Joe, what I have written up in my newsletter is never proof that someone is wrong. Though I do think that Fez was splitting hairs with 5 cent increments being good or bad in a non-conference opening week college game. In a couple of weeks, definitely. But not in week 1 of college.
I released it to my customers earlier than I published my newsletter when there was still some 6.5 remaining and I told them to buy it if the 6.5 wasn't available, as 7 is worth more than the 10 cents required to buy it. Later in the day I wrote it up in my newsletter, as you said, and by the time I was about to commit the newsletter to publication it was a solid 7, so that's the line I put in. I still thought it was a good play at -7. 7 is a key number but first week college lines are the one week of the year I try not to get too hung up on moves. In a few weeks I wouldn't release a game that was available at lower and moved up to 7.
If I have my newsletter ready to go and have a pretty good play written up I'm not going to delay the project due to a half-point move. And keep in mind that any newsletter writeup, mine or anyone's, is just an early week opinion. I've had some really good years in my newsletter but it lost last year. I consider the newsletter to be more important as a teaching tool and information source than anything else. I'm much more interested in hearing "hey, you've taught me a lot that I've used successfully going forward" than "hey, nice winning streak".
Obviously, Bowling Green is a hell of a lot better than I though they would be, and Levi Brown fell apart after a red hot start. On the play I was wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Since I will often be wrong I would never expect my newsletter writeups to be offered as "proof" that someone else is wrong. I frequently have disagreements on plays with smart people and will going forward, both on the bets we make and whether a play is good or bad depending whether it is -110 or -115 in the opening week of college football.
