Anyone else tired of hearing the word "public" mentioned in threads?

[imgv94]

How about these people who bet home dogs and supposed "anti-public plays and try to distance themselves from the public.

They are just as public as anyone.. They have no inside information on games, everything that assists in their selection is public knowledge.

I also notice these bettors don't do any better then anyone else, spinning wheels I guess...

[Willie Bee]

Sort of agree with you, GV. I think it was AC who came up with a good line during the past baseball season. Said he was going to write a book and title it Your guess is as good as mine. I believe that to fit about 99% of us

[BigBollocks]

IMG once you've been around this game enough some things that never change. I ought to just get a tape recorder with the same 20 rookie lines repeated over and over. The public theory is one of many concepts that rookie cappers every year think they're the first to think of. I can remember two generates in the Stardust 25 years ago talking about "fading the public" like it was the best thing since sliced bread. All in all it tends to fair slightly over 50%, but not near enough to make up for the vig.

In the end this is a really boring game if you want to win longterm. Hard work, discipline, getting the best line at the lowest juice, and money management are the only ways to win, and even then it's a grind. It'd be nice if there was a no work way to make a living sportsbetting, but unfortunately all novices wind up finding out it doesn't exist. GL...

[imgv94]

IMG once you've been around this game enough some things that never change. I ought to just get a tape recorder with the same 20 rookie lines repeated over and over. The public theory is one of many concepts that rookie cappers every year think they're the first to think of. I can remember two generates in the Stardust 25 years ago talking about "fading the public" like it was the best thing since sliced bread. All in all it tends to fair slightly over 50%, but not near enough to make up for the vig.

In the end this is a really boring game if you want to win longterm. Hard work, discipline, getting the best line at the lowest juice, and money management are the only ways to win, and even then it's a grind. It'd be nice if there was a no work way to make a living sportsbetting, but unfortunately all novices wind up finding out it doesn't exist. GL...

Great post sir, great post. I love superior advice from veterans of the game..

[Willie Bee]

No lie, good post Bollocks. People forget that outside of winning the lottery or being born a member of the Lucky Sperm Club, if you have to make a living doing anything, there's still a lot of work involved.

So, not to change the subject or anything, but what is the publci on this week?

[BigBollocks]

Great post sir, great post. I love superior advice from veterans of the game..

Cheers IMGV

By the way, if you can ever clue me in on a way to effectively convince people with low intellectual aptitude that they're not as innovative as previously thought I'd be much obliged

[BigBollocks]

So, not to change the subject or anything, but what is the publci on this week?

Willie I was told through classified information (wagerline and cov***.com earlier this week lol) that it was Indianapolis in NFL and Michigan State + the points in CFB, but we have to promise to keep it a secret

[jon13009]

I think we need to be aware of the public betting perceptions

"The linemaker is concerned about public perception because even though the line is designed to even the monetary action on wagers bet in the real world, that is not the case, as sports books always get stuck sitting on one side or the other.

For simplicity's sake I will use a typical NFL Sunday as an example. Let's say there are thirteen games on an NFL Sunday, a sports book will have little betting action on four of those thirteen games, even money action on five of those thirteen games, where both sides are bet equally, and four games where the casino is sitting on one side of a game, as the public has made a one-sided wager on a particular team they favor. The linemaker has to win half of those four games where the public has bet on one-side to make money for the casino. In this example that means the casino has to win two of the four games the public has significant one-sided wagers on. So the linemaker is very concerned about public perception, as he wants to beat the public on these four games if possible and get at least half of them in the long run."

Source:

http://www.winnersedgeonline.com/point-spread-made.html

If a handicapper can identify those games where the public may have been led to bet by the book - the handicapper will be at an advantage.

I think this is the underlying philosophy of those playing the "fade the public push the home dog" system, which I think is a way people who don't care to do the handicapping work fall into because it is easy and requires little in-depth analysis of the game.

I hate them because fade the public players don't care to explain what they do, they say how great they are and their method is - and try to piss on everything you say. But, I think the reasoning above explains the small success rate they have.

