FADING THE PUB ARTICLE (very good)
WHY PUBLIC FADERS WILL CONTINUE TO LOSE
It is now two years and ongoing where the so called wanna be sharps now known as public faders (gamblers who bet against the public) continue to slide in the sports markets. This trend we believe will continue. There are many reasons, but our number one reason is our beloved LVSC (Las Vegas Sports Consultants) implies it will continue. "Gamblers think they can beat our spreads with very easy methods. Methods that are very novice. One method that is becoming popular, but even more popular for failing is going against the public. This trend will continue because of the Internet. Today there are as many as public faders as ever before and what the public faders fail to realize is that they are become the public in many of these games. But, of course they will not realize it until it's to late. Another thing is, we factor every single possibility when creating lines. The public faders are now factored in very heavy and that is why this method is failing. It was great in the eighties, but it's long gone. The biggest reason it is failing is the Internet. To many people follow this system and thus it fails. Also, the fact that the majority of these Internet sites continue to post false reports. These poor gamblers really believe that the sports books are out to help them and that these sports books want to see them win by giving them accurate information. These false consensus sites are really throwing off these gamblers. Gamblers will always be naive, but to be so naive to think these sports books are going to give you accurate information to beat them? Let's be real. You also have consensus sites that have nothing to do with real money and yet gamblers consider that as a source of public information. The truth is there are millions of dollars bet and there is no real way of knowing where the public is going unless you are in the casino industry and sports books industry. But, even then it does little help. What if there is a million dollars bet on a team here in Vegas, but in England there is two million bet on the other team. Do you follow? It is a method where you're always chasing your tail. The problem is, when the gambler wins, he really believes he is onto something. Nope. For every game it works, we can point another game it fails. We hope gamblers get back to finding the real ways of making money and paying less attention to the nonsense these Internet sites have created. How bad is the nonsense? In the last two years there are record amount of losses reported in Las Vegas and offshore books. But, more interesting is that last year was the year where most favorites in the NFL covered. This leads us to believe these record losses are coming from the public faders. Why? Because public faders usually bet much bigger as they have this false believe they are onto something."
posted by thenooch
4 replies
-
0 likes
nice nooch. Thats why I never factor or even look at public % when deciding who to bet. I may just go smaller if it looks like public is hammering the same side.
posted by ricky
Sept. 15 2006 2:44pm -
0 likes
I focus alot on public % and line movements and how they relate individually on each game ... but there is alot more than just simply HEAVY PUBLIC and so forth ... just fading the public does not work in any way ... There are more factors ... Nooch .. you know my style thats why you wrote what you did on the forum .. haha.. good shit ... anyways .. good shit Noocher ... keep hittin !!!!!
PS .. There are times to be WITH public and times to be AGAINST public ... recognizing the opportunity is the important part !!!!
PS(2) .. Along with Public bettors and fading public bettors losing ... TREND BETTORS lose more than ANY OF THEM ... Bank on that !!!!
posted by dab2dap
Sept. 15 2006 3:01pm -
0 likes
I got a few questions nooch?
1.) Who wrote the article?
2.) Where did the stats come from?
Not saying he's wrong...just want to know the source.
posted by pc7588
Sept. 16 2006 4:43pm -
0 likes
....I know of the LVSC pretty well after following the story of Jay Rubiano (Spelling?). I really would be interested to know where you got this article noocher. The quote that implies the body of content is never tabbed to a person. In addition, there are no stats or real hard data other than a supposed LVSC rep's opinion.
Guys, this article is basically an opinion piece. I don't agree with it or the point it implies. Fading the public can win you huge money and it will in the future. First week of NFL the betting public got killed...pure and simple. The Stardust recorded their second biggest opening week in volume in history.
Biggest wins:
Buffalo ATS over New England. (Public 87% on Patriots)
Atlanta over Carolina.( Public 77% on Cats)
St. Louis over Denver (Public 81% on Denver)
These are facts. I'm not a public fader but whoever wrote that article is full of it. Yes, the public did well the last two years on the Colts and Patriots. But unless you can show me who this guy and his quote is, and bring me some good hard stats, I think it's a fluff piece based on opinion.
I've geen gambling over 15 years and I can tell you right now I would rather be in the minority on a play than with the majority on it. And you can take that to the bank. My plays are based on my logic. But to say that fading the public is a losing proposition is BS. Hell, the guy who offered his opinion with no facts sounded like the mark, not the square.
The reason I digress on this is that people should factor in both sides of a story. Tell ya what, I'm going to post right after 1'st kick the public percentages in NFL on this thread. Let's see how the public and the faders does this week.
That's all I got..good article, but it's an opinion fluff piece with no citations and no stats. Don't believe everything you read fellas.
As for the internet ban on gambling, don't even worry about it. The Senate Majority leader already said it would be voted down if it ever made it to legislation for voting.
I'm out playas, not bashing Nooch, but that article has no real empirical or statistical value, it's an opinion piece by an unnmamed source. Hell, it could be Johnnie Bookie I never did read who wrote, or was quoted in the story. Hell, might of even been one of us for all I know that wrote that. But let's test your theory and see how the public does this week.
posted by pc7588
Sept. 17 2006 10:05am