2025-26 College Basketball Betting Splits Systems:

Inspired by a gut feeling around Super Bowl weekend this past February, I set out to study the college basketball betting splits data on DraftKings for the first time. What was that gut feeling? I felt the public was losing more often than not. I hence reached out to my database guy at VSiN and collected a report of all the DK splits for the season at that point and paired it with the actual game results. The findings validated exactly what I was feeling. DK bettors were incurring slow and steady losses in the first three months of the season. 

So, as I’ve done for almost all of the other major sports we cover at VSiN, I took a deeper dive into the data and put together a set of betting splits systems that our readers could take advantage of for the rest of the season. Of course, we all know that March is the season’s biggest month for college hoops, and naturally, those systems could be significantly affected because of it. I’m here now to update you on the full 2024-25 season betting splits results and provide you with the systems and strategies you might want to employ as we tip off another highly anticipated college basketball season. 

For those of you now using the Betting Splits pages showing Circa data in addition to DK, unfortunately, VSiN was still in a development phase, and the full Circa game-by-game data was not yet available for perusal. I am extremely curious to eventually find out how this Circa data might compare to that of DraftKings. The two sources have obviously different industry reputations, with Circa being seen as more of a “sharp” destination and DraftKings recognized as more of a recreational shop. I could share all kinds of theories as to how the data might present itself, but I’d rather wait for the actual results to prove them. Hopefully by mid-season, I will be able to deliver that info. That said, the DK data does give us a lot to go on.

From the full CBB 2024-25 season, the sample contained 5.701 games, and for the most part, majority bettors lost in a slow and steady fashion on all six metrics I track. However, all six were improved measurably in the final two months of the season. I will have more on that later, but for now, these were the End-of-Year results: 

–  Majority handle on point spreads: 2,733-2,787 ATS (49.5%), -332.7 units – ROI: -6.0%
–  Majority number of bets on point spreads: 2,726-2,781 ATS (49.5%), -333.1 units – ROI: -6.0%
–  Majority handle on money lines: 3895-1776 (68.7%). -130.21 units – ROI: -2.3%
–  Majority number of bets on money lines: 4,049-1,623 (71.3%). -34.37 units – ROI: -0.6%
–  Majority handle on totals: 2,827-2,771 (50.5%). -221.1 units – ROI: -3.9%
–  Majority number of bets on totals: 2,748-2,795 (49.6%), -326.5 units – ROI: -5.9% 

If you’re wondering why all the results don’t add up to 5,701 games, it’s because 50/50 handle or bets splits are counted as null, and there were several ATS/totals ties already in the season. 

The most interesting finding from the numbers above was that money line majority bettors were the most successful group, making tremendous strides down the stretch in February and March. Perhaps as the stakes of the games for teams winding down the stretch ramped up, so did bettors’ collective efforts. 

For anyone new to my Betting Splits analysis for the various sports, in general, when looking at the data samples, I like to surmise that handle would tend to include a greater percentage of bigger money bettors who are perhaps more “sharp,” while the number of bets groups contains all of the bets that come in, which includes the smallest of recreational bettors’ input.

I always like to remind readers why I have adopted the strategy of following these betting splits. About three years ago, I set out to study the college football betting splits data provided on VSiN.com by DraftKings. I felt that a book like DraftKings, known for servicing all levels of recreational bettors, providing this type of data would offer a ton of great betting opportunities if savvy bettors knew how to interpret the numbers. As it turns out, I was right, but by somewhat different means than I thought I would find. 

Why is this Betting Splits information so valuable? Well, most specifically, it lets us see which games are the most publicly supported each day. My common belief is that the “betting public,” especially at a heavy recreational source like DraftKings does not win over the long haul. It remains to be seen how the numbers break down from Circa, as it is commonly believed that more sharp players place their action there. However, when it comes to DK, the collective opinions of this group of recreational bettors are right out on display for all of us to analyze and take advantage of. 

