One way to find out if a sports handicapping service or handicapper is good is to see if it is being monitored by an independent, unbiased sports monitoring agency. The latter are in the business of tracking and documenting the performance of handicappers and verify if their claims (especially their winning percentage) are true.
But just as there are good and so-so handicapping services, there are also good and not-so-good sports monitoring services. A bad or not-so-good monitoring service will give you an inaccurate review of handicappers. You may read about their “good” or “top-rated” handicappers, when it turns out that these cappers are not that good after all. As a serious sports bettor, you rely on these sports monitoring services to guide you in your choice of handicappers. To know if a sports monitoring service is good, you have to meticulously check on its diligence in gathering information from handicappers. All monitoring services work the same way: they gather information from the handicappers who subscribe to their services. So the differentiating factor is diligence.
Sports monitoring agencies must have a jaded eye as far as acquiring results of games is concerned. Since it is important for handicappers to state that they have a high winning percentage in calling their games, it is understandable that the cappers will go to great lengths to make its record appear better than it really is.
The Truncated Record
Like individual athletes, handicappers experience hot streaks. If the hot streak comes at the start of a season, the handicapper can give the appearance of a 100% winning call by discontinuing reportage of games before it experiences a loss. Let us say, a certain Handicapper A predicted the outcome of 7 games correctly. The sports monitoring agency gets to review these games. Then, trying to play safe, Handicapper A decides to withhold information on subsequent games, giving it an impressive 100% clip.
Mediocre sports monitoring groups will pick up that piece of information and report a 100% winning percentage for Handicapper A. Never mind that Handicapper A only called 7 games; the sports bettor probably would not take the trouble to read the detailed record of Handicapper A. The more diligent monitoring organization will look at Handicapper’s A record with skepticism and demand that it be allowed to monitor more of the handicapper’s games. If Handicapper A refuses, then the monitoring organization will not publish the record of Handicapper A as t is grossly misleading.
A Paucity of Games
Another source of inaccuracy is a handicapper who does not call as many games as other top handicappers. A good monitoring service would require a minimum number of games per week for a handicapper to qualify for placement in its rankings. For example, if the monitoring group requires a minimum of 10 games per week, then handicappers who call on just 2 or 3 games in the same time period will not qualify for ranking.
Padding Games to Make Cappers Look Good
A favorite technique of handicappers is padding games. This is done by combining different metrics in one game. A handicapper may for example play the moneyline and the ppintspread in one football game to distort the report of the outcome. Another way of padding is playing a heavy favorite and offsetting it with a high unit and combining it with a moneyline play. The result of such padding is that it fools the visitor into believing that the handicapper wins more than it really does. Such padding also fools the client into believing that the handicapper does offer a pick with a combination of moneyline and pointspread betting.
Diligent sports monitoring services will study the data given by the handicapper and meticulously analyze the win to see if moneyline and point spread betting were combined in one game. A good sports monitoring group will restrict the reports given by handicappers. The ether report moneyline betting only or pointspread betting only. Absolutely no combining and no padding.
Another “cause” of inaccuracy may be the relationship between a monitoring group and the handicapping service. Usually a handicapper hires a monitoring group to monitor and document its performance. Hence, while a monitoring service may be theoretically an independent and unbiased group, it may act as a contractor for the handicapper. Hence, some sports monitoring services do not really pay close attention to the information given to them by the handicapper.
Service to the Betting Public
What these monitoring organizations forget is that they also render service to the betting public. Moreover their most valuable asset is not the handicappers’ rankings that they regularly post on their websites. Rather it is their credibility. Sports monitoring services can continue to operate and succeed in their operations if the betting public believes they are providing them with accurate and credible information.