[BostonCard]

Remember, the Vegas line is all about balancing bets from the public, nothing more.

People always say this, but this is the wrong sophisticated take, IMO. Even if Vegas needs to balance bets from the public, the line should still be a reasonably accurate prediction for the final result. (Otherwise you too could be a successful sports gambler!)

Right; it's a little like saying that the price of a stock is based on matching buyers and sellers and not on any intrinsic value to the stock.  If there was a systematically better way to predict the movement of stocks, it would be quickly arbitraged away.  Likewise, if there was a way to systematically predict the outcome of football games better than the spread, it would be arbitraged away (with the caveat that because the transaction costs are higher, small discrepancies between the line and some "better method" could persist).

Of course there is still a possibility that a professional gambler, who is more knowledgeable than the "wisdom of the crowds" and has an intuitive understanding of likely results based on who is playing and a deep read into the teams, can spot "undervalued" picks.  But that is a little bit like finding a mutual fund manager who manages to beat the index.  Yes, they exist, but being able to do so over a year is a poor predictor of beating an index over the next year, which suggests that the idea of a stock picker who can consistently outperform the market due to skill rather than luck is bogus.  Likewise, a sports gambler who suggests they can consistently make money gambling should be viewed skeptically.

BC

[BostonCard]

Remember, the Vegas line is all about balancing bets from the public, nothing more.

People always say this, but this is the wrong sophisticated take, IMO. Even if Vegas needs to balance bets from the public, the line should still be a reasonably accurate prediction for the final result. (Otherwise you too could be a successful sports gambler!)

Right; it's a little like saying that the price of a stock is based on matching buyers and sellers and not on any intrinsic value to the stock.  If there was a systematically better way to predict the movement of stocks, it would be quickly arbitraged away.  Likewise, if there was a way to systematically predict the outcome of football games better than the spread, it would be arbitraged away (with the caveat that because the transaction costs are higher, small discrepancies between the line and some "better method" could persist).

Of course there is still a possibility that a professional gambler, who is more knowledgeable than the "wisdom of the crowds" and has an intuitive understanding of likely results based on who is playing and a deep read into the teams, can spot "undervalued" picks.  But that is a little bit like finding a mutual fund manager who manages to beat the index.  Yes, they exist, but being able to do so over a year is a poor predictor of beating an index over the next year, which suggests that the idea of a stock picker who can consistently outperform the market due to skill rather than luck is bogus.  Likewise, a sports gambler who suggests they can consistently make money gambling should be viewed skeptically.

BC