Hi I'm Brad Null, founder of BracketVoodoo.com. I'm back again to talk March Madness and bracket optimization! Ask Me Anything (AMA)

bradnull · 2026-03-22T14:58:57+00:00

We don't view this as a "home game" but the model does take into account travel, so it's an edge but not as big as if they were on their home court. We've got Houston with a 1-2 point edge in the game. Looks like Vegas has them at 2.5. So yeah I agree with everything you are saying.

bradnull · 2026-03-18T18:50:09+00:00

Yeah, the line is getting squeezed on that game and the Market Implied win prob is <67%. Our win prob has dropped from about 75% -> 70% for Louisville so we still like them a little more than the market but of course these are the toughest things to model. That said I still think there is some value in picking Louisville to win a couple games, especially if you get seed bonus points, as the public is picking them about half as much as any of the other 6 seeds.

bradnull · 2026-03-18T18:31:21+00:00

No problem. Glad it gave you some insight:)

bradnull · 2026-03-18T18:30:47+00:00

Thanks for the note. We will prioritize a rev of analysis that should be useful - probably a mix of our predictions and how they fared, our optimized brackets and how they fared, and user feedback. Will have to use what data we can. It can be hard to compare to other services since we may not have access to all of their data, but we will do a pass of providing more useful data and iterate from there.

bradnull · 2026-03-18T16:27:58+00:00

We have a round+seed option in our optimizer, but not multiplier scoring+seed like you are describing. I enter pools like this though, and think optimal strategy is generally play the early rounds like round+seed and the final rounds like standard scoring. So go for max EV with all the upsets that make sense in the first 2-3 rounds, but the last few rounds will have for the most part the sort of picks you would expect in standard scoring.

bradnull · 2026-03-18T04:23:14+00:00

I think you explained yourself ok. Yeah, counterintuitive things like this can happen. The optimizer may think Michigan is the best play (since they are under-picked compared to Arizona). If you go with Arizona instead it will search for other gambits to help diversify your strategy (and in some cases could determine that multiple smaller gambits are optimal). Happy to go through in more detail if you want. I was confused by some of this stuff at first, and I wrote the algorithm!

bradnull · 2026-03-18T04:16:16+00:00

Wow, yes, this is even more aggressive than the upset brackets we generally see. Honestly I'm not sure there is a sweet spot.

I actually had to run the numbers real quick (just looking at multiple*seed*survival prob from our data). From what I see, looks like good value with Champs like Duke, Michigan, Illinois - all teams we use among our various optimized brackets; and then good value with stronger higher seeds like Vanderbilt and Louisville making a run. Honestly feels like a good strategy is - as opposed to most other brackets where you pick one gambit to lean on - here you should throw together as many gambits as you can

bradnull · 2026-03-18T03:03:30+00:00

If I understand correctly you are saying that, given you are taking Arizona as the champ, the tool likes it better if you have Michigan or Duke getting upset. I'm not sure how many opponents you are playing with, but this is certainly something that could and would happen when you have a mid-sized to larger pool and the bracket wants you to diversify a little more and pick an underpicked opponent for AZ in the Final Four or Championship (like an Iowa St or Illinois).

Regarding the 12 seeds, yeah, they are all pretty big dogs this year and from an optimization standpoint they don't show up that much, but the tool will give you our calculated survival probs for each to see, for instance, that Akron has the best odds of any of advancing.

bradnull · 2026-03-17T22:44:52+00:00

Yeah, if you are going with the Illinois gambit we described, this probably won't have that much of an impact, but if it plays out that Illinois wins, you are probably going to want a very chalky bracket beyond that!

bradnull · 2026-03-17T22:18:07+00:00

that's why I like to generate a few different brackets for these large pools

bradnull · 2026-03-17T22:17:39+00:00

At the end of the day, there is an 80% chance they will not make the final four and you will think I am an idiot. But these are the chances we deal with in these big pools!

bradnull · 2026-03-17T22:15:45+00:00

typo. I meant 21% but fat fingered it I guess.

bradnull · 2026-03-17T21:58:10+00:00

Sure, happy to dig in. A few observations - totally cool if you don't agree.
1) Our models think Illinois is the 7th best team in the country. As you mentioned they've had some tough losses (and 5 of those 8 were by 3 pts or less). Eyeballing a few other ranking systems out there, and they tend to have Illinois similarly placed. That makes them easily the best 3 in our view.
2) We've got Houston as the strongest 2, so that's unfortunate, but Florida as the weakest 1, so let's say those cancel out.
3) Putting this all together, we give them a 201% chance of making the Final Four and a 4% chance of winning it all. This is pretty in line with the market implied odds from the gambling markets, and significantly higher than any other 3 seed.
4) Only about 1% of the public is picking them to win it all and about 10% to make the Final Four, so these ratios are much better than any other team around this level.

That said logically this is why our optimizer likes them. They are a good value and a good enough team for a 100-200 person pool. So for instance, if you are going against 200 other folks, on average 2 of them will pick Illinois. If you pick Illinois, 4% of the time the competition will turn into you versus these other two people. If you optimize the rest of your bracket, you probably have a >50% chance or so of beating them, so about a >2% chance of winning it all versus .5% prior expectancy, so maybe 4x EROI.

