[the_mathman]

I have read many articles about fade the public money, but now I don't want more words...
i want fact! I want numbers! (Of course: I'm the math man!)

Have you some link to data analysis or statistics about the Fade the public results?

[The Resurrection]

Here are some stats: http://www.sportsinsights.com/bettin...thepublic.aspx

But, if fading the public guarantees wins, then everyone would do it. But that's not really the case.

[TU]

You can't win by fading anyone long term. You are basically betting that a coin flip will land on heads more than 52.38% of the time. Losing proposition.

[SportsBettingPro]

Its better than betting with the public, but no guarantee of success... In general, any simple system is very unlikely to succeed in the long term. Betting against the public is no different.

[bostonbruins]

I like fading the public when I think an over/under is inflated and there is lots of action on the over. Usually NFL or CBB games with big name teams or big situations.

[TU]

Anyone who bets according to fading, needs to have their heads examined. You will lose money. Simple as that.

[Ibrakadabra]

In theory it might make sense. In reality though there are a lot of heavily funded people out there to take advantage of this before the small bettor can.

I don´t think that making money ever will be this simple.

[dbDan]

Who is the "public" anymore?

[FourLengthsClear]

I can't give you a link but have data covering about 5000 matchups where Bodog (the most representative public book) had a no vig lean toward the favourite of more than 4 ticks against the average of 5 vanilla books.

54.2% were losers.
Getting the best price on the dog for these matchups gives an ROI of 5.6%

[Tomato]

I can't give you a link but have data covering about 5000 matchups where Bodog (the most representative public book) had a no vig lean toward the favourite of more than 4 ticks against the average of 5 vanilla books.

54.2% were losers.
Getting the best price on the dog for these matchups gives an ROI of 5.6%

Tomato would argue that SIA and BetEd are more representative of public action than Bodog.

[FourLengthsClear]

Tomato would argue that SIA and BetEd are more representative of public action than Bodog.

Interesting. Based on what though?

I have not done any analysis but based only observation I would estimate that SIA lines would meet the same criteria 80-85% of the times that Bodog's did, BetEd less so.

[Tomato]

Significantly larger edges than Bodog on sides with overwhelming public action on the other side.

[the_mathman]

I can't give you a link but have data covering about 5000 matchups where Bodog (the most representative public book) had a no vig lean toward the favourite of more than 4 ticks against the average of 5 vanilla books.

54.2% were losers.
Getting the best price on the dog for these matchups gives an ROI of 5.6%

mmm... i must to go on Bodog and search a lot....


thank you!

[mminkovski]

Where do you guys check the public % of bets? I know that sbrodds and cover follow only 2-3 bookies.

[Tomahawk]

Sportsinsights knows the most data about this. The data reveals that the bigger public bet you're fading the higher winning possibility you have.

For example fading a 60% public opinion is not the best thing to do. But if the public bets are 80% or higher it's strongly advised to jump in it and bet the opposite side.

[JOHON8]

A lot of people lose their sense of logic fading the public. Really you should think of fading the public as fading a line that the books have designed to look valuable. I've seen people fade the public so many times in situations where they didn't have to, simply because they were following a blind philosophy. You have to approach it logically, nothing is as easy as it seems.

[That Foreign Guy]

What if the public are fading themselves?

[sideloaded]

What if the public are fading themselves?

lol

[Peeig]

mmm... i must to go on Bodog and search a lot....


thank you!

they deal dual lines, so you'll get a few bets down at the public lineset, but then they'll change you to the sharp lineset.

[SparJMU]

I can't give you a link but have data covering about 5000 matchups where Bodog (the most representative public book) had a no vig lean toward the favourite of more than 4 ticks against the average of 5 vanilla books.

54.2% were losers.
Getting the best price on the dog for these matchups gives an ROI of 5.6%

I believe I understand the concept of what you are saying here, but can you please elaborate a little? What do you mean by "4 ticks" and what are the 5 "vanilla books" that you are referring to?

An example or two would be very helpful. Thanks in advance.

[FourLengthsClear]

I believe I understand the concept of what you are saying here, but can you please elaborate a little? What do you mean by "4 ticks" and what are the 5 "vanilla books" that you are referring to?

An example or two would be very helpful. Thanks in advance.

An example of a "vanilla" book would be Legends i.e. generally close to the market average.

By more than a 4 tick differential, I will use the following example.

The average of my 5 vanilla books has the line as -4.5 @ -110 (+100 adjusted for vig)
Bodog has the line for the favourite of -4.5 @ -120 (-110 adjusted for vig)
Meaning a differential of 10 ticks.

In case Bodog (or one of the other books) has moved the line to say -5.0, I have to manually adjust using a push probability table.

[chemicalbrother]

cool thread.

*head explode* @ 'what if the public are fading themselves'

finally, public > 80% is a pretty widely used factor in a lot of models.

[chemicalbrother]

public > 80% and the line staying the same (or even better moving the other way) is an obv play, regardless of sport.

[SparJMU]

An example of a "vanilla" book would be Legends i.e. generally close to the market average.

By more than a 4 tick differential, I will use the following example.

The average of my 5 vanilla books has the line as -4.5 @ -110 (+100 adjusted for vig)
Bodog has the line for the favourite of -4.5 @ -120 (-110 adjusted for vig)
Meaning a differential of 10 ticks.

In case Bodog (or one of the other books) has moved the line to say -5.0, I have to manually adjust using a push probability table.

So in this scenario, over 5,000 game you have found 5.5% ROI when betting the underdog at +4.5 (-110)?

[FourLengthsClear]

So in this scenario, over 5,000 game you have found 5.5% ROI when betting the underdog at +4.5 (-110)?

No. As mentioned it produces a return of 5.6% based on the best line available.
You should also bear in mid that I am not American!

[tachi]

You can't win by fading anyone long term. You are basically betting that a coin flip will land on heads more than 52.38% of the time. Losing proposition.

Is it possible the main goal of the bookies to be: maximum profits?
Most of the money are public,
so if the bookies want max profits,
they must know what the public bets on and set lower odds for this.
Why they should care about the pros when they make the max?

Conclusion: a coin flip is not something related to betting and bookies.
Please apply it in other spheres.

[juuso]

Fading doesn't work.

[the_mathman]

Fading doesn't work.

LOL !
essential!

[TU]

Is it possible the main goal of the bookies to be: maximum profits?
Most of the money are public,
so if the bookies want max profits,
they must know what the public bets on and set lower odds for this.
Why they should care about the pros when they make the max?

Conclusion: a coin flip is not something related to betting and bookies.
Please apply it in other spheres.

It applies.

[hampt333]

If you fade the Public then you have to fade them on the HUGE Favorites. Usually this will give you the point spread back in your favor. Pick the point spread on the BIG underdog and that strategy will work.

[medallion55]

public > 80% and the line staying the same (or even better moving the other way) is an obv play, regardless of sport.

I would definitely agree with this

[ferndog]

Bookies know what the sucker bets are. So they will make those bets look good for the losing gambler. It's like waiting for a fish to bite. So if you see a line that looks like the bookie is begging you to take then you know that is a sucker bet.

[CHUBNUT]

with everyone fading the public, what was the sharp side becomes the public side with the original squares left on the other now sharp side funny game betting. better to have been opinionated and lost than never opinionated at all.

[legendmatt34]

let us know how u make out..