Our advanced news and notes are brought to you by the Greek
Sportsbook as they release lines before anyone else. Click here to sign up now.
Welcome Greek to the JoeDuffy.net family of endorsed books Get a 21
percent bonus on your first deposit.
Wolfer's paper: http://bpp.wharton.upenn.edu/jwolfers/research.shtml#PointShaving
Joe Duffy (JoeDuffy.net)
University of Pennsylvania,
not to be confused with my alma mater California University of Pennsylvania,
economist Justin Wolfers wrote a paper in which he used “forensic economics” to
find alleged patterns of cheating in college basketball.
Wolfers asserts that point shaving is occurring in about
five percent of games that involve large pointspreads. If only the good
professor read any of our sports gaming articles such as “It
is Good to Pick Bad” he wouldn’t have come up with such preposterous
conclusions, knowing there is a very logical reason large underdogs cover more
than 50 percent of the time.
To the surprise of no sharp sports handicapper, Mr.
Wolfers found that big underdogs cover a disproportionate percentage of close
spread outcomes. Wolfers’ statistical “big dog” is a team getting 12 or more
points. As the NY Times puts it “There is a strange dearth of games in which
12-point favorites win by, say, 13 or 16 points. And there are a lot of games
that they win by 11 points or slightly less. There is just no good explanation
for this.”
Poppycock. While I am sure the
Ivy League lecturer is a competent economist, he needs to take Professor Joe
Duffy’s “Sports Handicapping for Dummies” class, ah I guess whenever I offer
one.
Without question the first factoid, on the first day of
class will be that the point spread is not and will never be a prediction on
the outcome of the game. It is a
“prediction” on what the spread needs to be to get as close to an equal amount
of money on each side. Second factoid in
my lecture will be that the public loves betting superior against bottom shelf
squads and this of great magnitude and indisputable fact is accounted for in
the line.
Professor Wolfers research paper
claims the spread is “a market-based forecast of home team’s winning
margin”. Don’t get caught up in
semantics as the “winning margin” could also be a negative number. Damn numbers
crunchers. However his misconception of
what the spread actually is proves fatal to his conclusions. The “market based forecast” is predicting
perception, not eventual reality.
Let me give you an analogy. Let’s say Professor Wolfers wanted to do a
study on which movie critics are the most and least accurate at predicting the
Academy Award winners. He studied 20
critics’ lists from the last 15 years.
But as an example, 14 of the critics were listing who they felt should
win, while six were actually predicting who they think would win. In many cases there is a huge differentiation. But if the professors’ study were oblivious
to this, it makes his entire paper greatly flawed if not totally irrelevant.
As we mention in the above “It is Good to Pick Bad” article,
I have flat out had gamblers tell me, “If I am going to lose, I’d rather lose
betting (the vastly superior team) than betting on (the grossly inferior
team).” Never in my life have I heard a more self-fulfilling prophecy.
Quite cognizant of the betting patterns of the gambler,
the oddsmakers adjust accordingly. If Duke is playing Eastern
Michigan and the spread “should be” without public betting
tendencies taken into consideration, 14 points, the spread will be posted at
say 16. If it “should” be 24, the line
will open at 27 or even higher.
We exploit that indisputable fact on a regular basis with
our “official outlaw line”. Premium
customers are told several times a week that many plays are based on the
deviation and that “The official outlaw line is what the odds would be if there
was no consideration given to public perception and balancing the action. It is the more accurate line from the standpoint
of the bettor.”
Well Professor, if you only asked I could have told you
with large pointspreads there is an unbalanced digression when it comes to “off
lines”. It is because of public betting
inclinations that big dogs get too many points more often than any subset. Here
is gambling economics—if big favorites covered 50 percent of the time, the
books would lose money because square players love betting big favorites. As a result one has to pay retail not
wholesale often when betting big favorites by laying an extra point or two.
So “off lines” will involve what should be a 14 point
spread instead being 16 much more often than four being six or two points. The difference between 14 and 16 points means
a lot of big dogs will cover close spread games.
Nothing, I mean nothing in the professor’s paper should
surprise any sharp player except his defective supposition. Furthermore I
strongly doubt that most fixed games will involve a team covering by only one
or two points. Too much is left to
chance if that happened.
In my educated opinion, most fixed games would involve
covering by large margins, a pattern the Quaker educator admits to not finding
with his fallacious forensics.
I’m not claiming in any way that there is no chicanery involved
in the outcome of games. But I am saying
the only thing Wolfers proved is he has no idea what a point spread is based
on.
Ironically my highly unscientific study tells me that most
gamblers and handicappers suspect just the opposite in college sports—if
anything too often coaches run up the score for no reason.
I know nothing about fixing games, but I suspect those who
could, would be wealthy alum who have a lot of influence with the coaching
staff. We already know about the
improprieties of alumni and boosters in recruiting. I can’t help but highly doubt no booster has
asked for any favors in return for those thousand dollar handshakes.
A simple don’t ask, don’t tell conversation could go along
the lines of “coach, I am going to make a donation to the athletic program on
Monday. I sure will be feeling much more
generous though if you guys win this Saturday by 15 or more points. Can you help me feel charitable coach?” Wink.
Do I have any substantiation of my suspicions? No, nothing that rises above the water cooler
burden of proof, but I’d argue it’s a notch above what the professor’s so
easily refuted evidence presents us.
The biggest irony of his paper is that he may not realize
he may have uncovered something even more significant: forensic handicapping.
While a lot of handicappers
take off baseball season, some literally many just figuratively, The Center of
the Handicapping
Universe Godspicks.com is looking forward to another long year of
baseball dog and small favorite winners.
Joe Duffy’s baseball prowess goes back to his “JD of the ACC” Cadillac
Club scorephone days.