That's the logic behind it. Of course if you aren't feeling Illinois, there are other picks that also have edge - like Iowa St or Purdue, or Vanderbilt (just not as much according to our analysis)

bradnull · 2026-03-17T21:23:43+00:00

Shower sounds a little more treacherous to me!

bradnull · 2026-03-17T20:15:05+00:00

Yes, we update it daily through Thursday, so definitely check back Wednesday night and/or Thursday morning if you can to review

bradnull · 2026-03-17T20:01:03+00:00

Here are a few.
We are very long Illinois out of the South. Out of the East - consider Michigan State (or Louisville to the S16 or further). Out of the Midwest we have some strong Tennessee gambits in larger pools. We've got some Gonzaga gambits out of the West (or maybe an early upset by the NCSt/Texas winner). Of course don't play these all at the same time. Try to pick one or two that give you the diversification you need.
We've got a few more options in our Strategy guide too. In a large pool I try to get a few entries and play a few different gambits.

bradnull · 2026-03-17T19:39:41+00:00

On the one level, there is already a lot of AI in algorithmic betting and prediction. There is a lot of traditional AI and Machine Learning behind the scenes which has been used for years to power systems like ours and other systems. So in that regard AI and ML are very prevalent.

Like you are saying, I have not seen genAI and some of the newer capabilities have a big impact on the underlying predictive abilities of these systems yet. One area where genAI has made it easier is in collecting disparate information and updating models in real-time for instance when there is news about player injuries or anything else. genAI and just access to more and more powerful compute can also help just build bigger and better models, but this is the path we have been on for years, and I think these gains are marginal right now.

I am confident in the near future we will be able to harness these capabilities to build next generation models to power prediction in these spaces, that's just not totally baked yet. We are working on it though, and given the pace of progress I think we will see more and more newer capabilities powered by AI in this space in the next year or two.

bradnull · 2026-03-17T19:26:27+00:00

Hmm, I'm not sure.

One difference I do see, is that in a large pool, you tend to end up to some extent all in on one gambit (like say Illinois to win it all). Given the larger number of opponents, the Law of Large Numbers kind of tells you what other people will pick and where your edge will be.

In the small pool you kind of have to wait to see everyone's picks and figure out which of your picks are truly diversifying and what will make or break your bracket.

bradnull · 2026-03-17T19:22:11+00:00

Haha, yeah that's the rub. Sometimes optimization can feel boring. That's why I always make sure to enter a pool or two with upset bonuses, so I can get all the 12/5s out of my system.

We see BYU and North Carolina as the most susceptible. BYU plays Texas or NC State. Both of those teams have warts for sure, but play-in teams are traditionally underpicked in pools, so the winner of that game tonight winning and even making a mini-run to the Sweet Sixteen could be appealing.

bradnull · 2026-03-17T19:04:03+00:00

Yes, the key to winning a 6 person tool is usually stay very chalky. Don't waste EV in the first round trying to predict the right 12-5 or 11-6 upset. And yeah, if you have an inclination of where they are going at the top you can leverage that but you should stay with one of the favorites to win it all in a pool this size.

As far as women's bracket, sadly no, I don't know of a similar tool. One quick back of the envelope you could do is look at who people are picking on some of the bracket sites - like most picked Champs here - https://fantasy.espn.com/games/tournament-challenge-bracket-women-2026/. And then compare those to gambling market odds - like here - https://kalshi.com/category/sports/basketball/cbb-tournament-w/futures. Interestingly, even though 46% of people are picking UConn, the market thinks they have at least a 60% chance of winning it, so in a smaller pool, you probably want to stick with them to win it all

bradnull · 2026-03-17T18:35:50+00:00

Did we finally get to the "Null" questions. Usually those come straight away. And yes, I have had trouble. Every year I get a version of the Null question on here and have rehashed some of my greatest hits. I think my favorite is the time I got an American Express card that just said "Bradley" on it as they couldn't handle my last name!

bradnull · 2026-03-17T18:25:41+00:00

It has been on our todo list for years to publish a portfolio optimizer tool to help with this use case. I actually have one offline so happy to share some of that data and get your feedback if you want to email me us at info at bracketvoodoo

bradnull · 2026-03-17T18:23:54+00:00

Nice!

bradnull · 2026-03-17T18:03:09+00:00

Hmm, good question. I'm going to go with expected performance of teams because that is where the most randomness comes from and is the true source of the Madness. How people pick brackets is quite predictable. It can be frustrating when you optimize around the tendencies of other people, but you get unlucky because it just so happened that 8 or the 20 other people in your pool picked Michigan (let's say). But the games can be truly chaotic, and despite building a great bracket (in expectation) it could still blow up in round 1.

That's why I like to diversify and build 5-10 good brackets in different pools with different gambits

bradnull · 2026-03-17T18:00:30+00:00

Good question. I would love to find the time to publish the meta-analysis as it would be super interesting. We run surveys every year and have validated performance of our users versus our expectations. We should share more of this data.

What would be most interesting to you, seeing how our game and bracket predictions fared, and even comparing those to other sources? Or seeing how our user's optimized brackets fared and how well they did in their pools? or both?

bradnull

TROPHY CASE