Is the concept of a "sustainable fade" reasonable?

[ChuckyTheGoat]

I'm talking about a guy who put you on the 53%+ side consistently over time.

The two hurdles would be obvious:
1) The fade gets tired of taking a bath and stops betting/posting.
2) The fade wasn't really as bad as his sample set.

I do think the concept of a mush/fade is possible. Some guys lack intuition so badly that they can't be > 48% over time. Being on the same side as said mush feels like dragging a 1000-lb weight.

It's been documented that a tool like Brandon Lang lost at a huge rate for years at a time. Guys bought cars/houses by fading Lang. But even Brandon rebounded toward 50/50, if memory serves.

Anyone have a great fade? Or someone they use as a filter to get off certain sides?

[LT Profits]

It is just as hard to hit 46% long term as it is to hit 54% long term. Even the infamous Lang is fairly close to 50%, the only reason he is down so much is he scatters his units and loses so many big plays.

[ChuckyTheGoat]

http://www.therxforum.com/showthread.php?t=762981&page=260

Honest Q re: Lang. Is he sporting a drug habit? He's given out losers for years, but used to look like a youngster, sort of like a rookie. I swear his face has aged 15 years in the L2. Too much stress? Worn out from being exposed on the sub-forums?

[Salmon Steak]

The problem is, whatever the person is doing to lose at such a great rate, they have to stay consistent. If they start changing, you won't know about it. Now, lets say you take every NBA road fav who played the night before ATS. Let's say you do this 1000 times and they win 46% of the time. I would say fade away.