Square vs. Sharp????

[BryanBarina]

Can someone really tell me the difference? When I see a good team is favored by 3 or less over a bad team, people say it is square to bet on the good team.

Last week my two nfl plays were Atlanta and NYG. But people on here said all the "squares" were on them.

Does going against intuition make you a "sharp"?

[MobFade]

Someone today put it well when they said (paraphrasing): "Taking a team -3.5 is square. Taking them -3 is sharp." I feel like that pretty much sums it up. There are times when national coverage or record makes a team seem better or worse than they are. More importantly, being able to anticipate line movement based on where the money is coming in and getting your money in at the best time or at least ahead of the closing line is sharp IMO.

[SteveRyan]

Square plays are usually involve laying money on long-shots or big-favs; however, square plays do not always lose.

Let's take the monday night game for example.

San Fran -7.5
Arizona 38

A square play would be to take San Fran -7.5 and parlay it with under 38. Lets say AZ scores 2 TD's in the 1st half. If this had happened, it would be almost impossible for this parlay to hit because San Fran must win by 8 AND the total must stay below 38. 14+8 = 22. 22+14 = 36. One more score and it has gone over 38. So, if you really think this is going to hit, you are locking AZ in at a low score that must be below 17.

Do you see why this bet is square?

Oddly enough, AZ fell asleep and scored a measly 3 points making this parlay golden....regardless of how square it actually was.

Another square play would have been to take Green Bay at -14.5. IMO, pretty square to lay juice on that wide of a spread....even if it does hit....which it didn't.

[Dark Horse]

One main difference is that squares will look for reasons to bet on a team. Sharps will look for reasons to bet against a team.

[bobbyk1133]

Can someone really tell me the difference?

Gonna be damn entertaining to see how long it takes a forum full of "sharps" to answer this question correctly.

Free tip: ->> has jack sh!t to do with betting favorites. Don't be fooled by all the clown topics around here stating the contrary.

[HardCore]

i always felt a sharp was the wise guy who could the Fn winner either spread or ml sharp is being right point blank period i think it was 2dabank who said this in 1 of his threads that all a sharp is is someone who bets on the unnatural to happen against a good team basically someone who goes out his way to find flukes and thats the perception on this site that favs are sqaures and sharps are the guys who go against them smh but its nothing like that lol there are no sharp PLAYS there are sharp BETTERS as in consistant winners not lucky fluke picks that arent sposed to happen imo

[HardCore]

i dont know if you guys watch the sbr videos on youtube or not but loshak always says WHO ARE THE SHARPS TAKING not whats the sharp plays cause there are no specific sharp plays there just sharp betters who move the mutha f#cking lines cause there always right and cmon we all bet enuff to know you cant win long term betting on just dogs or just favs u gotta cap ur ass off and make good decisions "square or sharp" then again i could be wrong everybody has there own oppionion

[bobbyk1133]

Where are the self-proclaimed "sharps" like LB and k13 to explain it for us? They start topics about "squares" every other day around here....

So funny how a good question transforms this place into a field of crickets. People throw around these terms all the time, but when you ask them to define it they have no clue.

[SteveRyan]

Gonna be damn entertaining to see how long it takes a forum full of "sharps" to answer this question correctly.

Free tip: ->> has jack sh!t to do with betting favorites. Don't be fooled by all the clown topics around here stating the contrary.

Actually, betting on favs is a big part of it because squares dont take the time (or know how) to explore other avenues....they just bet the favs.

[bobbyk1133]

Actually, betting on favs is a big part of it because squares dont take the time (or know how) to explore other avenues....they just bet the favs.

Wrong. There is no historical advantage to favs or dogs. Yes the public like favorites in general, but that's not what makes them or anyone else square.

[Bigh2001]

Square play is betting on national teams like the lakers, red sox, etc to win just because they are on espn and the game is at home. The lines for such highly publicized, televised contests are juiced up on the favorites with this in mind. Your average "public" or square bettor is likely to be watching the patriots or oklahoma vs Notre dame rather than a team like western Kentucky and Arkansas state. In many cases there's far more value to be had in playing a soft line on a nationally inconsequential game than a juiced line in a "big" game. The square player doesn't dig deep enough into the card to find value in a lesser game, he goes straight for the juiced up game and loses.

