Inspekdah:
"Fade angles are often better than play on angles."
Exactly!
I've been advising this for years to new bettors but I think my words fall on deaf ears.
Let's look at it from a bettor and a trend POV.
For bettors, what do we know?
We know that most of them lose, estimates have it as high as 95%.
We know that most of them visit forums to find picks to tail, not to post their own picks.
And what do they always look for?
A winning bettor to tail.
The saying "needle in a haystack" comes to mind.
It's much easier to find someone steadily losing at a 46% rate or worse than it is to find someone winning at a 54% rate or better. (And this is even more difficult at most forums, where they let people post fake records. Again, glad I found CTG.)
For trends, here's my take on it.
If winning at sports betting was simply a matter of jumping on winning trends, more people would win.
Bettors see a guy on a run, let's say 13-2, and they're hot to jump on his next pick. But you know when the value on that guy was?
15 games ago.
A win percentage of 86% is unsustainable.
Odds favor reversion toward the mean.
Whenever I'm asked about jumping on streaks here's what I suggest: if you've already played a couple games and banked some money on it, ride the streak until it loses. But if you haven't been riding it don't jump on it.
I'm not saying it's always wrong to jump on a streak.
I never say my way is the right way or wrong way. I just say what I've seen from experience, and what works best for me.
Bettors sometimes have tunnel vision.
They're so invested in looking for that 10-5 guy that they miss the 5-10 guy who is just as valuable - you just fade him. It's the same W %.
In fact, when I'm running games through the 8-10 different methods I use for identifying a bet to make I prefer finding the 5-10 stat rather than the 10-5.
YES, the numbers are the same but I prefer to ride the Fade because it seems to me that winning streaks end sooner, but losing streaks can last longer (just ask the Chicago White Sox.)