I've heard a lot of people on here say that picking spreads are "50-50", and I think the notion is worth debunking. Here's a pasted response that I just gave...
"50 50 shot"
WOW. Do people honestly believe that picking spreads are a 50-50 chance?
For this to be true, you would have to assume the perfect legitimacy of the spreads the books crunch out, and for a spread to be perfectly legitimate, you would have to assume that the outcome is TOTALLY unforeseeable outside the fact that one will cover and one will not, with no outside variables whatsoever. This obviously isn't the case. The games are too unpredictable, there are far too many variables, and the books often make spreads that are seemingly off by intuitive standards alone.
If I flip a coin, the odds it lands heads is 50%. Why? Becuase all factors are controlled, there are two and only two possible outcomes, and there is absolutely no explicit or foreseeable outcome that would lead one to conclusively believe that anything other than random chance will decide where it lands. Outcomes in sports are, in fact, somewhat foreseeable, though obviously nothing near perfect nor even ideal. The very fact that oddsmakers make spreads is an example of them foreseeing how a game will go and projecting the spread in an attempt to get 50% action.
"Well, you either win or don't win, therefore it's 50-50 a dur"
Yeah, and you either get struck by lightning or you don't, therefore that's also 50-50. You get abducted by an alien or you don't, therefore it's 50-50. Alcorn State beats Duke or it doesn't, therefore it's 50-50.....that's the type of reasoning you're using once it's established that the spreads are NOT perfectly legitimate and unforeseeable.
"50 50 shot"
WOW. Do people honestly believe that picking spreads are a 50-50 chance?For this to be true, you would have to assume the perfect legitimacy of the spreads the books crunch out, and for a spread to be perfectly legitimate, you would have to assume that the outcome is TOTALLY unforeseeable outside the fact that one will cover and one will not, with no outside variables whatsoever. This obviously isn't the case. The games are too unpredictable, there are far too many variables, and the books often make spreads that are seemingly off by intuitive standards alone.
If I flip a coin, the odds it lands heads is 50%. Why? Becuase all factors are controlled, there are two and only two possible outcomes, and there is absolutely no explicit or foreseeable outcome that would lead one to conclusively believe that anything other than random chance will decide where it lands. Outcomes in sports are, in fact, somewhat foreseeable, though obviously nothing near perfect nor even ideal. The very fact that oddsmakers make spreads is an example of them foreseeing how a game will go and projecting the spread in an attempt to get 50% action.
"Well, you either win or don't win, therefore it's 50-50 a dur"
Yeah, and you either get struck by lightning or you don't, therefore that's also 50-50. You get abducted by an alien or you don't, therefore it's 50-50. Alcorn State beats Duke or it doesn't, therefore it's 50-50.....that's the type of reasoning you're using once it's established that the spreads are NOT perfectly legitimate and unforeseeable.
IF the spreads were perfectly legitimate with no outside factors or foreseeability...yes, but that's not the case.
