[husky]

So there are a number of consensus websites out there with public %. If the bookies job is to have around 50% on each side, wouldn't fading a 90%+ consensus public play be +EV as books are "needing" this side?

[HeeeHAWWWW]

The problem here is the "consensus website" just pulled that info out of their ass. Anything to get page views and advert money.

[TheLock]

HeeeeHAWWW, even sites you have to pay for such as Sports Insights for example?

I know there are plenty of free sites such as Pregame and they definitely have a pull-it-out-of-their-ass feel to them.

[James Marques]

So there are a number of consensus websites out there with public %. If the bookies job is to have around 50% on each side, wouldn't fading a 90%+ consensus public play be +EV as books are "needing" this side?

I don't disagree with this logic, but I do think further analysis is required on a case-by-case basis. Basically I can see where you're coming from, but here's a scenario:

A large percentage of these service plays are on favorites. Why? Because the people who seek these service plays want to "be on the right side" of the action. That's the "information" these people are paying for. Having said that, if the favorite doesn't cover (or worse, loses straight up), it's easier to convince square bettors that this was just bad luck. Of course, betting the favorite isn't always a bad bet. Sometimes, even with favorite-inflated lines, the favorite still covers. So what if Vegas inflates the favorite to a point where they won't cover 52% of the time, but will cover 48% of the time? Because of variance, even Vegas can't know which 52% won't cover and which 48% will - but they can be fairly certain of 52/48 just as arbitrarily as they can be certain of 50/50. In essence, this destroys the effectiveness of the "favorite fade." Obviously, the "dog" presents the same problems.

Despite all of that, I think there is value in what you're pointing out. Whenever I've analyzed and modeled all aspects of a game I possibly can, and still can't figure out what the right play should be: I almost always take the opposite side of where the majority of the money is. Why? For the same reason you pointed out above. If there's more money on one side than the other, when Vegas has the capability of balancing the book whenever it wants.... they must want it that way.

[PAULYPOKER]

[Thor4140]

if u think the books try to get equal action on both sides maybe u should stop gambling. That might be the dumbest thing gamblers think. Some gamblers would believe anything an oddsmakers say's. I think politicians are more trust worthy than oddsmakers.

[Darkside Magick]

Biggest myth going about wanting action equal on both side....bookies got you clowns fooled

[Jayvegas420]

You'll need to explain why a book would want to influence unequal action.

[Darkside Magick]

Because there are many games...and in the long run the bookmaker will still win even if a couple of games are lopsided.

[James Marques]

I would cite the Oxford Guide to Gambling Economics, which proves analytically that the only sport in which the balanced book hypothesis fails is the NFL, where known bettor biases prove more profitable to books than the risks of imbalance. In all other sports, the winning percentage by side based on home team, favorite, etc. is virtually indistinguishable from 50/50. I'm uncertain why one would theorize that books open themselves to heavy risk in a system where they already carry a heavy advantage. That's like believing in rigged roulette wheels and weighted dice. What's the point? Why risk your legitimacy?

[Jayvegas420]

Because there are many games...and in the long run the bookmaker will still win even if a couple of games are lopsided.

I don't know if I understand the answer. I understand that sometime books don't achieve equal action on both sides of a game but why would they influence an unequal line. What I am asking is what interest do they have in NOT trying to create equal action?

[PAULYPOKER]

I don't know if I understand the answer. I understand that sometime books don't achieve equal action on both sides of a game but why would they influence an unequal line. What I am asking is what interest do they have in NOT trying to create equal action?

I'll dumb it down for ya

When a book is betting on a particular side they will entice action on the opposite side.....

But you will never know which side by reading a public consensus...

That is fo sure......

I been down and closed that road years ago.....

[Jayvegas420]

I would cite the Oxford Guide to Gambling Economics, which proves analytically that the only sport in which the balanced book hypothesis fails is the NFL, where known bettor biases prove more profitable to books than the risks of imbalance. In all other sports, the winning percentage by side based on home team, favorite, etc. is virtually indistinguishable from 50/50. I'm uncertain why one would theorize that books open themselves to heavy risk in a system where they already carry a heavy advantage. That's like believing in rigged roulette wheels and weighted dice. What's the point? Why risk your legitimacy?

This is what I'm trying to understand.

[Jayvegas420]

Cause what Pauley's saying is that, not only are books in the business of predicting outcomes, they are also in the business of shaving & adjusting llines to conform to these predictions.

[Darkside Magick]

I don't know if I understand the answer. I understand that sometime books don't achieve equal action on both sides of a game but why would they influence an unequal line. What I am asking is what interest do they have in NOT trying to create equal action?

The best books like Pinnacle don't care about it because Pinnacle takes a POSITION!

While the goal is to construct a betting line that is of equal attraction to both favorite and underdog players, it rarely works out that way. More typically, a third of the games esp. The NFL will have an insignificant amount of betting to cause much of a concern, another third will have active but balanced betting and the remaining third will have mostly one-way action. Traditionally, how the house fares on these lopsided games, called "positions" determines whether books win or lose.

[jjgold]

Public consensus is a waste of time.The numbers are inaccurate and secondly mean's nothing who is on who.

[STAX]

Public consensus is a waste of time.The numbers are inaccurate and secondly mean's nothing who is on who.

only acurate post in thread

[DOM-Ganador]

This would definately work, even if you faded the 75% consistently.
Being on the books side when they do take a "position" would be hugely profitable.

BUT, we as bettors will NEVER get the correct #s or %s from Vegas or legit 'big" books.
Ask yourself why the books would ever share that information.

[2daBank]

only acurate post in thread

Might be the most logical thing I've ever seen goldy post!

[Ghenghis Kahn]

who are we kidding? initially odds makers put up lines wanting equal action.

which isn't often but books hate it when the public and the sharps are on the same side. in these cases they know they put up the wrong numbers.

i was looking into the consensus numbers but there's no consistency.

seems like websites, including sbr consensus, make up numbers themselves...

[Thor4140]

Let me try to explain this as easily as i can for some of u misguided young men. When u throw in parlays, Teasers, reverses it is next to impossible for anyone to create equal action on both sides. Now for the advanced guys on this site who think this shit has rigged games imagine having bought the refs and a few players. You can set the line anyway u want and guys will fall for it. Let me give ya an example. A friend of mine has a big book on the east coast. Once in awhile he will let me view it. With the Superbowl he had 15 to 1 guys taking Denver. Yet this line was moving the other way but no where near the way it should have with the amount of money being wagered on one side. This is called the book taking a position like someone stated in this thread. They didn't want equal action on both sides. Sure enuf Peyton forgot how to play lol. Well that is another discussion. Again books wanting equal action on both sides is a myth. It is not hard to set a line and these guys know it but when u set a line that is really fair for both sides the bettors most likely will go right to another game. You can just look at the consensus on Covers to show u that equal action is a myth. A lot of games are 60 percent and above in percentages. Also these guys who believe in these so called Sharps need their head examine. Sure there are some of them but the books make it like there are millions of them. Trust me the public money far outweighs the sharp money. I love when a linesmakers comes on covers and say's "The sharps have driven the line down a point but we have 70 percent of the action on the other side. Why in the world would they move the line the other way when 70 percent of the action is on the other side? Aren't they supposed to move it with the way the money is coming in? I mean that is what they claim. They are full of shit. They are some of the biggest theives we produce here in the good ole USA.