Bet Against the Public Results for the Previous 6 MLB Seasons

**xyz** · 03-31-09, 03:53 PM

Thanks for the informative article. I am new to the betting against public strategy. When you say "less than 30% of the public betting on them", are you talking about 30% of the total money wagered on the game or 30% of the total number of wagers? How did you obtain this data? Do books themselves release this data? Thank you for your help.

**Peep** · 03-31-09, 03:55 PM

Good questions xyz.

We'll now see if you get good answers....

**LT Profits** · 03-31-09, 03:57 PM

So just blindly betting on any home team with less than 50% of the action would have resulted in +103 units in six years.

I bet that figure would improve if you look at home RLMs only.

**LT Profits** · 03-31-09, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by xyz

Thanks for the informative article. I am new to the betting against public strategy. When you say "less than 30% of the public betting on them", are you talking about 30% of the total money wagered on the game or 30% of the total number of wagers? How did you obtain this data? Do books themselves release this data? Thank you for your help.

It is number of wagers.

That is why RLM makes sense, as it would mean that a higher percentage of the MONEY is being wagered by the smaller percentage of WAGERS (i.e., Smart Money).

**VegasDave** · 03-31-09, 04:09 PM

SportsInsights, where is the data collected for % of bets? In other words, what books are polled/observed for this?

**smitch124** · 03-31-09, 04:22 PM

# SportsInteraction.com
# WagerWeb (Costa Rica) -NEW!!!
# Skybook (Costa Rica) -NEW!!!
# BetUs (Canada + Costa Rica)
# Carib (Belize)
# SportBet (Costa Rica)
# Sportsbook.com (Costa Rica)

**LT Profits** · 03-31-09, 04:28 PM

I like the fact that they use a bunch of square books. I don't think fading the percenatges would work as well if they used books like Pinny and CRIS.

**shantystar** · 03-31-09, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by smitch124

# SportsInteraction.com
# WagerWeb (Costa Rica) -NEW!!!
# Skybook (Costa Rica) -NEW!!!
# BetUs (Canada + Costa Rica)
# Carib (Belize)
# SportBet (Costa Rica)
# Sportsbook.com (Costa Rica)

atleast i do not trust wagerweb,they hold my bonus on deposit of 285$.
sportbet also notorious book indeed! .

**shantystar** · 03-31-09, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by LT Profits

I like the fact that they use a bunch of square books. I don't think fading the percenatges would work as well if they used books like Pinny and CRIS.

right say .

**Pancho sanza** · 03-31-09, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by smitch124

# SportsInteraction.com
# WagerWeb (Costa Rica) -NEW!!!
# Skybook (Costa Rica) -NEW!!!
# BetUs (Canada + Costa Rica)
# Carib (Belize)
# SportBet (Costa Rica)
# Sportsbook.com (Costa Rica)

Any Monkey can make money fading the leans at those joints.

**LT Profits** · 03-31-09, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Pancho sanza

Any Monkey can make money fading the leans at those joints.

Isn't that the poimt?

It's nice to know what the majority is on at those books.

**aceofspadesj77** · 03-31-09, 11:06 PM

How do we know which way the public sways?

**Dark Horse** · 03-31-09, 11:32 PM

I would be somewhat cautious with public trends from the past. What percentage of that public typically consists of the new supply of innocent blood that has, more recently than these trends, been cut off by the internet legislation? The betting public may be sharper than in the past, and that would in turn force the books to be sharper.

I don't mean to dispute SI's value where it comes to RLM, but I couldn't help noticing that he referred to covers/wagerline lines as 'fantasy lines'. That is perhaps understandable, against this lineup of square books, but for those of us who use covers records for back testing, it is worth pointing out that covers uses the pinny closing lines. Those lines are, to the best of my knowledge, not made up, nor do they alternate between books.

And while we're on the subject of verifying that numbers are accurate, what type of guarantee do books offer SI that the correct numbers are provided? Or, to turn the question around, how easy would it be for books to provide the wrong information?

