[ApricotSinner32]

I was wondering if anyone has done database tracking to see whether betting against the best teams in each league when that certain team is doing well against the spread so far for the season, that are heavily publicly bet teams.

Example:

Boise State is 8-2 against the spread for the season playing @ Nevada. Nevada is 5-6 against the spread for the season.

Obviously most of the money is going to be bet on boise state at -14 as boise has beaten every single one of their opponents by 14 or more besides (Virginia tech by 3) (Oregon state by 13) The only people who are going to be betting nevada for the most part are the sharps.

Ok so my thinking here is that the oddsmakers know putting out a line like 14 on this game they are going to be heavily exposed, basically siding with nevada at 14. There is just about no chance that the sharp money will be able to balance the public money on this game, hence this screams out backing nevada to me.

My question is how can backing nevada in this spot not be profitable in the long run?How can betting against the better teams (Lakers,Yankees), Who are on good against the spread runs, not be profitable even at -110?

[BeatingBaseball]

I know you are looking for something supported by data base tracking - but this is my take based solely on general principles:

A team that outperforms the expectation (covers the spread) in a single event was either undervalued, got lucky or some combination thereof.

As a team continues to outperform vs the spread in a series of contests the possibility of simple good fortune having been dispositive is progressively diminished. With each cover, the market will more confidently conclude that such a team was retrospectively undervalued in those contests and since every added outcome is a factor in establishing the market value of that team for each subsequent contest, the market will adjust that team's value upward each week. As in all markets, pricing becomes more efficient as more information is revealed.

Progressively, the pricing on the streaking team will be no longer the value it once was - but the fact that the team becomes relatively overvalued against the prior values should not lead one to conclude that it is overvalued in the absolute (-EV).

No question there will be squares piling on the streaking public favorite - but there is also a square element at work that always says "this can't continue." This is especially true if the opponent has been streaking in the other direction. Remember - squares like favs but they are also notorious for relying on the highly unreliable and mythic "law of averages." Thus simply taking the dog in these situations reflexively can be the easy wrong answer.

The market does not necessarily become irrational after X percentage of covers or Y number of consecutive covers. Theortically, it should at some point become so - and we will surely be able to identify that point retrospectively - but I don't think you can identify it prospectively on this basis alone.

Bottom line - I believe you still have to cap each game on its merits and fundamentals - but safe to say that whenever you consider laying a heavy price or heavy points you better have a good reason to do so - especially when the quality of the team you are taking has become increasingly appreciated by the market.