The impact of travel and time zones on performance

[CoachTony_Bets]

This is something I pay a lot of attention to in my handicapping because travel and time zones have real physical effects on athlete performance. The classic example is West Coast teams traveling to the East Coast for early games, or East Coast teams traveling West for late games, but there are a lot of nuances to how travel actually impacts results.

The conventional wisdom is that West Coast teams struggle in East Coast early starts because they're playing at what feels like 10am body time. East Coast teams traveling West supposedly have an advantage in late games because it feels like their normal game time. The data generally supports these ideas but the effects are smaller than most people think and the market has adjusted for the most obvious patterns.

What I find more interesting are the less obvious travel factors. Teams playing their third road game in a row. Teams crossing multiple time zones with short rest. Teams playing after long international flights. Back to back situations where one team traveled and the other didn't. These situational spots seem less efficiently priced by the market.

I'm curious what everyone's experience has been betting on travel and time zone angles. Do you factor this into your handicapping at all? And if so, which travel situations do you think provide the most value?

 

[SharpEddie47]

Travel and time zone impacts are real but overrated by most bettors. The effects exist but they're smaller than the narratives suggest and the market has largely priced in the obvious patterns. Let me break down what the actual data shows.
For NFL, I've analyzed over 15 years of West Coast to East Coast travel for early games. The standard narrative is that West Coast teams struggle significantly in 1pm Eastern starts. The actual data shows West Coast teams in these spots cover at 47.8% ATS, which is worse than the expected 50% but only by about 2%. That's a real effect but it's not the massive disadvantage people imagine.
The reverse pattern, East Coast teams traveling West for late games, shows almost no effect. East Coast teams in late West Coast games cover at 49.6% ATS over the same time period. The supposed advantage of playing at what feels like their normal time doesn't materialize in the results.

For NBA the effects are more pronounced because of the higher volume of travel and back to back games. Teams on the second night of a back to back after crossing two time zones cover at 44.1% ATS, which is a significant deviation. But the market knows this and often adjusts the lines by 1 to 2 points for these situations, which eliminates most of the edge.

The key insight is that obvious travel disadvantages are usually already priced into the line. Books aren't stupid. They know a West Coast team playing at 1pm Eastern is at a disadvantage and they adjust the line accordingly. What you're looking for are situations where the travel impact is less obvious or where the market hasn't fully adjusted.

Tony mentioned some good examples. The third consecutive road game is a spot I've tracked and it does show some value. Teams on their third straight road game cover at 46.9% ATS in my data, which suggests genuine fatigue that the market doesn't fully price. However, this situation doesn't come up that frequently, maybe 10 to 15 times per season across the NFL.
International travel is interesting but rare in NFL and most US sports. NBA teams occasionally travel to Mexico or Canada but the sample sizes are small. The effects seem real but there's not enough data to confidently build a betting strategy around it.

The other factor people overlook is that travel impacts some teams more than others. Teams with older rosters seem more affected by travel than young teams. Teams with deep benches can manage back to backs better than thin teams. You need to account for team specific factors rather than applying blanket rules about travel.
My approach is I consider travel as one factor among many but I don't weight it heavily unless it's an extreme situation. A team traveling across three time zones with one day rest for a back to back gets significant weight in my analysis. A team traveling coast to coast with normal rest gets minimal weight because the market has already adjusted for it.

The danger with travel handicapping is confirmation bias. When a West Coast team loses an East Coast early game, everyone says see, the travel killed them. When they win, people forget about the travel narrative. You need to track all instances systematically rather than just remembering the times the narrative was confirmed.

 

[FadeThePublic]

Eddie's data-driven approach is solid as usual but I want to add the public betting angle because travel narratives create predictable public reactions that can be exploited.

The public loves betting against teams in obvious travel disadvantage spots. When they see a West Coast team playing an early East Coast game, they automatically assume the West Coast team is going to struggle and they hammer the opponent. This often pushes the line too far and creates contrarian value on the West Coast team.

I track public betting percentages and I consistently see 65% to 70% of tickets on the home team when a West Coast team is traveling East for an early start. The narrative is so strong that the public can't help themselves. But as Eddie's data shows, the actual disadvantage is only 2 to 3%, which means the public overreaction often creates value on the supposedly disadvantaged team.

Conversely, when an East Coast team travels West for a late game, the public sometimes overvalues them thinking they have an advantage. If I see heavy public action on an East Coast team in a late West Coast game, I'm looking at whether the line has been pushed too far in their favor.

The key is distinguishing between travel situations that actually matter versus travel narratives that the public overreacts to. Eddie's right that the market prices in obvious travel disadvantages. But the public often takes that already-adjusted line and pushes it even further based on the narrative, which creates contrarian opportunities.

