Why the Public Always Overbets Favorites

[FadeThePublic]

Here's a fact that will never change: the public loves betting favorites.

I pulled data from Action Network for the last NFL season. Games where the favorite got 70%+ of public tickets? The underdog covered 58.7% of the time. That's a massive edge.

Why does this keep happening? Because casual bettors think betting favorites is "safer." They'd rather risk $150 to win $100 on what feels like a sure thing than take +140 on a "bad team." It's backwards thinking and it's been consistent for decades.

The books know this. They shade lines toward favorites because they know the public will eat it up. Meanwhile, sharp money quietly takes the dog, waits for the line to move even further, then loads up more.

If you're still betting favorites at -150 or worse, you're literally funding my bankroll. So thanks for that.

 

[ParlayPrincess_88]

Okay but like... what if the favorite is actually better though?

I bet on the Chiefs pretty much every week and they WIN. Yeah sometimes I'm laying -200 or whatever but they're literally the best team in the league. Why would I bet on some terrible team just because they're getting points?

Like last week everyone was on the Jaguars +7.5 because "public overbetting the favorite" and the Chiefs won by 21. So the public was actually RIGHT.

I feel like you contrarian people just assume the favorite is always overpriced but sometimes teams are favorites for a reason lol. Not everyone who bets favorites is a "casual bettor" who doesn't know what they're doing.

 

[SharpEddie47]

Okay but like... what if the favorite is actually better though?

I bet on the Chiefs pretty much every week and they WIN. Yeah sometimes I'm laying -200 or whatever but they're literally the best team in the league. Why would I bet on some terrible team just because they're getting points?

Like last week everyone was on the Jaguars +7.5 because "public overbetting the favorite" and the Chiefs won by 21. So the public was actually RIGHT.

I feel like you contrarian people just assume the favorite is always overpriced but sometimes teams are favorites for a reason lol. Not everyone who bets favorites is a "casual bettor" who doesn't know what they're doing.

Princess I'm going to explain this as clearly as I can.

The question isn't whether favorites win. They do win. That's why they're favorites. The question is whether they win at a rate that justifies the price you're paying.

Let's use actual math. If you're betting Chiefs at -200, you need them to win 66.7% of the time just to break even. Not to profit - just to break even. Are the Chiefs ACTUALLY 66.7% likely to win that game? Or are they 60% likely, but the line is -200 because the public loves them?

That 6.7% difference is the edge. That's what Fade is talking about.

When you bet a favorite at -200, you're getting 2-to-1 odds. You risk $200 to win $100. If the true probability is 60%, not 67%, you're making a -EV bet even though the team might win.

Over 100 bets at -200 with a true 60% win rate:

• You win 60 times: +$6,000
• You lose 40 times: -$8,000
• Net result: -$2,000

You lost money even though you won 60% of your bets. That's why blindly betting favorites is a losing strategy.

Now, if you can identify spots where the favorite is ACTUALLY 70% likely to win but priced at -200, then yes, bet the favorite. But that requires analysis, not just "Chiefs are good so I bet them."

 

[ThePuntingProf]

Eddie has explained this correctly from a mathematical perspective though I would add that the phenomenon of public overvaluation of favourites is even more pronounced in British football markets than in American sports and I have extensive data to support this claim, when I first began serious punting in the 1990s I noticed that accumulator bets which are enormously popular in Britain and involve combining multiple favourites into one wager consistently failed at rates higher than probability would suggest and after analyzing thousands of such bets I discovered that the bookmakers were systematically overpricing favourites specifically because they knew the public would bet them anyway, the Poisson distribution allows one to calculate the true probability of various outcomes in football matches and when I compare those calculated probabilities to the actual odds offered by bookmakers I consistently find that favourites are overpriced by anywhere from four to eight percent while underdogs are underpriced by similar margins, this is not coincidence or variance this is deliberate market manipulation based on public betting patterns that have remained consistent for decades, I have built my entire betting approach around exploiting this inefficiency through careful selection of value positions rather than simply backing teams I believe will win, Margaret used to joke that I would bet against Arsenal our favorite club if the value was there and she was absolutely right I would and I did on numerous occasions because value matters infinitely more than allegiance or subjective belief about which team is better, the fundamental error that casual punters make is confusing probability of winning with value of the bet and these are entirely separate concepts that must be understood independently.

