Funny thing about the Internet: People who don't understand are usually the most adamant. Which makes it hard to be patient explaining the basics to them.
Assuming the home team is -3 . . . there would likely be value on the home team at pick'em and value on the road team at +6. Betting both would be an effort to "middle" a game.
This is very different than the old "double-side" scam . . . in which old touts would release one team to half of the people, and the other team to the other half. The key here is neither half would know others were getting something else.
Clearly that is impossible when both picks are 100% public!
Fezzik is attempting to educate his followers to the value of numbers. It is an important lesson.
There is only 'value' if both are ever available, which in this day and age they never are.
You only find 'value' in spreads by COMPARISON. There is no stand alone value, especially if you dont have an opinion on either team.
Obviously if you can get any PK em game at PK and +3 it gives you an advantage, in a vacuum anyway. How many times you ever going to see it? -3 and +6 not nearly as much but it still offered something. Mostly insurance on your dog. Those actually do come up sometimes, but the -3 is never ever -110 and more than likely -125 or more.
But it is still selling the same idea, it isnt as blatant as giving out both sides of the game, but in essence you are. Youre playing a theoretical advantage to get BOTH sides of the customer base winning and thus keeping them both happy and both on the line. If one side loses then you use the 'well we got the best number' excuse and go from there.
There has ever only been one tout who has been completely and totally transparent, at lest as far as most of his claims, and that is RAS. He also has the added handicap of actually being able to influence the spreads with his opinions. How many other touts have that problem? You can debate whether he is playing those games himself or if he is betting them both ways after moves all you want, but what he sells his clients is as straightforward as it gets. But if he is doing it himself I have never ever seen him tell people to take the opposite side of a play he has offered if the line moves a certain amount. He has gone round and round that for years. His plays are his plays, he tells people to get the best line they can and use discretion after that.
I dont do tout speak but I know it when I see it. All this new age thinking was invented by people who thought hey were smart, then piggy back on by guys also wanting to look smart and also use as an excuse/reason when they failed. That is why these things take off because people dont lose because they cant pick winners they lose because they got a bad line.