[bobbyk1133]

Just to play devil's advocate I'll give an example from last year...

NO, NE, and GB were a combined 32-16 ATS. IND, STL, and TB were 13-34-1.

If I consistently made topics about liking or fading these teams how often do you think I would've been called a square? And how many people would consider themselves "sharp" by doing the contrary?

The key diff between sharps and squares lies in why sharps win more than squares and fck all to do with favs or dogs.

[jrose2106]

Just to play devil's advocate I'll give an example from last year...

NO, NE, and GB were a combined 32-16 ATS. IND, STL, and TB were 13-34-1.

If I consistently made topics about liking or fading these teams how often do you think I would've been called a square? And how many people would consider themselves "sharp" by doing the contrary?

The key diff between sharps and squares lies in why sharps win more than squares and fck all to do with favs or dogs.

hey bobbyk you seem pretty "sharp" to me, do you, or anyone, have any good websites that list advanced trends ATS for NFL, not just your basic so and so is 4-3 ATS or 5-2 O/U, but more in depth and maybe even let's you search with specific parameters ?

[bobbyk1133]

hey bobbyk you seem pretty "sharp" to me, do you, or anyone, have any good websites that list advanced trends ATS for NFL, not just your basic so and so is 4-3 ATS or 5-2 O/U, but more in depth and maybe even let's you search with specific parameters ?

I'm not a big trends guy so no sorry. I know there are advanced databases out there tho, just not sure if they are free.

[Avenger]

Wrong. There is no historical advantage to favs or dogs. Yes the public like favorites in general, but that's not what makes them or anyone else square.

Best answer of the day.

My definition of a square is one who gives into perception and media hype (uh... can we say Tebow?). They don't have a real grasp of the game and they haven't been betting a long time (or if they do, it's recreational, completely based on luck).

Amateur sharps are the ones who don't really give a crap which side wins, they want to make money. And they do that by any means possible. Sharps have a good understanding of the game, but a great understanding of how sport gambling works. They can probably set very accurate line by themselves. They can see what books are doing, read lines, and see which games are fixed uh... have a more-than-likely outcome. They have to understand the game well, know the players, the dynamics of the team... so they can see where the trap line/games are.

I don't think people who watch RLMs all day are real sharps. It's not that easy. All systems lead to zero... so if they're betting on RLM alone, they should be around 50% lifetime, not enough wins to overcome the vig.

Then there's the real sharps. They are the ones that always win (like 80% or higher) Real sharps are the wise guys, that have inside knowledge of a game. They know exactly what the fix is because they know people inside the organization. These are usually the ones that work for a book or an oddsmaker, asst. coaches, cousins/friends of players, girlfriends, etc... There's not too many of them.

[bobbyk1133]

Best answer of the day.

My definition of a square is one who gives into perception and media hype (uh... can we say Tebow?). They don't have a real grasp of the game and they haven't been betting a long time (or if they do, it's recreational, completely based on luck).

Amateur sharps are the ones who don't really give a crap which side wins, they want to make money. And they do that by any means possible. Sharps have a good understanding of the game, but a great understanding of how sport gambling works. They can probably set very accurate line by themselves. They can see what books are doing, read lines, and see which games are fixed uh... have a more-than-likely outcome. They have to understand the game well, know the players, the dynamics of the team... so they can see where the trap line/games are.

I don't think people who watch RLMs all day are real sharps. It's not that easy. All systems lead to zero... so if they're betting on RLM alone, they should be around 50% lifetime, not enough wins to overcome the vig.

Then there's the real sharps. They are the ones that always win (like 80% or higher) Real sharps are the wise guys, that have inside knowledge of a game. They know exactly what the fix is because they know people inside the organization. These are usually the ones that work for a book or an oddsmaker, asst. coaches, cousins/friends of players, girlfriends, etc... There's not too many of them.

Agree not all bettors are created equal, but I think that's a whole diff discussion.

There is one defining feature that separates what a sharp and square bettor is and I'm still waiting for someone to say it.

[mike-dub]

there's a site called bang the book that has a lot of this information and more. i find it helpful, but i'd be nice to get someone else' opinion on it

hey bobbyk you seem pretty "sharp" to me, do you, or anyone, have any good websites that list advanced trends ATS for NFL, not just your basic so and so is 4-3 ATS or 5-2 O/U, but more in depth and maybe even let's you search with specific parameters ?