Where do you go to get free public betting numbers?

http://www.thespread.com/nfl-football-public-betting-chart

Note the free figures are provided by sports insights.com and I believe they get them from Pinnacle.......- I am not touting this service (and do not recommend paying for their service), but people should be aware Sports insights is also selling additional information to so called steam players (which is something of a question in itself) and fade the public players.

I think Covers.com uses wagerline.com polling data - which are not numbers from the books themselves. (If not please correct me.)

Bottom line: If you want to identify the handful of games where the books may want to drive the public into betting - before people like Dr. Bob influence the line- you need to know where the public is betting at certain times during the week.

Perhaps the BUF/BAL game is an example?

Some people say, screw all the talk about the public and the line, fine......I still believe in doing my own handicapping, gathering opinions and, and then make an educated decision regarding my plays. But I will consider "fade the public" plays......... if they have a basis.

A basis that makes you want to see how the public is betting and ask - did the books really make that line to push the public to bet that way?

The vig is the way the books make their money - and in the ideal world they would make the line to be 50/50, and in the long run we ALL lose to the books that way. But a handicapper has to be aware of the potential ways the book can play the public - through the line.

[imgv94]

I like that spread site jon. Thanks sir!!!

[imgv94]

BigBullocks,

I loved your reply so much I quoted it on another forum..

[goldengoat]

imgv94 like a year or so ago you mentioned how the public was playing every other thread

is it safe to say you have changed your thinking or are you denying you ever did this?

[jjgold]

No such thing as a public play that is why it is bogus

If favs wins most bettors win period

[imgv94]

imgv94 like a year or so ago you mentioned how the public was playing every other thread

is it safe to say you have changed your thinking or are you denying you ever did this?

Yes I've changed my thinking.

[SBR Lou]

Oh my god! New England is -3 against the Falcons and Joey Harrington on MNF in Atlanta. The statistical chart shows home teams that suck are 43*$&83743*x against the spread when playin MNF. THE PUBLIC loves New England -3, therefor, using this and our advanced intellectual analysis fadeeeeeeeee the public and back Joey Harrington! It's MNF the crowd will be into it!!!!!!!

[Michael_Cash]

The feed on TheSpread.com is the average from 5 different books. Sportbet, Sportsbook.com, Betus, Carib and Pinnacle.

It is in fact provided by sports insights but the only features missing are the totals and the archiving.

Glad you guys are getting some use out if it.

[BuddyBear]

Funny how empirical reserach shows that betting against the public is a long term profitable strategy. Keep betting big public games and see how that goes.....

I think you guys need to understand issues related to causality a little bit more, it seems quite clear to me that nobody in this thread can grasp that.....

[vanzack]

Funny how empirical reserach shows that betting against the public is a long term profitable strategy. Keep betting big public games and see how that goes.....

I think you guys need to understand issues related to causality a little bit more, it seems quite clear to me that nobody in this thread can grasp that.....

Can you please post or source this empirical research?

Can you please tell us the source of the numbers used, and if that company's business model depends upon people believing in "public"?

Can you please let us know how you know the numbers are real, and why any sportsbook would release these numbers?

Can you please let us know, from your empirical research, what defines a public play?

Thanks, Im kind of new to all of this and want to understand.

[BuddyBear]

Can you please post or source this empirical research?

Can you please tell us the source of the numbers used, and if that company's business model depends upon people believing in "public"?

Can you please let us know how you know the numbers are real, and why any sportsbook would release these numbers?

Can you please let us know, from your empirical research, what defines a public play?

Thanks, Im kind of new to all of this and want to understand.

Don't be a dumb **** and a smart ass Vanzack.....you are not new to this and you are educated as well so you should be able to understand what I am saying.

