>60% against the spread. Anyone who can do that consistently over a period of time, knows their stuff. Sports betting is an inferior financial proposition, compared to trading, because of the high transactional costs. The risk/reward is skewed against you by the "vig", which typically is 10%, ie you lose a $100 bet, you owe the bookie $110. Plus, unlike trading, you have a defined payoff. So it is purely a winnng percentage exercise. You have to have 52% winners to break even. Sounds easy but it can be frustratingly difficult. You have the spread covered, then the favorite gives up a meaningless(to them) score with a minute to go. You lose. Most bettors lack the discipline to be long term winners, hence the expression that winners are only borrowing the bookie's money. They'll give it back eventually. I know others do it differently, but for me the crucial aspect is to be very selective in the games I pick. When I was doing the picks thread, I would have weeks at a time with no picks. Boring, yes. But are you doing it for excitement or to make money? For most people, the honest answer is they want to add a little extra interest to the games by having some jack riding on them. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not the way to make money.
for most people, if all they wanted was a little rooting interest they could bet small on guesses and load up when they knew something. which for 99.9% would be never.
Three games sucks, they must rake in the dough. I'm in BC and the British Columbia Lotto Corp (BCLC) requires only a minimum of 2 games. Be warned though that their odds are wrong so many times, so be careful about betting for the favorite. The game is called Oddset. http://www.bclc.com/cm/sportsaction/home.htm#
60% winning percentage against the spread is very impressive indeed. I agree that the only real way to acheive this is to be very selective with the games you bet, perhaps looking for a spread that's off. Not that common though given football lines are quite efficient. Ever bet anything other than football? Perhaps a more obscure sport that might be more succeptible to an incorrect spread?
Proline experimented with 2 games minimum a couple of years ago but it didn't last too long. Even 2 games significantly lowers the odds for the bettor.
It used to be thought that the so-called national teams, ie the ones with a big following, or teams with a rabid betting fanbase, might offer some bargains, due to the need of bookies to balance their books. For example, Boston is a big betting town. If the Pats are playing, say St. L, then the line might have to be shaded toward St. L to get balanced action. I don't believe that theory works anymore, probably due to the emergence of online betting and a public national line. It seems that every year, there is a team or two that the oddsmakers underestimate week after week. You can ride them for a while. Dysfunctional teams that quit on their head coach can be great propositions late in the season. Personally, I like to stay away from games involving evenly matched, quality teams unless I see a real bargain in the spread. Too often they are decided by one or two plays, like the strip of Aaron Rodgers and TD runback by Arizona in the playoffs last year. I have never bet other sports. One of my friends used to bet pro basketball extensively and felt there were plenty of opportunities. The most obvious is catching a team on the road playing back to backs. That's a common situation for a subpar effort and blowout. The NBA is a match-up driven league, and the matchups are far easier to analyze than in the NFL.
The problem is your competition. There are far too many people trying to angle the NFL than NCAAF. The first four or five games of the college season are generally easy money. Then the bookies get sharp. Not so with the NFL. They are sharp from the beginning of August. They're tough to beat especially ATS. BTW: I seriously doubt that >60% ATS claim.