[Sports Betting ]Sharp Bettors vs Public Bets – Who Really Wins in the Long Run?

[Questat]

We always hear about the so-called “sharps” who move lines, place disciplined wagers, and supposedly beat the books over time. On the other side, you have the public, the casual bettors who often load up on favorites, hype teams, or whatever trend is hot.



The question is, does fading the public automatically mean profit? Or is that just an old cliché in the betting world?
Nowadays with advanced analytics, live betting, and tighter lines, I wonder if sharps really have that much edge compared to before.

Some things I’ve been thinking about:

• Public money usually piles on the obvious picks (like big-name teams or heavy favorites).
• Sharps are said to take advantage of inflated lines caused by this.
• But sportsbooks also adjust quickly, so maybe the edge isn’t as big anymore.
• Do sharps focus more on niche markets (like player props, smaller leagues) where lines are softer?

What do you guys think? Do you still follow the “fade the public” strategy?


To educate ourselves, we can read these.
What Is the Difference Between Square and Sharp Bettors?
Betting Splits: Which Should You Trust More?

[Dogedegen]

We always hear about the so-called “sharps” who move lines, place disciplined wagers, and supposedly beat the books over time. On the other side, you have the public, the casual bettors who often load up on favorites, hype teams, or whatever trend is hot.

Sharp bettors are definitely outperforming the public bettors in may view, but I don't know if there is good data on that. It would be nice to know for sure what it says. It may be different across countries too.

What do you guys think? Do you still follow the “fade the public” strategy?

I have never met anyone from the public bettors that has really made significant money and kept it. If they win, they bet more or they squander it. They win big rarely but I have not seen anyone elevate their life through this, it is because of their lack of discipline. Sharp bettors are more likely to make gains and retain them.

[Doan9269]

I don't think the sharp bettors could emerge outperforming the public bettors in gambling, only if we are going to consider about the risk of losing more often than winning at the long run in gambling, irrespective of the intention of purpose why we are gambling, we can't always have an upper edge against the house or the casinos as we gambles, instead we are playing just to catch the fun no matter the cost on us.

[retaur]

Sharps make a return that's better than trading normally. The issue with betting sharp is that you're limited on scale for making long term selections that are profitable. I'm also not sure how much actual gambling sites try to hedge against bets their users make on popular events and take up some of the sharp bettors profit margins (ie the professional bettors within firms which I assume exist).

Most of the sharp betting I've looked into relates to either value betting or trading trends..I think both can establish strong returns over a long period of time. (Trading trends being trying to track how odds change over a certain period of time for different wafers and placing best that give you a positive expected value as a result).

[Russlenat]

I don't think the sharp bettors could emerge outperforming the public bettors in gambling, only if we are going to consider about the risk of losing more often than winning at the long run in gambling, irrespective of the intention of purpose why we are gambling, we can't always have an upper edge against the house or the casinos as we gambles, instead we are playing just to catch the fun no matter the cost on us.

The question here is between sharp bettors and the public. that house edge is different, and since we’re talking about sportsbooks, we can set aside the house edge for now.

If I had to choose, I’d put myself with the public bettors, since I’m not capable enough to be serious with sports betting.
Sharps are different, they’re the pros of sports betting. they’ve got huge bankrolls, and they can even move the line.

So I think we can’t deny that the public, at least most of us, are losers. we’re outperformed by the sharps.

[Wiwo]

Sharps make a return that's better than trading normally. The issue with betting sharp is that you're limited on scale for making long term selections that are profitable. I'm also not sure how much actual gambling sites try to hedge against bets their users make on popular events and take up some of the sharp bettors profit margins (ie the professional bettors within firms which I assume exist).

Most of the sharp betting I've looked into relates to either value betting or trading trends..I think both can establish strong returns over a long period of time. (Trading trends being trying to track how odds change over a certain period of time for different s and placing best that give you a positive expected value as a result).

