“Against the spread” refers to betting on a team to perform better than the point spread set by the sportsbook. They must either win by a margin greater than the spread (for favorites) or lose by fewer points than the spread (for underdogs) for the bet to be successful.
Quote from NY Post Point spreads are supposed to be the great equalizer. History has shown that the eventual champions are often underestimated by the composite sum of market influences, even when they’re media-friendly, high-profile programs. Consistently clearing high expectations is a sign of greatness.
6-2-2 against the spread is not that meaningful. If Vegas is getting it right it should be about 50-50. Here we have them beating the spread 6 out of 10 times, and not beating it 4 times. That doesn’t seem extreme enough on this sample size to say that there is a systematic underestimation.
Clarifying This question could apply to any winning team
The idea was about a team that was significantly better than even ATS
I came across these ATS stats for the Eagles today, but I couldnt find much research on this as a question. Thought I would put it out there as a topic question
Any research on this generally qould be appreciated
I mean i havent really been keeping up with spreads.
It’s difficult to say they are better or worse than people are giving credit without seeing the points required to “cover”.
If covering the spread requires you to beat a team by 13 thats very impressive. If its a 1 score spread then it becomes less impressive although still impressive. Not sure I an articulating my point well, super hungover sorry.