[thelyingthief]

re. range of pointspread groupings:

to begin with, are they really that broad? the difference between 4.5 and 6.5 is an extra point, basically. you'd need to factor in the relative frequencies of the various data points if you want to seriously quantify differences between them, else you may be making errors in your refinement that are greater than that posed by the ranges selected by the author. you could end up compounding the impact of -EV events by assigning them a valence too great, given the universal set of which they are a part. in a general way, when attempting to quantify data of this kind, it is always better to err on the side of the less precise and more robust than your instincts might think. i bet another sport that is heavily stat based, and i have found it difficult, when creating ranges like this, to quantify overly nicely. you kind of have to accept fringe events, since there is insufficient evidence with which to make calculations that will accurately represent them. by that i mean, with a given range, say you have sufficient data to make a strong correlation, 99% confidence; when assigning value to the exceptions, or individual points in the data set, you will have nowhere near that kind of confidence, and in application will experience volatility in your results.

besides, the author may have examined this issue prior to publication, and found it insignificant. why don't you contact him and ask what the reasoning behind his separation of the data and if he considered the problems involved in making them so wide?

tlt