Fading the public. Statistics?

[Tuna Fish Riot]

Does anyone know whether you can achieve a good win ratio by fading the public? Let's say for example that I were to fade the public only in games where the bets are split in a 3:7 ratio... or even 2:8. Are there any records showing how well the bookies win when it comes to such skews in bets?

I'm still wondering how the bookies work. I know they have that 5% house edge or something from the fees, but I still wonder how they're making most of their money. Is it from Pre-Game bets or in-progress and live bets?

Any insight on this is greatly appreciated. Thanks.

[AribaAriba]

nopee, its 50-50 long term but u gotta know the spot when to fade the public
Biggest public fade has to be the colts game but fading the public wont do you any good.
Its 10 percent commission not 5, thats a pretty huge long term thats y most are losers long term. The best way is to be selective on games and know what your'e doing. If the line is too good to be true, most likely it is.

[DeeVeeOSs]

Yes, there is a majority win on those situations with a large public.
No I don't suspect that you can just set a ratio and always bet that way.
It's situation sensitive.
If something clicks and you can see a reason why using that logic works for a specific game, well then let that addage add your reasons for fading the public.
But making a rule of it might not be the best.
hockeypicks.com check the NYR game. That was the clearest read.
That setup is almost fool proof because the bookies are in a position where they have to expose what they know.

[DeeVeeOSs]

9% commission.

[GELATINOUS CUBE]

Who's-the-public?

[slatter]

The real benefit would be separating square money and sharp money, I think. A $10,000 single bet from a sharp and $20 single bet from a square might show up as 50/50 on a site, but you'd never know.

[LegitBet]

It's a great question. Are mega billion dollar hotel casinos built with rhe narrow house edge? No.
Oh and it is 5% not 10% that bookies make overall, since you can Calculate that with a monkey picking games they will get half right, and the juice is only on the losing half.

[klf]

public always lose big

[Ibrakadabra]

Going against the public is probably a good way of thinking. In reality however, I suppose, the sharps have understood that as well and therefore will exploit this to the point where potential value is gone. Or?

[Tomahawk]

The public used to bet 1-2 hour before the matchup, that's when the bookie used to make the most money.

Betting against the public was profitable in the past decades, but now a lot of sharps bet against the public and I'm afraid that lines are not so valueable, but it still can be profitable in heavy public betting like 80% or higher.