You mean the bets are limited im terms of timing and how much one wager capable, this is what can make you to be consistent in winning over the house, but your overall winnings wont be that significant enough to make some profits from the bets, majority of the time, gamblers that tend to take such approach thinks that the developed a mechanism to beat the house constantly but in the end how much they are able to take put is still berh small.

[dimonstration]

Sharp bettor usually are the bettor with high winning percentage and not necessarily they are betting against the public rather they choose wisely on what to pick based on there analysis instead of picking what’s the favorite.

But I believe most of the time they pick the favorite to come up with high winning percentage or else they will have low winning percentage if they keep betting on the underdog.

But talking about the winner, it’s sharp bettor since they are professionals while public bettor just ride the hype bet.

[stadus]

But I believe most of the time they pick the favorite to come up with high winning percentage or else they will have low winning percentage if they keep betting on the underdog.

I believe it’s the opposite. if public bettors love to choose the favorite, then on the other side you’ll find the sharp bettors.
Favorites don’t automatically win on the SU, and most of the time in discussions we’re using ATS.

Even if the underdog is +10.5, the public will see that as an attractive bet and jump on it. but the sharps, they are confident to take the high spread on the favorite.
I don’t have exact data, but based on my observation, they usually win.

[_act_]

Sharp bettors are those that focus on making money and using statistics and analyses to make bet and not that they make bets without proper analyses.

Public bettors can be driven by emotions and they may not make use of stats and analysis. That is the differences between the two.

Someone can think of himself as a sharp bettor but after a long period of losses, he will see that he is not a sharp bettor at all. Most people are losing money while betting but many people make use of stats and analyses.

[Doan9269]

I don't think the sharp bettors could emerge outperforming the public bettors in gambling, only if we are going to consider about the risk of losing more often than winning at the long run in gambling, irrespective of the intention of purpose why we are gambling, we can't always have an upper edge against the house or the casinos as we gambles, instead we are playing just to catch the fun no matter the cost on us.

The question here is between sharp bettors and the public. that house edge is different, and since we’re talking about sportsbooks, we can set aside the house edge for now.

If I had to choose, I’d put myself with the public bettors, since I’m not capable enough to be serious with sports betting.
Sharps are different, they’re the pros of sports betting. they’ve got huge bankrolls, and they can even move the line.

So I think we can’t deny that the public, at least most of us, are losers. we’re outperformed by the sharps.

Oh now I understand better, that most of us have already been eaten by the sharp bettors,   because they focuses more about the analysis being made concerning a bet and also put into consideration the favourites than the underdogs betting for their profits, so they often  win than losing, but I wonder if it's that impossible for us to also be or join to be a sharp bettors than we play the more and oftentimes lose as we are playing,  because the risk is much on the public to lose often than the sharp bettors.

[Beparanf]

Oh now I understand better, that most of us have already been eaten by the sharp bettors,   because they focuses more about the analysis being made concerning a bet and also put into consideration the favourites than the underdogs betting for their profits, so they often  win than losing, but I wonder if it's that impossible for us to also be or join to be a sharp bettors than we play the more and oftentimes lose as we are playing,  because the risk is much on the public to lose often than the sharp bettors.

Sharp bettor is just a term for bettor that thinking logically on their bet rather than emotion.

You can consider yourself a sharp bettor if you manage to bet with high accuracy on many bets sample. Public bettor is just a representation of the majority of bettor that bet based on the public opinion about who’s gonna win hence they rely on the favorite as main bet.

Sharp bettor is different since they bet on opposite side if they think the underdog team will most likely win based on their analysis.

[Russlenat]

I don't think the sharp bettors could emerge outperforming the public bettors in gambling, only if we are going to consider about the risk of losing more often than winning at the long run in gambling, irrespective of the intention of purpose why we are gambling, we can't always have an upper edge against the house or the casinos as we gambles, instead we are playing just to catch the fun no matter the cost on us.

The question here is between sharp bettors and the public. that house edge is different, and since we’re talking about sportsbooks, we can set aside the house edge for now.

