This has become a buzzword, or buzz phrase in handicapping circles, mostly in the analytical crowd. They didn't invent the term; it is an actual psychological phenomenon. But does it really exist in handicapping?
Doesn't a so-called recency bias discount the factor of current form? Its based on two assumptions; first is that people overemphasize what they saw last. That may well be true. But the second is that the public sees EVERY game. They assume the public knew what Eastern Washington did three days ago, or what Texas AM did in their last two games. The public can't stay on top with over 300 teams. Can you imagine betting the Kentucky Derby based strictly on horses 2 year old form? What about college teams who add impact players at semester break? What about the added confidence of improved play? It sounds good in theory, but I question it.
Doesn't a so-called recency bias discount the factor of current form? Its based on two assumptions; first is that people overemphasize what they saw last. That may well be true. But the second is that the public sees EVERY game. They assume the public knew what Eastern Washington did three days ago, or what Texas AM did in their last two games. The public can't stay on top with over 300 teams. Can you imagine betting the Kentucky Derby based strictly on horses 2 year old form? What about college teams who add impact players at semester break? What about the added confidence of improved play? It sounds good in theory, but I question it.