**Unitage** · 04-01-09, 12:24 AM

I traced last seasons stats and while this was profitable in the first few months, it really dove off as the season progressed. I believe the market is evening out and betting against the public is really not as profitable trend as it once may have been. I'd say betting anything blindly in the MLB just doesnt work, over such a large number of games the market evens up and any inefficiencies are dried up.

**xyz** · 04-01-09, 12:41 AM

That is a very good point. What incentives do the books have to provide accurate information? Based on the data presented, the books should do everything they can to avoid players using this strategy. Unless those books need this type of players to balance out their action, I don't see any motivation for the books to give out accurate information unless SI pays alot of money for it.

Originally posted by Dark Horse

And while we're on the subject of verifying that numbers are accurate, what type of guarantee do books offer SI that the correct numbers are provided? Or, to turn the question around, how easy would it be for books to provide the wrong information?

**SportsInsights** · 04-01-09, 11:56 AM

Lots to address...

The issue with using fantasy bet sites like wagerline is the sample is tainted. You have 1000s of people giving their opinion on games they'll never bet just to win a new ipod. I equate it to playing poker without money. I know I bet a lot different if it's really money. The data we track represents real bets made at real sportsbooks.

Unitage,
Who’s betting percentage data did you use last MLB season? Last year was a solid MLB season to bet against the Public from start to finish. Below is our Square Plays record from last year broken out in to months. Square Plays are simply the 3 most lopsided bet games each day.

Sept 2008 28-27 +13.9
Aug 2008 36-50 +3.97
July 2008 32-52 -10.12
June 2008 34-45 +1.31
May 2008 40-42 +11
April 2008 40-36 +16.03

Dark Horse,
We get this question a lot about if these numbers are valid. I can certainly understand the skepticism. The simple answer is the data is valid. We gather betting data from 7 independent sportsbooks which gives use a solid sample size. There isn’t a conspiracy between these sportsbooks to create fake betting data. There isn’t a conference call every morning to decide which games to fudge.

The sportsbooks wouldn’t agree to provide this data if they really thought it would hurt their bottom line. The truth is anyone can look at tomorrow’s games and know which side the Public will be pounding. The Public bets based on yesterday’s scores and heavily bets favorites and overs. People like rooting for good teams and for scoring. It goes against human nature to put your hard earned money on a team like the Detroit Lions to not lose by 21pts…but it’s this human tendency that makes fading the Public profitable. The betting data we collect quantifies this betting trend. I actually started this company in 1999 while working for a sportsbook. I saw first hand how often the Public was on the wrong side of most game.

So what do the sportsbooks get out of it? Advertising. Similar to why a sportsbook would agree to appear on a live odds service like DonBest or SBRLines. In general bettors are notoriously bad at money management. It take a very disciplined bettor to beat the sportsbook. Yes I’m generalizing here, but when a bettor wins they typically make one of three mistakes. They start betting more per game, bet games they don’t have any edge, or visit the casino.

Regards,
Dan

**Dark Horse** · 04-01-09, 10:00 PM

Dan, monitoring the public at square books is no doubt a valuable tool. I remain somewhat cautious towards numbers provided by books; especially if plays are based on a precise percentage of the public. It wouldn't take a conference call to change up the percentages, but just one clerk at one book, sleeping on the job while entering the number. So instead of betting on a clerk I would use these type of angles in combination with others. Sticking to the field of capping the betting public, I would love to see a W/L record of fading these public percentages at square books, where the same play is indicated by a lean at one of the sharp books (which have money on that lean).

**SportsInsights** · 04-02-09, 08:45 AM

Dark Horse,

The betting percentages updates are automated, meaning they change every couple of minutes. There isn't a guy manually entering betting percentages for every game on the board 24x7. The numbers come directly from the sportsbook's database.

I think fading the public is an excellent betting system by itself...but I'm with you a 100% that when used in combination with one or two other filters (angles) you can improve your results. Our analysis has shown that simply fading the public will produce a small edge of approximately 53-55% across all US based sports. That may sounds small but in a sample size of over 20,000 games spanning 6 years that's very significant, and it’s not just one sports it’s in all sports. The betting percentages also help viewers pinpoint “Smart Money” by monitoring reverse line movement. If 80% of the public is on LA -7 but the line moves to LA -6 then that’s a good indicator Smart Money has come in on the other side.

