Interesting article.
- Thread starter patdog
- Start date
What's really disappointing is there are no facts in the entire article
of cheating except about the ASU incident in the 1990's. I didn't need to read that article to know that teams with large point spreads are the easiest to fix. It's common sense.
Also saying 47% of favorites cover in large point spreads indicates fixed games is dumb as ****. Large point spreads have too many variables that determine if they cover a 15 to 20 point spread. I can assure you most teams that are a 15 to 20 point favorite vs a team are less likely to be as focused because the team they are playing sucks. Plus, playing a ****** team, the coach is more likely to play players that he wouldn't normally play. We see this in any sport including professional sports or your 6 year old recreational games.
Games are definitely fixed but I didn't see any data in that article that would lead me to believe 5% of large spreads are fixed.
of cheating except about the ASU incident in the 1990's. I didn't need to read that article to know that teams with large point spreads are the easiest to fix. It's common sense.
Also saying 47% of favorites cover in large point spreads indicates fixed games is dumb as ****. Large point spreads have too many variables that determine if they cover a 15 to 20 point spread. I can assure you most teams that are a 15 to 20 point favorite vs a team are less likely to be as focused because the team they are playing sucks. Plus, playing a ****** team, the coach is more likely to play players that he wouldn't normally play. We see this in any sport including professional sports or your 6 year old recreational games.
Games are definitely fixed but I didn't see any data in that article that would lead me to believe 5% of large spreads are fixed.
That's not his argument at all. The argument is that there is a statistically significant difference in teams just barely not beating spread and teams just barely beating the spread. The discontinuity there is striking.
But I agree that it would have been better to give the full numbers.
But I agree that it would have been better to give the full numbers.
You either didn't read the article or do not have any understanding at all of statistics. Only 47% of large favorites covering is a big advantage even if you don't know which games are fixed and which ones aren't. Enough that someone could have made a good living for the last 16 years doing nothing but betting on large underdogs in college basketball games and taking 8 months off.
No I understand that 47% is a big advantage. That's not why it appeared you linked the article. You stated that 5% of large spreads are fixed, and I said that article didn't have any facts that 5% of large spreads are fixed. If you were trying to say bet the underdog when the point spread is over 12, then I appreciate it and will use that information.
I just thought they would have numbers behind their argument instead of just saying some teams just barely cover or barely not cover in large spreads more than spreads less than 12.
OK, the article did not give the numbers. But the study showed that large favorites win by just less than the spread more often and win by just more than the spread less often than small favorites do. Even though large favorites win by both a lot more than or a lot less than (or lose) about the same as small favorites do. The most likely explanation for this discrepency is that 5% of games with large favorites are fixed.