College games money line

When it comes to monitoring the results of sporting events, there is a considerable difference between grading Money Line based events (such as MLB and NHL sides) and events involving Point Spreads, like Football or Basketball. Line movement has a far greater impact on Point Spread events when compared to Money Line events. A 5-10 cent variation in the grading line of of a money line event represents 1/20th or 1/10th of a net game, but variations in the line on point spread events can affect outcomes anywhere from 1.00 to 2.10 full net games.Money line winners are determined by who wins the game straight up in MLB, or against a very solid +0.5/-0.5 puck line in the NHL. There is no doubt as to who won or lost the game.The Braves beat the Dodgers or they lost.The Canadiens either won, tied, or lost their game with the Maple Leafs.A service receives full credit for every side that won outright, as well as every side that lost outright. The actual money line odds and/or movement do NOT affect the actual outcome (win or lose) of a proposition. Instead, any variation in price/odds when grading such games will only have a nominal affect on the payout involved. While we expect our determination of grading lines for money line events to be extremely precise, there may be differences of 5 or 10 cents one way or the other depending on the timeframe used when determining a grading line. Unless a service is releasing games based on money line moves, he will likely find himself on both sides of the ledger (having some moves go with him and some moves against him), to the point where any difference due to money line moves may be negligible.
Point Spread events, on the other hand, are a very different story.A line move on a point spread event may actually change the OUTCOME of a game from a WIN / LOSS / PUSH standpoint. If the line moves across or onto the number on which the game ultimately falls, a win may become a loss or push (and vice versa). From a monitoring standpoint, this is extremely significant. The impact of a game's outcome swinging from one side of the ledger to the other is a difference of 2.10 net games. Putting this 2.10 net game difference in perspective with moves on money line events, a service would need to have a net of TWENTY-ONE 10 cent, or FORTY-TWO 5 cent money line moves go against him to have the same affect as A SINGLE flip/flop on a point spread event. Even a move as little as a 1/2 point, may affect a point spread event's outcome between a win, push, or loss, and impact a handicappers record by 1.00 to 1.10 net games. Reiterating, line moves on Point Spread events may affect the actual OUTCOME of the game - WIN or LOSE or PUSH. Therefore, in order to assure that documented records are as representative and accurate as possible, it is imperative/critical that grading lines are chosen in order to best reflect the most likely OUTCOME for each event.
The remainder of this page will discuss some considerations and philosophies that go into determining our grading lines for point spread events, particularly football. The lines posted at BigGuy are updated as lines move, and are intended to represent the line at the majority of sportsbooks at any given time. The posted line should be an excellent indication of what the grading line would be at any given point in time.
Each game's line history from Olympic is the main factor when determining grading lines. The grading of games is entirely supported by historical evidence and under no circumstances are lines determined in an arbitrary or haphazard manner, or influenced by the position of any service or handicapper.
Grading lines for football are determined on gameday.Handicappers should not expect any lines available during the week to be the grading line, unless of course that number ends up being the prevailing number on gameday.
In general, a reasonable expectation for a grading line would be:1) the line that was prevalent during the majority of the day,2) favoring the time frame 1 to 3 hours before gametime, 3) and discounting any unusual movement just before gametime.
Other factors taken into account are:1) the length of time a line rested on a certain number,2) the size, direction, and timing of any line movement,3) the time of day when a game is scheduled (line changes closer to gametime on the earliest games will be given some weight, whereas later moves on west coast games will be discounted),4) and even the line during the week (should a line be equally divided between two numbers on gameday).

For most games, the line is quite clear/stable and not open to any interpretation whatsoever, having a single across the board line in place during the timeframes outlined above. However, we have games where a determination needs to be made between two numbers. If the game's outcome ATS was far removed from the actual point spread, it is a moot point as to which number is actually chosen (although the time is expended to select the better of the two), since it will have no bearing on the monitored result. Yet, when a game falls close and there has been movement on or about the number, it will be necessary to closely evaluate that game's line history in order to determine the most accurate and equitable grading line. Understandably, it is the grading of this last class of games that is extremely important. The issue that arises when grading games that fall close is not whether the two numbers being considered actually existed (that is supported by archived line histories), but more so the timeframe/point in time being used when making a determination. While some small degree of subjectivity is required when selecting grading lines in this manner, we expect the extra time and effort spent on this more refined approach to help minimize the number of "bad" or misrepresentative lines that might otherwise have been chosen by using some other method. The use of closing lines is very often a poor choice for a grading line. Late information related to a steam play, weather, player injury status, how a particular pitcher or quarterback warms up, etc., all cause line movement during the minutes before a game goes off. Such movement frequently results in a closing line that is offered for only a short period of time and only to those betting the game late. In addition, this line may no longer be indicative of the numbers that the majority of people were offered during the day, let alone the line just prior to the move itself. Consequently, strict adherence to closing lines may be one of the poorest choices for an appropriate grading line. Our line policy discounts this type of late line movement. An example here would be a game that opened at -8.0 and effectively remained there all week/day long. Then, in the minutes before gametime, the dog is pounded and the line drops to -6.5. Understandably, this game would likely be graded at 8.0, as it would be unfair to dog players, and an advantage for favorite players, should a line of 6.5 be used when this number was only available for a brief period of time. The same can be said for football totals, especially if they cross a key number, such as 37. Use of the last line the evening before gameday offers some problems as well. What if an early morning move immediately takes the game off the overnight number and the line never returns or comes close to touching this number again? In this case, the overnight number is effectively never offered or available to anyone on gameday. What about games that go off much later in the evening where there are still hours of possible line activity before kickoff? And, what if the overnight number ends up being a number that wasn't offered for very long at all? An example being, a late move the night before onto a number, and an early move in the AM off that number. Consequently, the overnight line may have been bettable for only a fraction of time.Over the years, some monitors have made a practice of grading plays using multiple lines, if differing lines were available somewhere at a given time. For example, if 3.0 and 3.5 were available, then players on the dog would be given +3.5 pts while favorite players would only be laying 3.0. If this game subsequently falls on 3.0, dog players would win while favorite players would receive a push. Given this same game, if a monitor who practiced multiple lines determined that both 2.5 and 3.5 were available, all services could conceivably win the same game no matter what side they had. The justification for this approach is that if variations in the line exist, then a service should be entitled to be graded against the most favorable line because it was available somewhere. But, by taking this somewhat aggressive approach, service records will now reflect results under the assumption that their clients too had these same multiple lines available for them to bet into. Under this scenario, clients MUST have access to the same multiple lines the monitor used for grading JUST to achieve the documented result.
