Another interesting comparison is how the general betting public perceives momentum from game to game as compared in game. People love to bet on the MLB team that's on a 10 game win streak, but they love to bet AGAINST the NBA team that just went on a 10-0 run.
One obvious difference between the two is the is the effort taken to make a long, sustained comeback during a basketball game (not necessarily a 10-0 run). So it is logical to think there will be regression at some point. The problem is the bookmakers know that everyone loves this theory. The average bettor does not back a 10 point pregame dog live after they start the game up 15-5. When there's a theory that almost all the recreational betting public shares, it does not work. If it does work, it will only be for a short period before books catch up.
A really good example of where I believe bettors got completely caught up in the momentum angle, and totally discounted fatigue was in the Murray/Monfils match at the French this year. Murray was around -190/+170, won the first two sets, while Monfils took sets 3 and 4. Murray looked awful while Monfils looked great with the entire crowd supporting him
What got lost in all that was the basic fact that Murray is a far superior player, and Monfils had likely expended an incredible amount of energy in sets 3 and 4.
I believe the set 5 line was -130/+110 or so and Murray won 6-0.