betting against the Public, is this strategy working?

[carlisle1]

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

Yes but not always, you know betting is a game of luck so your betting against the public or fading the public does not mean anything, but the day your luck shine you win and the day have bad luck the same thing (lose) will still occur. Yes this the first time I am seeing and hearing this term. well it is good method to fake the majority to win a game. when everyone think that they would win the bet and instead of you to join them and play the same lane with them, you bet the opposite, and when everyone is crying, you are laughing.

It does mean anything if the game is rig or the sport itself. That betting against the public words was created because bookmakers are so smart, they will set up a line that is very attractive to the public while in reality it's overvalued, means the actual chance of hitting is low.

The very principle of gaining people/gambler's attention in terms of huge spread, most of the time those risk takers who can really
afford to bet against the public/underdog are the one who enjoy the most if they win.

If they lose, they will move forward just like it's a natural betting day, strategy that not most are good on,

Different people got different overview and perceptions with how they will project the potential outcomes.

[Pierre 2]

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

Yes but not always, you know betting is a game of luck so your betting against the public or fading the public does not mean anything, but the day your luck shine you win and the day have bad luck the same thing (lose) will still occur. Yes this the first time I am seeing and hearing this term. well it is good method to fake the majority to win a game. when everyone think that they would win the bet and instead of you to join them and play the same lane with them, you bet the opposite, and when everyone is crying, you are laughing.

It does mean anything if the game is rig or the sport itself. That betting against the public words was created because bookmakers are so smart, they will set up a line that is very attractive to the public while in reality it's overvalued, means the actual chance of hitting is low.

The very principle of gaining people/gambler's attention in terms of huge spread, most of the time those risk takers who can really
afford to bet against the public/underdog are the one who enjoy the most if they win.

If they lose, they will move forward just like it's a natural betting day, strategy that not most are good on,

Different people got different overview and perceptions with how they will project the potential outcomes.

I think Average Joe is nearly similar all around the world as a gambling persona. Most people (who are not very bright) will follow public opinion and will be under huge influence. When bookmarkers create some wrong clout about possible outcome, Average Joe's decision will very likely change. But wise gambler will keep doing their own business. So in my opinion people can benefit from these huge manipulative moves happening around society. Its not always rig cause its another strategy.

[Jawhead999]

In simple definition, betting against the public is betting on an underdog.

I think every gamblers already know the percentage between underdog pull an upset and the favorite win the match, of course the favorite player or team is high likely to win. Does betting on underdog is better? yes, if you're really know and familiar with the sport.

You can just bet $2 on 5 underdogs, you're only need 2 of your bets are correct, you will make profit.

[AicecreaME]

In simple definition, betting against the public is betting on an underdog.

I think every gamblers already know the percentage between underdog pull an upset and the favorite win the match, of course the favorite player or team is high likely to win. Does betting on underdog is better? yes, if you're really know and familiar with the sport.

You can just bet $2 on 5 underdogs, you're only need 2 of your bets are correct, you will make profit.

Well, there are times that betting on the underdog is a good choice most especially if you know the current information on how the training of a highly valued team/player is not doing well to make them win the game. If this is the case, then despite having higher odds predicted for the well-known team just because they have the reputation, there's a chance that you'll win the bet. After all, reputation shouldn't the only thing that a person should rely into the moment they decide to bet. Bettors have to consider the recent things the team/player do to improve their skills to get home the bacon.

The hype and lack of information won't definitely help so you have to remind yourself that and be well-informed and aware so you won't place a bet on the wrong choice.

[Plaguedeath]

Would you leave or forget about your insight and bet on Arsenal instead of betting for Chelsea which is the public's choice,? have you ever tried this and has it ever worked for you?
This is what we are discussing.

Sometime, public's choice is biased and it doesn't good to follow their choice.

Example like you're live in UK and there's a football match between US vs UK, you have a betting group where mostly they're come from UK although US is the favorited team. Obviously, almost of people on that's betting group will saying UK will beat US because "bla bla bla" and they will deny anything if someone pointed out US has higher chance to win because US is an unbeatable team.

[inthelongrun]

I'd been thinking of it for a while now but I still haven't tried it. I think it is still 50/50 something. Yes, there are many casuals in many different sports but probably most bettors have good to decent knowledge of the games and sports they are into. And it is always expected that underdogs lose most of the time. But spreads and money lines are adjusted as well by the betting companies in order for them to remain profitable. So personally, I would not rely on any public random views as I have my own assessment of my bets as well.

[YOSHIE]

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

Actually the public betting strategy as you said, has been answered in the source you posted successful or not, in the form of sports betting, which reads.

The thinking behind this sports betting strategy starts with the fact that the public as a whole isn’t right all the time. If they were, a lot more people would be successful sports bettors. People who believe in betting against the public believe that the majority of bettors often get their predictions wrong. Furthermore, betting against the public requires the ability to see when the betting public is off-base.

