[swisher33]

The word fade gets tossed around easily on betting forums.

But has anybody actually been successful fading somebody?

I'm not talking about you think it works. I'm asking if anybody has personally tried it?

[LT Profits]

Not unless the person you are fading hits less than 47.7% at -110.

[IrishTim]

I've wondered this too. From what I've seen, it's pretty hard to hit 47.7% long term.

[roasthawg]

Lol, NO... it's fun to talk about but for someone to be so bad as to pick consistent 47% losers would take a lot of work.

[FreeFall]

Originally Posted by roasthawg

Lol, NO... it's fun to talk about but for someone to be so bad as to pick consistent 47% losers would take a lot of work.

Mr. Gold figures out how to do it. http://jjgold.mysbrforum.com/spreadsheet/. I still swear he plays the opposite of his picks

[IrishTim]

That's impressive. Decent sample size and a lot of fave MLs as well.

[Thremp]

Dr. Bob fades would been a solid year.

[THE PROFIT]

Lang hits around 50% but if you follow his money unmanagement you will have a nice pension each month. He's about the only "pro" capper who can go 4-1 and lose money!

[THE PROFIT]

I've never understood fading someone. These cappers would like to give their clients winners every day, some of them (LANG) just sucks so bad he can't. I think he's had 2 winning months this year. I would rather find someone to follow. Someone who isn't flipping a coin & actually hits 60%+ because they put in the effort. Anyone can have an off week, but how does Lang stay in business? You can't have an off year & bury your clients hundreds of thousands! Marc Lawrence is the only capper out there I have faith in.

[roasthawg]

Originally Posted by FreeFall

Mr. Gold figures out how to do it. http://jjgold.mysbrforum.com/spreadsheet/. I still swear he plays the opposite of his picks

That is close right there... it would be a slightly profitable fade if the average odds on that 47.46% are -110 or better (not sure what they actually are... it's impossible to tell with the eyeball test). I tend to agree with you that he's probably releasing the other side of his plays.

[swisher33]

Originally Posted by THE PROFIT

I've never understood fading someone. These cappers would like to give their clients winners every day, some of them (LANG) just sucks so bad he can't. I think he's had 2 winning months this year. I would rather find someone to follow. Someone who isn't flipping a coin & actually hits 60%+ because they put in the effort. Anyone can have an off week, but how does Lang stay in business? You can't have an off year & bury your clients hundreds of thousands! Marc Lawrence is the only capper out there I have faith in.

How good is Marc Lawrence?

[LLXC]

A lot of people are fading Lang and making money...didn't he hit 43% in 2008?

[dbldown]

Fading the public can have good results.

[Masu485]

Very beneficial. Like I said before, there is negative energy associated with this business. So you will find many more people hitting 43% than hitting 57%, when in reality, each should have an equal chance of happening.

[Wrecktangle]

No, and the reason is the person you are fading is not going to be consistent. After losing for a while they'll change strategy and you've a new "mechanism" you're selecting against.

[johncrud]

1. handicapping is the hardest shit to do. it is almost impossible. don't believe the hype that a game is actually handicappable. a typical handicapper take in alot of bullshit from the public, forum, and bad information from analyst like espn that would influence their emotions and mind. i am more of a fader than follower. i fade people who think they are smarter than vegas or know-it-all.
2. you noticed how most people reset their record after a bad run or after trying out a new system/strategy
3. bettors losing money are not because of the juice cost. it is because they have a bad record and playing a load of units per game. i would say 75% bettors can't even hit 50%.

[dwaechte]

The only reason you'd ever want to fade an individual is if you think they are a pretty good proxy for public bettors in general. In that case, there are certainly worse strategies out there, but then you may as well just focus on actually fading the public or RLM.

[Grux]

I got this off of another forum. The people fading lang seem to be doing pretty well this year.

LANG RESULTS for 12/17/09

25 DIMES - JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS - LOSER

-27.5 DIMES


LANG 2009: 390-441-15, -1,340 Dimes


Lang By Month:

January: +61.5 Dimes

February: -170 Dimes

March: +14.5 Dimes

April: -308.5 Dimes

May: -13.5 Dimes

June: -81.25 Dimes

July: +17 Dimes

August: +50 Dimes

September: -312.25 Dimes

October: -405 Dimes

November: +98.5 Dimes

December: -291 Dimes


Lang For The Week: 12/15 to 12/21

Tuesday: -11 Dimes

Wednesday: -11 Dimes

Thursday: -27.5 Dimes

Friday:

Saturday:

Sunday:

Monday:

Week Total: -49.5 Dimes

________________________________________ __


Lang College Football: 38-47-2, (-361 Dimes)

$100 Wagered Per Dime -$36,100

05 Dime Plays: 8-7-0
10 Dime Plays: 9-13-1
15 Dime Plays: 12-12-0
20 Dime Plays: 6-4-0
25 Dime Plays: 1-2-0
30 Dime Plays: 1-4-0
40 Dime Plays: 0-4-0
50 Dime Plays: 1-1-1

