Fade the public on every game?

[ QUOTE ]
This is kind of a noob question, but I'd like to get some thoughts on this...

Fading the public is obviously a good play, since the books know what they're doing and don't give away free money.

So, when you have access to things like wagerline and you can find out what the public is doing...why not fade the public on every single bet you could possibly find where there was xx% of public money on one side? Why would this system not work? If it would, does anyone do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense Bills, admittedly I know nothing about you, but this line of thinking is something a lazy, losing gambler (ie most gamblers) would come up with. Probably from the same guys that play strictly from a "starting hands chart" in poker. Think about it for a second, if it were really that easy, wouldn't we all be rich now? But in reality, being a winning sports gambler takes time and energy, just like poker and anything else. But don't take my word for it. The best way to learn is by doing. Try it yourself. Start with super small betting units ($5?) and go against every public play (set a threshold, maybe >70%?). Keep track of your results in a thread and we'll all follow. Sure you'll lose, but you'll also get a better feel for teams and situations that will make you better able to find the good plays.

[ThaHero]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From the way your post is worded, I'm assuming the record is actually 244-222-16, and that the original is a typo?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me clarify.

The record for consensus picks is 222-244-16, that is 222 wins and 244 losses over the past three years. I.e. a 47.6% win rate. I.e. the general public (as measured by wagerline consensus reports) is wrong more often than right. So if you were fading those picks (taking the opposite side) you would have shown a 52.4% win rate... i.e. your win rate for taking the opposite side would have been 244-222-16.

However that 52.4% win rate is not sufficient to outrun the -110 odds you have to lay, therefore its a slight losing action to fade all the picks, albeit a much improved state over taking the consensus picks...

[/ QUOTE ]

These numbers are phenomenal. If all lines were even, simply fading the public would net you a win. But these linesmakers are really a lot smarter than we think. This really showed me how tough it is to win in sportsbetting, although it is possible. How these guys can predict the future so well, I will never know.

[sublime]

That's along the lines of what I was thinking. When you factor in line shopping, bonus money, rewards programs, etc....could you not grind a profit out of this? Would it not also be extremely low risk (about as risky as it is for the books), allowing you to bet a very high unit size? Not to mention that the necessary research would be minimal and not extremely time-consuming, increasing $/hr.

You are looking at it from a way too simplistic point of view. First off, I dont know how accurate wagerline is. For example, do they just take a snapshot of all wagers placed? What about when a guy bets a team -2.5, then the line moves to -3.5 and a +EV play just went to a -EV play. Does the sharp play get lumped with the square play? Probably, and that skewers the results.

Basically, I dont agree with 'systems' like this, but most of the bets I place towards the end of the week are fading over adjustments in the market (so you are thinking correctly). Betting them all blindly would probably not be a good idea (IMO)

Also, you are forgetting how small your edge is and how that will entail certain awful losing streaks. If your expecting to cash tickets at a 53.5% clip, that means you have a 1% edge which is very small. variance will be a bitch, especially since the NFL season is so short and that's how most people judge their success (or lack thereof). Basically, can you endure going 118-132 one season and losing 50% of your bankroll at 2% per wager and then step up to the window the next year and do it again? Most cant (even those who say they can have probably never lost that much money and kept betting), but that is whats required to make money long term.

i just rambled on there, sorry if it made no sense.

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
Doing it for the last three years on Wagerline consensus picks (those 60% favored or higher) would net you a result of 222-244-16.

Assuming you're playing a standard -110 line, you're looking at -244.2 units lost and +244 units gained for a loss of .2 units across the last three years combined.

So, in short, no. you can't fade all the picks and win.

http://www.wagerline.com/showprofile...&Sport=NFL

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it hard to get a lot of bets at better than the standard -110 line?

[WaimanaloSlim]

Doesn't Wagerline get these numbers from their freeroll contests - Not actual money bets?

[worm33]

yes

Most online sportsbooks give half price Vig on Fridays for College Football, so you only pay 105%.