1) Basically your first paragraph is in reference I presume to sportsinsights.com. So in effect, you are telling me that this is not a falsifiable hypothesis....that is if I present evidence to say that betting against the public is profitable and documented by empirical research it does not count if I use SI since their business model depends on a particular paradigm. So pretty much it is not a falsifiable hypothesis according to you so i am not going to continue with this but it is true that SI operates as a website that monitors public opinion on the games and takes an anti-public approach. They have some of their own studies they have done as well as links to academic research. For those with an open mind and want to explore further here is the link:

http://sportsinsights.com/bettingagainstthepublic.aspx

2) One point you make is legit and deserves further comment: "Can you please let us know how you know the numbers are real, and why any sportsbook would release these numbers?"

SI's sampling methods are suspect at best and not to be fully trusted. I for one do not necessarily agree with them but they are far superior to say Wagerline or sportsbooks that put up percentages of how many are not what side. As of right now, they are the best out there unless you are a manager at a sportsbook or something. Basically SI only samples from select books who agree to participate (this of course creates an inherent selection bias...are the books that participate any different than those that don't and my guess would be yes). They have the right idea in that they use random sampling from the books that participate but the fact that they have a limited selection of books is troublesome and sort of invalidates the percentages. They may well be correct or not to far but given that books who participate self-select it is troublesome at best.

Why do books release those numbers? Your guess is as good as mine. Again, a number of possible reasons include such things are marketting since the online gaming industry is very competitive and/or books recognize that there is a big audience of bettors who use SI and therefore they know that "anti-public bettors" can help balance action.

Anyway, there are a number of articles in academic research journals that feature peer review (i.e. Journal of Sports Econimic) that make very persuasive cases using real data about the relationship between underdogs, unders and value. Not surprisingly, betting pecentages tend to be corrleated with specific sides of games. Don't take it from me, go to a library and find these articles yourselves. They are out there....

And if you had read my post more carefully Vanzack before you jumped to your trite and predictable response on this topic you would have noticed that I did not say that betting against the public causes winning. I said it is an issue of causality. Clearly, public percentage would function as a moderator variable in any causal relationship. There is absolutely no way that betting percentages determine the outcome of a game...it's just not theoretically possible. If it is so, I would love to see a theory that has public percentages as an exogenous variable. That model would crash and burn so fast.....

My advice....handicap a game based on the available information out there (players, coaches, stats, homefield, etc...). Betting percentages are just a (controversial) tool to use in your analysis and that's all they are. I don't think they should be disregarded. At the very least they should help you determine line movement.

Good luck....

[vanzack]

Don't be a dumb **** and a smart ass Vanzack.....you are not new to this and you are educated as well so you should be able to understand what I am saying.

1) Basically your first paragraph is in reference I presume to sportsinsights.com. So in effect, you are telling me that this is not a falsifiable hypothesis....that is if I present evidence to say that betting against the public is profitable and documented by empirical research it does not count if I use SI since their business model depends on a particular paradigm. So pretty much it is not a falsifiable hypothesis according to you so i am not going to continue with this but it is true that SI operates as a website that monitors public opinion on the games and takes an anti-public approach. They have some of their own studies they have done as well as links to academic research. For those with an open mind and want to explore further here is the link:

http://sportsinsights.com/bettingagainstthepublic.aspx

2) One point you make is legit and deserves further comment: "Can you please let us know how you know the numbers are real, and why any sportsbook would release these numbers?"

SI's sampling methods are suspect at best and not to be fully trusted. I for one do not necessarily agree with them but they are far superior to say Wagerline or sportsbooks that put up percentages of how many are not what side. As of right now, they are the best out there unless you are a manager at a sportsbook or something. Basically SI only samples from select books who agree to participate (this of course creates an inherent selection bias...are the books that participate any different than those that don't and my guess would be yes). They have the right idea in that they use random sampling from the books that participate but the fact that they have a limited selection of books is troublesome and sort of invalidates the percentages. They may well be correct or not to far but given that books who participate self-select it is troublesome at best.

