What always gets lost is the amount of times the dogs win SU. That obviously stacks the deck in favor of dogs right off the bat.
But the irony is the talk of 'blindly' following something. Then they mention 'public teams', and use Seattle, NE, SF, and Denver as examples.
Since Pete Carroll went to Seattle, and they became competitive Seattle is over 60% ATS, if you always get the best number on them theyre just about 65%. So while they might be getting an 'extra'handicap they are overcoming it and more obviously.
Patriots in the "Brady Era" theyre over 60% ATS as well, versus 'best' theyre nearly 64%, with a sample size of over 200 games to look at, including play offs.
SF since Harbaugh took over in 2011 49ers are 66% ATS, with the best number theyre right around 70% ATS. Obviously a small sample size but still 2-1 is good no matter how many samples.
Denver, since Manning got there last season there also 66% ATS, obviously the smallest sample size but still impressive.
So while they like to point out all the 'smart' things to say the books are still not putting big enough spreads on these teams.
Theyre a combined 220-122-4. So pretty ironic he pulled teams out of his ass as an example. Of those 346 games these teams were favored in 242 of them, ATS record combined? 152-87-3, thats 63%.
So while these articles sound good to the uninformed or run of the mill guy who thinks someone with a name knows what their talking about, it pays to check results.
GOOD teams win, BAD teams lose.Winning is the great equalizer. But the spread does obviously make a difference, but also knowing what spread to look for and when will improve those results even more, but really when the results are 63.6% and 64.3% respectively then eliminating certain spreads would have to be a pretty precise decision. As in your looking to eliminate something that is going to happen only 35% of the time.
Now flip it and take some 'bad' teams who are going to be dogs a lot. I wont even cherry pick I will just say Browns, Bills, Bucs, Raiders. Combined 97-182 SU and 134-142-3 ATS. Actually not bad considering how many SU losses they had. But Browns are actually a decent team ATS.
Dont believe these numbers? I imagine SDQL will have numbers pretty close, over 60% to be sure but the lines they use arent going to be nearly as accurate as ones you can find yourself.
So you cant just willy nilly say good/great/popular teams are a 'bad' play. Or even say that them covering is going to be harder. Because the results just dont show that they show the exact opposite.
Just like you cant say dogs are a 'smart' play because theyre handicap is less, there is a reason why it is less.
The only broad statement you might make is finding teams that are under or over valued that slip through the cracks, or tams that are anticipated in being good or bad and bet accordingly, but even then books adjust rapidly, but bettors sometimes do not. So you watch moves and wait.
You know why favorites cover less? Because too many BAD teams are favored. The fact that these four teams were used as an example is laughable. Are they over inflated? Sure. Denver was laying 28 last week, but everyone with a brain took Jax and thats why the line moved to 25.5. But as long as Denver isnt hanging crazy stupid numbers theyre a solid play. Results show it. Just like they do with Brady and th Patriots, and Carroll and the Seahawks (Pete Carroll covered nearly 70% of his games at USC also when they were saddles with a lot more ridiculous numbers than any NFL team would have to overcome), and Harbaugh and the 49ers.