i was using it because the time period i researched had the home teams covering 49.8% or some number damn close to 50%. therefore i knew the system that the refs operate in, comprised of the compiled records of each ref. so i should assume that, given enough games, the number of home covers for each ref would trend toward being 50%. same thing with totals. games went Over the total slightly more than 50% of the time.
so then i needed to assign values to each ref to determine what constituted a potential or definite bias. i didn't even explore possible reasons for the bias, merely if one could possibly exist. again, given a large enough sample size for each ref i would expect the numbers to be near 50%. i used binomial dist so that i could use the total number of independent events (all records), the sample size (each ref), the number of successes (ATS win or Over). i wanted to assign a probability to each record for each ref.
so i ran all the numbers and most refs did not display abnormal results. Hoculi was actually the best as his numbers most closely mirrored the expected results.