 

[DublinDegen]

lads ill be honest i bet favorites all the time and yeah i know its probably wrong but like when youre watching a match and youve got liverpool at home against some relegation team

and theyre 1.40 odds it just FEELS like free money you know like obviously liverpool are gonna win theyre at anfield the other teams shite how could they possibly lose and then you put 200 quid on it and liverpool go up 1-0 in the first ten minutes and youre feeling great and thinking easy money and then some bullshit happens

and it ends 1-1 and you lose 200 quid and you want to throw your phone through the wall but then the NEXT time the exact same situation comes up you do it again because this time its DEFINITELY gonna hit...

i know im proving your point Fade im part of the problem but i cant help it favorites just feel safer even when i know mathematically theyre probably not...

 

[GlasgowGrinder]

Public overbets favorites because public are sheep.

The facts:

Average recreational bettor loses 5-7% of total money wagered.

This is documented across all major bookmakers.

Where does that money go?

To the bookmakers and to the small percentage of sharp bettors.

Why favorites specifically:

1. Feels safer to bet "good team"
2. Requires less analysis (just bet the name you recognize)
3. Media narratives support favorites (TV analysts always pick chalk)
4. Loss aversion makes people risk more to win less

My data from Scottish Premiership:

Tracked 847 matches where favorite received 65%+ of public money.

Results:

• Favorites won 63.2% straight up
• Favorites covered spread 47.1% of time
• Underdogs covered 52.9% of time

Translation:

Betting underdogs in heavy public favorite games = profitable system.

Betting favorites = losing proposition.

Why this persists:

Public has short memory.

They remember the favorites that won.

They forget the favorites that lost.

They never track actual results.

Recommendation:

If more than 65% of public on favorite, automatic fade.

Simple system, consistent profits.

 

[TaffyTipster]

Right I'm gonna push back on this a bit yeah.

Because you're all acting like betting favorites is ALWAYS wrong.

And that's bollocks.

I bet favorites on the exchange all the time.

The difference is I'm BACKING them at decent odds not laying money on them at shite prices.

Like if Wales are playing Italy in rugby.

Public's gonna hammer Wales.

Price drops from 1.50 to 1.35.

That's a bad bet I agree.

But here's the thing.

If I laid Wales at 1.50 BEFORE the public money came in.

Then I can trade out when it hits 1.35.

Or if I backed them at 1.50 and they're actually worth 1.40.

That's value innit.

The problem isn't favorites.

The problem is paying too much for favorites.

Big difference there mate.

Also @GlasgowGrinder your data is from Scottish Premiership.

That's not exactly the Premier League is it.

Celtic and Rangers probably account for most of those "heavy favorite" situations.

And yeah they probably are overpriced because everyone in Scotland bets on the Old Firm.

But that doesn't mean the same thing applies to every league everywhere.

Context matters.

 

[FadeThePublic]

Right I'm gonna push back on this a bit yeah.

Because you're all acting like betting favorites is ALWAYS wrong.

And that's bollocks.

I bet favorites on the exchange all the time.

The difference is I'm BACKING them at decent odds not laying money on them at shite prices.

Like if Wales are playing Italy in rugby.

Public's gonna hammer Wales.

Price drops from 1.50 to 1.35.

That's a bad bet I agree.

But here's the thing.

If I laid Wales at 1.50 BEFORE the public money came in.

Then I can trade out when it hits 1.35.

Or if I backed them at 1.50 and they're actually worth 1.40.