Example: A public bet was made by some of my friends on the 2022 world cup, between croatia vs. Morocco, where during and before the game Moroccan fans/supporters hope to win, opposite, facts after the Croatian match won 3rd place in the 2022 World Cup, and other examples France vs. Argentina, the Argentine people themselves are praying that they will lose the 2022 world cup due to several political reasons from Argentine officials, automatically French fans are bigger yesterday, facts on the field, public bets lose.

For me if you want to make bets with various strategies, your own strategy is most likely to succeed.

[Yatsan]

Betting against the majority? Gauge what you are trying to do. If it is just pride with the idea of not following the majority, then that would be a bad thing. Stick with the objective which is to win even if it would mean you have to follow the majority in some instances. So I think it does depend on the situation; if you are having no assurance of what path or bet to take, then you may follow the majority but if you have your own stand backed with your own reason, then go for it. Gambling is complicated; not because majority bet on first team you'd be required to do also. Always have time to think as much as possible whether following them would yield to a better outcome than following your own intuition.

[Cling18]

Betting against the majority? Gauge what you are trying to do. If it is just pride with the idea of not following the majority, then that would be a bad thing. Stick with the objective which is to win even if it would mean you have to follow the majority in some instances. So I think it does depend on the situation; if you are having no assurance of what path or bet to take, then you may follow the majority but if you have your own stand backed with your own reason, then go for it. Gambling is complicated; not because majority bet on first team you'd be required to do also. Always have time to think as much as possible whether following them would yield to a better outcome than following your own intuition.

If you are just doing it for experimentation and testings, you better think twice. But if you are sure about your instict and you will base your decision on your own research regarding the entire game, then there's no problem with it because there are lots of cases wherein the choice of the majority doesn't win. It depends on the risks that you're willing to take and how well you have done your research about it.

[darkangel11]

It's a good idea if you ask me but you have to be consistent with that to have any chance. If you start mixing it up and sometimes betting with and sometimes against the crowd, you're dropping the strategy and starting to bet the normal way, because most of us bet against the public from time to time. It's just that we need that gut feeling to do that. There are people who always bet against the majority and hope that even if they lose most of the time the payout will be higher than always betting at high odds. For this reason I tend to stay away from sure bets where 80% of people bet on one team. The payout is so small I don't want to take that risk. I prefer to bet when it's more like 50:50.

[QueenVera]

I personally don't think this strategy is a nice one because it might tend to impair the mentality of a person and it might also result to major losses because most times with this strategy, one isn't interested or should I say one isn't expectes to be nother about who's playing or what team is playing but rather this kind of strategy only wants to see a vast majority of the people cheering a particular team and then seize the opportunity to bet against the cheering team  irrespective of who's playing and who they're playing against.
I also think this very strategy will only only help to build the morale of those who use it against doing things because others are doing it and it helps one to stay firm irrespective of what people think and this is the only obvious advantage of this strategy.

[maydna]

Betting against the majority? Gauge what you are trying to do. If it is just pride with the idea of not following the majority, then that would be a bad thing. Stick with the objective which is to win even if it would mean you have to follow the majority in some instances. So I think it does depend on the situation; if you are having no assurance of what path or bet to take, then you may follow the majority but if you have your own stand backed with your own reason, then go for it. Gambling is complicated; not because majority bet on first team you'd be required to do also. Always have time to think as much as possible whether following them would yield to a better outcome than following your own intuition.

If you are just doing it for experimentation and testings, you better think twice. But if you are sure about your instict and you will base your decision on your own research regarding the entire game, then there's no problem with it because there are lots of cases wherein the choice of the majority doesn't win. It depends on the risks that you're willing to take and how well you have done your research about it.

But sometimes, if we see that the majority's choice is the best, we can also follow it so that we can also get the winning. But of course, we must still try to analyze and research before deciding because we need to know what the chances of the majority choice are to win. But if it turns out that after researching it, we find that the majority choice doesn't have a big chance of winning, we should be able to choose the minority because the chance of winning is greater than the majority choice. We must be wise in choosing and not just following what the majority chooses.

[tabas]

If you are just doing it for experimentation and testings, you better think twice. But if you are sure about your instict and you will base your decision on your own research regarding the entire game, then there's no problem with it because there are lots of cases wherein the choice of the majority doesn't win. It depends on the risks that you're willing to take and how well you have done your research about it.

It's okay if that's an experimentation or something like that. As long as the amount is affordable to lose, there's nothing to be worried of it. That's how gambling works, the other side might lose while you will win or you'll lose and the others choice might win.
The normal thing in gambling works that way so if someone wants to go against the public choice or from the majority, that's essential for him if he sees that it could be a good time to take that risk and bet with the opposing side for which the odds could be that high and enticing to bet with.

[Gozie51]

It's a good idea if you ask me but you have to be consistent with that to have any chance. If you start mixing it up and sometimes betting with and sometimes against the crowd, you're dropping the strategy and starting to bet the normal way, because most of us bet against the public from time to time.

