Week 3 Discussion

[Skinsfan]

i disagree stif.... you're reading way too much into last week... since when does the average bettor (as a whole, measured by what some people phrase "the public") become dynamic in their decision-making? uhhh.... never....

There is a much simpler explanation.... Many betters respond to standings/rankings or previous years perceptions of good/bad, or a combination of both..... every single dog you listed is perceived to be much better than their competition this week, either through reputation or this years records, with the possible exception of cincy

[Skinsfan]

KC has 3 unit bet written all over it for me... call me dumb, but the only press KC is getting is negative.... they get pummeled by ESPN.... and they're favored?

[Skinsfan]

This thread has me cracking up thinking about last night.... my brother-in-law loves to bet on football, and he's squarer than square.... anyhow, his internet goes down so he calls me up and asks me to bet $100 for him on Texas A&M...

Being the good bro-in-law I am, I patiently took the time to explain to him that there is a REASON that a ranked team is an underdog to an unranked team.... long story short, he didn't buy it... he told me A&M was going to dominate... so I told him I would put in the bet for him at one of my books.....

which i never did :beerbang: :beerbang: :beerbang:

[homedawg]

i disagree stif.... you're reading way too much into last week... since when does the average bettor (as a whole, measured by what some people phrase "the public") become dynamic in their decision-making? uhhh.... never....

its just simple math... if you know that every game has a 50/50 chance of winning, and you check the whole card before and after the games, you should be able to come to a conclusion, that the dogs dominated the week before... hence where do the linesmakers go,
when that happens?????.....With the public perception... Recent events have more of an affect, than past results :drunk:

[Q-Unit]

this brings up a question I always wanted to present.

what is the real definition of the "public"?

objectively each of us should be able to say that when we all started, we were part of this crowd that loved the faves, the homers, or the overs, the popular bet, or squares because we didn't know any better.

most learned quickly while others it may have taken awhile, but the point is everyone's been part of the squares at one point or another (or like me and still havent moved on! LOL).

then does that mean that the term, "the betting public" refer to a constant translational concept? meaning it encompasses that constant flow of new bettors who come into the game everyday, and/or that big rotational mass of travelers who pass by vegas once in a while and drop coin on some games?

if the house always wins, and the public loses consistently (not always) but their ROI isnt that good, at what point do we need to realize that maybe most of them after getting their asses handed to them, keep betting? I know lots of friends who took up betting with me, loss their asses like me, and have proceeded to quit completely. Others learn, and put more money in. and go back for more. Unfortunately even more load back up and still lose more.

I guess i have no point in this rant other than to say, the true definition of the "public" then has to be a flexible term that refers to the ever changing population of newbies/vegas travelers and what not?

because the public doesnt always lose, but fading them more often than not rewards those who took the other side, but if eventually everyone becomes seasoned and learns right? eventually.

actually now that I am thinking as I'm typing, I realize the term public actually means "majority" not targeted at certain people but rather an abstract concept that if 70% are on team A. then that means the public is on team A. So even if I am a super warlord with warlord powers and never lose a bet, if I took team A i would be part of that crowd too, the "public" or
majority if you will.

LOL

[homedawg]

I realize the term public actually means "majority"

:th: Majority of the public, is the key, and what the books do, when that happens, is something to look at.

[rjp]

I think everyone is getting too caught up into the whole "public" thing.

Last I checked, the average Joe wins 50% of the time.

If it was possible to blindly fade a game in which a large majority is betting a specific side then we would all be rich and no one would accept a bet.

It's also worth noting that a lot of these consensus tools don't track garbage like teasers and parlays. A lot of people like to tease favorites down or parlay large money lines to where "all they have to do is win".

Without a complete grasp on these numbers then you can't see the whole picture.

There's not a bookie in the world that wouldn't mind any of these underdogs winning outright.

[Stifler's Mom]

Right, public majority. I guess it's a difficult thing to define really, but to me, the public is, on the whole, those who place wagers on games and are relatively uninformed. They base their wagers on their perceptions of both teams (good or bad), trends, and previous week's results for the most part.

