Good stuff Andy, a belated welcome aboard. Enjoy the day.

$BOL$

Thanks for the response Andy- I agree that handicapping is both art and science. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that the computer has allowed linesmakers to come up with a Power Rating of teams (I'm referring to Pro Football) with slight tweaking that would more accurately reflect the true difference between the teams. Based on your experience and analysis of the computer age line, is that line still reflecting only the linesmakers perceived difference of the public- because the same information is available to everyone? The meaning here is that everyone is using math moreso than art. If this is not the case, why do so many games end with results that are far off the the Power Rating (Line) difference that was computer generated for the games? The "tweaking" they are doing must not be very good. I guess this is where the "art" of handicapping is going to give astute players more of an edge.

It seems to me that the line is still very often even putting the wrong team in the favorite position- true or not in your opinion? How does that happen- unless numbers alone only provide a glimpse of who holds the real power edge? Is this where linesmakers tweakings should still provide for them to make the more powerful team the favorite? If so, they are doing a lousy job in the art side of their profession. This is what makes me think that the goal of linesmakers is still to just bring in large numbers of bets on both sides of the game.  

In my opinion, the bettor should start with figuring which is actually the stronger team (your goal) and thereby the more likely team to win the game. I've seen where many have cited that the team that wins covers at a much higher percentage than even the rate of recognized top bettors.