[bhunter]

CBB: St Johns @ Pittsburgh, 80% on PITTSBURGH, 12500+ bets. FADE the squares - Bet on ST JOHNS +8, 2 units (only just managed to put a bet on it before tip-off)

Looks like the only valid play for today.

UPDATE: Looks like there's an NBA game that meets the Skanedogg's follow criteria. Game starts in half an hour.

NBA: Boston @ Orlando, 66% on BOSTON, 11500+ bets. FOLLOW the squares - Bet on BOSTON +3.5, 1 unit

UPDATE 2: Only just noticed this one. Too late to bet on, but can be added to the stats.

CBB: Duquesne @ Xavier, 68% on XAVIER, 9500+ bets. FOLLOW the squares - Bet on XAVIER -11, 1 units

Wisconsin @ Purdue met the figures but wasnt mention in Bills/VR update.

* my figures are from pregames sportsbook spy
** units based on Skanedoggs strategy

[christyh7]

I'm on it! BOL

[jscol]

Yea i made this play. VR had it too.

[jscol]

The Arizona game doesn't have enough bets, only 4900 right now, but 67% on them and bookie bill says the squares are heavy on them. And the line movement says sharps are against.

[bhunter]

Wont add it to the list as it doesnt meet Skanedoggs criteria, but thats a good spot. Are you betting it?

[Joe Sharp]

Interesting... I take it this is from the pregame forum?

[khaden]

Interesting---does anyone have a record for this?

[bhunter]

Interesting... I take it this is from the pregame forum?

Take a look at this thread --> BB Square Fades / Follows

We're looking at bet stats and put it together with the info Bookie Bill / VegasRunner give out on their Twitter pages about what the squares are betting on.

[bhunter]

Interesting that depending on what site you get the betting information from, you get different results. Not sure where BHunter got his percentages from, but Sports Insights has 71% of the bets on Xavier on 8949 bets, meaning you would fade the squares and take Duquesne +11.

I got my info from pregames sportsbook spy.

The difference in numbers is probably down to the various sites not getting their info from the same sportsbooks/casinos. Or it could be a delay in updating figures.

Not sure what we can do about games that are that close to the 70% level. Maybe its best to exclude them if 68-72%?

[bhunter]

Results from last night.

St Johns LOST
Boston WON
Xavier (based on pregame figures) WON
Santa Clara (if confirmed) WON

Hopefully Skanedogg has been tracking!

[birdman779]

very good info this is what we need

[canuck]

Thanks for the work

[birdman779]

anything for tonite

[bhunter]

yes, there will be. the numbers are already supporting fading the lakers and cleveland in nba, but need confirmation from BB that the bet volume is sufficient on the sides, as opposed to the totals, so that we know for sure what exactly the squares are betting

[bhunter]

Yes, there's currently a lot of action on the Lakers game, over 10,000 bets in total (sides, moneyline and over/under), and specifically on the sides 88% of the bets are going on the Lakers.

Unfortunately out of the 10,000 we dont know whether a large amount are bets on the side, which is why we wait for BB to confirm via twitter about what sides the squares are betting.

And as BB would say, dont bet like a square!

[bhunter]

While it is ok to preview the public bet %, it is important to remember that the starting point for this "system" is what BookieBill or VR disclose via twitter what the squares are betting at Bookie Bill's book.

So please don't jump the gun and start betting games just based on the public bet %'s.

Yes, i agree totally with that!

[Skanedogg]

the nba is not confirmed ... i tracked the NBA for a few days but could not make headway out of it. i am again tracking but would not call any NBA game a "play"

did bill tweet his squares yesterday? i didn't get them at all...

[Skanedogg]

bhunt sent me VR's twitter link -- i am on him now. i hope you guys did well -- as it looks like the newborn "system" didn't fare so well. i gave up on bill at 6:15 and went drinking.

ignorance truly is bliss.

[bhunter]

bhunt sent me VR's twitter link -- i am on him now. i hope you guys did well -- as it looks like the newborn "system" didn't fare so well. i gave up on bill at 6:15 and went drinking.

ignorance truly is bliss.

I was 1-1 on the system last night. Too late to get on Xavier and went to bed before Santa Clara (i'm from Europe!)

[Skanedogg]

i will post some other things i have "noticed" from tracking tonight after the wife goes to sleep.

some other interesting numbers that might lead to small plays.

[Skanedogg]

Based on the closing numbers, Yale should have been a fade, but they covered. Thus like JM I propose an adjustment; unlike him I count pre-adjustment failures as LOSSES. My changes are for the future, after all.

So after looking at the numbers, the >70% bets between 8500-9000 bets are 3-2. That is winning at this point, but over the long term juice will eat our profits. Thus, my change to the "system" is to fade those bill alerts us to with >70% and >9000 bets.

Additionally, I have been tracking the results of ALL of the games bill attributes to "squares.". Not only have the "fade" and "follow" theories materialized for plays over (now) 9000 bets, but bills squares under 8500 bets (no matter the percentage) are now 6-1 when followed. This is interesting and lends to the theory that fewer bets indicates less likelihood of "public" action, despite what bill calls it. My theory is smarts, plays or syndicates. Either way, too small a sample to bet at this point but I will continue to follow them.

NBA is another story--still no idea what to bet or fade. My thinking is that there is so much action in the NBA (like the NFL) that it is tough to identify "public action.". The percentages are also all over the board. So I have no idea. Totals for NBA and ncab have too small a sample size to judge at this point.

I think tomorrow has potential. As bill said in his tweet, squares usually suck the week before the superbowl because they get aggressive trying to win money to bet on Sunday. And they have done well the past two nights. Let's hope for solid action.

Additionally, I saw in the posts last night that insights had the percentage on a game over 70 while pregame had it under 70. In a case like that, I have no idea what to do. My initial thought is to pass until we have a sample size large enough to see if one site's info trumps the other's.

I will post those I see tomorrow as bill does.