They fail to take situations into account, or how each team matches up with one another. For example....

Tennessee ran for like 300 yards on Jacksonville in week 1....and it wasn't all Vince Young, so it's safe to say their run defense could use some work. What they did vs Atlanta is not a good measuring stick IMO, since their offense doesn't seem to be too potent as of yet in any way, shape or form.

Now this week they go on the road to face Denver, who is known for a quality rushing game. IMO Denver runs wild on them this weekend, controls the pace of the game, and wins....unless of course either (a) Jax cured whatever ailed their run defense, or (b) Denver makes alot of mistakes (ie fumbles, INT's, poor play calling, or poor special teams play)

So using the way I handicap games, you would have to assume alot of things are going to happen to take Jax +3, but to take Denver, you only have to go by what has already happened.

BTW, that is most likely a game I will pass on this weekend, just wanted to give an example....

The way what I consider to be the public looks at a game:

Lets use Skinsfan's example of Tex A&M at Miami FL last night.

Joe Q: "Well, A&M is 3-0, and Miami sucks. They just aren't the same team as they used to be. They got pounded by Oklahoma, and with what Oklahoma did to them, they'll never stop the offense of A&M who has put up alot of points so far this year. Plus Kyle Wright sucks so Miami won't score much. The 3 points is a gift"

Me: "A&M beat 3 nobody's, all at home. They gave up way too many yards and points in those games, all of which were to teams not in the same league talent wise as Miami, and nearly lost in 3OT against Fresno St...a game in which they blew a large lead late. Miami got pounded by Oklahoma, but from what I've seen, the Sooners far outclass A&M. Miami also looked sluggish vs 2 nobody's, but I don't really think the Hurricane players were up for those game. I doubt they went to the "U" all excited about facing Florida Atlantic. They'll play much better on National TV and against an opponent that's ranked. The oddsmakers agree with me. If Miami sucked so bad, and A&M was so good, Miami wouldn't be favored over a ranked team."

As you can see, comparing stats and prior opponents in last night's games was a joke, as Miami kicked the **** out of A&M much worse than the final of 34-17 would indicate.

Skins - I agree that KC is a strong play this weekend, but I believe you're missing the point of the whole "public fading" concept. The public is betting all these dogs. That is something they never do. Ever. In any sport. Now who's dumb? The public, or the oddsmakers? One week, it could turn out to be the oddsmakers. For a season, it is, and always will be the public.

The public as a whole is banking too much on how teams looked, and if they won or not.

The public saying Detroit is better than Philly is laughable IMO for example. If that's what the public thinks, then they're in for a long season, like usual. I mean come on. Detroit beat Minnesota and Oakland. How does that make them all of a sudden good? Granted, Philly has looked bad, but at least on MNF they lost to what looked like a pretty good Washington team.

Dallas, who beat NYG and Miami is now all of a sudden perceived to better than Chicago? So much better in fact that they're going to beat them on the road? Why? Because the Bears lost to a quality opponent @ SD?

Where does the perception that St Louis is better than TB come from? 2001?

Cleveland? I don't see how they could be perceived to be better than anyone. A week ago, they were perceived to have sucked complete ass and were going to go 0-16. Oh how the public changes their mind on a whim.

Arizona perceived to be better than Baltimore? How?

I can see how the public would come to the conclusion that MIN and CIN are better than their opposition. Although I don't think they have a leg to stand on with either argument they would make.

It all comes down to the same old saying:

If (to the public) it looks to good to be true....it probably is more often than not.

[Stifler's Mom]

No way does the public majority win 50% of the time in the NFL. It just doesn't happen. Last year sides that were over 65% hit at about a 30% clip or less (tracked and confirmed at S.I.)

Last week alone they went 2-11. In week 1, they were 7-2. That's still 9-13 (40.9%) for 2 weeks. Hitting 59.1% for a season is more than anyone could ever ask for really....and all you would have had to do was blindly fade the public over 65%. Not that I suggest doing so, but the numbers don't lie.

