Their numbers in regards to ML odds and win probability are actually pretty good in most cases.
I have long contended that lines are not so much indicitive on how much a team "should" win by, or even to get balanced action. But more to make the ML prices on the team correllary to their overall winning percentages.
In other words a team that is -5 might not really be "worth" -5, but in terms of the ML the books are posting in relation to -5 is more realistic to that teams win probability, so they won't have to make them a more realistic -3 fave and eat all the guys betting the on the ML. Basically it is taking football and trying to turn it into a baseball/ml type line of thinking. It actually works much better in hoops, but I don't bet NBA anymore, and getting the data is a lot more difficult to get straight
For the most part the books are actually pretty close with some numbers, but with others they are way off.
I ran some: -4, -5, -6, and -7 closing numbers into my results. I have up to 2002, so the results don't include '03 or last year, but still have 17 years inclusive worth of data . I did do -7 out by hand since it seems to be a hot number to most people, and it was a slight difference in pricing, so I will have to get the results entered in for the other as well to see if it changes significantly.
But here are the results I found from my source...(All results are for DOGS)
-4 202 games 68-133-1 SU(33.6% SU) 92-106-4 ATS +197 B/E mark
-5 144 games 50-94 SU (34.7% SU) 76-65-3 ATS +190 B/E mark
-6 195 games 65-130 SU (33.3% SU) 102-85-4 ATS +200 B/E mark
-7 317 games 86-229-1 SU(27.1%SU) 150-154-12 ATS +267 B/E mark
So basically you want to look at payoffs ML in regards to where the historaical probability lies. I am the first one to say that history means nothing in terms of football, especially when it comes to using an arbitrary man made number like a pointspread as your guide.
But it can definately help when you look at results like you see with games lined -4. +4 dogs win at a very low percentage. Might be coincidence, might be because -4 is that oddball number around -3/3.5. So it might be that a game was lined -3/3.5, people hammered it and the books moved to -4. More likely on a game that opened -3.5, but you get my theory. In any event they have historically done poorly.
But ironically -3.5 favorites are one of the worst performers in terms of ATS AND SU , and it has actually been a money maker betting all +3.5 dogs on the ML blind the past few years, as their win percentages have actually been around 45-47%, and at +160 to +190 that is a windfall.
So I am not sure why the 4 is the way it is.
Obviously this takes shape a lot better when you have years of numbers and results, and ultimately hindsight to look at. It is also why football is a tough tough sport to beat. Because seemingly one year that may or may not be an anomoly, or even a "correction" can kill you (see Aces Gold)
Also simply determining what the line "really" is often difficult. That is why I use one source for my data, and one source only. Unfortunately it isn't the one of the sources I bet at too frequently, but I can use it as a "guide" so if the place I am betting is better or worse I can adjust accordingly.
That is one of the great difficulties of using past data and past results, and even trends as handicapping tools, because there really is no one set rule of thumb for determing what the closing line is and that doesn't take into account late line moves and the like)
SO for the most part I try to stick to painted numbers if I am using this angle when I bet. But that also causes difficulties since for it to truly work you have to bet it each and every oppurtunity. Since the results are for every game posted at that particular number.
So maybe this is more confusing than helpful, but in any case those are the results for those lines so some people might be able to use them in some way.
I have long contended that lines are not so much indicitive on how much a team "should" win by, or even to get balanced action. But more to make the ML prices on the team correllary to their overall winning percentages.
In other words a team that is -5 might not really be "worth" -5, but in terms of the ML the books are posting in relation to -5 is more realistic to that teams win probability, so they won't have to make them a more realistic -3 fave and eat all the guys betting the on the ML. Basically it is taking football and trying to turn it into a baseball/ml type line of thinking. It actually works much better in hoops, but I don't bet NBA anymore, and getting the data is a lot more difficult to get straight
For the most part the books are actually pretty close with some numbers, but with others they are way off.
I ran some: -4, -5, -6, and -7 closing numbers into my results. I have up to 2002, so the results don't include '03 or last year, but still have 17 years inclusive worth of data . I did do -7 out by hand since it seems to be a hot number to most people, and it was a slight difference in pricing, so I will have to get the results entered in for the other as well to see if it changes significantly.
But here are the results I found from my source...(All results are for DOGS)
-4 202 games 68-133-1 SU(33.6% SU) 92-106-4 ATS +197 B/E mark
-5 144 games 50-94 SU (34.7% SU) 76-65-3 ATS +190 B/E mark
-6 195 games 65-130 SU (33.3% SU) 102-85-4 ATS +200 B/E mark
-7 317 games 86-229-1 SU(27.1%SU) 150-154-12 ATS +267 B/E mark
So basically you want to look at payoffs ML in regards to where the historaical probability lies. I am the first one to say that history means nothing in terms of football, especially when it comes to using an arbitrary man made number like a pointspread as your guide.
But it can definately help when you look at results like you see with games lined -4. +4 dogs win at a very low percentage. Might be coincidence, might be because -4 is that oddball number around -3/3.5. So it might be that a game was lined -3/3.5, people hammered it and the books moved to -4. More likely on a game that opened -3.5, but you get my theory. In any event they have historically done poorly.
But ironically -3.5 favorites are one of the worst performers in terms of ATS AND SU , and it has actually been a money maker betting all +3.5 dogs on the ML blind the past few years, as their win percentages have actually been around 45-47%, and at +160 to +190 that is a windfall.
So I am not sure why the 4 is the way it is.
Obviously this takes shape a lot better when you have years of numbers and results, and ultimately hindsight to look at. It is also why football is a tough tough sport to beat. Because seemingly one year that may or may not be an anomoly, or even a "correction" can kill you (see Aces Gold)
Also simply determining what the line "really" is often difficult. That is why I use one source for my data, and one source only. Unfortunately it isn't the one of the sources I bet at too frequently, but I can use it as a "guide" so if the place I am betting is better or worse I can adjust accordingly.
That is one of the great difficulties of using past data and past results, and even trends as handicapping tools, because there really is no one set rule of thumb for determing what the closing line is and that doesn't take into account late line moves and the like)
SO for the most part I try to stick to painted numbers if I am using this angle when I bet. But that also causes difficulties since for it to truly work you have to bet it each and every oppurtunity. Since the results are for every game posted at that particular number.
So maybe this is more confusing than helpful, but in any case those are the results for those lines so some people might be able to use them in some way.
