[MicroBob]

If I'm understanding this correctly:
His models being robust overall doesn't mean that some of this stuff might not be occuring with some of his observations though.

Some of the stuff seems to be reaching a bit such as:

"how home favorites perform after winning straight up as a double road underdog."

I assume he means road underdog of 10 points or more.
I think that looking at such a stat in a vacuum without context can be dangerous although I agree that if one wants to try to use the argument that a team is likely to have a letdown after a big upset win the numbers evidently indicate that may be unfounded.
And I guess if the betting public unjustly believes in a let-down scenario then there is value in the line.

So such a stat could be justified but man would I look at this cautiously and try to find other reasons like scheduling or whatever to explain why some of that stuff happened.

Obviously some of this stuff is just going to come down to variance as well and I'm sure Dr. Bob understands that but some of the numbers he throws out make me wonder.

I was with a baseball team one season that had gone 2-10 on Tuesdays but was 11-1 on Wednesdays and my hunch is that it had nothing to do with anything like the whole team partying on Monday nights or that they would 'bounce-back' after their loss or anything like that. It was just a weird variance quirk.

But it feels like some of the trend-freaks of the sports-betting world might have detected the pattern and started to fade that team on Tuesdays and bet the house on them on Wednesdays.