Yeh if it's too close I won't bet. My buffer is around 2pts (use a spreadsheet, probally similiar to the formula the guys have posted up).

E.g. the canes and the bulls. My line is -11.89, it'd only be a bet if I could get -9 or +14.5. It's -/+ 12.5 so no bet.

That was the only non bet for s12 for me this week.

For NRL, the first line I saw for the cowboys was +4.5, which wasn't a bet for me (I had +3.3). That was offshore, when I look in Aus I saw +5.5 which makes it a bet.

The broncos I have at -11.02, but the line is -10, so no bet.

I like to have a 'perceived' edge of at least 5% on every bet. So in theory my system (if it works) should hit better than 5%ROI (55% winner against the line).

So it's not that I bet EVERYTHING, it's that I bet all games my system says I have an edge on (which seems to be most). Some games a no bets at one bookie but a bet at another. The +4.5 vs +5.5 for the cowboys was a great example. You can often find a pt better by shopping around the aussie and offshore books.

This week, my line vs the bookies:
NRL
Cowboys +3.3 vs +5.5
Raiders -7.88 vs -4.5 (this is what I got, most are -5 or -6).
Broncos -11.02 vs -10
Dragons -8.12 vs +1.5

S12
Chiefs -7.39 vs +10.5
Hurricanes -11.89 vs -12.5
Blues -4.95 vs +6
NSW -13.34 vs -5.5
Cats +4.26 vs +11
Sharks -1 vs -4.5

So some are close and some are far off. Results suggest that I do have a larger advantage on the larger overlays (ie the further my price is from the bookies), but not in proportion to how far it is actually off. E.g. my perceived 5% edges have hit 6-7% ROI. My perceived 20% edges have hit 10-15% ROI etc. Those figures are made up but it's just to show that when my lines are close to the bookies I'm more accurate than my perceived edge suggests, and when I'm way off from the bookies, I'm either way off or they are (and it's more often them than me).