I've also noticed that travel narratives get amplified by media coverage. If broadcasters spend all week talking about how tough it will be for Team A to travel across the country, the public absorbs that narrative and overbets accordingly. That media-driven sentiment is actually a good signal to look at the other side.

My record on fading public overreaction to travel narratives is 54.8% over the past two seasons, which is solid. It's not a huge edge but it's consistent and it comes up frequently enough to be meaningful over a full season.

 

[ParlayPrincess_88]

I definitely thought travel and time zones were a bigger deal than what Eddie's data is showing. Like when the Chiefs play an early game on the East Coast I always assume they're going to struggle because of the time difference. But apparently that's only worth like 2% which is barely anything.
So should I basically ignore travel and time zones when I'm handicapping games? Or is there a way to know when it actually matters versus when it's just a narrative that doesn't affect the outcome?

The third road game in a row thing Tony mentioned is interesting because I never would have thought about that. Like I know teams are tired but I wouldn't have known to track whether it's their second or third consecutive road game. That seems really specific but if the data shows it matters then I guess it's worth paying attention to.
For NBA, does travel matter more than NFL because they play so many more games? Like NFL teams have a whole week to recover between games usually but NBA teams are playing every other day or sometimes back to back. It seems like travel would be more exhausting for NBA players.
I guess what I'm trying to figure out is should I be looking at travel schedules when I'm deciding what to bet or is this something that only matters in extreme situations like Eddie said?

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

Princess you're right that travel impacts NBA more than NFL because of the schedule density. NBA teams regularly play back to backs and four games in five nights, often across multiple time zones. The cumulative fatigue from that kind of schedule is real and measurable.

The way I use travel in my handicapping is as a tiebreaker or a supporting factor rather than a primary decision driver. If I'm looking at two evenly matched teams and one had to travel across three time zones while the other is at home coming off rest, that tips my decision toward the rested home team. But I wouldn't bet on the rested team solely because of the travel advantage if I thought they were the worse team overall.

The situations where I weight travel most heavily are extreme cases like Eddie mentioned. A team on the second night of a back to back having traveled from East Coast to West Coast or vice versa. A team playing their fourth game in five nights. A team that had to take a long overnight flight and is playing an early game. These are spots where the physical toll is genuinely significant.
The key is understanding the specific circumstances of the travel rather than applying blanket rules. Not all cross country trips are equally difficult. A team flying charter directly from Los Angeles to New York arriving two days before the game is very different from a team flying commercial with connections arriving the night before. Most professional teams have good travel arrangements now but occasionally you'll find spots where the logistics are legitimately difficult.

From a coaching perspective, I know that sleep disruption is the biggest factor in travel impact. It's not just the time zone change, it's whether players are able to get quality sleep in the new time zone. Early morning arrivals, loud hotels, unfamiliar environments, all of these affect sleep quality which directly impacts performance.
Eddie's point about age and depth is really important too. Older players and players with injury histories are more affected by travel. If you're betting on a team with an old roster traveling for the third straight game, that's a compounding negative. A young healthy team in the same situation might handle it fine.

I track travel situations in my spreadsheet with notes about time zones crossed, days of rest, and sequence of road games. When I see patterns emerge where certain types of travel consistently correlate with underperformance, I give it more weight in future bets. But it's always one factor among many, never the sole reason to make or avoid a bet.

 

[SharpEddie47]

Princess to directly answer your question, you should not ignore travel but you also shouldn't overweight it. Think of it as worth maybe 0.5 to 1 point in your handicapping for standard cross country travel, and up to 2 points for extreme situations like Tony described.
The reason I emphasize that the effects are smaller than people think is because most bettors way overvalue travel. They see a team traveling and immediately assume a huge disadvantage that doesn't actually exist in the data. This causes them to make bad bets based on narratives rather than reality.

For NBA specifically, yes travel matters more because of schedule density. But here's the important nuance. NBA teams are so used to constant travel that they've adapted to it remarkably well. They have sleep specialists, nutrition experts, travel coordinators managing every detail. The impact of travel is real but it's been mitigated by professional management.
Where NBA travel really matters is not just single instances but cumulative fatigue over multiple games. A team playing their third game in four nights having traveled between all three cities is genuinely disadvantaged. But a team playing their first game after a long road trip might actually be sharper because they've had time to adapt to the new time zone.
Fade's point about public overreaction is valid and it's a good example of how you can profit from travel situations even when the actual impact is small. If the market moves 2 points for a travel disadvantage and the public pushes it another point beyond that, you're getting 3 points of adjustment when the real impact is only 2 points. That's where the value exists.
One more thing worth mentioning is that travel impacts vary by sport. In baseball, travel seems to matter very little because the game is less physically demanding than basketball or football. In hockey, travel to high altitude like Denver does show measurable effects. You need sport specific knowledge rather than assuming travel has the same impact across all sports.

