| Poster's Sportsbook Poll: 2011View Poll Results | ||
| # 1 5Dimes | 450 total points | 5Dimes Review |
| # 2 Pinnacle | 408 total points | Pinnacle Review |
| # 3 Heritage | 227 total points | Heritage Review |
| # 4 Bookmaker | 138 total points | Bookmaker Review |
| # 5 BetIslands | 129 total points | BetIslands Review |
| SBR Top-Rated SportsbooksRecommended List | ||
| Pinnacle Sports | SBR Rating A+ | Pinnacle Sports Review |
| 5Dimes | SBR Rating A+ | 5Dimes Review |
| BookMaker | SBR Rating A+ | BookMaker Review |
| Legends | SBR Rating A+ | Legends Review |
| Bodog | SBR Rating A | Bodog Review |
Do posters really believe in "FADING THE PUBLIC?"
I'm so tired of hearing this term used.
The public likes someone, fade them! Value! Let's be sharp. Does anyone else vomit in their mouth a little at this notion? And who here actually finds this practice more worthwhile or effective than forming your own opinion?
99.9% of the posters on here are public..
You are public unless you know a player on a team personally, or know a Bigtime bookmaker who you can trust to divulge legit information to you..
SBR Founder Join Date: 11/16/2005
Numbers do not lie.Originally Posted by crazyl
If you are any sort of a capper, you know the importance of trends/numbers/etc.
And also, you dont always fade the public. If you would read you would see that it only applies in special cases.
Secondly, if you can hit at 65% all time, why are you in a think tank? You should have figured it all out already and wouldnt have to play at creditwager.
I admit that a good percentage of the time I don't even look to see what side the public is on...I just cap my NBA games and play them if I see an edge....of course it is good to be on the same side as the sharps as well.
I've never said anything of the sort..
Yeah I do play there, I was tapped a little dry after paying off a losing bet I made with another poster... you know, something you have difficulty doing.
Well thats what fading the public in the right scenario has done the past four seasons, hit at 80% in the conference tournament. Had you followed it you would have not picked baylor to beat CU.I've never said anything of the sort..
ouch. crazyl ain't taken no prisoners tonight..Yeah I do play there, I was tapped a little dry after paying off a losing bet I made with another poster... you know, something you have difficulty doing.
SBR Founder Join Date: 11/16/2005
Wow, i wish you guys would grow up.
FIRST
That issue was resolved.
SECONDLY
All i tried to do was show you a trend. You know what the fukk a trend is? If you would have followed it your stupid ML parlay everyone should have a piece of wouldnt have crashed and burned. You would have seen that baylor was a horrible play.
This is a think tank. Not a fukkin place to attack threads because you wouldnt understand trends and numbers if they fukked you in the ass.
SO fukk off. If you have some knowledge to share, go for it. Otherwise fukk off.
BigOrangeTitans,
Seriously the Baylor game has been forgotten by everyone except you, you're acting like a little kid about being right about that "ONE GAME" repeating all over the boards.
Yeah, you are right we are fukking idiots here, we don't have a clue about what we're doing.. Anyone who wagered on Baylor is a fukking moron.. Too bad they were one in and out basket away from cashing then you would of really looked like a champion.
Nonetheless you are probably a nice guy and I know you like to help out. Which is solid and I give you mad props on that.
But please stop repeating yourself over and over about that game..
Here's something for you
SBR Founder Join Date: 11/16/2005
IMGV
I am merely stating that if you want to learn/see something new, thats cool. I put that thread up so people would stop and think a little more before pulling the trigger on dumb wagers. I got flamed for saying purdue was a trap as well. I'm not bragging about being right or wrong. If you read my thread you see its nothing but numbers and facts.
But when you take a cheap shot at me, you dont think it will be returned? You dont think im going to rub whatever i can in your face?
NOONE on this forum ever showed me a 65% trend over a hundred plays or more.
SO the times I share a winning trend, I get completely ridiculed. Thats fine. i thought i would escape that in the think tank but unfortuanately not even then.
This will be the last time I provide any useful info. I will just post pictures of midgets and knockouts. Then when i find an informative thread, I'll post a stupid thread asking if its believable.
No it won't.. You know you are loved here
SBR Founder Join Date: 11/16/2005
Got me there, I fukkin hate this place sometimes like you wouldnt believe though. But if not here, then where? The good guys here far outnumber the bad.No it won't.. You know you are loved here
Exactly, good point.. There are a lot of idiots here @ SBR, best thing to do is to try and avoid them. You contribute a lot of valuable insight here, something that is definitely needed here.
SBR Founder Join Date: 11/16/2005
BOT I don't think the namecalling is necessary.
"Fading the public" is not a new concept, and has been around for decades. I can remember there being guys in Vegas talking about it 20 years ago like it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
The percentages you're giving are ENTIRELY too high. I don't doubt you data mined it from a smaller sample of games, however. The offshore industry has changed things substantially, but it was always Vegas against the wiseguys, make no mistake about it. My friends with the books in Vegas would often be heavy on a side that 20% of the bets came from due to dollar amounts as you alluded to.
