Why doesn't fading a losing player work?

[Duff85]

You might want to quit gambling.

This.

I love how OP has no idea of the basic concepts of variance, sample sizes and juice. Yet he's apparently qualified to be able to pick a player out who is losing 56% of his bets "long term". I wish I had his gift.

[That Foreign Guy]

It's easy - you look for the players who are losing but not varying their bet size.

[rkelly110]

Cap your own games, if you win, you're in the money. Lose, fade yourself.

[CrimsonQueen]

Cap your own games, if you win, you're in the money. Lose, fade yourself.

I think we just established that fading people doesn't work unless they are consistently losing > 52.38% of their games. And if you're losing > 52.38%, that means you're picking < 47.62% of your games. Consistently. So unless you can pick purposefully <47.62% of your games right, then fading yourself won't work.

[Arilou]

There is a big difference between a strategy that is strong enough to succeed on its own with no assistance and a strategy that can be part of a balanced portfolio of angles. These required margins are absurd, on several levels. First and most obviously the assumption that to win one must beat -110 is tiring. I'm not going into it again but if you can't reliably do better than -105 vs. market on major sports you are not trying. More than that, you can have multiple ways to identify edges and combine those edges to get enough to beat the juice.

Fading on its own is not a sufficiently strong strategy to blindly beat a traditional -110 sportsbook, but knowing that dumb money is pushing the line in a direction for no reason is information that has in the past served me well.

[Sawyer]

Guys, come on %52.38 no longer exists, thanks to Exchange & Reduced Juice book. Why pay -110 when you can get it at -102? or even +102 sometimes.. (Matchbook)

[JustinBieber]

Ok maybe 52.38% doesn't exist if you lineshop but it's still -105 you must beat then. The arguement still stands.