In recent years, ESPN\u2019s gambling columnist Chad Millman has popularized an angle he calls, \u201csweat barometer\u201d as if it\u2019s some revolutionary, groundbreaking recently unearthed angle.<\/p>\n
Welcome to my 1988 Chad. Utilized for decades, previously known by the more mundane \u201cMargin of Cover\u201d (MOC) it\u2019s a valuable resource, but only when exercising caution. It\u2019s exploitation is limited to rare circumstances.<\/p>\n
First, we should define it. MOC is similar to scoring margin, but it is measured by how much a team covers or fails to cover the point spread.<\/p>\n
The quandary with Chad\u2019s weekly updates is that he simply posts the latest standings\u2014college only, never NBA\u2014but never gives a tutorial and how to avail oneself of the potential yield. This can be as dangerous as giving a 14-year-old the keys to the car, but never teaching her how to drive.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s an angle exploited to isolate the very few squads that oddsmakers flubbed on. But knowing how small of number instances there are as well as why to proceed with caution is imperative.<\/p>\n
Decades of first-hand experience dictate that the \u201csweat barometer\u201d is only useful for indentifying teams top and bottom of standings, though that very much includes recent play tables. In fact, riding and fading teams playing above or below their mean short-term is where it proves most beneficial. This is only if the gambler knows when to hold and when to fold.<\/p>\n
MOC is statistically significant when it\u2019s at least +\/- 5.0 points over a period of a minimum 10-15 games and at least 3.5 once the sample size gets above 20 contests.<\/p>\n
Still, in most recent form, at least +\/- 7.0 over five games minimum proves fruitful.<\/p>\n
One of the great scholarly discussions and debates among elite gamblers is how to weigh class (teams overall quality) versus form (recent play).<\/p>\n
Because recent play is much more fluid than variances of how oddsmakers rate teams, MOC is most efficient in riding and fading temporary form.<\/p>\n
The bookmaker is close to flawless much more often than not. Hence they do not overreact to recent play. If sportsbooks did, sharps would annihilate this knowing teams return to form. High positive or negative MOC, or \u201csweat meter\u201d as the Johnny-come-lately posse refers to it, is a valuable tool in separating the rare exceptions to the rule.<\/p>\n
Of noteworthiness, there is an inherent danger of the MOC statistic to the untrained eye. MOC can also be counterintuitive. The greatest gamblers exploit lines that fall short by only a point or two. Sharps constantly win games that are close against the point spread. On the other hand, the squares keep coming up on the wrong side, convincing themselves they are merely victims of bad fortune.<\/p>\n
As professional gambler Steve Fezzik has said, \u201cI\u2019ve made a lot more money being a good gambler than I have being a good handicapper.\u201d In short, betting a team at (+5) when they should only be getting 3.5 points or investing in a chalk at (-2) when they need to be wagering another point or two, is what truly separates the elitist from defeatist.<\/p>\n
When pressing into service MOC only as commanded aforementioned, the gambler can capitalize on rare occurrences of teams greatly out or underplaying the oddsmakers expectations.<\/p>\n
Whichever term, Margin of Cover or \u201csweat barometer\u201d one prefers, by any means, the sharp player must enact prudently.<\/p>\n
For more information: <\/strong>Informative sports betting videos<\/a>, invaluable sports betting podcasts<\/a> and free sports picks<\/a> are all part of the OffshoreInsiders.com Network.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In recent years, ESPN\u2019s gambling columnist Chad Millman has popularized an angle he calls, \u201csweat barometer\u201d as if it\u2019s some revolutionary, groundbreaking recently unearthed angle. Welcome to my 1988 Chad. Utilized for decades, previously known by the more mundane \u201cMargin of Cover\u201d (MOC) it\u2019s a valuable resource, but only when exercising caution. It\u2019s exploitation is … Continue reading Pros and Cons of “Sweat Barometer” in Basketball Handicapping<\/span>