Do "traps" actually exist?

[Dexter03]

public all over pitt yest. they cover...

today i saw 65% on vikings... they cover


so what im asking is..... do you guys believe in the "traps" ?


or over a period of time.. if you fade the public. you will end up hitting 53% + on -110 juice to become profitable?

 

[pbampj]

where are you getting 65% on the vikings? I think those sites with the consensus picks are the real traps. pretty sure there were alot more on the giants tonight then you were led to believe.

 

[Huego]

no, fading the public doesn't work. public bets show a win rate of 50% just like anything else. i'll still be concerned about reverse line movement and will take notice when it happens, but in the end...if you like a side just bet it, don't worry about being "trapped". there's no easy way to do this, if we want to actually make money betting we have to put in the time and actually cap the games. just fading the public is lazy work imo.

 

[Huego]

vikings have been undervalued for over a year now. this has resulted in low lines all last season and this season which they've been able to cover at an alarming rate.

also factor in the markets. New York teams have a huge following, that area is filled with wealthy people... so factor in all those people that will bet on the Giants/Jets/Knicks blindly.

 

[chonce]

But public all over detroit, they lose to Chicago. Public all over Carolina -- ATL wins.

And the fist 3 weeks the short road dogs were hitting at a major clip.

Just betting against the public is not a good strategy. And obviously there are times -- many times, maybe even 45 percent of the time -- a public team will win and cover.

But I do think it is still generally not a good strategy to pound short road favs with lots of public money, especially with reverse line movement. But the difference only shows up over time. Our of 100 games, those games may cover 58 times, which is a statistically significant trend. But in a given week -- or 2 games, as you note -- it doesnt show up.

But the moral of the story is, if you really like a "square," play, bet it. They cash a lot, even if it isn't historically a great strategy. "Traps" don't really exist, but if you go back and look, you will see overall the public has taken a pounding this year. Buff @ Arizona was the big public game last week, followed by Pitt over PHI.

 

[chonce]

no, fading the public doesn't work. public bets show a win rate of 50% just like anything else. i'll still be concerned about reverse line movement and will take notice when it happens, but in the end...if you like a side just bet it, don't worry about being "trapped". there's no easy way to do this, if we want to actually make money betting we have to put in the time and actually cap the games. just fading the public is lazy work imo.

I agree with this. I would just add the caveat, fading the public blindly doesn'twork. But I don't think consensus is worthless. It is just one of several factors. All things being equal I would prefer games I like not to be a big public play, but I still make bets like that when I think it is warranted.

 

[Dexter03]

interesting. because also as you said pb&j, every site is different on %... who knows which is is the truth. we also dont know the actual $ amount being bet on each side. only the % of bets they are receiving.

i guess we will never know.

 

[chonce]

where are you getting 65% on the vikings? I think those sites with the consensus picks are the real traps. pretty sure there were alot more on the giants tonight then you were led to believe.

Another great point. I don't know any consensus website I trust. SBR, Covers etc... I don't trust them much at all. Occassionally you can listen to a Vegas oddsmaker (Behind the Bets, an ESPN podcast that airs once a week) and they will tell you what the ticket count is (this week there were 12 Broncos tickets to every 1 TB ticket, according to Bob Scucci) and they can give you info. But I don't know how to reliably measure consensus.

And, as another person mentioned, big public teams like NYG, Dallas, Pitt NE are usually taxed a bit. They have lots of fans so it can impact things.

 

[chonce]

interesting. because also as you said pb&j, every site is different on %... who knows which is is the truth. we also dont know the actual $ amount being bet on each side. only the % of bets they are receiving.

i guess we will never know.

Some sites claim to tell you the cash number and average bet size, but I don't trust them. Sometimes they have sample sizes that make no sense. And, anecdotally a lot of people on here have told me not to trust these sites.

 

[Dexter03]

Some sites claim to tell you the cash number and average bet size, but I don't trust them. Sometimes they have sample sizes that make no sense. And, anecdotally a lot of people on here have told me not to trust these sites.

yeah I wouldn't trust them. no one really knows.i guess its a horrible way to cap games just by itself like you said. thank you!

 

[14Words]

public all over pitt yest. they cover...

today i saw 65% on vikings... they cover


so what im asking is..... do you guys believe in the "traps" ?


or over a period of time.. if you fade the public. you will end up hitting 53% + on -110 juice to become profitable?

The problem is that you don't know the instances when the "public" is on the same side as "sharps", so it's not as simple as just saying one side is always the "public" and the other side is always "sharp".