[riffraff24]

square vs sharp is total bullshit. no one has a crystal ball

[DirtyBird1500]

Pretty simple, when you win all of a sudden you are a "sharp" and when you lose all of a sudden you are a "square"

[hurricane1091]

Sharps take the same bets as squares do too now. A square bettor will look tonight at Chargers -7.5 and jump on it with the logic that Kansas City sucks and Chargers are home. Chargers could very well cover tonight, I feel inclined to pick them but likely won't unless it is in a tease. A sharp will look at this game tonight and tell you that Thursday games are often closely contested, and these are interdivision teams and the game has a good chance of staying very close. San Diego is NOT a powerhouse this year, and just recently dropped vs the Cleveland Steamers. 65% of the public is also on San Diego, but betting the opposite of the public does not make you sharp. There must be reasoning behind picks. However, the square tonight will say SD is a LOCK because KC is so bad. Square could win tonight, who knows. However, Kansas City will find a way to cover tonight, and 65% are buried. Tonight is your night to be a sharp, be quiet and place a bet on Kansas City +7.5.

[SteveRyan]

I can't believe how clueless you guys are about sharps vs squares.....unbelievable.

Here's the deal...

Squares are people who really have no clue beyond hunches, "a good feeling", bias, etc, when it comes to placing a bet. They do not seek advanced information when deciding what side to bet on. Its all about "feelings", hunches and impressions about the teams. That's why books love squares; they are uninformed betters (The majority public).

Sharps are people who actually take the time to do advanced research. They have access to large databases of games and have formulated complex methods for calculating a spread that is as accurate (or more accurate) than the book. They find value and explore alternative options besides "sides and totals". That's why books hate sharps; they are extremely informed and can find an edge (The small-minority public).

That's the difference between sharps and squares.

So, square bets reflect inexperience, as in the example in my 1st post, where the better doesn't really comprehend what he's doing; without actually understanding how slim the possibility is of it hitting, he just bets the fav to cover and the under.

[bobbyk1133]

Since no one is providing the answer let's put a bow on this topic...

No one is predicting every line movement and getting the best line every time.
Spread won't matter anyway.

This is from another topic, but touches on the essence on the true diff btwn sharps and squares.

k13 is right that no one is going to get the best line every time, but the one key feature of sharps is that they consistently get the best number over the long run. Squares consistently get the worst number.

From what I've seen, LTProfits is an example of a sharp player on this forum. Don't know if he's explicitly said so, but I'll make a nice wager that beating the closing line is near the very top of his priority list each week.

If a bettor can beat the closing line and be on the right side of line movement over 80-90% of the time ... over the long-term, they can consider themselves sharp. If you've sat there with a push or a loss 5-10 times a season because you missed a better number, you know what category you fall in.

k13 is half right when he says the spread won't matter because most of the time it does not, but sharps don't take that chance. Only a fraction of people win long term, and beating the close earns roughly a 5% advantage (number of games where having the best number alters the outcome of your bet). Doesn't sound like a lot, but over the course of a season, this is the difference between a winning bettor/capper (55%) and a losing one (52.2%).

It's pretty much as simple as that.

[k13]

Depends how detailed you want to get.


SD -3 vs K.C. Square, with support breaking off the 3 like a stock market, a square cannot believe browns can win.

NE -7 vs STL A Square play that turns sharp, this what most don't understand as they go grab +7.5

Giants vs Cowboys, Sharps get +1, Squares get -3.


Sharps look at the long term picture and Squares look at the short term one.
Squares look at last week, Sharps look at two weeks ago or more.


Go to ESPN "experts" Picks and you'll know what Squares are..... I'm half-joking.

[billysink]

This ain't fukkin geometry kids. Squares are squares. Sharps have an angle.

A square is anyone who blindly makes plays watching ESPN and reading the fukkin daily.

A sharp is a guy, who win or lose, exhausts himself in knowledge of the game at hand, develops a perception of value by quantifying that knowledge gained against a given number. Sharp has nothing to do with win or lose. Has everything to do with value.

Squares have very little perception of value and are usually not willing to work hard enough to understand the concept.

