I always thought this as well, but am extremely interested in Joe's counterpoint. While the closing line gospel is groundbreaking for many, Joe introduces an exception to the established wisdom. I think Joe agrees that if one has enough closing line value they will win (and please do correct me if I'm wrong Joe). Danshan demonstrated with his database evidence above, and we know from Pinnacle's business model, and we know how most sharps think, that this is now a well-established rule in the Sportsbetting handbook. However it may not be necessary.
I am intrigued by Joe's idea that while generally the close is efficient and represents an accurate line of 50/50, some lines are not efficient- some might be 60/40 while others are 40/60, some are 55/45 while others are 45/55. But what does one do with this knowledge? Many could use this knowledge to fool themselves that a system that the market has no regard for is a winning system. To discover exceptions where the market is off, like Joe has, would require advanced techniques or modeling. Joe, after all, is not some forum newbie; he's been doing this an extremely long time and even published a book on it. So knowing the close may not be efficient in all cases would likely be more harmful than helpful to most. Danshan appears to be the resident watch-dog to convince everyone of this, which is a great service to the community. Closing line value is so important because it allows verification of one's methods apart from wins and losses alone. Just going by wins and losses, without closing line value, requires a leap of faith. It's a very difficult leap to make. Closing line value gives one sanity.
A few other points on Joe's case. First, he does get some degree of closing line value. I'm not sure if it was this thread but I was reading through quite a few "closing line" threads. He said he generally gets about 50% moves in his favor/35% against/15% neutral. While not overwhelming closing line value (and we don't know the specifics of how far the good ones move etc.) it is not as if the market is totally indifferent to these plays. I would be curious whether Joe or people who follow Joe move the line on his plays. There are bettors who win who don't have a public following, who aren't touts, who can bet their unit at offscreen books that don't trigger a market move. I would suspect this is the case and it would be great if Joe can share this answer, for academic purposes. I think it would better illustrate what is happening in the market. In other words, if Joe quietly bet and won and the market did not respond that would be different than if he pounded the board and the market brought the plays back and he won. Hope you can share a little with us Joe!
Thicht