Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
But again you are talking in aggregate.
It's possible that the closing lines are consistently off by 3 points, but undervaluing favorites and underdogs equally often. For instance, if the line is +3 then 50% of the time the "true" line is 0 and 50% it's +5.* That would make lines appear accurate in aggregate when in fact there is a treasure trove of available information not being factored into handicappers' formulas. I don't know how likely that is. I'm pretty sure that if you ask the people in the 2p2 Sportsbetting forum, they'll say it's very unlikely.
If the lines were off by that much in both directions, it would mean the margins of covers have a higher variance than they would if the lines were correct. I wonder if there's evidence of this.
*5 isn't a typo; I think the worth of moving from 0 to +3 is closer to that of moving from +3 to +5 than to +6. And by "true line" I mean the most accurate line possible without knowing all the unknowable variables (much like a coinflip is 50%
to us despite the process being deterministic).