I don't think there is a relationship between betting against the public and not betting against the public because it doesn't really affect the outcome of the game, it is just a strategy that you adopt for a particular bet. If you choose to bet against the crowd, it is a choice and it won't change the outcome of what will eventually happen if you don't.

It's just  we need that gut feeling to do that. There are people who always bet against the majority and hope that even if they lose most of the time the payout will be higher than always betting at high odds. For this reason I tend to stay away from sure bets where 80% of people bet on one team. The payout is so small I don't want to take that risk. I prefer to bet when it's more like 50:50. .

Low odd games are those that the public usually go for. They look easy because it is between big clubs and small club where smaller teams are given bigger odds. I also prefer the big odd games, they increase chances of winning big but you have to analyse very well, not all big odds game have the potential for winning.

[KTChampions]

It's a good idea if you ask me but you have to be consistent with that to have any chance. If you start mixing it up and sometimes betting with and sometimes against the crowd, you're dropping the strategy and starting to bet the normal way, because most of us bet against the public from time to time. It's just that we need that gut feeling to do that. There are people who always bet against the majority and hope that even if they lose most of the time the payout will be higher than always betting at high odds. For this reason I tend to stay away from sure bets where 80% of people bet on one team. The payout is so small I don't want to take that risk. I prefer to bet when it's more like 50:50.

The problem is that in games where the result is 50:50, bookmakers give odds like 1.8-2.0 or 1.9-1.9 I agree that when betting on such games, winnings are more frequent, so this is a pleasant betting, (on high odds, sometimes you have to wait a very long time to win and it's depressing.) But the fact that your winnings are consistently less than X2 quickly eats up the deposit and this trend becomes visible quite early too.

[TheGreatPython]

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.

Betting against the general public does not necessarily lead to good results. Therefore, a gambler has to use his intelligence to analyze the judgment. I also can't say this strategy is bad at all because in today's games match fixing has become a business where a good team can lose to a weak team. Even with the wide spread of betting odds, the weaker teams can win there. But this strategy cannot be considered as a bad one. However, this technique will not be effective in all cases. A gambler has to make decisions based on situational considerations.

Betting on any team, means that we won't only limit our choice on a single team is great since sticking on one team or the team that you are confident the most, doesn't always guarantee as a winner. Sometimes it's also best to rely on our instincts and bet on the opposing team or the underdogs and who knows we might be lucky and still end up as a winner. The circumstances that can affect the way we bet can be; the players that accidentally get's injured.

Another one would be if there is a match-fixing going on. Sometimes this one is hard to spot on and can also relate to the first one that I said. Maybe the players will only act as if they are injured to make the match-fixing more successful.

[alegotardo]

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

I don't think this is a good strategy.
Because in sports games the result is usually predictable in most cases, and most bettors win.

The big issue is that the most predictable bets (which is where the public bets) usually pay very little if you don't have the timing to bet at the exact moment.
So, betting against the public can even be a good strategy, but only if you have good reason to believe that your bet actually has a chance of winning. Never make it a rule.

Analyze each game, don't be influenced only by this "strategy".

[Wakate]

It's just  we need that gut feeling to do that. There are people who always bet against the majority and hope that even if they lose most of the time the payout will be higher than always betting at high odds. For this reason I tend to stay away from sure bets where 80% of people bet on one team. The payout is so small I don't want to take that risk. I prefer to bet when it's more like 50:50. .

This is mostly based on the game and the club that are playing, sometimes we do see that team with high odds do end up winning the match because they are always considered as the weak team that would lose the game. I don't based on predictions on odd but rather on what I think the two team could play and the numbers of goals that would comes out.

Since many if the casinos I do use do have plenty option for gamblers to choose from without bothering on which team could win a particular match.

Most people that do bet on the team to win a match usually end up losing severely because of the random output that could surface at the end of the match.

[Darker45]

This has never been my strategy, but I know that there are bettors out there who would like to go against the public in their bets. I know of somebody in my neighborhood who's like that. It's actually funny; we usually bet against each other here on eSports events and we normally end up betting against him because he has this penchant to bet on a team that the majority thinks would lose. In the end, however, sometimes we prove ourselves right, sometimes he proves us wrong. Still, I don't think this is a good strategy.

[kotajikikox]

I'd been thinking of it for a while now but I still haven't tried it. I think it is still 50/50 something. Yes, there are many casuals in many different sports but probably most bettors have good to decent knowledge of the games and sports they are into. And it is always expected that underdogs lose most of the time. But spreads and money lines are adjusted as well by the betting companies in order for them to remain profitable. So personally, I would not rely on any public random views as I have my own assessment of my bets as well.

Public views are helpful but yes it is our money and not theirs so better to not trust them completely instead do your homework because in the end of the day? you will be the loser and not those public.
actually I use this sometimes specially in local betting like street basketball and random sports , but in online or in national games? no i will use my own assessment and my own capabilities to try keeping safe my money and bets.