Whenever I write these Betting Splits articles, I like to remind readers that the two common betting generalities for recreational players who wager at places like DraftKings. That is the majority bet favorites on point spread and Overs on totals. The numbers are staggering. According to the ticket/handle in last year’s CBB season, majority wagers were on favorites in 75.9% of the games, and on Overs for totals in 69.9%. 

With the overall results in mind, here are some college basketball systems and records that developed in the 2025-26 season that I will be tracking this year.

Embed from Getty Images

DK CBB Betting Splits system #1: DraftKings majority bettors were much more successful when opting for money line wagering on sides as opposed to point spreads this past season. Here were the final results on the handle metrics.

– 2024-25 CBB season majority handle on point spreads: 2733-2787 ATS (49.5%), -332.7 units – ROI: -6%

– 2024-25 CBB season majority handle on money lines: 3895-1776 (68.7%), -130.21 units – ROI: -2.3% 

This is a 3.7% separation in ROI and a 200+ unit disparity between two different options for betting a side in college basketball. The point spread is the great equalizer in sports, but here it is also the secret weapon for those running the sportsbooks. On the court, for the most part, college athletes and coaches simply care about getting wins for the names on the front of the jersey. More bettors should be embracing that philosophy at a higher percentage. The point spread may take some of the bite out of the price bettors on favorites are backing, but when it’s not an important part of the team’s goals for that game, is that savings worth it? This is definitely a philosophy to consider this season, particularly late in the season when winning and advancing in various tournaments means everything.

DK CBB Betting Splits system #2: DraftKings majority bettors were terrible in the early part of the 2024-25 college basketball season (November through January) but much better in the latter part (February through April) in all metrics. Here are the numbers for the handle. Note that the number of bets results were very similar. The ROI category is the one to really consider most.

– November-January majority handle on point spreads: 1,675-1,756 ATS (48.8%), -256.6 units – ROI: -7.5%

– February and later majority handle on point spreads: 1,058-1,031 ATS (50.6%), -76.1 units – ROI: -3.6% 

– November-January Majority handle on money lines: 2436-1101 (68.9%), -184.15 units – ROI: -5.2%

– February and later Majority handle on money lines: 1459-675 (68.4%), 53.94 units – ROI: 2.5%

– November-January Majority handle on totals: 1,730-1,757 (49.6%), -202.7 units – ROI: -5.8%

– February and later Majority handle on totals: 1,097-1,014 (52%), -18.4 units – ROI: -0.9% 

As I indicated, the numbers for the majority number of bets on point spreads, money lines, and totals ran essentially parallel to these. This uptick in performance level at around the February 1st mark could seem random when judged simply by the turning of a calendar, but when you look at it from a perspective that the sports calendar frees up a lot in February, and bettors have more chance to give their full attention to the college basketball betting board each day, you’ll find a lot more foundation to the findings. I found similar seasonal numbers in the NBA as well, so perhaps there is something to these findings. Juggling football and basketball wagering may be spreading bettors too thin.

DK CBB Betting Splits system #3: DK bettors struggled terribly on Thursdays this past season, losing big on all side majorities:

– Thursday majority handle on point spreads: 366-403 ATS (47.6%), -77.3 units – ROI: -10%

– Thursday majority number OF bets on point spreads: 364-401 ATS (47.6%), -77.1 units – ROI: -10.1%

– Thursday majority handle on money lines: 507-280 (64.4%). -148.4 units – ROI: -18.9%

– Thursday majority number OF bets on money lines: 528-256 (67.3%). -117.43 units – ROI: -15%

All these numbers were well below the overall standards set. This may seem random, but typically, much of the Thursday lineup involves West Coast teams and conferences, and perhaps even more mid-majors, which I would tend to guess that public bettors know less about. This could be an area to watch more closely (and fade) in the 2025-26 season. If you’re wondering, the day of the week in which bettors fared best was Sunday on point spreads, Mondays on money lines and totals, when considering ROI. None of that came close to making up for the Thursday struggles, however.

