[ QUOTE ]
A better option might be to use a range size in between the two extremes, say +/- half a point, so the ranges would be +1..+2, +1.5..+2.5, +2..+3, +2.5..+3.5, and so on. The line for a particular game would fall into three of these ranges, so if the moneyline showed value for all three, it would probably be a good bet. I'll post these numbers in a bit.
[/ QUOTE ]
NCAAF Road Underdogs since 1996
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
Line Wins Losses Win % Breakeven ML
+1..+2 131 118 0.526 -111
+1.5..+2.5 153 134 0.533 -114
+2..+3 219 236 0.481 108
+2.5..+3.5 246 286 0.462 116
+3..+4 207 289 0.417 140
+3.5..+4.5 123 230 0.348 187
+4..+5 89 189 0.320 212
+4.5..+5.5 97 188 0.340 194
+5..+6 109 185 0.371 170
+5.5..+6.5 132 242 0.353 183
+6..+7 143 303 0.321 212
+6.5..+7.5 143 328 0.304 229
+7..+8 119 274 0.303 230
+7.5..+8.5 83 228 0.267 275
+8..+9 61 164 0.271 269
+8.5..+9.5 64 204 0.239 319
+9..+10 76 218 0.259 287
+9.5..+10.5 72 245 0.227 340
+10..+11 70 197 0.262 281
+10.5..+11.5 52 140 0.271 269
+11..+12 51 113 0.311 222
+11.5..+12.5 52 130 0.286 250
+12..+13 52 163 0.242 313
+12.5..+13.5 62 211 0.227 340
+13..+14 63 270 0.189 429
+13.5..+14.5 46 200 0.187 435
+14..+15 23 112 0.170 487
</pre><hr />
As an example, my lines on UNC today were +5.5 ATS and +200 ML. +5.5 falls into the ranges +4.5..+5.5, +5..+6, and +5.5..+6.5. The break-even moneyline values for these three ranges are +194, +170, and +183, so +200 is likely a good value on the moneyline. However this line is pretty close to the anomalous +4..+5 range, which has a BE ML of +212. In any case, since I already felt that UNC had greater than a 1/3 chance of winning the game, this data added to my belief that the +200 ML bet had a significant edge.