Everyone caps differently, and I can completely respect that....but as for me, I know for a fact that i do not look too much into "fading the public" because it's made me over 10 grand in the last year and a couple months, and that was with completely getting my ass handed to me last seaosn in baseball, losing a bit last year in CFB for the season, and pretty much breaking even in CBB and NBA. Almost all of the profit came from NFL, NHL (a sport in which i selectively fade the public and don't really know jack **** about), and this year's MLB.

I don't know it all on this subject, and no, I would never, nor would I advise just playing every single game against the public, but i know enough to say with complete confidence that it works very, very well if you know how to combine it with other factors.

[CuseFan10]

Man, can't you disagree with a guy anymore without them leaving the forum? I thought and reasoned out possible scenarios why I felt the two examples he gave were bad examples and now he's taken his ball and gone home? He seemed like a solid poster with good info and opinions too, geez louise...

Very good info in this thread, but it all comes down to how we perceive things.

Back to my reading now, man this is a lot of books........

[homedawg]

Last I checked, the average Joe wins 50% of the time.

RJP, sorry to inform you, but your percentage is way off!!!!!!! :beer2:

[rjp]

If a 60% clip were truly viable against -110 then books would be closing up shop.

As for SI's numbers, they pick the BEST PRICE to grade these over. Using real numbers that you could actually bet and you wouldn't have nearly the return.

Now it's no secret that some people have a better grasp of statistics than others, which is why pointing out the 2-11 week is laughable.

These type of weeks can and do happen, it's a mathematical fact. Central Limit Theorem, Gambler's fallacy--look it up. :thumbs:

[homedawg]

the linesmakers already know 3 things when settin' the line:

1: jp bets favorites
2: jp bets overs
3: jp bets, based on recent events

linesmakers adjust, therefore they (the books) have the edge!!!!!!!

[JohnnyMapleLeaf]

The public saying Detroit is better than Philly is laughable IMO for example. If that's what the public thinks, then they're in for a long season, like usual. I mean come on. Detroit beat Minnesota and Oakland. How does that make them all of a sudden good? Granted, Philly has looked bad, but at least on MNF they lost to what looked like a pretty good Washington team.

Dallas, who beat NYG and Miami is now all of a sudden perceived to better than Chicago? So much better in fact that they're going to beat them on the road? Why? Because the Bears lost to a quality opponent @ SD?

Where does the perception that St Louis is better than TB come from? 2001?

Cleveland? I don't see how they could be perceived to be better than anyone. A week ago, they were perceived to have sucked complete ass and were going to go 0-16. Oh how the public changes their mind on a whim.

Arizona perceived to be better than Baltimore? How?

I think it is all about perception...sure...but perception changes with EVERYONE from week to week, including you, me and every other capper here. Not just the "public". And in your examples above with the public-backed dogs this week....sometimes its easy for us all to point out the good points of these anti public sides but it is also easy to leave out valid points why the public could be bang on.

You point out that Detroit has beaten two weak teams, and they have....but before the year started...Phillys opponents were thought to be two of the weaker teams as well. Everyone and their sister were on Philly Monday night because "Washington blows"...I read many a thread stating that...now they are a "pretty good team"? Perception sure changed there quickly. Even Skinsfan thought they'd get killed....now they're pretty good.

Yes...Dallas beat nobody of note....but handily in both mind you, which should count for somthing...."getting it done".....something the BEars did not do against KC (well they won, but not pretty). You say that all of a sudden people think they will beat the bears because of only one point...."the bears lost to a quality opponent in SD"? Well, yes...that, AND the fact that they barely beat a KC team at Soldier field, a team you said yourself is the worst in the league by far. However...without a punt return they win by only 3 over that team. The bears offence could be in the worst 5 of the league, and that great defence has injury problems badly. These are points that need to be brought up when capping that game IMO, not just losing to a good SD team, as I would think most Cowboys backers would not use that as a baromiter only.

I think Zona WILL beat Baltimore.....as the Ravens can't move the ball either. They did nothing against the brutal Cincy defence, and did nothing in the second half against the Jets. They are terribly overrated....and to use your STL analogy.....is this the Ravens of 2002? I don't think so.

