Re: Pvcpipe's Contrarian System Plays
MGM,
Unfortunately, this system is pretty mathmatically arbitrary at this point. I would love to use a higher sample such as 2000, and while this is possible for something like NFL, it isn't for college basketball. For example, only about 700 have picked a side on tonite's Duke/Holy Cross match-up at this time, but it will be about a thousand by tip-off. Because the lines are released only 24 hours in advance in CBB, a sample of 1000 is the most practical to use.
The percentage consensus is also fairly abitrary, and I plan on adjusting it as time goes along. I use 75% for favorites, because 750/250 is a substantial split. And while virtually all games have a higher % on the favorites, I wanted to narrow the "favorite fades" down to those few that the public overwhelmingly likes. Thus, the 75% figure. I use a much smaller figure, 55%, for the "dog fades," because it is so rare that the public majority favors an underdog. Even a small majority on an underdog is pause for thought. My theory on the "dog fade" is that most books get rich off squares betting into favorites. Most (not all, of course) of these same squares bet the occasional dog that appears to be appealing. (e.g. Ravens +3 at Cinci last Thurs.). The square bettor will still lose, though he thinks there's nothing square about taking points.
Moreover, Vegas is going to get theirs. Whether it's by the public betting into the favorite, or by hanging a deceptively appealing line on a dog. And while I'm familiar with the concept of vegas wanting "even money" on both sides, I staunchly believe that Joe Random will lose year in and year out on sports betting. This system is a way to bet with the house, and against the average player, by identifying the bets that a square player would be most likely to make.