Dan

**LT Profits** · 04-02-09, 09:53 AM

Dan,

It is so nice to have the SOURCE here at SBR, as it means I don't have to answer these questions any more.

**BillAccpetor** · 04-02-09, 01:37 PM

I use wagerline to see how the folks are tending to bet and in my book it works fine.

**SportsInsights** · 04-02-09, 02:02 PM

Billaccpetor,

There is nothing wrong with using Wagerline's stats. But they'll often differ 10%-20% from what we see. The research we've conducted is all based on our data from sportsbooks.

"The issue with using fantasy bet sites like wagerline is the sample is tainted. You have 1000s of people giving their opinion on games they'll never bet just to win a new ipod. I equate it to playing poker without money. I know I bet a lot different if it's really money. The data we track represents real bets made at real sportsbooks. "

**austintx05** · 04-02-09, 02:25 PM

really glad to see SI rep posting here. Thank You.

**BillAccpetor** · 04-02-09, 03:29 PM

SportsInsights I see you are doing more detailed work there.

But something I have found out...: The public is really bad @ over/under picks more than spreads and... The public wins more often on Saturday and Sunday, they loose their money then on Monday.

More games a night means more money to make with this system.

**Dark Horse** · 04-02-09, 05:56 PM

Thanks for clarifying Dan. I hadn't included books outside of Pinny/Greek/Cris in my study of line movements. My focus was on what they were thinking, by reading between the lines. But to know what the public is doing, in precise percentages at recreational books, can clearly be an added advantage. Do you keep historical records, or have a search engine that allows people to pick apart the data from the past?

**austintx05** · 04-02-09, 06:14 PM

how bout a free 1 week trial for the SBR members

**LT Profits** · 04-02-09, 06:43 PM

And a free month for me since I pay you guys monthly and am a long-time supporter.

**MonkeyF0cker** · 04-02-09, 11:10 PM

Why do I feel like these threads should be relegated to the promotions subforum rather than the Think Tank?

**Peep** · 04-02-09, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by MonkeyF0cker

Why do I feel like these threads should be relegated to the promotions subforum rather than the Think Tank?

Maybe because people are subtly selling something?

But I don't mind that, I think it is an interesting topic of conversation, and worth looking at, especially by/with someone who claims to have data on it.

I vote to let the promotions forum have the five star locks, let the public money discussions stay here.

**Data** · 04-02-09, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Peep

I vote to let the promotions forum have the five star locks, let the public money discussions stay here.

Both give out picks (directly or indirectly) and the customers have no way of knowing what is behind those picks. Both trying to sell their products touting their past results. I personally see no difference whatsoever. There is not a single bit of evidence that SIs actually have any public money data feed and that they make their picks based on that data and not on something else.

Moreover, as many scamdicappers they are partners with some of the most notorious sportsbooks which puts a big question mark to their credibility as a honest informational service.

On the other hand, their service may be honest and legit but a tout service could be the same as well, hypothetically speaking, of course.

**Dark Horse** · 04-03-09, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by Data

Both give out picks (directly or indirectly) and the customers have no way of knowing what is behind those picks. Both trying to sell their products touting their past results. I personally see no difference whatsoever. There is not a single bit of evidence that SIs actually have any public money data feed and that they make their picks based on that data and not on something else.

Moreover, as many scamdicappers they are partners with some of the most notorious sportsbooks which puts a big question mark to their credibility as a honest informational service.

On the other hand, their service may be honest and legit but a tout service could be the same as well, hypothetically speaking, of course.

Many pros use SI. I would say they're legit. How useful that public percentage angle is, is another question that, I suppose, depends on individual handicapping styles. To me it's an interesting secondary angle, but no more than that. When I'm done handicapping a game I couldn't care less which side the public is on. But if someone put a gun against my head to come up with an opinion on a game I have no clue about, this info could be vital.

It's cool that someone keeps track of this in a detailed way, but many of us keep extensive records. So if the books offer this information freely, why not add it to SBR Odds?