That's value innit.

The problem isn't favorites.

The problem is paying too much for favorites.

Big difference there mate.

Also @GlasgowGrinder your data is from Scottish Premiership.

That's not exactly the Premier League is it.

Celtic and Rangers probably account for most of those "heavy favorite" situations.

And yeah they probably are overpriced because everyone in Scotland bets on the Old Firm.

But that doesn't mean the same thing applies to every league everywhere.

Context matters.

Taffy you're talking about exchange trading which is completely different from what I'm describing.

Princess isn't trading out when the line moves. She's betting Chiefs -200 and hoping they win. That's not the same thing.

And yes, context matters, but the psychology is universal. Humans are loss-averse. They'd rather risk $200 to win $100 on what feels safe than risk $100 to win $150 on what feels risky.

This has been proven in behavioral economics studies that have nothing to do with sports betting. It's Daniel Kahneman shit. Prospect theory. People overvalue certainty and undervalue probability.

The books exploit this by shading lines toward favorites. They KNOW the public will pay -150 when the true line is -130. That 20 cents of juice is pure profit from psychological bias.

Conor just admitted it himself - favorites "feel safer" even when he knows mathematically they're not. That feeling is what the books are selling. And people like Princess keep buying it.

 

[ParlayPrincess_88]

Okay wow you guys are really coming at me here lol.

First of all I'm not stupid. I know the Chiefs don't win EVERY game. But they win most games. And yeah maybe I'm paying a bit extra because they're popular but like... they're GOOD. They have Mahomes. They have Andy Reid. They're literally defending Super Bowl champions.

Are you telling me I should bet on the Panthers +200 instead just because the "sharps" are on them?? Because the Panthers suck! They're terrible! Yeah maybe the line is "inefficient" or whatever but I'd rather bet on a good team at a bad price than a bad team at a good price.

Also Eddie your math assumes I'm betting random favorites all the time. I'm betting on teams I actually KNOW are good. That's different than just blindly betting chalk.

And Fade calling me part of the problem is pretty rude honestly. I'm just trying to have fun and win some money. Not everyone needs to be a professional sharp bettor who spends 4 hours analyzing line movement.

 

[SharpEddie47]

Princess, nobody's calling you stupid. But you're demonstrating exactly why the public loses money on favorites.

You just said: "I'd rather bet on a good team at a bad price than a bad team at a good price."

That sentence right there is why you'll never be a winning bettor. The PRICE is what matters. The team quality is already baked into the price. That's what the odds represent.

When you say "the Panthers suck" - yes, everyone knows that. That's why they're +200. The question is: do they suck SO MUCH that they can't cover +6.5? Because that's a very different question than "will they win?"

You're conflating team quality with betting value. These are completely separate concepts.

A "good team at a bad price" is a losing bet.A "bad team at a good price" is a winning bet.

This isn't opinion. This is mathematics. This is how professional bettors think. This is why they win and why casual bettors lose.

I'm not trying to be harsh. I'm trying to help you understand that the approach you're using - betting teams you like regardless of price - is guaranteed to lose money over time. Not because the Chiefs are bad, but because you're paying too much for them.

 

[cyberink]

I think the reason this never changes isn’t that people don’t understand the math. It’s that betting isn’t a spreadsheet activity for most of the public, it’s an emotional one.

Favorites feel safer not because they actually are, but because they reduce psychological pain. Losing with a big favorite feels unlucky. Losing with an underdog feels stupid. Most people would rather be unlucky than feel stupid.

There’s also the viewing experience factor. Watching a game when you’ve backed the better team is just more comfortable. You’re rooting for the team that’s supposed to win, the commentators are on your side, and every dangerous moment for the underdog feels like noise instead of real danger. That comfort has value to recreational bettors, even if it’s negative EV.

