Lopsided joPub poundings discussion

[pt1gard]

I find it fascinating that some games are just so overwhelming in the PUB's perception ...

lets take the utep/nm st game for this week ... Carib has booked 42 bets thus far and not SINGLE player has tried the aggies ... at sportsbook.com its 96% utep? this astonishes me in fact the books would want a line that would preclude anyone not just not taking NM ST, but EVERYONE jumping the Miners ...


I would love to hear if anyone has tracked these HUGE +90% games for the last year or longer--I havent ...


here are other teams being clicked by JOPUB at +90% (some close ones too)

ky
tcu
bg
asu 88%
cal
NI
trees97%!!
toledo
minny
rice
emich
troy
wyo
ucla 86%


NFL

+90% pros
jets/no/colts/eagles/pats

gl, gregg

 

[Talyn]

I'm with Gregg on this one as well, as I am very interested to see if anyone has tracked these very lopsided games and how they might have done. When I was talking to him about these particular games we both noticed that in a small percentage of these games not only had the line not moved as would of been expected but actually moved as if they wanted even more money on the team that everyone seemed to find so attractive.

Good luck
Brad

 

[gman2]

ive always questioned the veracity of those numbers that carib and those books offer as 'consensus-guides'. to me, 42 on one side and 0 on the other is preposterous from every angle. i also have a hard time believing asu is getting hit at an 88% clip and stanford at 97%. and in the pros, 9 out of 10 people are laying points against an undefeated team (jacksonville)? to me, i think its a con job. assumuing the #s are accurate , the books have nothing to gain by posting that info. there are some godawful football teams on that college list, so i guess i have a hard time believing that 9 of 10 bets are going on sadsacks like rice, eastern michigan, and kentucky/

 

[lineguy]

Im with gman on this topic
What in the world do sportbooks have to gain by releasing this information.To me it all stacks up like a disaster in the manking. I believe that most of those teams wont be victorious at days end.

 

[mw]

I didn't know that information was available, but the list agrees with what we see being talked about on the internet, both by players and by touts. I'm not surprised that those teams are getting pounded offshore and on internet consensus sites. I can easily believe 42-0 on UTEP, because UTEP is a very-hyped play this week. In Vegas or with traditional local books, the numbers may be different, of course, and the possibilitiy for arbitrage makes it hard for individual books to move their numbers to balance their action.

 

[SECInsider]

I did this the week of 9-11 and had you bet against the public, (games listed on sportsbook.com that were 80% or higher, you would have gone 9-9-1 on the day

 

[IX_Bender]

Ive had an account there for years and had never seen that page until just now. Handicapping the handicappers is something Ive never had the time or inclination for.

For those interested,
http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=116453

 

[vinnie]

I have it at 58 % New Mexico :shrug:

 

[BleedDodgerBlue]

Heres the thing. If you are going to play solely based on contrarian you had better be damn sure that your information is correct. Looking at the carib sports percentages on picks is laughable. I'm not going to get into a pissing ware with carib because they clearly don't state how they skew their numbers. It's not their fault, they don't have too (and certainly not accusing them of anything), but lets just take a quick look at what those numbers mean.

Number 1, last week they had over 6500 bets on the Monday nite football game. I find this impossible to believe that you have over 6500 clients and if you did, every single one of them bet the game. No way does your book have that many clients with money in their account. Just my opinion, but I doubt it.

Number 2, those numbers mean nothing without wager size represented. YES, SIZE DOES MATTER. If 90% of the people put 100 or less on team A and 10% of the people put 1k on team B, then your book might be balanced, but you don't care about the outcome. And it looks to first glance that carib is getting pounded on team A when in fact they are close to balanced.

Number 3, also, how are those numbers calculated. Are they straight bets. Are moneylines included for non baseball. Are teasers included. If I bet team A 3 different times, are 3 bets counted toward team A. Are parlay bets included. If I bet team A -3 and then the line moves and I middle team B +5 for a bet, do I get one bet on each side. Clarification is needed as to what the numbers mean.

In recent years, specifically with the advent of the internet, all the wanna-be-joe handicappers consider themselves sharp. I'm not saying people on this site or any others aren't winners, but you would be surprised at how many people are losing that you think are winners. Or are even break even at best. You are crazy if you don't think that books are aware that although profitable a few years back fading the public has almost become a fad thing to do. Why do you think carib decided to post those numbers?

Every game has to be handicapped individually. Sure trends and such are very important as well as past performance, but betting team A just because someone says 90% of the people are on them is stupid. You may think you have the books side but without dollar figures you have NO IDEA.

So, if you think its fashionable to fade the public, which it is in many situations, make sure you have valid info. Don't use carib as your guide. Don't use other sites like wagerxxxx (affiliated with sportsbook.com) because you don't have the info you need. I enjoyed reading NOLAS goldberg experiment last year, not because I needed it to handicap, but I had a decent idea that it was an accurate albeit small sample of a group of 250 people that wasn't doctored.

All I guess I'm really saying is don't worry about whether you are square or sharp as that distinction has zero bearing in todays handicapping world. Handicappers must always change with the times and flat out fading the public at all times doesn't work anymore. Bets have no labels as square or sharp, only winner or loser.

GL

 

[gman2]

fading the public has almost become a fad thing to do.
GL

this quote is so true. do i sometimes try to take a step back and look at my own plays to see if im walking dead into a square trap? yep. i try and work my plays from all angles.

but theres some people who think that going against 5 or 10 people on a forum is "fading the public" and they'd rather be different and lose, than looking objectively and win. (not to mention that they think theyre fading the public when in reality they arent taking into account how small their sample size is)

what dodgers said about carib is pretty much dead on in my opinion.

 

[Bombs]

While fading the public has become a better known way of approaching the games, the simple fact is 99% of players DO NOT have the discipline to do it properly. Sure, they fade some square plays every once in a while, but usually its because THEY LIKE THE GAME ANYWAY. They then spew out some lame line about how they are on the sharp side fading the public. Give me a break. A true contrarian is able to spot shady lines that get one way action and fade them, IRREGARDLESS of the matchups, etc. If the game is not a true public fade, they do not play it, or play it only for action. There are still VERY FEW players out there that do that on a consistent basis. To play contrarian, you need more than ********* and sportsinsights and the carib page, you need to scour message boards for consensus and you likely also need an in with an offshore or a local to see what kind of action they are taking.

While I agree that the sportsbooks posting there percentages is almsot certainly bogus, that does not take away the fact that, in the long run, contrarians still make very good hay.