________________________________________ __


Lang NFL: 29-36-2, (-337.5 Dimes)

$100 Wagered Per Dime -$33,750

05 Dime Plays: 3-1-0
10 Dime Plays: 8-13-1
15 Dime Plays: 8-4-1
20 Dime Plays: 4-4-0
25 Dime Plays: 1-3-0
30 Dime Plays: 1-7-0
40 Dime Plays: 2-1-0
50 Dime Plays: 1-2-0
75 Dime Plays: 1-0-0

100 Dime Plays: 0-1-0

________________________________________ __


Lang NBA: 10-10-1, (-29 Dimes)

$100 Wagered Per Dime -$2,900

05 Dime Plays: 7-5-1
10 Dime Plays: 2-4-0
15 Dime Plays: 1-0-0
20 Dime Plays: 0-0-0
25 Dime Plays: 0-1-0

________________________________________ __


Lang College Basketball: 4-9-0, (-64 Dimes)

$100 Wagered Per Dime -$6,400

05 Dime Plays: 2-2-0
10 Dime Plays: 1-5-0
15 Dime Plays: 1-2-0
20 Dime Plays: 0-0-0
25 Dime Plays: 0-0-0

________________________________________ __


Lang MLB '09 Playoffs: 4-13, (-112.5 Dimes)

$100 Wagered Per Dime -$11,250

05 Dime Plays: 1-5
10 Dime Plays: 2-3
15 Dime Plays: 1-2
20 Dime Plays: 0-1
25 Dime Plays: 0-2



LONG LIVE THE FADE



Lang FADE NBA Basketball: 10-10-1, (+13 Dimes)

$100 Wagered Per Dime +$1,300

------------------------------------------------

Lang FADE NCAA Basketball: 9-4-0, (+51.5 Dimes)

$100 Wagered Per Dime +$5,150

------------------------------------------------

Lang FADE College Football: 46-37-2, (+228 Dimes)

$100 Wagered Per Dime +$22,800

------------------------------------------------

Lang FADE NFL: 33-27-2, (+195.5 Dimes)

$100 Wagered Per Dime +$19,550

------------------------------------------------

Lang's Teaser Plays Are Not Included In The Fade

________________________________________ __

[BigdaddyQH]

I think the term "fading" is often misused. Technically, you are fading a team when you wager against that team. You are also fading every person who wagered on that team. I never consistantly fade any particular individual or team. There is just not enough money to be made by doing so. Anyone can get hot or cold. It is the nature of the beast.

[LLXC]

Lang at 46.9%...but his units management is awful.

[Peregrine Stoop]

yeah... easy to fade squares as long as you line shop as well

[Arilou]

It's amazing how the myth of needing to beat a straight -110 lives on. You don't need to fade by betting blind into a -110 book, you can shop around - and any set of books worth a damn is going to offer an effective -104 or better on average. On top of that, we fade these players (when and if we do) not only because they are random or worse than random, but because they bring enough money that they move the market. The more followers you have, the cheaper you are to fade, and there are a number of people who are worth fading if you think their original win % is 50%... or in special cases, even if they are >50%!

[dwaechte]

Originally Posted by Arilou

It's amazing how the myth of needing to beat a straight -110 lives on. You don't need to fade by betting blind into a -110 book, you can shop around - and any set of books worth a damn is going to offer an effective -104 or better on average. On top of that, we fade these players (when and if we do) not only because they are random or worse than random, but because they bring enough money that they move the market. The more followers you have, the cheaper you are to fade, and there are a number of people who are worth fading if you think their original win % is 50%... or in special cases, even if they are >50%!

There's no way that's true. Maybe if they have a connection with a certain book and are feeding players, but that's pretty much the only case. No touts move that much money comparatively in major sports.

[BigdaddyQH]

What strikes me as almost comicalis the vast number of nickel and dime bettors who want to fade Joe Pub. The fact is that these bettors ARE Joe Pub. "Joe Pub" is nothing more than a statistic with a name. Unless you have the ability to make wagers that the public in general can not make, you are the public. If I can make the same wagers at the same time that you can, there is nothing special about that. We both become part of the public. The people who can make wagers that are NOT open to the public, like lead lines, are the only ones who may consider themselves not part of the public, and I have not sween many, if any people other than myself in here, that have that offered. How many of you could wager on Saturday College Football Games on the Sunday before the games were to be played?

So, fading is just a term misused my most people. Every time you make a wager, you are fading the people who wagered on the opposite team. By the way, that guy Lang is one of the biggest phonies around. His "friends" started that post to show just how much he allegedly lost. As you can see, according to what he posted, he would be down around 90K. He can't count that high, much less have any money that even comes closeto that amount. He is quite the joke.

[Wrecktangle]

The market is not driven by "Joe Public." It is driven by the smarter bettors who have winning records. You can see this: the line jerks when known smart guys release.

The market is rough to beat because it is driven by the smarter money.

[CFA]

Is it me, or is Wrecktangle the only one looking at this matter logically? Why would someone assume that if there does exist a picker whose success rate can be profited from by betting against, will continue the same strategy rather than switching it up?