Both can win any given game. Only one will last long enough to make that a profitable venture.

[tto827]

This ain't fukkin geometry kids. Squares are squares. Sharps have an angle.

A square is anyone who blindly makes plays watching ESPN and reading the fukkin daily.

A sharp is a guy, who win or lose, exhausts himself in knowledge of the game at hand, develops a perception of value by quantifying that knowledge gained against a given number. Sharp has nothing to do with win or lose. Has everything to do with value.

Squares have very little perception of value and are usually not willing to work hard enough to understand the concept.

Both can win any given game. Only one will last long enough to make that a profitable venture.

You're on fire today. This goes back to a thread a few days ago, where someone was arguing whether the winning side was always the right side, and the answer to that is no. The right side is the one, that if played 500000000000 times, would produce value.

Squares think they can win every bet and get mad when they lose, sharps only expect to win ~60%, and our quite content when they do.

[k13]

"

[byronbb]

Square's don't consider price as an issue when it is massively important. A square shop like Sportsinteraction will deal lines that have a vig of up to 10% for the square side.

[Okiejoe]

Sharps look for line value. Most of the time they come up with a line they think is more accurate then the line the books have put out. For baseball lets say they see a line at -139 when it should be -155 there going to take that -139. Then the books realize hey our lines bad we need to bump it up some cents. Then you have steam chasers who bump it up a little more until its at -153. Sharps could careless who the favorite or Dog is its about where they can maximize their value on a position. Same when they play NCAA OU -9 then they hedge out with ND +13.

[bobbyk1133]

Sharps look for line value. Most of the time they come up with a line they think is more accurate then the line the books have put out. ... Sharps could careless who the favorite or Dog is its about where they can maximize their value on a position.

Exactly. Sharps recognize differences between the fair line and the true line on a consistent basis. If they are any good at making picks, this will result in beating the closing line the vast majority of the time. With squares it's the complete opposite.

It should be said that there is a huge variety in between these two groups. The public is much more sophisticated than before thanks to the availability of info online, etc. I think a lot of people here fall into the square-sharp group...knowing general betting strategies, understanding the basics of value, but failing to consistently get the best numbers and/or make long-term winning picks.

NE -7 vs STL A Square play that turns sharp, this what most don't understand as they go grab +7.5

Giants vs Cowboys, Sharps get +1, Squares get -3.

If I follow you, I think you're saying both sides can be sharp or square? If so I agree and I think it's a good point. The sharp play in the NE/STL game could have been -6.5 or +7.5. Both beat the closing line around a key number. Squares took -7.5 or +6.5 (unlikely +6.5 cuz it was only available for half a day).

When it comes to the "right" or "wrong" side...we should be talking about opening/closing numbers, not which team wins/loses the game.

[riffraff24]

Okay so in a lump sum, what the consensus here is that:

Squares are fans that have better things to do than read, eat, and sleep sports 24/7 and bet on gut feelings.

Sharps are fat slobs that live in their mommies basement and do nothing but eat, sleep, read, talk and fuk sports.

Got it...

[Duff85]

Sharps bet for value and would be comfortable taking either team in a game at the right odds. Squares "pick winners" and "bet on good teams". These two strategies tend to lead to the square betting on teams at poor value odds, because its Brady or Kobe or A-Roid.

[Duff85]

Okay so in a lump sum, what the consensus here is that:

Squares are fans that have better things to do than read, eat, and sleep sports 24/7 and bet on gut feelings.

Sharps are fat slobs that live in their mommies basement and do nothing but eat, sleep, read, talk and fuk sports.

Got it...

No this is just your generalisation. A lot of squares live and breathe sports 24/7... They are just too retarded to work out how to win at sports betting.

[Duff85]

Squares think they can win every bet and get mad when they lose, sharps only expect to win ~60%, and our quite content when they do.

Sharp post - except the last bit - i'm happy winning 46%, because i'm taking a lot of +ml dogs.

[GunShard]

It comes down to winning a bet, losing a bet or no bet.

Being aware of the no bet is critical, you're not supposed to bet on every game.

[tto827]

Sharp post - except the last bit - i'm happy winning 46%, because i'm taking a lot of +ml dogs.

I was thinking about saying against a -110 spread, but figured that might just complicate it too much for the squares out there.