That’s why the public keeps laying -150, -200, -300 and why books will always shade those lines. Even when people know favorites are overpriced, the emotional payoff of betting them outweighs the long-term cost in their minds.

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

I think we need to separate a few different concepts here that are getting mixed together.

Concept 1: Do favorites win more often than underdogs? Yes. Obviously. That's why they're favorites.

Concept 2: Are favorites always overpriced?No. Sometimes favorites are actually underpriced, especially in niche markets or when the public is on the underdog for narrative reasons.

Concept 3: Is betting favorites without considering price a losing strategy? Yes. This is what Eddie and Fade are trying to explain.

Princess, here's how I'd frame it from a coaching perspective. If I told you "this play works 70% of the time" - would you run it every single time? No, because the defense will adjust. You run it when the defense isn't expecting it and when the matchup favors you.

Same with betting favorites. Sometimes the matchup favors the favorite AND the price is good. That's when you bet them. But if you're betting them just because "they're good" without considering whether the price makes sense, you're running the same play over and over regardless of the defense.

Fade's right that the public overbets favorites. But Taffy's also right that context matters and not every favorite is overpriced.

The key is learning to identify which situations actually offer value, not just assuming favorites = bad or underdogs = good.

 

[oli_sussex]

@ParlayPrincess_88 's logic is exactly why recreational bettors lose.

"Good team at bad price" is worse than "bad team at good price." Price determines expectation, not team quality.

Pinnacle closes Chiefs at -175, Princess bets them at -200. She loses 25 cents of value every bet regardless of outcome.

 

[ThePuntingProf]

I must say that Princess has inadvertently provided a perfect case study in the cognitive biases that lead to systematic overvaluation of favorites and her statement that she would rather bet a good team at a bad price than a bad team at a good price reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what betting actually is which is not a prediction contest about which team is better but rather a mathematical assessment of whether the odds offered represent value relative to true probability, this is precisely the error that keeps bookmakers profitable and recreational punters unprofitable, when one bets on a sports match one is not actually betting on the outcome one is betting on whether the odds represent positive expected value and this distinction is absolutely critical, let me provide a concrete example, suppose Manchester City are playing a Championship side in the FA Cup and City are priced at 1.20 odds which implies a 83.3% probability of winning, now City are obviously the superior team and will very likely win the match perhaps they have a true 85% chance of winning but if you bet them at 1.20 odds when their true probability is 85% you are making a negative expected value bet even though you will win most of the time, over 100 such bets you would win 85 times gaining seventeen pounds and lose 15 times losing fifteen pounds for a net profit of two pounds or a 2% return but if instead you could identify bets where the true probability is 85% but the odds are 1.25 you would gain twenty-one pounds and twenty-five pence for a net profit of six pounds and twenty-five pence or 6.25% return, that difference of 4.25% compounded over thousands of bets is the difference between recreational punters who lose and professional punters who win, and this is why the public systematically loses money on favorites because they pay premium prices for outcomes that everyone already knows are likely which is the very definition of negative value betting.

 

[DublinDegen]

lads i hate that the Prof is right because his posts give me a headache to read but hes absolutely right like i KNOW im doing the same thing Princess is doing where i bet on the team i think will win without caring about the price

and i KNOW its costing me money and i still keep doing it because betting the underdog just feels WRONG like my brain is telling me "dublin are gonna smash this team why would you bet against them" even though dublin are 1.30 odds and probably not worth it

but i bet them anyway because i cant help myself and then when they only win by 2 points and dont cover i feel like an eejit but next match same thing happens its like groundhog day except im losing money...

Princess youre not stupid but you ARE making the same mistake everyone makes including me which is betting with your heart instead of your head and thats why people like Eddie and Fade make money off people like us...

 

[GlasgowGrinder]

This thread proves my point perfectly.

Public bettor logic:

"Team is good therefore bet them."

Sharp bettor logic:

"Odds represent value therefore bet them."

