Do public money really overcome sharp money?
 

Obviously there are too many people in between, but just for the sake of the argument lets divide the betting population in sharps and squares.

Does the fact that there are way too many squares really out weights the money placed by the sharps?

There are too many squares, but sharps (on average) bet way more than a square, sure there are some whales here and there, but I guess for every whale there are several sharps betting those huge amounts of money. And regular sharps bet way too much (and more often) than regular (casual) bettors.

What's your take on this? And how this affect (if some at all) your sports betting strategy?

Re: Do public money really overcome sharp money?
 

I'd also be curious about the expected win rate of squares. Is it 50/50 or do squares consistantly take the worst of it? I suppose that sharps can have the effect of making the worst side look better. Case in point is the Texas/OkSt game. Line opened at +3.5 OKst, and the sharp consensus is that OkSt is the side to bet. The line has moved to +2.5 OKSt. Squares seeing this are more likely to bet Texas - sometimes when they weren't even planning to bet the game. So, the presence of sharps makes squares lose more often.

David, I'm still baffled that I'm able to make a living off of poker. why? "There are too many squares, but sharps (on average) bet way more than a square, sure there are some whales here and there, but I guess for every whale there are several sharps betting those huge amounts of money. And regular sharps bet way too much (and more often) than regular (casual) bettors."

Re: Do public money really overcome sharp money?
 

[ QUOTE ]
David, I'm still baffled that I'm able to make a living off of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm also baffled that you make a living off poker [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Probably one of the big differences between the regular SB squares and the regular poker squares, it's the number of decisions they have to make, SB just make a few decisions per week where their -EV is pretty low, while the poker squares have to make hundreds of decisions, some of them with a pretty high -EV

Re: Do public money really overcome sharp money?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Case in point is the Texas/OkSt game. Line opened at +3.5 OKst, and the sharp consensus is that OkSt is the side to bet. The line has moved to +2.5 OKSt. Squares seeing this are more likely to bet Texas - sometimes when they weren't even planning to bet the game. So, the presence of sharps makes squares lose more often.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the other side of it is that the squares bet a line out of proportion to what it is, and take more losses than usual. Case being the Pitt @ Den game. It was the BSP play of the week, and the line went what, from 3.5 to 5? If fair value is 3.5, squares are all over 4, 4.5, and 5, so they're losing more than sharps who take the other side of the fair value line.

I'd guess squares do not win 50% of the time for those two reasons (yours and mine). Plus, how would Vegas make all that money if squares win 50% and sharps win 53%? (Obv vig is still EV+ there but you get the point.)

- C -

Re: Do public money really overcome sharp money?
 

Absolutely.

When you take into account that a large majority of bettors are square and combine that with limits, then it's going to be hard for any sportsbook that knows what they're doing to go under.

Re: Do public money really overcome sharp money?
 

betting limits are the key. The books are on your side.

Re: Do public money really overcome sharp money?
 

this is a very multi-layered question, but basically books do everything possible to avoid large sharp players, as they are likely a part of a syndicate or they're just shopping don best and making steam plays before the book has a chance to change the lines. only book that im aware of that doesn't shy away from syndicate action is pinnacle.

Re: Do public money really overcome sharp money?
 

Yes, it does. For some of the reasons already mentioned. 1. The sharps are getting better lines, the squares are getting the worst of the lines, so gives the books a win larger percentages of the time. 2. Just because someone is betting 20g's a game doesnt make them sharp, just as someone betting 800 a game isnt a sqaure. 3. You see games where the books allow 99% the spread and ML, they are allowing the squares, not the sharps. 4. They make money dont they?