[ImNew]

[ QUOTE ]

NOT necessarily true. The only reason I say 'necessarily' is because huge favorites are often teams like Dallas where I refuse to take the M/L over the points because points matter so much more.

I amalgamate data from different sites. Covers/Wagerline, sportsinsights, and sportsbook.com . Of all these, I trust wagerline the most, then sportsinsights, and then finally sportsbook.com . I believe that wagerline tries its best to show a representative sample of the betting population, as I don't see an incentive for them to do otherwise. Sportsinsights I think usually has the correct data, but sometimes may either A) skew their data or B) have their data skewed by the books, as they purportedly report the 'actual bets' being placed at all sportsbooks. Sportsbook I think is too small of a sample, and their clientele too 'squarish' to provide a true representative sample.

[/ QUOTE ]

To me, I really think that big dogs have value when no one would ever imgaine them winning SU. Examples include NYK at Pistons (I think it's last year), Boston at SA, Pheonix (late injury) at Philadelphia, all 10+ pt dogs won SU, NYK lost by 2 recently in Dallas (8.5 pt dog) so I'd say value exists in best v worst ML.

As far as public perception goes, you may want to add caribsports. I don't think wagerline has any value though because people aren't making real bets.