[Firefox14]

I heard somewhere on the site that the public is wrong 75% of the time, which seems awful high to me. Anyone have info on this?

[Nookx]

That is not true

[Firefox14]

Right because if that were the case, everyone would simply fade the public, but I would like to know what the actual stats are..

[jgilmartin]

http://sportsinsights.com/bettingagainstthepublic.aspx

[LarryF]

I believe I read an article recently, by sportsinsights, that claims betting against the public could result in a 52% to 55% winning percentage. Other factors were involved.
Nothing is perfect, otherwise the books would not be around long if there was a proven method of winning.

[LT Profits]

55% seems high, it is in the 50-52.3% range, i.e., not enough to profit fading blindly.

[Justin7]

The public is wrong about 99% of the time. Fortunately for them, they win close to half their bets when they are wrong.

[rfr3sh]

The public is wrong about 99% of the time. Fortunately for them, they win close to half their bets when they are wrong.

elaborate

[Thremp]

He's making a joke.

[Justin7]

elaborate

A bet is wrong if it is -EV. Almost every bet the public makes has -EV at the time it was made.

[donjuan]

A bet is wrong if it is -EV. Almost every bet the public makes has -EV at the time it was made.

Using your criteria, you really think only 1% of plays your average public player makes happens to move in their favor without injury news?

[Justin7]

Using your criteria, you really think only 1% of plays your average public player makes happens to move in their favor without injury news?

That's not the valid measure. The measure is "with the information available at the time it was made." Don't discount all the plays made that have no line movement. It might be a little higher than 1%, but not through any skill of theirs.

[Monte]

Well ofc they very rarely get +ev bets lol. As Justin says, the time when the bet is placed matters, and bookies would be stupid to offer value to teams the puplic likes. If you have 2 teams like Saints playing Patriots thou, the chance is ofc higher that they get just a small -ev.
In the end the books with high limits care more about large bets from sharp ppl, so the public team might even get an even bet who knows.

[Firefox14]

55% seems high, it is in the 50-52.3% range, i.e., not enough to profit fading blindly.

Eventually, it seems as if the public would smarten up and fade more often. But then again, this may create a facade-like consensus, i.e. the public fades to fade, which then causes the unknowing fades to fade what they believe is the public, even though they don't know they're fading the original faders, which creates the exact opposite of what the faders are trying to achieve! It then becomes a faded fade. Now that's some good stuff right there.

[LT Profits]

Eventually, it seems as if the public would smarten up and fade more often. But then again, this may create a facade-like consensus, i.e. the public fades to fade, which then causes the unknowing fades to fade what they believe is the public, even though they don't know they're fading the original faders, which creates the exact opposite of what the faders are trying to achieve! It then becomes a faded fade. Now that's some good stuff right there.

I have a headache.

Regardless of if you are playing true fades or if everyone thinks they are fading the fades and thus the fades become the consensus (LOL), the consensus will almost always fall into the 47.7%-52.3% range where fading/following will lose money no matter what if followed blindly.

[jgilmartin]

Regardless of if you are playing true fades or if everyone thinks they are fading the fades and thus the fades become the consensus (LOL), the consensus will almost always fall into the 47.7%-52.3% range where fading/following will lose money no matter what if followed blindly.

Yep.

[MonkeyF0cker]

That's not the valid measure. The measure is "with the information available at the time it was made." Don't discount all the plays made that have no line movement. It might be a little higher than 1%, but not through any skill of theirs.

So you were actually serious?

Seriously? Wow. Absurd.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Justin,

What page in your book defines +EV wagers as requiring a certain thought process at the time the wager is placed? I might have to purchase it just for the comedy.

[sideloaded]

The public is wrong about 99% of the time. Fortunately for them, they win close to half their bets when they are wrong.

How do you win a bet 50% of the time yet be wrong 99% of the time? Define "wrong".

[DevilCheese]

Compare it to roulette, 100% of the bets you make are -EV, yet you'll still win a side close to 50% of the time. Even if you win though, it doesn't mean it was a good bet.

