betting against the Public, is this strategy working?

[Viscore]

If the strategy works the bettor will make huge returns compared to the bet amount but there is no reason for this strategy to work every time. You should make bets on who is the favorites to win the game based on the players strenth, current performance and lot of other factors depends on every game so don't simply go with against of odds which means high rewards with slim chance of making it.

I guess that’s how gambling works uncertainly. Even if you bet at the crowd’s favorite or at the underdog, there won’t still guarantees that your bet will work that’s why betting should be made based on individual’s performance level, current statistics of the teams, or just simply looking out for the best available odds.

[swogerino]

I heard this strategy working but I like to know based on your experience if this is working.

For those who don't know about this strategy, you can read here to educate yourself.
https://www.wsn.com/betting-guide/betting-against-public/

Also, this website is providing details about public bets, I'm not sure how accurate it is, but we can use this as a reference since I haven't found another one. You can also comment if you some reliable sites.

https://www.actionnetwork.com/nba/public-betting

Lately Hhampuz a user here and one of the well known campaign managers won near 100k in dollars or almost 6 Bitcoins with just a mere 0.02 Bitcoin as a bet in this thread here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4479837.msg61595068#msg61595068

He got completely against the majority of people,he choose Man.United against City,he choose Brighton over Liverpool and he choose Southampton over Everton in a Premier League parlay that he played.It looks like going against the public is a strategy working but most of the time it doesn't and these are isolated cases,I have been a member of this forum for many years and that recent win I only saw now,which means not many people win going against what most other people bet on but when they do they hit it big.

[dothebeats]

Betting against the public doesn't always necessarily mean that you're doing the right thing. You have to consider a lot of factors that might affect the status of your bet, and whether or not it's sensible to go against the majority just to get that extra juice. I would personally use the public's insight on a certain event and use that information to look for lines that still have some value in them, while not necessarily copying their bets. This has a lot more sense to it because you're playing for the win and value and not to just go against the public. Look for sensible ideas first before locking in your bets.

[Unknown01]

I heard this strategy working but I like to know based on your experience if this is working.

Lately Hhampuz a user here and one of the well known campaign managers won near 100k in dollars or almost 6 Bitcoins with just a mere 0.02 Bitcoin as a bet in this thread here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4479837.msg61595068#msg61595068

He got completely against the majority of people,he choose Man.United against City,he choose Brighton over Liverpool and he choose Southampton over Everton in a Premier League parlay that he played.It looks like going against the public is a strategy working but most of the time it doesn't and these are isolated cases,I have been a member of this forum for many years and that recent win I only saw now,which means not many people win going against what most other people bet on but when they do they hit it big.

That's very impressive what Hhampuz bet there and the win is extremely good. I'm happy for him, but you have to be able to place a bet like that (that´s not easy).

In general, I think that betting against the majority is not such a bad strategy, as the odds are higher and underdogs win a game more often or at least play a draw as most people think. If you then choose the right games, you can win big like Hhampuz, but it's definitely not that easy. In my opinion it's definitely worth a try!

[livingfree]

I did that before and when I can avail to be against the public, I do it. It's just for my own satisfaction whether I win or not, it doesn't matter and the amount of bet that I release is the normal ones that I can afford to lose.

Not a YOLO but a bet that can easily win back whenever I take bets that are together with the public.

Sometimes it's good to be against the public and you literally going to play the gamble that you think is worth of doing. Because that adds flavor to your bets and if you just want to do something different and new.

[goaldigger]

That can work if your analysis is way better compare to the public and you want to take the risk because the odds are better and there’s a higher chance for you to make profit. Public views and opinions are not accurate, that is also based on their own analysis which you can also do it as a bettor, betting against them can be more exciting though the risk will always be there since this is gambling. There are times that your analysis are also same with the public, with that I can consider betting with them.

[KTChampions]

Losing to the bookmaker does not depend on whether you bet against the public or not, but on the fact that the bookmaker has a margin (similar to the house edge). Theoretically, sometimes the crowd can distort the odds on events (if they bet too much money on one of the outcomes), but in reality such situations are rare and the odds are not so distorted as to extract a guaranteed profit from it.

[Ulven]

Betting against the public, also known as fading the public,is a betting strategy that involves betting against the majority of bets placed on a particular event by the general public.the idea behind this strategy is that the general public makes less informed or emotional bets,so betting against them can give you an advantage.the strategy is not guaranteed to work and is dependent on a variety of factors, including the betting market,the event,and the data used to identify public bets.
it's a good idea to do your own research and gather as much information as possible before making any bets.websites like ActionNetwork and ESPN are providing the public bets and it can be use as a reference, but they should not be the sole basis for making a bet.

[crzy]

Most of the time yes since betting requires analysis and the result sometimes is different and the public is not always right so going against them sometimes are also a good idea. If you don’t want to analyze that much then you can follow the public and take the risk there’s still no assurance for that though because if the public is always right then all the bettors will have a good profit now which I think is not possible always.

