[imgv94]

Win all the time..


We need to wash our minds with the trap and public plays bullShit..

Seriously these kind of plays win all the time it's bullSHIT.

[austintx05]

[WileOut]

Yeah going against the public is one of the squarest things you can do. Why? Because the public wins 50% of the time. If the public lost over 50% of the time, people would just fade the public on every game and become rich. Obviously its not that easy.

"Going against the public" as the sole reason for betting is as square as it gets.

[imgv94]

So true, So true Willie and Forget..

Yeah those plays win or lose just like any other play. I've yet to see anyone get rich on here or any forum for that matter from playing against "supposed traps" "Public Plays" and Supposed square plays"


Also people like this have made me bet less on games that I've won cause I fell for their bogus mentality.

[isetcap]

It's not that "public" plays or "square" plays don't ever win, obviously they do. It's just that the public is generally on a team for the wrong reasons or there is a tendency to overestimate the most blatant fundamental data and ignore secondary information. If you're evaluating all the fundamental and technical information available and you happen to be on the side of the public, then you should feel just as confident with your selection.

One person may bet a team because they have money to burn and they like the team's mascot. Another person may bet the same team because they've paid all the opponent's players to take a dive in the game. Both picks are winners but one of them was made on worthless information and the other was a lock.

Just remember that the public tends to be under informed and is the primary source of income for all successful sportsbooks.

[WileOut]

isetcap, I'm pretty sure the primary source of income for the sportsbooks in LV is the juice.

I read an article recently within the last few months that stated that the book, it was one of the big boys, only makes 2% past the 10% juice on average yearly. So they make 10% on juice but only 2% off of the players losing more than they win.

Offshore the numbers could be different.

[isetcap]

isetcap, I'm pretty sure the primary source of income for the sportsbooks in LV is the juice.

I read an article recently within the last few months that stated that the book, it was one of the big boys, only makes 2% past the 10% juice on average yearly. So they make 10% on juice but only 2% off of the players losing more than they win.

Offshore the numbers could be different.

Sure the primary source of income is the juice but everybody pays it. So if you're looking for the primary source of the juice then look no further than your primary source of volume which happens to be the "public". Try to make money as a book that only accepts sharp players and your run will be shortlived even though you will still be charging "juice".

If those numbers are correct then the specific book in that article must have an astounding linesmaker. I suspect that just about any book is happy if they are making their juice number -2%. That is why volume is such an important factor in the longterm success of any sportsbook.

[durito]

isetcap, I'm pretty sure the primary source of income for the sportsbooks in LV is the juice.

I read an article recently within the last few months that stated that the book, it was one of the big boys, only makes 2% past the 10% juice on average yearly. So they make 10% on juice but only 2% off of the players losing more than they win.

Offshore the numbers could be different.

What's this 10% juice you are referring too?


Personally, I try to handicap games on their merits alone. I don't really care what the public is or isn't doing.

[jjgold]

You are suppose to handicap on your own and pay attention to who everyone else is on, it means nothing. Pubic plays win and lose like sharp plays.

[isetcap]

What's this 10% juice you are referring too?

It must have been some concrete establishment that deals -125 lines to bring in that kind of juice. I get the impression the article was written by a journalist unfamiliar with the intricacies of bookmaking, who was more than happy to simply write down some numbers provided by the PR department.