Why do books release those numbers? Your guess is as good as mine. Again, a number of possible reasons include such things are marketting since the online gaming industry is very competitive and/or books recognize that there is a big audience of bettors who use SI and therefore they know that "anti-public bettors" can help balance action.

Anyway, there are a number of articles in academic research journals that feature peer review (i.e. Journal of Sports Econimic) that make very persuasive cases using real data about the relationship between underdogs, unders and value. Not surprisingly, betting pecentages tend to be corrleated with specific sides of games. Don't take it from me, go to a library and find these articles yourselves. They are out there....

And if you had read my post more carefully Vanzack before you jumped to your trite and predictable response on this topic you would have noticed that I did not say that betting against the public causes winning. I said it is an issue of causality. Clearly, public percentage would function as a moderator variable in any causal relationship. There is absolutely no way that betting percentages determine the outcome of a game...it's just not theoretically possible. If it is so, I would love to see a theory that has public percentages as an exogenous variable. That model would crash and burn so fast.....

My advice....handicap a game based on the available information out there (players, coaches, stats, homefield, etc...). Betting percentages are just a (controversial) tool to use in your analysis and that's all they are. I don't think they should be disregarded. At the very least they should help you determine line movement.

Good luck....

Wow. Big response, lots of big words.

Thanks, Im learning as I go!!!

[BuddyBear]

Wow. Big response, lots of big words.

Thanks, Im learning as I go!!!

Don't be a dick Vanzack. big words???

Yeah it's easy to bully dumb ****s around on Covers but I don't think you could respond to what I had to say even if you tried to articulate an argument. You're use to saying something and everyone just listening to what you have to say blah blah blah. As soon as I said something you just shut the **** up cause you knew it was true. It's clear the emperor has lost his clothes. Just face facts, you made a challenge, i responded and you couldn't respond back.

Good luck this weekend....lol

[imgv94]

Funny how empirical reserach shows that betting against the public is a long term profitable strategy. Keep betting big public games and see how that goes.....

I think you guys need to understand issues related to causality a little bit more, it seems quite clear to me that nobody in this thread can grasp that.....

BuddyBear you are no better than anyone in this thread.

No results have supported anything you have said. Anti-public plays would of caught on by now if they were so profitable.

Anyone who goes to sportsinsights is public.

[imgv94]

to people who go on covers or sportsinsights and think they are any better or any different than the public.

[Thremp]

Public plays would only work if closing lines aren't efficient. If you think sports betting markets are perfectly efficient then you should solely be striving to beat closing lines. If not, then you can recognize that public plays exist.

[BuddyBear]

BuddyBear you are no better than anyone in this thread.

No results have supported anything you have said. Anti-public plays would of caught on by now if they were so profitable.

Anyone who goes to sportsinsights is public.

IMGV...don't take this the wrong way or personally but you don't have the capacity or ability to understand what I am saying at any level. You believe Dr. Bob is giving the opposite side to his clients....

I laid it all out in plain English for you and anyone else to see. Vanzack made a smart alack, yet legitimate question. I respect him and responded accordingly. I responded politely and as best I could noting deficienies in his claims. He responded back in a smart alack tone. He knows what I am saying is true but is loathe to admit it. Instead he just responds with some dumb comment conceding the veracity of my argument without actually saying so. Betting against the public functions simply as a moderator variable. Its success is contingent on other factors.

To put in the simplest terms, a high winning percentage would be dependent on finding point spreads with the most value. Thus we have a simple bivariate relationship between value (IV) and high winning percentage (DV). Heavy public action tends to move spreads and as a result it creates more value. Therefore, heavy public action on one side moderates the relationship between value and winning.

And no shit, you think the betting percentages at Sportsinsights will tell you who wins? You think i was born yesterday? Unfortunately, most guys have no idea how to use that site. If it is simply pick against whatever side the public is on and sit back, drink a beer, and watch the cash roll in then no, that's not what happens and if anything you might go broke that way. SI is very specific under what conditions betting against the public is most profitable and when it is not. I suggest you look further into that before making sweeping generilizations and at the very least provide some sort of rationale as to how you arrived at such a conclusion considering your outlook is a complete 180 from last season.

