StatLogic Sports Daily Hoops Hustle: Rants & Betting Info for the NCAA Basketball Tournament Day 3

Well, we're hearing a lot of complaints among gambling analysts - and other loud social-media voices - about what a bad NCAA Tournament this has been. While the tournament hasn't been filled with the upsets and buzzer-beaters we are used to and that make it so exciting and popular, the criticism after just two days seems both unfair and childish.

Keep in mind that fewer early upsets mean better games in the later rounds. And that should start today as the second round gets underway around the country with plenty of high-level and intriguing matchups.

Check out some of these Round of 32 gems:

Arkansas vs. St. John's - 2:40 p.m. EDT

Creighton vs. Auburn - 7:30 p.m. EDT

UCLA vs. Tennessee - 9:40 p.m. EDT

Gonzaga vs. Houston - 8:40 p.m. EDT

BYU vs. Wisconsin - 7:45 p.m. EDT

Michigan vs. Texas A&M - 5:35 p.m. EDT

We're really going to spend time complaining about a Saturday full of basketball featuring great games like those?

Come on.

Next up, we're going to start moaning about beautiful sunny days when maybe its a little colder or warmer than we might like. Just like we should remember the cold, dreary and rainy days in those moments, it's probably a good idea to think about the long days without college basketball before writing off this tournament as being terrible after two days.

If you really boil it down and look at the complainers and their complaints, most of it comes down to them losing bets. It mostly is a result of them losing bad, misinformed or just flat-out dumb bets. That's what it's all about. If they had been kicking ass and making big money, we wouldn't hear peep. They actually are upset because the tournament is "chalky" with many favorites and the "public" winning. Aren't many of their listeners, followers and viewers essentially the "public?" So, they are mad that people like YOU and others who aren't as "smart" as them are winning and they aren't? Here's something to look out for: If someone says they are contrarian, there likely is little substance behind their bets. You can't take solely a contrarian approach and be successful over the long term, just like you can't bet only underdogs and be successful in the long run.

To be profitable betting on sports takes incredible discipline. It's imperative that we take all the information at our disposal and evaluate all of it to come up with only the very best options.

That's how we determine our StatLogic Sports "recommended" picks, which have been accurate at between a rate of 65 and 70 percent over two decades. We run a ton of statistics through our model, do all the homework and analysis and provide only the very best selections for our customers. You can take those picks, plug them into your sportsbook app every day without thinking and be very confident that you will enjoy a strong ROI over time.

We also do the homework on many other games and provide solid betting options that are worth considering and examining on a deeper level. If you want more picks or want to get creative with the recommended selections that are posted here, we provide as much information as possible to help you be successful with whatever approach you choose to take and aren't just frivolously throwing money at wagers that aren't likely to win.

This complaining among the gambling media has been a pretty consistent theme since the beginning of football season. The root of the complaints, as we mentioned, often is losing bets. It also stems from the gambling media being made up mostly of personalities who are not professional gamblers They get paid to entertain, and that's how they make a living.

Many of them may not even actually bet. Are their records posted? Do they talk about their losses in detail or only puff out their chests when they win? Are they transparent? Do they put in the time and do the research to provide information that helps make YOU successful? Or do they talk about dogs barking all the time or contrarian plays and regurgitate the same bad and lazy takes that other on-air personalities present in hopes of generating engagement?

Stop listening to them. Spend that time either doing your own research or at least researching which gambling analysts are legitimate professionals who make a living betting and provide a transparent record of success over many years.

That's what you have here. EVERYTHING we do is based on an algorithm with a two-decade record of making money and providing a ROI over the LONG TERM that is consistently better than what most investments provide.

While we only have one or two "recommended picks" most days, we put in a ton of time using the information our algorithm provides and whatever other information we can get our hands on to provide an enormous amount of information to help YOU be successful whether YOU want to use only our top-rated selections or would like to have a little more action and a few more bets with a little bit higher immediate upside. But do so at your own risk and keep in mind that short-term gains often don't equate to long-term profitability.

We put in the time. We do our homework. And we provide YOU with the tools and information to help YOU be successful no matter how YOU approach sports betting. Along the way, hopefully we also can educate and help YOU avoid many of the pitfalls that the average (losing) sports gambler faces.

Here at StatLogic Sports it's all about YOU. When YOU win, we win. Period.

Friendly Daily Reminder

When you read through today's information, keep in mind that we are extremely selective with our recommended picks as they need to have at least a 60-percent win probability or better according to our proprietary algorithm and also must pass through a stringent set of rules and parameters that we consider for each matchup. In our daily posts, you will find our recommended bets as well as games that don't quite make the cut to be recommended and which might make solid parlay options and other games where we believe there are edges favoring one side.

Parlays always will have a lower win probability than straight bets, but there are times that a parlay will meet our requirements and be recommended. We realize that many sports bettors prefer not to bet very short odds that approach and exceed -200, so as we strive to provide as much information and help as many people as possible, we do provide suggest parlay options that are strong bets and don't quite make the cut for us as recommended selections. We also may present other games that have betting edges but also don't quite meet our high standards to be recommended picks.

Our college basketball betting edges have performed well, hovering around 58 percent over a large sample size since early November, and our parlay options have been extremely successful as you can see below.

