Back when I first started gambling on sports (in high school), my lifelong best friend and I would look to see what the sports services were releasing for their plays. Back then we actually believed the services were good, and could help you profit on sports. It didn’t take too long to learn the folly of this way. What we liked to do is write down what every sports service was betting, and then bet the most popular play among those services. So, if 10 services had the Eagles and 1 had the Patriots, of course the Eagles must be a lock since everyone was picking them. Not so much! After losing at an inordinate rate, we realized the better route was to actually bet the side with the “1” service on it versus the side with the “10” services on it. In the end, the side of the wager not showing the heavy service interest ended up becoming a decent bet.
The angle is volatile, and it took my friend & I some tweaking of parameters to find how to locate the true consensus gems to fade, but it was something we would spend our Saturday & Sunday mornings doing. Today, thanks to technology, robots could handle all this work of scouring the Internet, tracking who is betting what, and then reporting those bets seeing lopsided service/handicapper attention. While I have not used this strategy in years, I would expect it to still yield profits from fading.
The table below show the wager(s) that large numbers of services are on…with few, if any, services on the other side. What shows on the table, in theory, is the bet you would want to fade. So, if you see Tampa is playing New England and Tampa is showing up on the table with a reading of 78, that means the services are heavy to Tampa. So, theoretically you would want to fade Tampa and bet New England since all the services are showing heavy interest on Tampa.
I am initially programming the table so the cutoff to “qualify” as a consensus fade would be 75 and higher. Essentially, this content plays on the “fade the public”, the “book always wins” and “if it is too good to be true, it probably is” theories.