Fade the public on every game?

[bills217]

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?

[TheGame1020]

Doing it every game is incorrect. However doing it often is correct. I think you need to add this to your other variables when capping a game. Capping a game on one aspect is not doing a very good job. The public betting patterns however is the biggest edge you have as a capper.

[jedinite]

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

[legend42]

The linesmakers are smarter than the public, but it's your job to be smarter than both.

[bills217]

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

[jedinite]

[ 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...

[bills217]

Oh ok the consensus picks are 222-244-16, not the fades. Gotcha. Thanks.

[worm33]

[ 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 ]


Hey Jednite, If you could specify your search a little, could you figure out the records of the home dogs that are under 40% by the public and the home favorites that the public is on the road dog?

These are my 2 favorite plays by far. I rarely bet the road dog that the public is over 60% on the other side, and this accounts for at least 50% of the "top consensus plays of the day".

[sublime]

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

Factor in line shopping and one could EASILY get to 53.5%

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Factor in line shopping and one could EASILY get to 53.5%

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

I'm no expert, but my wooden head thinks this could be a very profitable system. Any thoughts/corrections would be appreciated.