Really?
You act like you know some secret or something. Betting against the public/square plays has been going on forever and if it was so profitable you'd think everyone would of caught on by now.
A guy on another forum who is a veteran, said he has been hearing this "bet against the public shit" for over 25 years.
Here is his post
I ought to just get a tape recorder with the same 20 rookie lines repeated over and over. The public theory is one of many concepts that rookie cappers every year think they're the first to think of. I can remember two generates in the Stardust 25 years ago talking about "fading the public" like it was the best thing since sliced bread. All in all it tends to fair slightly over 50%, but not near enough to make up for the vig.
In the end this is a really boring game if you want to win longterm. Hard work, discipline, getting the best line at the lowest juice, and money management are the only ways to win, and even then it's a grind. It'd be nice if there was a no work way to make a living sportsbetting, but unfortunately all novices wind up finding out it doesn't exist. GL
I'm a shmuck.
ope:
if you thought the Jags were gonna win this game you must not watch a lot of football? I don't know, just because the numbers point to the Jags try and use your brain once in a while you might realize that the Colts were one of the easiest games on the board this week.
Ibetonsports, lol you're too funny. The "squares" won a TON of games last year. Try and offer something more valuable than "derrr this line looks fishy bet the underdog" What did that get you? you are 1-1 betting primetime games this week just like me. You guys always jump out of the woodwork when a game like Green Bay/Chicago occurs for example and the team that woulda coulda shoulda covered turns the ball over 5 times and you want to act like you're a genius for picking a crappy Bears team that was LUCKY to win. That's what annoys me the most. There is a lot of luck involved sometimes, no one can win 100%.
Pitt-loss
Indy- probably a win
by the way I had the Bills moneyline so
:finger::finger::finger:
ope:if you thought the Jags were gonna win this game you must not watch a lot of football? I don't know, just because the numbers point to the Jags try and use your brain once in a while you might realize that the Colts were one of the easiest games on the board this week.
Ibetonsports, lol you're too funny. The "squares" won a TON of games last year. Try and offer something more valuable than "derrr this line looks fishy bet the underdog" What did that get you? you are 1-1 betting primetime games this week just like me. You guys always jump out of the woodwork when a game like Green Bay/Chicago occurs for example and the team that woulda coulda shoulda covered turns the ball over 5 times and you want to act like you're a genius for picking a crappy Bears team that was LUCKY to win. That's what annoys me the most. There is a lot of luck involved sometimes, no one can win 100%.
Pitt-loss
Indy- probably a win
by the way I had the Bills moneyline so
:finger::finger::finger:
i dont understand why you think just because the "public" was on the colts its a square bet. do you think your not part of the "public", it just cracks me up when i see the word "public" or square as if were not all part of either one of them at some point.
by the way if betting on manning each week makes me square then i guess im square but i tell you he will make you more money than lose you.
by the way if betting on manning each week makes me square then i guess im square but i tell you he will make you more money than lose you.
There is absolutely no doubt that if you consistantly play favorites in the NFL you will get killed. Selectively playing home dogs get you wins. I just think that the delivery of that message that started this thread was a little harsh and counter productive. Regardless of what happens in this game the premise of the thread is true and should not be ignored.
Meogi
Meogi
Couldn't agree more.......the public has to be considerably wrong to just simply fade them to make a profit......break-even is around 52.3% so the "public" would have to go 47% or lower to provide a base to fade to make a profit off of.......
Usually after this argument the goofs usually come up with some cute question like "How was Vegas built" as if Vegas was built on public plays only........forgetting about the abundance of ways people lose their money......from parlays, craps, slots, cards, horses, betting bad numbers, thinking they can count cards.....or just the plain old vig that grinds a gambler down over time......that house edge built into the games to make the house a profit.....
I like looking the forums for good write-ups and scientific reasoning why a certain team should win over another one.......you can't legislate a win and you can't 'cap fumbles but you can come to a legitimate conclusion based on rushing yardages and offenses vs defenses and other credible factors that are decided on the field.........anymore these forums are just full of people who are clueless at the beginning of the week as to which team is going to cover a game but suddenly they have some mystic power at gametime because they live with the warped belief that the public can't win "this game".
The only thing that public figures tell me is how much the book is at risk. Barring a "fix", I have nothing to fear because some tout or a majority of the bettors are on the same side......it's still only one game and decided by the players and the refs and what's done on the field.
I think it is you squares who have the short memory.
The Jags had their starting QB knocked out of the game before the second half and was basically out of it earlier with his lack of mobility. I would take the Jags a million more times in this situation. The game would be completely different if that did not happen. I guess if you guys win this game it would be a huge deal for people who hardly ever win.
Not trying to be a dick nor show people how smart I am. I NEVER make excuses for any loss of mine, but this one actually has an excuse. I realize that losses are going to come and usually mean you had the wrong side (like the Dallas/NE game) but this one would be differnt if not for the starter getting hurt. It still may cover though. The set up is perfect for a back door cover here.