Results speak:

Public bettors: -5 to -7% ROISharp bettors: +3 to +8% ROI

The math is simple:

If you consistently pay retail price for favorites, you lose.

If you consistently buy value regardless of favorite/underdog, you win.

Princess specifically:

You say you bet Chiefs every week.

Let us assume Chiefs win 75% of games this season.

Excellent team.

You bet them at average price of -180.

You need 64.3% win rate to break even.

You have 75% win rate.

Seems profitable.

However:

• 16 wins × $100 profit = $1,600 gained
• 5 losses × $180 stake = $900 lost
• Net: +$700 on $3,780 wagered
• ROI: +18.5%

Seems good. But:

What if sharps betting market-priced Chiefs at -150?

• 16 wins × $100 profit = $1,600 gained
• 5 losses × $150 stake = $750 lost
• Net: +$850 on $3,150 wagered
• ROI: +27.0%

Difference:

You made $150 less than sharp bettor on same team.

Over 100 bets per year, that is $1,500 lost to bad pricing.

Conclusion:

You are correct that Chiefs are good.

You are incorrect that price does not matter.

Price always matters.

 

[TaffyTipster]

@GlasgowGrinder that's actually a really good breakdown mate.

Fair play.

I think that's the key thing Princess needs to understand yeah.

It's not that betting favorites is always wrong.

It's that betting favorites at ANY price is wrong.

Like I bet Wales in rugby all the time.

But I wait for the right price.

If Wales are 1.50 and I think they should be 1.45.

No bet.

If Wales drift to 1.60 because public's on the other team.

Now we're talking.

Same team, different price, completely different bet.

That's the whole game innit.

Finding spots where the price is wrong.

Doesn't matter if it's favorite or underdog.

Just matters if you're getting value.

 

[FadeThePublic]

Exactly.

And here's the thing Princess won't admit: she's not actually analyzing whether Chiefs at -200 represents value. She's just betting them because she likes them.

That's not a betting strategy. That's fandom with a dollar sign attached.

If she actually tracked her bets - date, odds, stake, result - and calculated her ROI, I'd bet money (see what I did there) that she's either break-even or slightly negative.

But she won't track them. Because tracking would force her to confront the reality that betting favorites at any price doesn't work.

The public overbets favorites because betting favorites FEELS smart. It feels like you're making the "safe" choice. But safe and profitable are not the same thing.

Ask any professional bettor who's been doing this for 10+ years. They'll all tell you the same thing: price matters more than anything else.

 

[ParlayPrincess_88]

You know what, you guys are actually kind of changing my mind here.

I still think some of you are being jerks about it lol but like... Andy's breakdown with the actual numbers makes sense. And Taffy explaining about waiting for the right price on Wales makes sense too.

I guess I never really thought about it like that? Like I just assumed if the Chiefs are good and they're gonna win, then betting on them is smart. But Eddie's right that the odds already reflect that they're good.

I'm not gonna become some super sharp bettor overnight or whatever. And I'm still gonna bet on the Chiefs sometimes because they're my team and it makes watching more fun.

But maybe I should start actually checking if -200 is a good price instead of just auto-betting them every week.

Also I looked back at my DraftKings history and... yeah I'm basically break-even on Chiefs bets this year. Which I guess proves your point that even when the team is really good, if you're paying too much it doesn't matter.

Ugh I hate when the math people are right

 

[SharpEddie47]

Princess, that's genuine growth right there and I respect you for being open to changing your mind.

Most recreational bettors never get to that point. They keep doing the same thing and wondering why they're not winning.

You don't have to become a math wizard or track 1,000 variables. Just start with this:

Before you bet any favorite, ask yourself: "Would sharp bettors bet this team at this price?"

If you can't answer that question, don't bet. Do more research or pass on the game.

And yes, you can still bet on teams you like for entertainment. Nothing wrong with that. Just be honest about whether it's an entertainment bet or a +EV bet. Budget accordingly.