UNC was posted as a play so that makes 6-1, but Clemson, V Tech, and NC St weren't posted as official plays and didn't include a line. The Washington St play was also listed as "not available." The list I have has Clemson and V Tech as having been 8 and 9 respectively and both landed on the number. I'm sure some people won on those at a higher juice 8.5 or 9.5, but you kind of have to list a line when the play is posted, otherwise someone could game the system by saying if it lost, they had un8, and if it landed on the 8, they had un8.5. Also, in a market as thin as CFB season wins you can't expect someone to follow a play without a suggested line--look at the Texas 1h team total on Greek which moved 30 cents in less than 10 minutes. If Fezzik had just said "play the Texas team total under" someone could have been stuck with a shitty un12.5 -145 instead of the -115 he wanted.
Not sure why joelshitshow thinks record keeping is all that difficult. It takes about 10 seconds to check a line feed and determine what the widely available line is. Anthony seems to think the handicappers get the worst of it when people say a line only available at Pinnacle at 3am isn't "widely available," but the whole point of keeping a widely available record is to establish how a follower would expect to do, not how the handicapper does with their own betting. On the topic of reputation, Fezzik is quick to point out that handicappers need to adapt to changing markets and that it's much tougher to win now vs 2003 or 2006 or whenever, which is why it's important to keep accurate records. While the results over a small sample are reasonably unimportant, it's a good idea to check whether the market respects someone's betting or not.