[RickySteve]

I'll take over 75% and under 99%.

[sideloaded]

Ok i think I understand the 99 % wrong thing, but then how long do you have to bet to realize your a losing bettor just hitting randomly or if your some kind of sharp who has an edge? Is it possible for someone to be a winning gambler over say a 1000 plays and still be just hitting randomly and somehow random variance has him winning say 56 % over a 1000 plays.

[Wrecktangle]

There is actually a lot of info out there on this topic. On non-sports event prediction the public is right much more often than not especially if they are allowed to wager on the event. When they were in operation, Tradesport's real-world events %correct predictions were quite accurate.

On sporting events, I'd venture that lines are set based on 95% "public" info/perception and "sharpened" a further 5% or so by the so-called experts and I'd love to see any hard information to the contrary. Regardless of the sharps, books must balance action in the aggregate and every case I know of books attempting to shade their lines with "superior" prediction methods resulted in losses for those books.

My info shows just because the lines are mostly set by "the public" does not necessarily mean they are/were easy to beat in any era.

[wrongturn]

The public is wrong about 99% of the time. Fortunately for them, they win close to half their bets when they are wrong.

Can't agree with that. Just by picking randomly, one is right at least 48% of the time using Matchbook. But if you say 99% of them not winning long term, or not knowing if the play is +ev or not, it is true.

[sideloaded]

What is long term? 5000 bets? Say after 10000 bets your up then by 15000 bets your down were you +ev then not, or were you the whole time betting -ev?

[Justin7]

Can't agree with that. Just by picking randomly, one is right at least 48% of the time using Matchbook. But if you say 99% of them not winning long term, or not knowing if the play is +ev or not, it is true.

If the public bet only at matchbook, they would be wrong maybe 51-53%. But most of the public doesn't mind laying -110.

Anytime you lay -110 when the true odds of winning were 50%, you were wrong.

[MadTiger]

Eventually, it seems as if the public would smarten up and fade more often. But then again, this may create a facade-like consensus, i.e. the public fades to fade, which then causes the unknowing fades to fade what they believe is the public, even though they don't know they're fading the original faders, which creates the exact opposite of what the faders are trying to achieve! It then becomes a faded fade. Now that's some good stuff right there.

You're on that George Costanza opposite shit now.

[wrongturn]

What is long term? 5000 bets? Say after 10000 bets your up then by 15000 bets your down were you +ev then not, or were you the whole time betting -ev?

Most likely this bettor has been taking break-even ev bets if bonus amount is not included in the calculation. That is why I like bonuses .

[wrongturn]

If the public bet only at matchbook, they would be wrong maybe 51-53%. But most of the public doesn't mind laying -110.

Anytime you lay -110 when the true odds of winning were 50%, you were wrong.

But then you need to know the true winning odds of each game. I don't think Pinny no-vig close line or Matchbook line reflects that individually, but it probably not matter at end or by looking at the big picture.

[Monte]

A random guy laying -110 and just betting what he likes has a 100% of loosing in the long run aka several hundred bets, not sure what there is to discuss.

[acliff266]

Absolutely not true, sure not 75%

[Firefox14]

A bet is wrong if it is -EV. Almost every bet the public makes has -EV at the time it was made.

So Justin; What you are saying is that you NEVER bet -anything, and are usually betting dogs?

[Justin7]

So Justin; What you are saying is that you NEVER bet -anything, and are usually betting dogs?

I bet plenty of times. My test for a good bet: can you convince an anti-gambling math professor that you have a +EV bet (even if it would take 6 hours to go through all the steps). While some people can bet on "feel", most "feel" bettors are just rationalizing a desire to gamble. If you are not using a solid mathematical approach to analyzing bets, you're very likely to lose going forward.

[u21c3f6]

So Justin; What you are saying is that you NEVER bet -anything, and are usually betting dogs?

I think you are confusing minus odds with -EV. You can make a wager at -150 that is +EV if you can win those wagers >60% of the time. EV=Expected Value, it has nothing to do with whether your odds are + or -.

Joe.

[subs]

my bad