DK CBB Betting Splits system #4: Majority handle bettors were a full 2.3 percentage points worse on neutral court games than all others this past season. In these usually higher profile type contests, this group produced a record of just 343-379 ATS (47.5%) performance, good for -73.9 units of loss and a ROI of -10.2%. This lot of 722 games is a significant sample size to lose over 10% in.

DK CBB Betting Splits system #5: In a somewhat rare situation, when there was a majority number of bets backing a double-digit road underdog last season, that group has produced a profit in a 79-57 ATS (58.1%) performance, good for +16.3 units and a ROI of 12%. This lot of 136 games was only around 2.3% of the total sample size.

DK CBB Betting Splits system #6: The number 60% or higher was a key super-majority number for home teams last season in college basketball, with the number of bets groups of that magnitude struggling to a 1,069-1,173 ATS record, good for just 47.7%. This has produced a loss of -221.3 units and an ROI of -9.9%, well below the overall majority figures.

DK CBB Betting Splits system #7: The number 57% or higher was a key super-majority number for true road teams last season in college basketball, with number of bets groups of that magnitude thriving with a 634-590 ATS record, good for just 51.8%. This produced a minimal loss of -15 units and an ROI of -1.2%, well above the overall majority figures.

DK CBB Betting Splits system #8: Money line majorities on large road favorites (more than 5 points on line) fared very well last season in college basketball. These majority handle groups are 468-106 SU for +94.5 units, a ROI of +16.5%. This can be a dangerous angle, however, as typically these groups can fall hard with just a few unexpected losses, but last year produced solid results all year long. Perhaps road favorites are better money line wagers than home hosts based upon the lower prices.

DK CBB Betting Splits system #9: Money line majorities on small neutral court underdogs (+6.5 on point spread or less) also fared well last season in college hoops. These majority handle groups were 34-38 SU for +11.6 units, an ROI of +16.1%. This was a pretty solid early & late season angle for tournament action.

DK CBB Betting Splits system #10: In college basketball games last season with “low” totals, or those less than 130, the majority handle bettors went an impressive 126-106 (54.3%), while the majority number of bets groups were a bit better at 132-101 (56.7%). Both groups were proven incredibly profitable regardless of which side of the total they chose.

DK CBB Betting Splits system #11: When a super majority (>60%) of handle bettors were backing the Under in a CBB game last season, that group went just 493-538 (47,8%), for a loss of -98.8 units and an ROI of -9.6%. These are unusual results when you consider the findings on similar data in other sports, where Under majorities, which tend to go “against the grain,” usually fare well.

DK CBB Betting Splits system #12: Similar to #11 above, when a super majority (>=54%) of the number of bets groups were backing the Under in a CBB game last season, that group went just 614-690 (47.1%), for a loss of -145 units and ROI of -11.1%. Both this result and those in #11 were well below the common majority records. Be aware of when too many bettors are expecting Unders in games, as they have lost big last year.

DK CBB Betting Splits system #13: Postseason college basketball games this past season were the best illustration of how majority bettors groups struggled on point spreads but fared well on money lines. In games of conference tournaments, the CBI & Crown tournaments, plus the NCAA’s and NIT, the majority handle bettors went just 190-225 ATS (45.8%), for a loss of -57.5 units and an ROI of -13.9%. Alternatively, in those same games, majority number of bets groups on money lines were Both this result and those in #11 were 297-122 (70.9%) for +40.44 units and a ROI of 9.7%. This is a huge swing of 23.6% just by choosing to back teams whose sole mission was to win and advance, not cover.

The betting splits on VSiN.com are running live and will change in the days and hours before game time. If you adopt any of these strategies this season, be sure to visit VSiN.com for the latest numbers.

The data, which we get directly from DraftKings Sportsbook and now Circa as well, is updated every 5 minutes. 

Also, if you want to see the opening line and the line history, click on the visiting team’s logo. The updates are timestamped. A nice touch is that if the game is over, you will get a summary that includes the final score, Total result, season Over/Under record for each team, and you can compare the result to what Steve Makinen’s estimated score was.

The post 2025-26 College Basketball Betting Splits Systems appeared first on VSiN.