Fade The Public' A Sports Betting Strategy: Science Or Myth
There have been many discussions about betting among media professionals if you've ever listened or watched any sports radio/radio/podcast conversation. This has been especially common in the last few years as legalized sports gambling has grown in popularity.
"All bets are on Packers. Everyone is taking their place. This is so unbalanced. It's obvious that the Vikings are going after you.
"Yes, when the public is going all one way, you need to bet against them."
"For sure. You can see all the massive casinos in Vegas. They wouldn't have the ability to continue building them if they weren't constantly on the wrong side.
Many games don't have a clear "public side". Sportsbooks aim to get as close as possible to a 50-50 split to ensure a profit, regardless of who wins. Of course, games will often land at 51% and 49%, respectively, or 55-45 and 60-40. There is no clear public side.
But there are times when the bets go 75-25 one direction. Or 80-20. Or even 90-10. You could even go as high as 90-10. This is when the "fade-the-public" betting strategy becomes apparent.
Does it work? Does it work? Are the lines set so that the popular picks win approximately half of the time and lose half of the time? Is it a myth that "squares", which are more likely than others to lose, are more likely that they will lose than win a bet?
The BS alarm is going off
"It is not a total myth. There are certain winning subsets. It's a matter of selective memory, Brad Feinberg, a professional gambler and NBC Sports Philadelphia's resident betting expert, stated. Let's consider the Packers case. The host claims that everyone is taking Green Bay this Week, and if Green Bay does not cover, he'll say, "Yep. Another case of the public taking sides, I knew that couldn’t win."
"But let's pretend that the team next week is Dallas and he says, ‘Oh, everyone's betting against Dallas, be afraid.’ And Dallas wins the game three touchdowns to the point. It won’t be mentioned again on the next broadcast. Or he'll forget. He'll then forget about it the next time an opportunity arises.
"It is selective memory for certain. The market is extremely efficient. People would do it if there was an easy way of making money.
Ex-bookmaker Dave Sharapan comes mostly from the opposite side of the counter. He is known as "The Sportsbook Consiglieri" in the industry.
Sharapan explained to US Bets, "In one word: I think that it's bulls-t." It's more of an urban legend than anything. The 'public -- who is this guy?" Your public' may be different from mine.
"Yes, back in those days, the public was ahead of the books when it came to information. But is that the case now? No. No. Failing to reach the public is not a recipe of success. The public is also a winner! The public would lose if it were to win all the time. "Falling the public is not a recipe for success. It's more myth than reality. However, it's certainly something I enjoy talking about."
It's difficult to tell the difference between people talking about it for entertainment and those who pretend to know it without any data. This was, for example, a real sentence that was found online (from an unrelated tout service we do not prefer to link too).
Reverse line movement dissected
We'll get back to Feinberg's "some winning combinations" comment. He elaborated:
"Imagine a situation such as Game 2 in the NBA finals. Milwaukee was a 5 1/2 point underdog. Phoenix received eighty-four percent. But the line ends at 4 1/2 How the hell does this happen? The 16% of people betting on Milwaukee received 5 1/2 points. This is the side the bookmakers want to be on because these gamblers often win approximately 54 percent of the bets.
"Fading the public when the line goes in the opposite direction -- or the'reverse-line movement' as it is known -- has been a very strong situation from my experience. Knowing that the most sharpest people on the other end are on my side, I would be able to see why it is so difficult for me to stand on one side.
In the example Feinberg used Phoenix covered. This is a reminder of the fact that betting rules can be complicated and even those who are 54 percent lose 46% of all their bets.
Sharapan explained that bookmakers in risk rooms have a tendency to laugh at the term "reverseline movement" -- not because the term isn't real, just because more and more bettors talk about it without actually understanding it.
Sharapan said that although there are some valid reasons for it, most people don’t really understand the concept. "Back in those days, I might move one line to see if anyone would want it -- this is what I call the bat signal. We want to see if anybody is interested in this other number.
So, if you're a gambler and don't really know why a particular line moved, you should be very cautious about reverse line movement. It's not enough to say "Oh, the lines are moving down", it must be the right side. But the game has to continue! It's still sports. Sometimes it doesn’t work.
Bet the number, and not the entire team
Many professional sports gamblers will tell you that betting on the right line is more important than being on a right side.
Feinberg holds the belief that close lines in a sport as popular as the NFL are so efficient, you could not lose more than 48% in the long term if you tried. His view is that it's the effort to line shop and get consistent numbers that makes the difference between a winning or breaking-even betor and a losing one. Feinberg joked, "I'd rather chew glass than not get a good line," he said.
This is related to the common mistake that bettors make when "chasing steam," which is a cousin of losing the public. It is simply about identifying where the sharp cash is going and then following it. Feinberg claims that a lot people get it wrong.
Feinberg stated, "If the Sixers open at -4 and the pros bet the Sixers," people would say, "Oh my god, Philly pros are on Philly. Then I'm laying five 1/2." "But these pros never lay 5 1/2 because that's probably how they see the line. This point-and a half edge is why they are placing the bet. Joe Public will argue that the smart money is on this side and want to be on the wise money side. But Joe Public is not on either side. Philadelphia -4 was the smart capital. Flipping a coin is easy at -5 1/2 I'm often told by people that they follow the steam. They must follow it to get the exact same number.
Sharapan holds a very different view than Feinberg on one point. Feinberg believes that even a poor bettor can still win 48% of his spread betting, but Sharapan believes that the number can be lower and that, while logical or not he doesn't mind losing individual bettors.
Sharapan said, "Believe us, there's guys who lose -- there are great fades." "I believe that finding a good fade is more valuable than finding someone you can follow. I like to find someone who has that black cloud. They can't escape their own path, they get in the way more often than anyone else, but they keep going because they love what they do. I love to find these people and help them when they get stuck on something.
Book to the future
The times have changed. The practice of setting a line reflecting the belief that certain teams will win in certain situations was a common one in bookmaking. According to projections, Duke's men’s basketball team would be a 10-point favorite. But the book believes that all the people who would have bet them at 10, would also be willing to bet them 11 1/2. This scenario would allow sharp bettors to have a better chance of getting a profitable line and fading the public.
Sharapan claims, however that the practice has declined due to bookmaking models.
Feinberg: "I agree. It's 100 percent gone." There are just too many great gamblers, and too many syndicates, that if they did that they would be destroyed. I don't believe the opening lines from sportsbooks take into consideration how the public expects them to bet. This is because they fear the pros will come back and really whack them if their lines are skewered too much and try and guess the way that the public will wager.
A side topic that is often brought up in fading the public is: point total over/unders. It is often stated that people love betting overs. It's basic psychology. It's fun to root for points.
The fade-the public play would be to place a bet on unders, even though the public almost always favors the over.
This data however shows that it doesn't work and proves that bookmakers would rather post the lowest number than one that's exaggerated to get public money. In 2020 NFL season, 50.4% went over the point total, 48% fell below and the rest were pushed.
Feinberg said that the public loves to bet overs, but blindly betting on every under in NFL matches would make you lose money. Blindly betting on every game would make you lose money. Similar with the NBA.
Breakeven requires you to win at 52.3%. There is no single, easy, or simple rule that will get you there. Why Buy A Sports Betting System?
Komentar
Posting Komentar