[Rabi3]

I was literally talking about this few hours ago with a couple of friends, I used to even see what people are favoring here in the gambling section and bet on the opposite side, and I already have an eye on a match in the champions league, PSG vs Bayern Munich, most people are saying that PSG are better and have better players, and based on that I'm really considering to bet on Bayern Munic, this strategy can work for sure, because you would win more than what you'd lose.

[pixie85]

It's the same as betting with the public.
You're sacrificing odds to get a higher reward per dollar. When you go with the flow you get for example 2:1 if you win, but if you go against it you can get 4:1, but with 50% lower chance to win.

I'd say it's a matter of perspective whether you want this or that. I play dice at around 50% but there are people who prefer 40% with a higher reward.

I don't try to stick with a strategy like that. I prefer to bet on teams or players that I know are good or the ones I like even when hey aren't favored to win.

[bitbollo]

it is certainly a winning strategy in some cases, because many gamblers interpret the events "on paper" and not on real facts.

Example, top player tennis player playing against a strong but average ranked player.
anyone would be pushed to play the top player, but perhaps upon closer inspection one can discover that
- the player is out of shape,
- he is preparing for a more important tournament,
- his opponent is in excellent form.
etc....

In short, it is not a system that can always work "betting against what the public thinks" but it is certainly a situation to keep an eye on.

[iv4n]

it is certainly a winning strategy in some cases...

As you wrote, this is a winning strategy in some cases. We have the same thing in trading discussions, and from my point of view, this strategy will have better results in trading than in gambling. But again, we go back to the same old, there are strategies that work in some specific period of time, but none will work forever.

[Baofeng]

I think there is no secret strategy here, so still 50/50 in my opinion. But what I usually do though is to look for the underdog and see if they can do upset the favorite in a game. For sure this could be considered as betting against the public since obviously, the favorite is where they are putting their money.

But again, it's not usually the case, sometimes I win, sometimes I lost my bet on the underdog. So I must say that it works but in certain and extreme occasion and everything should be perfectly align that night if you are going to bet against the public and win big.

[chaser15]

The answer if the strategy is working or effective, is based on the different user's experiences.

To make it short but generalized, for those who already used that strategy and it works for them, the response would be YES. On the other hand, if some users didn't experience some good results trying out that strategy, the response would be NO.

To check for real if the strategy will work for you, do it in actual for a set period of time, instead of just simulating the possible outputs.

[Vaskiy]

It isn't a strategy. This has been a practice followed by most gamblers. This succeeds with the lucky ones. When we're making bets against the public, it means we're choosing the high odds. During the world cup we were able to experience few matches that had given good win for the users who made bets against the public.  In the match between Argentina and Saudi Arabia, everyone's choice is Argentina and the users who picked against the choice turned to be luckiest.

[harizen]

I have been gambling for a long but never tried or attempted this strategy. As reading the article, the said strategy was considered a "powerful" strategy but if it really does, why do I think only a few seem interested? Or they are not just lurking here? Who knows.

Referring specifically to basketball matches, I think doing that strategy won't work most of the time.

That's why maybe I didn't hear much about the term in basketball betting.

[molsewid]

I heard this strategy working but I like to know based on your experience if this is working.

For those who don't know about this strategy, you can read here to educate yourself.
https://www.wsn.com/betting-guide/betting-against-public/

Also, this website is providing details about public bets, I'm not sure how accurate it is, but we can use this as a reference since I haven't found another one. You can also comment if you some reliable sites.

https://www.actionnetwork.com/nba/public-betting

Getting the bet against the public and to win it is still possible. Since many people just going with the flow, they are just betting on the larger side in which the odds are in favor with but then if you will bet on the other side and if that side win, you will get  a larger return, you really just need to critically analyze the things first before doing that of course, the reason why other people chooses the other side because they are confident to that team of course.

[boyptc]

It isn't a strategy. This has been a practice followed by most gamblers. This succeeds with the lucky ones. When we're making bets against the public, it means we're choosing the high odds. During the world cup we were able to experience few matches that had given good win for the users who made bets against the public.  In the match between Argentina and Saudi Arabia, everyone's choice is Argentina and the users who picked against the choice turned to be luckiest.

Yeah, it's more of a choice and not a strategy. But if someone considers it as a strategy then that's still fine, not really a problem to be called as a strategy or a choice.

Those that want to be with such high odds and greater returns, as long as they know what's the chance of winning ability by the underdog then it's not a case that they should skip because many are doing this type of bet.

[qwertyup23]

I have seen some live score prediction sites that indicates the people that go for win, draw or lose, but this has been what I do not always consider, even I noticed most times that people take the teams I want to go for, but just that I can select only one team because not all are certain. But this is how I do it, if I want to take a team, I will make analysis myself to know if the team are worth going for.

I guess this works sometimes but not most of the time? This kind of betting falls on a specific kind of team that you are rooting for. Since a person is betting against the public, he/she is somehow not considering other factors and facts that may lessen the risk of losing.

An example can be seen in sports betting where a person will bet on his favorite team, rather than betting on a team that is much superior in terms of its winning rate, stats, shooters, etc. Though this kind of betting is particularly fun, it is somehow more risky on your end.