I'm not a sports handicapper, in fact I know very little about US sports. However I do know about markets and market efficiency. I believe that someone betting randomly into strong/liquidity-high lines is expected to win no more or less then 5%. I don't understand how some handicappers suggest waiting for the game off to back dogs because 'public' money drives up the line. Is there any data anywhere that proves that games involving the highest levels of 'public' money have inefficient lines at game off? I can't believe this is true because money drives markets and money has no conscience and is not sharp or square near game off because all the information is out there at this stage. The early lines are soft and contain value because their are still many variables between opening lines and game time.
I'm going to be making picks on my account here by purely referencing the exchange (a European betting exchange which is a close guide to the 100% book on any sport). By doing so I'll be picking the side of a line that gives me the least negative expected value and will show that I will at worst over a big sample do no better or worse than a handicapper putting in hours and hours of needless research when the market already tells you what you need to know.