Originally Posted by
Dark Horse
As mentioned at the outset, the subset +4.5 to +6 doesn't interest me for teasers, and Durito showed why.
But the question why that subset has been so successful certainly does interest me. There is no way that I will throw 16 years of data on a 'blind luck' pile. My own definition for good and back luck involves that these manifest as short term fluctuations. Sixteen years is not short term, and nor is the five years going forward since the 'data mining' in this case.
The question revolved around two separate questions. The first, as I suggested earlier, is the ease with which '+10.5' (which is practically the same as +13...) opens the game to backdoor covers. This point, not considered by the math mafia, was more or less conceded.
The second question revolves around +4. As tomcowley pointed out, the +3.5 and +4 subset doesn't come close to the +4.5 to +6 subset. There may be another football reason, and if I do think of it I will make sure not to post it here. Suffice it to say, for now, that tomcowley for his subset wants a TD instead of 6 pts. The math boys give him this 16% difference...
I'll bow out of this thread with this question, again reasoning from a perspective of prevent defense and backdoor covers (for the teaser): who is more likely to be given a free TD at the end of a game, when being behind (up to) 17 pts? A 3.5 pt dog or a 6 pt dog? Or should we believe tomcowley, who throws these lines on one pile?
The question was always about 6 teased points, not 7. But tomcowley & his math boys, in their quick sprint to their predetermined finish line, give themselves an extra point (or 16% difference). I suppose it is only fitting that they give themselves 16% in order to throw 16 years of data on the blind luck pile.
Note that they have all the answers. I certainly don't. I like questions that open up new possibilities. They certainly don't.