There is little doubt that setting oneself up with multiple outs to have access to a variety of lines is one of the few and most worthwhile weapons a bettor has at his disposal. In addition, a bettor would be remiss not to wait until the last possible moment before kickoff hoping to take advantage of a favorable last minute move from one of his outs. For example:
If considering Favorite - Wait to see if 3.5 drops to 3.0, or 3.0 drops to 2.5.If considering Underdog - Wait to see if 2.5 bumps to 3.0, or 3.0 becomes 3.5.
However, we do not feel it is the monitor's place to make the assumptions that every bettor has a variety of lines available to him, or that he will pick off a 1/2 point from one of his outs at the last minute. Advantages such a these are to be gained through each individual bettor's own diligence, and while they affect his own actual results, they should not to be bestowed on him by the monitor. We would rather error on the side of conservatism, by representing results at BigGuy with a single grading line that represents the most likely/equitable outcome under normal circumstances. Comfortable in knowing that the documented BigGuy results should be achieved by the average player, clients should understand that they could only improve on these results by securing multiple outs.
While not a precise statement, the use of multiple grading lines is tantamount to the service buying a half point on every game for free. Such an added edge would normally cost an individual bettor an additional 10% (and 15% if on/off of 3.0) for each half point. Consequently, monitored results are inflated to the upside, without the corresponding penalty of 10-15% that should be assigned to each and every game that losses ATS. It goes without saying that when a single line is used for grading and a given game falls on or near the number, (especially when there has been movement), there is the chance that one side is going to be happier with the grading than the other. In such instances, while both sides may have a case, often times one of the two choices for a grading line will represent the MOST LIKELY outcome, with the other representing the LEAST LIKELY outcome. This is where properly interpreting a game's line history is necessary to arrive at the most acceptable grading line with the least amount of dispute. If faced with having to decide between multiple lines, generally, one of them will provide the best indication of actual results for the majority of players. This should also end up being the best choice to both accurately and equitably represent service results. If anything, we'd like to see services take away from this discussion an understanding that our monitored outcome for games falling close is NOT AN ABSOLUTE. Services should not be offended when they invariably lose close decisions. It is reasonable to assume that the actual results for individual players will vary depending on the line each client/bettor may have received on games that fell close. What should be of more concern to the service, is whether their clients actually won real dollars by getting the more favorable line, rather than being overly concerned with whether they received the most favorable grading on every close game for monitoring purposes.
Monitored results are not any one individual's actual results, nor are they the best possible result that could be obtained given the most favorable lines possible. Your BigGuy documented record is just one interpretation of the outcome of your entire season's worth of plays, and we believe you will find it to be a reasonable and equitable one.
We do sympathize with the dilemma that close games provide. In fairness to monitored sites and services, such games are duly noted in the record with a notation of "Actual results may vary". Readers should interpret this to mean that depending on the bettor's actual line, the outcome on that game may have been different than our monitored result. Using this approach, a user can spot games where he may have improved his actual results with a better line through multiple outs. A complete archived record of each service's plays with highlighted notations of "Actual results may vary" allows anyone to review a handicappers record with a better understanding as to the impact our monitoring had on close plays. While the actual determination of the grading line may be out of a service's control, working with or around it is not. We offer monitored services the opportunity to submit qualifying line parameters on any and all games. These limits prevent plays from being graded against a line the service does not want, or may not have expected. A play is disqualified if the grading line is outside the parameters submitted by the service. Parameters can be submitted up front or during the week. It is a service's responsibility to monitor a line's progress, and should it be approaching a number they do not wish to have a play graded against, take advantage of this option by submitting additional instructions. Any such conditional information must arrive before gametime, and is also expected to be passed onto clients.Example:A service submits a play on a favorite.The gameday evidence supports a grading line of -3.5. Earlier in the week, the line may have been -2.5. The game falls on 3.0.It was the services responsibility to have submitted a limit condition of "no higher than 3.0", if they felt there was any chance that a line of 3.5 may eventually be selected and they didn't want to lay the hook.
By submitting plays in the normal manner, without conditions/limits, is effectively an acceptance of our grading line.
A word of warning. It is very possible that using limits may cost a service wins should their use of limits disqualify more plays that go on to win handily, than go on to lose by that 1/2 they were overly concerned about. When entering plays into a monitored area, the current line from the BigGuy Simulation is displayed for informational purposes. This line is provided as a guideline to help handicappers select the proper games and teams. By reviewing the linetracker information at the BigGuy site for a given game, and examining the timeframe from two hours prior until gametime, you will get a good idea as to what line may likely be used for grading.