My final recommendation is to track travel situations for yourself over a full season. Note when teams are in travel disadvantage spots and see if they actually underperform in your data. You might find different patterns than I did based on the specific situations you're tracking. The data will tell you how much weight to give travel in your handicapping.

 

[FadeThePublic]

I want to add one specific pattern I've noticed with travel that might be useful for others. When a bad team has a brutal travel situation, the public hammers the opponent assuming it will be an easy win. But bad teams are already expected to lose, so the travel disadvantage is sort of priced in twice - once for being the worse team and once for the travel.

This sometimes creates value on the bad traveling team because the line gets pushed too far. The public sees a losing team in a tough travel spot and they can't resist pounding the favorite. But if that favorite was only supposed to win by 7 points and now they're laying 10 because of public overreaction to the travel narrative, the extra 3 points might be too much.
Conversely, when a good team has a travel disadvantage, the public often doesn't adjust enough. They're so used to that team winning that they don't properly account for the travel. This can create value on the opponent.

The key is thinking about how travel interacts with team quality and public perception rather than just looking at travel in isolation. It's another layer of analysis but it's been profitable for me.

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

@FadeThePublic makes an excellent point about how travel disadvantage stacks with team quality in terms of public perception. I've seen the same pattern where the public overreacts to a bad team in a tough travel spot.

I'll add one more practical tip. Some teams handle travel better than others based on their organization and resources. Teams with good management invest in travel optimization - better planes, better hotels, sports science staff to manage sleep and recovery. Teams with poor management just throw players on flights and hope for the best.

You can often identify which teams are good at managing travel by looking at their road records over multiple seasons. Some teams consistently perform better on the road than their talent would suggest, which indicates good travel management. Other teams consistently underperform on the road, which might indicate poor travel logistics or lack of mental toughness in unfamiliar environments.

This is another team specific factor that should modify how much weight you give to travel in any particular matchup. If a team with historically good road performance is in a travel disadvantage spot, maybe you discount the travel less than you would for a team that always struggles on the road.

 

[ParlayPrincess_88]

Okay so the main takeaway I'm getting is that travel matters but not as much as I thought it did, and the market usually already accounts for obvious travel disadvantages. So I should factor it in as like a small piece of my handicapping but not make it a major focus unless it's an extreme situation.

The public overreaction angle that Fade mentioned makes a lot of sense. Like if I see everyone hammering one side because of a travel narrative, maybe I should look at whether the line has been pushed too far and if there's value on the other side.

I'm going to start paying attention to things like whether teams are on their third road game in a row or if they're playing a back to back after traveling across the country. But I'm not going to assume that every West Coast to East Coast trip is a huge disadvantage anymore because the data shows it's only worth like 2%.

Thanks for breaking this down everyone. This is another one of those things where the narrative is way stronger than the actual effect and I need to focus on the data instead of the story.

 

[SharpEddie47]

Okay so the main takeaway I'm getting is that travel matters but not as much as I thought it did, and the market usually already accounts for obvious travel disadvantages. So I should factor it in as like a small piece of my handicapping but not make it a major focus unless it's an extreme situation.

The public overreaction angle that Fade mentioned makes a lot of sense. Like if I see everyone hammering one side because of a travel narrative, maybe I should look at whether the line has been pushed too far and if there's value on the other side.

I'm going to start paying attention to things like whether teams are on their third road game in a row or if they're playing a back to back after traveling across the country. But I'm not going to assume that every West Coast to East Coast trip is a huge disadvantage anymore because the data shows it's only worth like 2%.

Thanks for breaking this down everyone. This is another one of those things where the narrative is way stronger than the actual effect and I need to focus on the data instead of the story.

Princess you've got it exactly right. Travel is a minor factor that should support your other analysis but rarely if ever should it be the primary reason to make a bet. Focus on the matchup, the coaching, the situational factors, and use travel as a small adjustment to your projection.

The broader lesson here applies to many handicapping factors. Weather, home field advantage, revenge narratives, travel - all of these things have smaller impacts than the narratives suggest. The market is reasonably efficient at pricing the obvious stuff. Your edge comes from either finding the non-obvious stuff or from recognizing when the public has pushed a line too far based on narrative rather than reality.

Travel handicapping is a perfect example of this dynamic. Everyone knows travel matters so everyone factors it in, which means the market has largely priced it in, which means your edge isn't from knowing travel matters but from understanding precisely how much it matters and when the market has overadjusted or underadjusted.

This kind of nuanced thinking separates winning bettors from losing bettors. Losing bettors bet on obvious narratives. Winning bettors understand when narratives are overpriced and when they're underpriced.