Good luck this weekend

[imgv94]

IMGV...don't take this the wrong way or personally but you don't have the capacity or ability to understand what I am saying at any level.

There you go again with your superiority complex.. It's fine with me if that makes you feel better.
I don't know maybe your superiority complex Has helped you forgot about all the plays throughout the years that you labeled as sucker bets that won?

There's been tons of them.. Believe your fairy tales all you want.

[BuddyBear]

There you go again with your superiority complex.. It's fine with me if that makes you feel better.
I don't know maybe your superiority complex Has helped you forgot about all the plays throughout the years that you labeled as sucker bets that won?

There's been tons of them.. Believe your fairy tales all you want.

Well do you understand anything I said in the previous posts? You made a claim and I challenged the basis of your claim as being factually incorrect. If you see something wrong in my argument, please point it out.

[imgv94]

Well do you understand anything I said in the previous posts? You made a claim and I challenged the basis of your claim as being factually incorrect. If you see something wrong in my argument, please point it out.

I'm still waiting for that empirical reserach that shows that betting against the public is a long term profitable strategy.

Look at all popular trends and you will see that hit at around the same %. Dogs Favs Home Dogs Road Favs etc. But I thought you knew this, guess not.

[Thremp]

I'm still waiting for that empirical reserach that shows that betting against the public is a long term profitable strategy.

Look at all popular trends and you will see that hit at around the same %. Dogs Favs Home Dogs Road Favs etc. But I thought you knew this, guess not.

What sports are we talking about and what subsets? Cause this isn't the case.

[BuddyBear]

I'm still waiting for that empirical reserach that shows that betting against the public is a long term profitable strategy.

Look at all popular trends and you will see that hit at around the same %. Dogs Favs Home Dogs Road Favs etc. But I thought you knew this, guess not.

I'm starting to wonder if you even read my posts because clearly i've addressed this question. Not only that, I've provided an informative link that should make things more clear for you or anyone else interested in pursuing this topic further.

So let me get this straight, you make a sweeping generalization, provide no evidence, sticking dogmaticaly to your belief. I make an argument addressing everyone's point, present the shortcomings of betting against the public, the strong points of betting against the public, outline the relationship of how it works and I am the one with the superiority complex

[imgv94]

What sports are we talking about and what subsets? Cause this isn't the case.

Do you know of any "popular" long term trend that has hit over 55% in any major sport?

[imgv94]

Buddy,

Would you mind posting the empirical reserach that shows that betting against the public is a long term profitable strategy?

Cause that SI link sure didn't prove anything..

[pokernut9999]

Do you know of any "popular" long term trend that has hit over 55% in any major sport?

I would guess betting against top 25 on the road in NCAA baskets has been a long term success.

20 years ago I worked some for a local book and learned betting against the public was the right move. In the NFL I have done extremely well going against the public.


In 7 weeks the consenus plays at Covers has lost 6 weeks in a row in the NFL.

[dwaechte]

Question:

Has betting Home Underdogs in the NFL not been extremely profitable for god knows how long? The last 3 years, home underdogs come out to around 59-60%. Is this really likely to change. The books compensate for the vast majority that bet road dogs, and in the end, know that home dogs will prevail.

If you had an enormous bankroll, would you not be able to get a living off of betting every single home underdog all year?

[imgv94]

Home Dogs 52.7% ATS since 1985

[tacomax]

So let me get this straight, you make a sweeping generalization, provide no evidence, sticking dogmaticaly to your belief. I make an argument addressing everyone's point, present the shortcomings of betting against the public, the strong points of betting against the public, outline the relationship of how it works and I am the one with the superiority complex

The case of the superiority complex aside, imgv posted an opinion. He didn't post his results, but most people don't on forums. Now you're saying that there are arguments against betting on the public and arguments for betting on the public. So (assuming these effects negate each other which you have not statistically proven) you are in agreement with him.