When it comes to sports betting, particularly in the NFL, many gamblers fall prey to the allure of simplistic reasoning. One common misconception is believing that if you can pick the outright winner of a game, you're likely to have picked the winner against the spread as well. This notion is often touted alongside statistics suggesting that the outright winner covers the spread about 80% of the time. However, this logic is fundamentally flawed.
Understanding the Spread
In betting, when an underdog wins outright, they cover the spread 100% of the time. Conversely, a favorite cannot cover the spread unless they win the game outright. The only situation where a team wins yet fails to cover is when the favorite wins but by a margin smaller than the spread.
For example, if a team is favored by 3.5 points, the only way they can win but not cover is if they win by one, two, or three points. So, the belief that picking the straight-up (SU) winner easily translates to a spread win is misguided.
Context Matters: NFL vs. College Sports
Those who tend to propagate this myth often reference the NFL or NBA, where spreads are generally tighter and more predictable. In college sports, however, mismatches are more common, leading to larger spreads and more frequent instances where a favorite may win but not cover.
The Myth of Easy Wins
The perpetuation of this myth seems to stem from the idea that picking the SU winner is easier than picking the spread winner. If that were true, why not simply focus on picking underdogs on the moneyline? After all, plenty of underdogs win outright, and betting on them could yield higher returns than risking $110 to win $100.
The Reality of Betting Intelligence
Ultimately, this flawed reasoning keeps sportsbooks in business. Gamblers who adhere to this logic are often the ones who sustain the betting industry. As the well-known betting analyst Joe Duffy points out, no oddsmaker will go broke underestimating the intelligence of the betting public.
Duffy, a successful professional handicapper since the 1980s, has witnessed these misconceptions endure through decades of betting. His insights remind us of the importance of using deductive reasoning and understanding the nuances of betting, rather than falling for simplistic and unfounded theories.