StatLogic Sports Superstar Picks for 3/22

Superstar Picks have a 70% or better win probability

N/A

StatLogic Sports All-Star Picks for 3/22

All-Star Picks have a 60% or better win probability

Tennessee money line -220 vs. UCLA (69% probability) - WIN

StatLogic Sports Bonus Bets for 3/22

Dayton money line -130 vs. Chattanooga - LOSS

Houston & Purdue money line parlay at +112 - WIN

Parlay City

While we usually don't recommend parlays - mainly because it decreases the win probability while increasing the potential payout - for those who aren't interested in laying the juice, combining two of our money line recommended picks or pairing one of our recommended picks with other picks we think have betting edges often can be very strong plays as well. They just may not be strong enough to meet the criteria for us to recommend them, though, and are "bet at your own risk" like the other games we post that have betting edges.

Our potential money line parlay games from Jan. 4-6 were 19-1 ... they have gone 384-138 (73.6%) since Jan. 4 and were 18-2 Jan. 14-15. They were 14-1 overall Feb. 4-5 (college hoops went 12-0 those two days). On Feb. 11 they were 13-0, and for Feb. 11-13 combined they were 31-2. We closed out college hoops regular season on a 21-3 run with our parlay options.

Postseason Money Line Parlay Options: 36-7. We opened the postseason on a 29-4 run.

Potential CBB Money Line Parlay Options for 3/22

Tennessee - WIN

Houston - WIN

Texas Tech - WIN

Purdue - WIN

Top survivor pick: Purdue (winner)

NBA:

TBD

StatLogic Sports NCAA College Basketball Betting Edges 3/22

projected point differential in parentheses

Purdue -6 vs. McNeese (9.02) - WIN

Houston -4.5 vs. Gonzaga (7.08) - WIN

Texas Tech -6.5 vs. Drake (10.22) - WIN

Michigan +3 vs. Texas A&M (1.15) - WIN

Dayton money line -130 vs. Chattanooga (3.09) - LOSS

Bradley +6 vs. George Mason (0.63) - WIN

All Stat-Logic Sports NCAA Tournament Projections 3/22

for informational purposes; these are not recommenced picks or edges

Purdue (-9.02) vs. McNeese

St. John’s (-7.72) vs. Arkansas

Creighton (+8.19) vs. Auburn

Tennessee (-5.98) vs. UCLA

Houston (-7.08) vs. Gonzaga

Texas Tech (-10.22) vs. Drake

BYU (+0.93) vs. Wisconsin

Michigan (+1.15) vs. Texas A&M

Dayton (-3.09) vs. Chattanooga

Bradley (+0.63) vs. George Mason

Dogs of the Day

These are the teams that we believe have the best shot at winning outright as underdogs. These are NOT recommended picks.

Michigan +136 vs. Texas A&M (winner)

Bradley +220 vs. George Mason (winner)

Postseason College Basketball Record:

Parlay Options: 40-7 (85.1%)

Betting Edges: 46-27-1 (61.2%)

Bonus Picks: 8-3 (72.7%)

Last 7 Days: 27-15-1 (64.3%)

Last 59 days: 507-359 (58.5%)

Postseason Betting Edge Log

March 22: 5-1

March 21: 6-1

March 20; 3-4

March 18: 3-2

March 16: 1-2

March 15: 5-2

March 14: 4-3-1

March 13: 11-8

March 12: 8-5

NCAA Basketball Season Betting Edges

Final Regular-Season Record:

875-662-19 (56.9%)

March 9 Record: 7-7

March 8 Record: 10-6

March 7 Record: 9-5

March 6 Record: 8-8

March 5 Record: 7-5

March 4 Record: 13-6

March 3 Record: 3-1

March 2 Record: 7-3

March 1 Record: 17-14

Feb. 28 Record: 6-5

Feb. 27 Record: 4-3

Feb. 26 Record: 9-7

Feb. 25 Record: 10-6

Feb. 24 Record: 5-2

Feb. 23 Record: 6-2-1

Feb. 22 Record: 13-13

Feb. 21 Record: 5-2

Feb. 20 Record: 4-7

Feb. 19 Record: 8-8

Feb. 18 Record: 3-6

Feb. 17 Record: 3-1

Feb. 16 Record: 5-2

Feb. 15 Record: 23-14-2

Feb. 14 Record: 5-2

Feb. 13 Record: 9-5

Feb. 12 Record: 8-7-1

Feb. 11 Record: 11-3

Feb. 10 Record: 4-0

Feb. 9 Record: Off Day

Feb. 8 Record: 17-17-1

Feb. 7 Record: 1-3

Feb. 6 Record: 7-8

Feb. 5 Record: 14-8-1

Feb. 4 Record: 9-8

Feb. 3 Record: 8-5

Feb. 2 Record: 3-3

Feb. 1 Record: 20-19-1

Jan. 31 Record: 6-3

Jan. 30 Record: 13-5-1

Jan. 29 Record; 15-12-1

Jan. 28 Record: 13-7

Jan. 27 Record: 8-1

Jan. 26 Record: 0-4

Jan. 25 Record: 21-17

Jan. 24 Record: 3-4

Jan. 23 Record: 8-6

Jan. 22 Record: 7-10

Jan. 21 Record: 12-6-1

Jan. 20 Record: 6-3

Jan. 19 Record: 2-4

Jan. 18 Record: 20-14

Jan. 17 Record: 6-4

Jan. 16 Record: 15-6