I agree with all you have said...I just think some of those examples of popular dogs you give (well...Dallas and Zona)....there are very strong reasons why they could easily win outright, as there are huge question marks with the Chicago and Baltimore ability to move the ball. In your other public-backed examples...I do think Philly, TB and Oak would be the sides I would back, if I chose to play them....but it shows how perceptions of teams change change from week to week with ALL of us. Not just beginner Joe public. You were so down on KC before that Bears game, you were willing to lay 12 points...something you never do....now you think KC is a strong play this week. Do you think you would be backing KC if the Bears indeed blew out KC like most thought? I don't think so....which means your percetion of KC has changed drastically from last week. It happens to all of us cappers....our perceptions change from past results....hopefully from many games.....but hey...sometimes its only one. It's human nature. The trick is trying to find many other things to pick the best plays of the week and not rely ONLY on week to week perception we all fall for to varying degrees...and I think that is what you are great at, Stif, finding many reasons to make a play....as we can all see from your many insightful threads here at Predictem.

Looking forward to your picks, as always! :thumbs:

[Stifler's Mom]

Yes, S.I. uses the best numbers to grade their picks, but how many NFL games actually land close enough to the number for it to matter? Go back a few years and check it out. You'll see I'm right on my "winner covers" idea too.

Also, a good player gets the best of the line as often as possible. It's not real hard to do if you have multiple accounts with books that have different "client bases". The only time you won't is when sharp money nails a game early and the books adjust to it, and the public never pushes it back....which doesn't really happen tremendously often.

When speaking of "the public", the reason not everyone just gets flat out drilled and quits betting because he's broke is simple.

Just because there are 16 games on the NFL card, and the PUBLIC MAJORITY posts a losing record just about every week, DOES NOT mean EVERY Joe Q was on EVERY game, NOR does it mean the average Joe Q didn't have a few ANTI-PUBLIC picks on his card, therefore taking away some losses and adding some wins.

To sit and think every single Joe Q Public is on the exact same plays, or the same amount of plays as every other Joe Q Public is silly and ridiculous.

Often times I see guys post here whom I consider to be pretty square players playing a very anti-public side, and sometimes with very good reasoning.

So it's easy to see how Joe Q #1, #2, and #3 could all hit about 50%, give or take a few % points, but the public MAJORITY plays could post a losing record till the cows come home.

And yes, I did hit 60% ATS in the NFL last season (ok, actually it was 59.30 or something). I agree that it's not a realistic expectation, nor do I think I can i duplicate it year in and year out, but I do believe I can win every year and over the long term with my style of handicapping....weather it be 1 unit or 100 units per season, and that's what matters to me.

In addition, it doesn't matter if anti-public players hit 60%. The books aren't going to be hurt by this, because the public players more than even out the action for them. The average Joe Q will NEVER catch on to this concept. Why? Because it's human nature to think you're smart. It's human nature not to accept that the oddsmakers know more than you, and they fall into every single "trap" on the board....which are only "traps" because the public makes them such. It's human nature to not want to root for a "bad" team. It's human nature to root for the over instead of root for defense. It goes on and on, but the bottom line is that the "public majority" is uninformed and bets on a whim, often for what he wants to see happen, or what he thinks could happen, not what it likely to happen. In other words, to use examples from last week, he cannot possibly see the Browns beating the Bengals outright, and he cannot possibly see Tampon Bay beating New Orleans outright. Instead, he sees them as an "easy winner" or a "lock" to lay the small road chalk because the guys who made the lines are a bunch of idiots and he can't believe they're giving him free money.

You can equate any mathmatical formula to these things that you want, but the simple fact is that the public will continue to bet road chalk, the public will continue to bet teasers and parlays (especially ones with many teams in them - normally all faves), and the books will continue to profit from this, and public faders who do so responsibly and with some thought behind their selections will continue to profit as well, because it creates line value on the anti-public sides.

For these reasons, the idea of the books having to close shop because anti-public players can make a profit from them makes no sense....as they will always have plenty of action on both sides of the spectrum.