**durito** · 04-03-09, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by MonkeyF0cker

Why do I feel like these threads should be relegated to the promotions subforum rather than the Think Tank?

agreed

**SportsInsights** · 04-03-09, 09:43 AM

I'd like to keep the conversation about the "bet against" betting strategy. My goal isn't to self promote. I wanted to offer my opinion about betting against the public, and post the results I found. I decided to post here because there are some sharp posters who like to talk about sports betting. I’m always interested in hearing people thoughts and reading about different approaches to betting. I think I have a unique perspective on this industry having worked for an online book and been involved with online betting since ’99. I’m 100% against scamdicappers.

I certainly understand people's concern with the data and how simply fade the public can win. The truth is I don't have all the answers. Like you I'm trying to figure out a measurable way to beat the line. As we all know, any one that claims to win 65% or more of his games is lying. The quickest way to broke is to buy a guaranteed five start Game of the Decade. It’s extremely hard to win over the course of a season and from season to season. Trying to predict the future is hard. I’ve been following the bet against strategy since the 2003 MLB season I posted the results above. I will say that not every year is profitable: 2006 sucked -18 units and 2005 finished +1unit, but overall I think it’s a solid base system.

I look at the sports betting world like a marketplace and try to measure pricing inefficiencies. I try to bring more of an academic/wall street approach to sports betting. I always tell people I don’t handicap games. I handicap the market. FYI, there is a ton of excellent academic research out there on sports betting.

The betting data (line moves + betting percentages) we use comes directly from the database of the contributing sportsbooks. If you don’t believe that all I can say is it wouldn’t be worth their time to hire someone to work 24x7 to fudge the numbers. They just wouldn’t bother. Plus we gather betting data from 7 online books. We have a very large sample size, and it would be pretty easy to see which sportsbook was fudging the numbers.

I can say this with 100% certainty, 99 out of 100 people want to hear that a person hit’s 75% of plays and this play is guarantee to win…and if it loses you get another free play until you win. The scamidcapping model makes money. People want to hear a good story and then buy it. Nobody wants to hear that you hit 54.5% of your plays over 5 seasons. A guy like Morrison the “Sports Betting Champ” makes a killing scamming people. I’m willing to speculate he makes more in a month then my entire company makes in a year....unfortunatley this is the state for the sports handicapping world.

Dan

**Dark Horse** · 04-03-09, 03:50 PM

It took a lot of initiative to hook up with those sportsbooks and set up such a service. This is not remotely comparable to scamdicappers.

There potentially is an inverse relationship between your success and the reliability of your data; as SI becomes more successful, books could take greater notice. We already know that some of those books will do anything for money, so why would they, eventually, not pull one of these? http://articles.latimes.com/1998/oct...iness/fi-30669

That being said, nothing but respect for the originality of your approach. If there is a mathematical way to determine if a book is twisting the numbers, it could inspire greater trust among those of us who tend to question the integrity of certain books.

**louisvillekid** · 04-04-09, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by SportsInsights

They just wouldn’t bother. Plus we gather betting data from 7 online books. We have a very large sample size, and it would be pretty easy to see which sportsbook was fudging the numbers.

i have looked into this, very small sample though, but i have noticed you can look at carib and there alleged %'s from their players differ way more than the so-called collective group shown on SI.
I also can pick a game and at 1-2 minutes before it goes off the board(cause carib won't show the %'s on their site once the game has gone off) at Carib, and they might show 83% on the fav and show around 5000 bets. Yet i can immediately go to SI (which is supposed showing a collective amount from 7 books which include Carib.) and for that same game SI will show the fav being maybe 54% and a total number of bets at 16,000.

I just have noticed to often that Carib seems to have a large amount of bets on a game at their site and compared to SI's total they would make up a quarter to sometimes 30-40% of the total.
I find it hard to believe that there is that many bets placed at Carib in relation to the alleged total number of bets from 7 books which include Carib. I can possibly believe that the betting trends are that different, but hard to believe the number of bets placed in relation to the total pool of books listed.

and another totally different question.
What relation does SI have with sportsbookspy, they used to have basically the same layout and claim the same group a books they monitor and etc. Now SBS is laid out differently and on pregame and there %'s and especially their number of bets(alot higher) are different from SI.