The only way I see a fade actually existing is there is picker who lacks +EV with their picks but has enough influence on the market to turn non-EV picks into -EV picks. But again, such a situation one would imagine be short term or at worst, merely hypothetical.

[MrX]

Originally Posted by Wrecktangle

The market is not driven by "Joe Public." It is driven by the smarter bettors who have winning records. You can see this: the line jerks when known smart guys release.

The market is rough to beat because it is driven by the smarter money.

I wonder how true that is. All I ever hear is anecdotal evidence that certain high volume books that drive the market don't react, or don't react as much, to large bets from square players but may react to smaller bets from sharp players. I've never noticed it in action, but without working in the industry it'd be hard to prove or disprove.

And, many who work or have worked in the industry like to tell tales and pretend that they know everything about the business.

It certainly isn't true for the Vegas market when betting counter limits. The Vegas books reacted exactly the same to a limit bet when I first started playing there as they do after years of a track record.

[durito]

Originally Posted by MrX

I wonder how true that is. All I ever hear is anecdotal evidence that certain high volume books that drive the market don't react, or don't react as much, to large bets from square players but may react to smaller bets from sharp players. I've never noticed it in action, but without working in the industry it'd be hard to prove or disprove.

And, many who work or have worked in the industry like to tell tales and pretend that they know everything about the business.

It certainly isn't true for the Vegas market when betting counter limits. The Vegas books reacted exactly the same to a limit bet when I first started playing there as they do after years of a track record.

I have no idea how Pinny/Boomaker profile their customers, I'm certainly not making limit bets on large markets at those books ever.

I do know I have accounts at other books where previously I could bet the limit and the line wouldn't move. And now my limits are half or less and when I bet the line moves every time.

[MrX]

Originally Posted by durito

I do know I have accounts at other books where previously I could bet the limit and the line wouldn't move. And now my limits are half or less and when I bet the line moves every time.

Cool. That's probably the most credible info I've heard on the subject.

[LT Profits]

Originally Posted by CFA

Is it me, or is Wrecktangle the only one looking at this matter logically? Why would someone assume that if there does exist a picker whose success rate can be profited from by betting against, will continue the same strategy rather than switching it up?

The only way I see a fade actually existing is there is picker who lacks +EV with their picks but has enough influence on the market to turn non-EV picks into -EV picks. But again, such a situation one would imagine be short term or at worst, merely hypothetical.

John Morrison MLB anyone?

[Hybris]

Originally Posted by LT Profits

John Morrison MLB anyone?

[CHUBNUT]

Originally Posted by Arilou

It's amazing how the myth of needing to beat a straight -110 lives on. You don't need to fade by betting blind into a -110 book, you can shop around - and any set of books worth a damn is going to offer an effective -104 or better on average. On top of that, we fade these players (when and if we do) not only because they are random or worse than random, but because they bring enough money that they move the market. The more followers you have, the cheaper you are to fade, and there are a number of people who are worth fading if you think their original win % is 50%... or in special cases, even if they are >50%!

With fools like you around us that actually bet our own selections will get more value.

[CHUBNUT]

The problem with the answers in this thread is they are coming from People who only know the theory of bookmaking but never booked themselves. Bookmaking is not a one or two strategy surefire business, being on your toes and going with your gut is the order of the Day, that is why Bookies are born not out of text manual stuff.

The most important point of fading someone is that it takes the selection process out of your hands, which is the same as flipping a coin. Making money Sports betting takes a lot more time and hard work than the quick easy systems you read on Sports forums.

[Wrecktangle]

Originally Posted by CHUBNUT

The problem with the answers in this thread is they are coming from People who only know the theory of bookmaking but never booked themselves. Bookmaking is not a one or two strategy surefire business, being on your toes and going with your gut is the order of the Day, that is why Bookies are born not out of text manual stuff.

The most important point of fading someone is that it takes the selection process out of your hands, which is the same as flipping a coin. Making money Sports betting takes a lot more time and hard work than the quick easy systems you read on Sports forums.

So Chub, you're a book? If so, spill your guts. Tell us your deep, dark bookie secrets.

We won't tell anyone, I promise.

[Betmerick]

Very interesting thread!

To comment on fading, I'm sure we all have followed cappers and such, not making actual bets, but watching his progress on a given day, week, or month. I spent about 2 months noting the "betting trends" on College Football totals on Saturdays.

Every game that had the trend at 80% or higher on the "over", I counted it. After the two months the trends proved to be losers because 62% of those games went under the total.

Is that a good indication...... who knows!

The second point are the books. The only two books I knew are the ones I have betted with since 1990. The first guy passed away and someone else took him over. The first guy took bets and adjusted his numbers to have equal (or close t it) play. If one side was strong...... he made them pay by paying a higher number or laying off the game all together.

This second book is totally different. He's a degenerate gambler himself and adjusts his numbers based only upon his personal feelings towards a game (which were mostly bad). He likes Tennessee last night so he had the game at -5 for TN. He also liked the over so he set the number at 55.

Just a few opinions thrown your way!!