[byronbb]

What is the highest rate a square can lose at betting -110 and non huge MLs? There have to be people so square, that fading them should be profitable. Yes? No?

[username474]

48-49% over the course of 1000 plays I imagine.

[roasthawg]

Definitely under 50%... that's the reason books like Bodog have the "square lines". I don't know if you could find one so adept at picking out square lines that he was a profitable fade but maybe.

[whatsgood5]

I'd think a square could hit 45-46 percent over a long period

[smitch124]

SBRPicks contests are a good indicator, when the picks in the contest get into the thousands the win pct. is in the low 48s almost every time.

[dinaro7]

i think that not all squares lose

[The fiddler]

I'm a so called square...and I smash em every football season since 2003. Last time I had a losing football season was 2002.

But I'm not too good at hoops.

[LT Profits]

This is NOT profitable, because it is just as hard to find someone that is under 47.7% long term vs. -110 lines than it is to find those over 52.3%.

[Ruifgalmeida]

i think only a idiot doesnt hit 50%

[BigdaddyQH]

i think only a idiot doesnt hit 50%

Then there are a lot of idiots out there, because the majority of players hit at a 48% clip, not a 50% clip. LT brings up an excellent point. The VAST majority of players (85%) hit at under a 52/3% clip, the alleged "break even" point if you are playing standard -110 lines.

Part of the reason is this. Players are macho. They are also terrible drinkers. This is why Vegas gives their booze away. So all of you macho guys out there go to Vegas, or play at home. You watch a few games and have a few drinks. Then the losing starts, so you chase. The more you chase, the more you lose. Pretty soon, there is nothing left to chase with. Now when you get on a winning streak, you tend to play the same wager amoount, or perhaps a slight increase. Bottom line. The increases when you are winning are less than the increases when you are chasing and losing. That amounts to a 48-52 split against you if you are the average player. That is more than enough for Vegas to cover the cost of a few drinks and the pretty ladies who serve them to you.

That is the math of it all. Wagering is just as much about the psychological tendencies of the gamblers as it is about the teams playing the games. It is like poker. The cards you are dealt are secondary. Knowing your opposition is primary. The same holds true in sports wagering. Vegas books take the same attitude. Knowing the people who are going to feed their kitties is more important than the teams inolved in the games.

[TheAccountant]

It is just as challenging to hit 45% as 55% - I find it hard to believe it would be profitable to attempt to find and fade a really poor gambler.

[Ruifgalmeida]

if you bet random on a spread i think you will be hiting 50% im the long run and lose to the bookie Vig

[BigdaddyQH]

My group wagers huge money over a season, and we never worry about what anyone else does. Neither should anyone in here. First of all, define squares and sharps. You can not. There are a million different definitions flying around. Some define those terms by record. Some define them by the amount they wager (a complete and total falacy). The fact is that Vegas depends on you people to worry more about sharps, squares, line movement, possible traps, bait and switches, and everything else except the most obvious, that being who has the better team. The reason why so many of you guys are losers is because you waste all of your time trying to figure out the line, instead of trying to figure out which team is the better of the two playing. Books give out misleading information all of the time, in hopes of encouraging wagers on one team or another. They can do it for many different reasons. As amateurs, you should not waste your time trying to outguess the books. Just worry about which team is going to cover.

[mintybetmachine]

If your definition of a square is someone who just looks at teams, who is hot, who is not, no math, no models which is around 99% of everyone, then 99.9% of these people will eventually drift back to 50%. The contests on SBR are a good indicator as most of them hover around 50%. This one has over 13000 plays and is hitting 49.70%: http://www.sbrpicks.com/contest/776/

Enjoy.

[Ruifgalmeida]

i am not a pro, but i am winning player, I bet according the odds not the teams, you can guest that federer is going to win 90% of the games but if the odds dont cover it forget it your going to lose in long run.

[feldzpar]

My group wagers huge money over a season, and we never worry about what anyone else does. Neither should anyone in here. First of all, define squares and sharps. You can not. There are a million different definitions flying around. Some define those terms by record. Some define them by the amount they wager (a complete and total falacy). The fact is that Vegas depends on you people to worry more about sharps, squares, line movement, possible traps, bait and switches, and everything else except the most obvious, that being who has the better team. The reason why so many of you guys are losers is because you waste all of your time trying to figure out the line, instead of trying to figure out which team is the better of the two playing. Books give out misleading information all of the time, in hopes of encouraging wagers on one team or another. They can do it for many different reasons. As amateurs, you should not waste your time trying to outguess the books. Just worry about which team is going to cover.

This is 100% spot on. Worrying about a square bet or trying to be sharp doesnt make you sharp...and who says sharp is best, define sharp, define square. These terms are used to cloud the obvious, it makes betting sports more complicated and less cut and dry.
A great example of this was last night, Kansas -1 Texas +1. Line comes out, everyone and their mom are arguing, Kansas is the square bet, Sharps are on Texas, home dog, road chalk, blah blah blah....The truth is, Vegas made more money with putting at Texas +1 than they would of if it was a true line Texas +5. If you studied just the teams their ATS records, power rankings and abilities scoring and rebounding, bench depth and considering the location and records throughout the season Kansas is by far the better team, miles ahead. But, putting out a confusing line like Texas +1 and being at home, it distracts gamblers from focusing on the teams and focus on the lines, clouding judgment and try to be "sharp" and think its a trap and all that other BS.

[OMGRandyJackson]

What is a square bet?

[Ruifgalmeida]

square=loser bets normaly on bad lines

[OMGRandyJackson]

lol i still do not understand!

[reno cool]

SBRPicks contests are a good indicator, when the picks in the contest get into the thousands the win pct. is in the low 48s almost every time.

I noticed this for "beat the prick". Mind you this includes some possible sharps and only the 4 best picks. To me this indicates that fading squares can be a viable system when used in conjunction with line shopping, promos etc.