You pay $50 the package.  If you win over $50 during the season,  you enjoy the profit.  If the package does not produce a profit, you get to choose:

1.  a full 100% refund ($50) or
2.  a 150% coupon ($75) for use toward a NFL 2012 package this fall.

This is not unlike the CFB totals package I introduced in its inaugural season last year, where I guaranteed they would produce profit or I would issue a full refund, and the CFB totals plays ended up going 100-68 for 60%.  (If you notice, when rolling things out for the first time I like to place solid guarantees behind your purchase.)

* Profit considers the $50 you spent to purchase, so the plays must win over $50 during the package to consider them “producing a profit” for you.

Note:  Each play will be made using the following convention:  risk $100 on any underdog, bet “to win” $100 on any favorite.

Past Results:  Note that this is the first season I am selling a “MLB Trend Plays” package.  I decided to embark on this because I spent some time researching a variety of MLB trends before the 2010 season and came up with a number which seemed to consistently produce profit and solid ROI.  I future tested these in the 2010 and 2011 seasons, and both were profitable, totaling $3,684 in profit between the 2 years using the convention above to place wagers.

Backtesting since 2004 (when the data I tested was first available) these plays have produced a profit every single season (8 consecutive years).  The least amount of profit produced in a season was $555.  The most profit produced in a season was $3,395.  (Again, the following convention was used: risk $100 on any underdog, bet “to win” $100 on any favorite.)

2004-2011 Results
W L % Amt Won
ROI Fav/Dog
286 209 58% $13,519 27% Dog
51 17 75% $2,275 19% Fav

In the above chart, note that ROI will not matter whether you “risk” $100 on any underdog or “win” $100 on any favorite – even if your bet sizes are smaller, while obviously your amount won will also be smaller, your ROI will be exactly the same.

Watch out:  I’ve received plenty of email from MLB handicappers touting their past “win percentage”, as if that means anything at all.  Be wary if someone says they won 61% of their games last year.  It’s completely irrelevant in MLB and NHL, where juice is not a standard -110.  The key is ROI.  How much do you return on what you invested betting the games.  That’s the only real thing that matters for MLB.

Goals:  Obviously the goal is to win money.  Hopefully these plays, issued only between April and June, will add to your bankroll so that you can either be more flexible in your wagers later in the MLB season or add to your fall football bankroll.  My own goal is to introduce you to these plays in a manner which helps you strengthen your bankroll.  If you don’t win, I don’t get paid, and you either get a full refund or $75 off toward a NFL package.  That is the bottom line.  And with something experimental and being sold for the first time, such as this MLB Trend Package, that is exactly the way it should be.

Research:  I spent some time 2 years ago researching some fundamental trends when it comes to the MLB.  I thought systems and situational spots may be very applicable to MLB due, in large part, to the frequency of the games, travel and redundancy.  I found a number of solid trends, many on underdogs, which resulted in a very solid win percentage and ROI.


Can you please clarify the “must produce profit” guarantee?  I could say that the plays themselves need to win at least $1 during the package to produce profit, but I realize you are paying $50 for them, so I am factoring that into the equation.  As an example:  let’s say the plays themselves win exactly $40 thru June.  On the season, you would have lost exactly $10 when you factor in the purchase price of the package ($50).  Therefore, since the plays did not produce a profit overall, you can either receive a full $50 refund or you will get a $75 off coupon for use on a NFL 2012 package.

Why does the package stop in June?  I’ve found that the trends are much stronger in the spring and into June, and much weaker in the heart of the summer.

Since when do you handicap MLB?  None of these MLB trend plays involve any handicapping whatsoever from me.  I don’t have a computer program to predict MLB winners.  These, quite simply, are trends which I analyze daily, from April to June, to determine if there are any qualifying plays, and then share them with you as they arise.  Some days there are none, some days there are a couple.  Personally, I don’t watch MLB, but profitable situational trends w/ 8 years of consecutive winning are worth sharing.

How many plays should we expect?  Historical averages show that there are roughly 70 plays in these 3 months (Apr-Jun), or roughly 5 to 6 plays per week, though scheduling dictates and there could be more or less depending on the trends.

Any updates on NFL programs or models?  I have been quite busy with other endeavors that are entirely unrelated to handicapping and will continue to develop those products.  In mid summer I begin focusing intently on the upcoming 2012 NFL season.  Timing is perfect.  This MLB package does require daily work for 3 months from April thru June, but the work is minimal (which is reflected in the total price ($50 for around 90 days of plays).  However, when I start focusing on the NFL, I don’t like having distractions.

What about CFB totals?  Yes, I will be doing CFB totals again in 2012.  I ran the full season w/ them in 2011 for the first year and they were quite successful.  During the regular season the plays went 96-64 (60%).  In the bowls the full plays went 4-4 (50%) for a total of 100-68 (60%).   I also shared system “leans” during the bowls because the system did not produce a lot of full valued plays, and these leans finished 2 games below .500.  Next season I likely will just stick with full system plays from start to finish, and will not share leans just to have more bowl plays, as hitting 60% in the full valued plays over 168 games is very solid.