If I had to choose, I’d put myself with the public bettors, since I’m not capable enough to be serious with sports betting.
Sharps are different, they’re the pros of sports betting. they’ve got huge bankrolls, and they can even move the line.

So I think we can’t deny that the public, at least most of us, are losers. we’re outperformed by the sharps.

Oh now I understand better, that most of us have already been eaten by the sharp bettors,   because they focuses more about the analysis being made concerning a bet and also put into consideration the favourites than the underdogs betting for their profits, so they often  win than losing, but I wonder if it's that impossible for us to also be or join to be a sharp bettors than we play the more and oftentimes lose as we are playing,  because the risk is much on the public to lose often than the sharp bettors.

Both the public and sharps do analysis, it just differs because some analysis is correct and some is wrong - but sharps are right most of the time. of course, knowing that the sharps are winners, we all want to be like them in the future.

But the question is, how serious are we really when it comes to sports betting? one way to prove our seriousness is through the size of our bankroll. these sharps can set up a bankroll of $10,000 or more, and they’re betting $1,000 or higher per stake.

But what about our range? maybe we already feel nervous betting $10 on a certain game. if we’re still at that level, then we can’t really be called sharps.

[retaur]

You mean the bets are limited im terms of timing and how much one wager capable, this is what can make you to be consistent in winning over the house, but your overall winnings wont be that significant enough to make some profits from the bets, majority of the time, gamblers that tend to take such approach thinks that the developed a mechanism to beat the house constantly but in the end how much they are able to take put is still berh small.

Yeah it's like absorbing liquidity. You can absorb it for a while until you absorb all your edge.

You can make profit though, as long as a strategy is well diversified and you don't stray from it too much (some straying is fine if you enjoy gambling though as mentioned above - I don't know if some people fall into a trap of thinking they can make back losses that way too - which is unlikely if they're particularly big).

[_act_]

I don't think the sharp bettors could emerge outperforming the public bettors in gambling, only if we are going to consider about the risk of losing more often than winning at the long run in gambling, irrespective of the intention of purpose why we are gambling, we can't always have an upper edge against the house or the casinos as we gambles, instead we are playing just to catch the fun no matter the cost on us.

The question here is between sharp bettors and the public. that house edge is different, and since we’re talking about sportsbooks, we can set aside the house edge for now.

If I had to choose, I’d put myself with the public bettors, since I’m not capable enough to be serious with sports betting.
Sharps are different, they’re the pros of sports betting. they’ve got huge bankrolls, and they can even move the line.

So I think we can’t deny that the public, at least most of us, are losers. we’re outperformed by the sharps.

Oh now I understand better, that most of us have already been eaten by the sharp bettors,   because they focuses more about the analysis being made concerning a bet and also put into consideration the favourites than the underdogs betting for their profits, so they often  win than losing, but I wonder if it's that impossible for us to also be or join to be a sharp bettors than we play the more and oftentimes lose as we are playing,  because the risk is much on the public to lose often than the sharp bettors.

This is not true, betting is totally different from trading. We can say those that lose while trading lost to those the win, but betting is totally different.

In betting, the betting sites are the ones that we are losing to and not any other person. Just like I have posted earlier, some people will even think that they are sharp bettors but they will continue to loss and see how betting is.

Despite that very few people may become sharp bettors, but it would be what some people will continue to learn until they will fed up and give up after several losses.

[Maslate]

Sharp bettor is just a term for bettor that thinking logically on their bet rather than emotion.

That’s the best definition, and I can say it based on my own experience of not being a sharp bettor. most of the time, I realize my mistake is getting carried away by emotions, like betting on a team just because I think it’s likely to win with a high percentage. they call it a trap, right? when the public thinks one side will definitely win and the other side has almost no chance, but then most of the time, the “no chance” side actually wins.

With that, I think we really need to be more educated and clever. I mean, if we observe that we keep losing with the same strategy, then we should correct it. We need to stay logical and not just rely on stats alone, because stats are just less than half of what we need to consider.

