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.
NO BB Follow Fades 1/29
Reply With Quote