�����鶹��Ʒ

As college basketball fans prepare to fill out their March Madness brackets next week, one professor says the choices people make often have less to do with probability, and more to do with human nature.

, an associate professor in the Department of Sport Analytics, has studied how fans make decisions in wagering environments. He says the same behavioral patterns show up every March in bracket pools, where millions of Americans try to outguess each other and the NCAA Tournament.

“The biggest thing I’ve found is that people pick with clear and obvious biases,” Losak says. “Fans tend to favor teams they’re familiar with, regional teams, conference opponents or teams their school has played. Even a single game can create a sense of familiarity.”

That familiarity can cut both ways. A fan whose team lost to a tournament contender may overestimate that contender’s strength. Conversely, a fan might downgrade a top team that struggled against their school.

“It’s very normal,” he says. “When someone feels like they ‘know’ a team, even from one game, they’re more inclined to pick them, for better or worse.”

Head vs. Heart: Which Wins?

Every year, bracket‑fillers debate whether to trust their gut or stick to logic. According to Losak, the answer is clear, at least from a statistical standpoint.

“Gut and heart are not going to win you more money than logic,” he says. “They can win you one bet by chance, but not consistently.”

In traditional betting markets, Losak personally looks for places where the public is biased and goes the opposite direction. “If my gut says there’s no way the over can hit, and I know lots of people feel that way, that tells me there’s bias in the line. I’ll bet the over,” he says.

Bracket contests operate differently. Even so, the principle of avoiding conventional wisdom still applies.

In Bracket Pools, Pool Size Matters

One of Losak’s strongest pieces of advice: your strategy should change depending on how many people you’re competing against.

“In a large pool, you need to be contrarian,” he says. “If you go chalk—picking the higher seed in every matchup—you can’t win. Even if the favorites all advance, too many other people will have the same bracket.”

In smaller pools, however, Losak advises exactly the opposite.

“If you’re only playing against five or 10 people, go chalk the entire time,” he says. “Let everyone else take the risky upset picks. You give yourself a better probability of winning by staying conservative.”

For very large contests, he recommends resisting the instinct to choose a No. 1 seed to win the national championship.

“You will not win a very large pool if you pick a one‑seed,” he says. That’s because No. 1 seeds are massively overselected relative to their actual probability of winning.

Instead, Losak encourages bracket‑fillers to consider strong two‑ or three‑seeds that fewer people are selecting. “If that team wins it all, you may only need that one thing to happen,” he says. “You’re not fighting dozens of identical brackets.”

Smart Upsets and This Year’s Field

Losak cautions fans not to hunt for upsets simply because of historical patterns like the popular 5‑12 matchup.

“Don’t pick an upset just because it’s a 12‑5,” he says. “Look at betting markets the first weekend—they’re a great guide. Sometimes the spread will show you a matchup that’s closer than the seed line suggests.”

As for 2026’s field, Losak doesn’t see a dominant favorite. He suggests Duke may be overselected as the likely No. 1 overall seed, and says teams like Michigan or Arizona could be smart alternatives depending on pool size. He also predicts an early exit for Nebraska despite a likely top‑four seed.

Final Thought

At the end of the day, even experts get humbled by March Madness.

“My wife doesn’t watch college basketball all year and she beats me most years,” Losak says. “But if you understand biases, and play your pool size strategically, you give yourself a real edge.”