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 -
|