The other thing is, "sharps" play favorites too, not just dogs.

Books are at tremendous risk when the public and sharps are aligned on the SAME side. And that happens a lot more than people realize. THOSE are the situations where you don't want to be opposite of the action.

And the final thing is, people need to realize that these percentages like "65%" or whatever don't tell the story because the vast majority of those are low dollar wagers. Again, it's all about knowing which side the high dollar wagers are supporting. Those are the wagers that move lines, not a bunch of low dollar stuff.

 

[ThaDude]

If strictly fading the public worked, we could all just quit our jobs. Unfortunately it doesn't overcome laying 11 to win 10. I had Vikes as 3 points better on a neutral, let alone a home field that may be worth 4 like Seattle. That is one tough place to play. When you see value, take it.

 

[Dexter03]

The problem is that you don't know the instances when the "public" is on the same side as "sharps", so it's not as simple as just saying one side is always the "public" and the other side is always "sharp".

The other thing is, "sharps" play favorites too, not just dogs.

Books are at tremendous risk when the public and sharps are aligned on the SAME side. And that happens a lot more than people realize. THOSE are the situations where you don't want to be opposite of the action.

And the final thing is, people need to realize that these percentages like "65%" or whatever don't tell the story because the vast majority of those are low dollar wagers. Again, it's all about knowing which side the high dollar wagers are supporting. Those are the wagers that move lines, not a bunch of low dollar stuff.

where do you find which side the high dollar wagers are?

books can altar lines to make people think that they received big bets on that side

 

[bradyisgod]

no, fading the public doesn't work. public bets show a win rate of 50% just like anything else. i'll still be concerned about reverse line movement and will take notice when it happens, but in the end...if you like a side just bet it, don't worry about being "trapped". there's no easy way to do this, if we want to actually make money betting we have to put in the time and actually cap the games. just fading the public is lazy work imo.

Huego is exactly right. If fading the public was a viable strategy on it's own there would be a lot of people getting rich betting sports. There are way too many other factors to consider. With that said sometimes it can play a role in your overall decision to pick a team. Often times the last minute big money coming in on one side or the other will be from good sharps. So the overall % of the public might be on one side or the other but the overall $$$ coming in at the end is what makes the biggest change in a sportsbook or casino's decision to move a line one way or the other. Here's a good link explaining line movement that might help https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2Vek9Xoa30

Cheers!

 

[gottwinners]

NO. You have to have half a brain to win. Detroit is dog shit and Chicago is dog shit. That game was a coin toss from the start but the perception was that the Bears were decimated on defense and the Lions win against a terrible Colts team gave them some cred. People were running their mouths about Denver being a trap game, how did that turn out. Wanna win? History repeats itself and defense will win you tickets. Superbowl hangovers are real. I had Arizona on the decline and Carolina letting Norman go was a terrible move for the rest of the players in that organization. It sent the wrong message. The problem with most handicappers is that they have tunnel vision and only remember what happened last week. They refuse to take trends and overall performance into account.

 

[john towers]

Yes, It is a lot like wrestling. It might not be for this week, but it is coming. It is for the big set up. For example all the gamblers thought the BUCS line was a trap, it was for this week. There is no way the EAGLES cover this week. So who ever won with Denver goes big on the EAGLES. It like the first time you go a casino, you win and you are hooked. You give all your winnings back and then all your savings. EVERBODY WILL BE TRAPPED WITH THE EAGLES.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Traps are real. But unfortunately you can't predict them with any amount of success until after the games are played.

 

[Biz]

public all over pitt yest. they cover...

today i saw 65% on vikings... they cover


so what im asking is..... do you guys believe in the "traps" ?


or over a period of time.. if you fade the public. you will end up hitting 53% + on -110 juice to become profitable?

This situation isn't a trap.

 

[Biz]

Huego is exactly right. If fading the public was a viable strategy on it's own there would be a lot of people getting rich betting sports. There are way too many other factors to consider. With that said sometimes it can play a role in your overall decision to pick a team. Often times the last minute big money coming in on one side or the other will be from good sharps. So the overall % of the public might be on one side or the other but the overall $$$ coming in at the end is what makes the biggest change in a sportsbook or casino's decision to move a line one way or the other. Here's a good link explaining line movement that might help https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2Vek9Xoa30

Cheers!

Fading the public when they are massively on one side is a good thing. A marginal public play, which is 65% or so isn't a big deal.

 

[eventhorizon]

Traps are all in your mind.