This isn't an innovative concept and you won't hit 65% (or close to it) over a large sample, but you will hit slightly over 50%. You are right about more "marquee" games, but that is simply a by product of shading expected action. This game has been around a long time, and is far, far, far more sophisticated than you're giving it credit for. There's no holy grail, but if you can hit 54% and show solid money management (particularly with the low juice exchanges out there) you'll be steadily happy in the long run. GL...
BOT I don't think the namecalling is necessary.
"Fading the public" is not a new concept, and has been around for decades. I can remember there being guys in Vegas talking about it 20 years ago like it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
The percentages you're giving are ENTIRELY too high. I don't doubt you data mined it from a smaller sample of games, however. The offshore industry has changed things substantially, but it was always Vegas against the wiseguys, make no mistake about it. My friends with the books in Vegas would often be heavy on a side that 20% of the bets came from due to dollar amounts as you alluded to.
This isn't an innovative concept and you won't hit 65% (or close to it) over a large sample, but you will hit slightly over 50%. You are right about more "marquee" games, but that is simply a by product of shading expected action. This game has been around a long time, and is far, far, far more sophisticated than you're giving it credit for. There's no holy grail, but if you can hit 54% and show solid money management (particularly with the low juice exchanges out there) you'll be steadily happy in the long run. GL...
bigbullocks= savvy veteran
SBR Founder Join Date: 11/16/2005
Wow, did you research my numbers? I wish you would. I'm not talking about fading the public on every play.BOT I don't think the namecalling is necessary.
"Fading the public" is not a new concept, and has been around for decades. I can remember there being guys in Vegas talking about it 20 years ago like it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
The percentages you're giving are ENTIRELY too high. I don't doubt you data mined it from a smaller sample of games, however. The offshore industry has changed things substantially, but it was always Vegas against the wiseguys, make no mistake about it. My friends with the books in Vegas would often be heavy on a side that 20% of the bets came from due to dollar amounts as you alluded to.
This isn't an innovative concept and you won't hit 65% (or close to it) over a large sample, but you will hit slightly over 50%. You are right about more "marquee" games, but that is simply a by product of shading expected action. This game has been around a long time, and is far, far, far more sophisticated than you're giving it credit for. There's no holy grail, but if you can hit 54% and show solid money management (particularly with the low juice exchanges out there) you'll be steadily happy in the long run. GL...
Only fade when the line moves with the public like I stated. This isnt a new system, i know, but its an old system that has in recent years set a trend of 65%. Its only hitting at that in tournament games. I'll show you just a sample I have from this conference tournament.
Cheers IMGV. Movies and streaks can make the game seem more exotic than it is, but you can vouch quite well to how much of a grind it is (if you're managing your money right)...
This is from thurs/fri conf tourney.
North Carolina
Purdue lost outright
Texas
Kansas
Vandy lost outright
Memphis
Kent st
Santa barbara
American
Oklahoma lost outright
Miami
All teams that were favorites heavily favored by the public with no line movements, or movements in their favor...
All Lost ATS, 2 lost outright.
NO games in which the public favored a team heavily(65%+) and the line only changed a half point or moved in their favor covered ATS.
That was my original research. After digging deeper, i found that to get a decent number of samples, I would need to open it up to allow the fave to move .5 away from the open as well because this is not a significant line change.
There were a lot of underdogs that came through this year BOT. I would think that it was an abnormally high number, but don't doubt that it does unusually well in conference tourneys every year (particularly due to having patterns established when a lot of teams are playing for the 3rd time, etc.).
You may well be on to something about "the public percentages" getting abnormally slammed come conference tourneys. Cheers
Given alot of underdogs came through this year, dont they most years? Doesnt vegas know this?
I have seen all the posts of guys getting buried. This is only showing them what they havent seen/looked for. I never once said it was "system" or foolproof. Only a trend thats quite abnormal and very interesting.
There isn't a "system" alive that Vegas isn't aware of.
As for particular times when a system works better than others, that could be a different story. You may well be right about conference tourneys in particular. There are a lot of reasons why I could believe this, such as: 1) More money coming in around conference tourneys/start of March Madness, 2) People feeling that past trends are more set in stone, 3) familiarity of teams playing each other, etc.
Cheers and lets keep it rolling the next few weeks
Last edited by BigBollocks; 03-18-08 at 06:02 AM.
Not true, they are unaware of the SBR Jinx play of the day system!There isn't a "system" alive that Vegas isn't aware of...
Touché BOT. Is that whatever JJ is on that day, or whatever the person who is going to commit suicide if he loses that day is on lol?Not true, they are unaware of the SBR Jinx play of the day system!
Formerly known as the JJ play.Touché BOT. Is that whatever JJ is on that day, or whatever the person who is going to commit suicide if he loses that day is on lol?
Now its the jinx play of the day for the suicide threads.
Reply With Quote