The more I do this, the more I'm convinced that it's 100% math and science, 0% art.
I'm certain that many will jump to their feet screaming, "I make numbers every week based on my power ratings, but it's my [artistic] adjustments that make me successful! How can you possibly say that there is no art?"
The truth is, having good power ratings on teams is not enough to win. Coming up with spreads based on pure mathematical power ratings is a good starting point, but additional math adjustments are almost always required. But that's the point made by the dissenters above, right? Not really, because these adjustments aren't an art, they're a science. For example, a handicapper might make an NFL game line "12" based on pure power ratings, but then have a hunch that the underdog is the right side, making them a good bet +12. It's that "hunch" that's at issue in this discussion. What seem like a hunch is typically based on something that's fairly easy to quantify. Winless NFL teams off their bye weeks, for example, are usually pure Gold against the spread. A sports bettor can argue that it's his imagination and artistry that lead him to the winner, but the mathematician can easily come over the top and point out that this is a clear math trend worth 2.5 points on the line.
A similar situation exists when a team fires its manager. The savvy bettor thinks, "I have a hunch the team will play better the next game." But the math guy knows from the numbers that this scenario is worth 10¢-25¢, depending on other circumstances (including whether the team hated, loved, or was indifferent to the fired manager).
Call it art if you like, but in most cases it comes back to the numbers, and that's science.
