Institutional opening
Bracket Leverage Architecture
Competitive decision architecture for rank-ordered payout systems. Not “picks.” Not “locks.” A disciplined leverage framework designed to convert understanding into execution before bracket lock.
Audience: analytical professionals (28–45) entering 1–3 pools with $100–$1,000 at stake. The objective is not expected points — it’s probability of a top finish against an ownership-weighted field.
Research archive
Thesis & Historical Review
The framework did not emerge this season. It has evolved through published analysis, statistical review, and field observation.
Core Thesis
The Leverage Illusion
Why expected points fails in rank-ordered pools — and how ownership concentration distorts win probability.
Understanding leverage is not the same as constructing a coherent bracket that expresses it.
2025 Statistical Review
March Madness 2025: Bracket Strategy Guide
Most Read 2025Our most-read Sharp Insights publication of 2025. A statistical review of scoring concentration, bracket convergence, and public bias patterns observed in last year’s tournament.
The article reframes the objective. The review validates the pattern. The white paper formalizes the model. The System executes it.
Understanding leverage is not the same as constructing a coherent bracket that expresses it.
The article reframes the objective. The framework formalizes it. The system applies it under time constraint —
without forcing you to build from scratch.
No pricing, no pitch here. This layer exists to legitimize the model and set the correct objective.
The white paper layer
The Leverage-Calibrated Bracket
A teaching-first, institutional decision framework for pool EV, public bias, and leverage construction. Built around a single spine: the Leverage Coefficient (L).
- Behavioral bias mapping and ownership mispricing logic
- Expected value modeling for rank-ordered pool outcomes
- Pool size adjustments via leverage scaling
- Historical convergence patterns and scoring concentration economics
- Volatility bands and viability constraints (no seed folklore)
- Coherent bracket tree construction (“you pick a path”)
This paper teaches the framework. It does not automate calibration or execution. If you want step-by-step implementation under deadline, that’s the System layer.
Execution layer (dominant)
The Bracket Intelligence System™
Built from the Leverage-Calibrated framework. Engineered for execution under bracket lock. Designed to be run in under 60 minutes with a defensible decision standard.
The system forces coherence (correlation and path consistency), deploys leverage where points concentrate, and prevents last-minute narrative drift.
What you get
- Pool-size calibrated leverage posture (L guidance)
- Champion anchoring and late-round leverage placement rules
- Final Four asymmetry construction
- Volatility injection thresholds (no contrarianism-by-feel)
- Coherent bracket tree enforcement + audit checklist
- Execution flow: inputs → decisions → coherence → final lock
This layer exists to remove build friction and reduce execution error — not to add more theory.
Intellectual ladder
Thesis → Framework → Execution
The stack is intentional. Each layer increases depth — and reduces implementation risk under time constraint.
Reframes the objective: expected points is not the game. Pools are correlation contests against a crowd.
Formalizes leverage: ownership mispricing, volatility bands, L scaling, and coherent path thinking.
Applies the framework fast: calibrated posture, build rules, coherence enforcement, and a pre-lock audit standard.
Future expansion remains clean: premium calibration constants, opponent-field modeling, and simulation layers can be added without changing the core doctrine.