At the end of the day, all these are just our speculations and how we analyze things. the real challenge is the outcome. if we’re profitable in the long term, then that’s the real proof we’ve learned and maybe we’ve already become sharp bettors ourselves.

[freedomgo]

I always see “fade the public” whenever I read write-ups or betting articles, and honestly, I’ve tried it myself but never really had success with it. The problem is, if you’re just betting against the public and relying only on that method, it kind of takes away the fun especially if you’re not winning anyway.

So if I had to choose, I’d rather trust my own instincts. Even if it doesn’t always work, at least I get to challenge myself by analyzing the game, and hopefully improve over time. For me that feels better than blindly fading the public.

[Kelvinid]

So if I had to choose, I’d rather trust my own instincts. Even if it doesn’t always work, at least I get to challenge myself by analyzing the game, and hopefully improve over time. For me that feels better than blindly fading the public.

It makes sense to follow your instinct, otherwise there’s no real challenge in gambling. If we’re just fading ourselves or blindly following others, we’re like robots. Gambling is really a battle of minds because when you win, the other side loses. It’s not about “beating the bookie,” that’s impossible. If a sportsbook ever runs out of money, it just means something shady is happening inside, probably corruption.

And about sharps betting big, most of the time, they can just forward those bets to their partner sportsbooks.
That’s why there’s never really a time when they’ll refuse a huge bet. Whether that bet wins or loses, the house still makes commission.

[Webetcoins]

This is the very first time I hear about sharps, probably a new term coined to refer professional bettors? Then I guess the term, 'pro bettors' has become cliché .

Nowadays with advanced analytics, live betting, and tighter lines, I wonder if sharps really have that much edge compared to before.

Extra edge over rest of people is not a permanent privilege you could enjoy for your life time. AI must be the another development for better analytics for everyone. Sharps may not remain sharp all the times, I am sure. Casual bettors as well will find better edge significantly with AI.

Do you still follow the “fade the public” strategy?

This is not new thing in gambling industry. With insider info, houses and HN bettors do always manipulate for their favour.

I think we can’t deny that the public, at least most of us, are losers. we’re outperformed by the sharps.

Yeah, for the chance to escape, we must need to be on the same side of sharps. No matter of your knowledge or analytics, because you are wagering in a manipulated system rather than against an actual sport.

[Questat]

And about sharps betting big, most of the time, they can just forward those bets to their partner sportsbooks.
That’s why there’s never really a time when they’ll refuse a huge bet. Whether that bet wins or loses, the house still makes commission.

That’s what I read too, it’s more like an internal procedure. if they say no, it could hurt their reputation, so instead they just forward the bet. and since everything’s online now, it’s a lot easier for them to do that. even the big bookies might not notice, but it doesn’t really matter. they can just make an account and place the bet there anyway. maybe they even get better odds that way since the big bookies usually offer better market lines than the smaller ones.

[retaur]

This is the very first time I hear about sharps, probably a new term coined to refer professional bettors? Then I guess the term, 'pro bettors' has become cliché .

I prefer the term sharp, it stops high addicts thinking they're just one winning streak away from changing their lives... Professional bettors in some cases are just people who bet a lot and often, some of them may have decent resources to absorb losses, some won't. The difference between a sharp and your average professional bettor is that a sharp makes money regardless of whether they're incentivised to bet or not.

Nowadays with advanced analytics, live betting, and tighter lines, I wonder if sharps really have that much edge compared to before.

Extra edge over rest of people is not a permanent privilege you could enjoy for your life time. AI must be the another development for better analytics for everyone. Sharps may not remain sharp all the times, I am sure. Casual bettors as well will find better edge significantly with AI.

The reminds me of the idea that martingale always fails against an unlimited bankroll but no one's got an unlimited bankroll - even bookies (sure they'll likely limit you before you win in that case).

But if we apply this time the idea a bookmaker has to spend a lot making sure all of their stats are in their favour. It makes sense that programming an algorithm with a niche sport/bet may outpace bookmakers' odds too (although a lot of their niche markets have high margins - some I've seen as high as 25-30%+).