Public money vs Sharp money: Can you really track it reliably?

[FadeThePublic]

I've been using betting percentages and line movement as a core part of my strategy for years now and I keep seeing people say it's all just noise or that you can't really distinguish sharp money from public money. So I wanted to start a discussion about this because I think there's a lot of misunderstanding.

Here's how I look at it. When you see a game where 75% of tickets are on Team A but the line is moving toward Team B, that's telling you something. The sportsbooks aren't stupid. They're not going to move the line in the direction that creates more liability unless sharp money is forcing them to. The public is hammering one side but the line is going the other way, which means bigger bets from more respected accounts are coming in on the opposite side.

I use Action Network mostly and sometimes Pregame for this data. The key is looking at ticket percentage vs money percentage. If 70% of tickets are on the favorite but only 55% of money is on the favorite, that tells you the sharp money is on the underdog because they're betting bigger amounts. Then if the line actually moves toward the underdog despite all those tickets on the favorite, you know for sure sharps are on the dog.

This has been legitimately profitable for me. I'm not saying it works 100% of the time but over a full season it absolutely creates an edge. The market inefficiency exists because books have to protect themselves from sharp action even if it means taking on more public liability.

Anyone else using this approach or am I crazy for thinking this matters?

 

[SharpEddie47]

This is one of those things that sounds good in theory but I'm skeptical it actually provides the edge people think it does. Let me explain why.

First of all, the data you're getting from these websites is incomplete. They're only showing you data from a handful of sportsbooks, not the entire market. Sharp money could be hitting offshore books or European books that aren't included in the Action Network data. So you're making decisions based on partial information and assuming it represents the whole market, which is a big assumption.

Second, the definition of "sharp money" is circular. How do these sites know which bets are sharp? They're inferring it from line movement and bet sizing, but that's exactly what you're trying to use the data to identify. You're essentially saying "I know sharp money is on this side because the line moved, and I know the line moved because sharp money is on this side." That's not analysis, that's circular reasoning.

Third, even if you could perfectly identify sharp money, that doesn't mean fading the public is automatically profitable. Sometimes the public is right. The Chiefs at minus 200 might have 80% of public tickets and guess what, they probably should because they're way better than their opponent. Blindly fading public money without considering the actual matchup is just contrarian gambling, not value betting.

I've been doing this for 20 years and I've seen dozens of "systems" based on public vs sharp money come and go. They work for a while, then they stop working, then someone repackages the same idea with a new name and it works for a while again. It's mostly variance and selection bias.

If you have actual tracked results over 500 plus bets showing this approach is profitable, I'd love to see it. But I suspect if you really dig into your data you'll find the edge is smaller than you think and might disappear entirely over a larger sample size.

Trust the process, not your gut.

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

I think there's something to what Fade is saying but Eddie's skepticism is healthy too. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

From my perspective as someone who watches a lot of film and focuses on matchups, I've noticed that sharp money tends to be right about specific types of games more than others. Like when there's a situational spot that the public isn't considering, that's when you'll see sharp money move the line and that's when it tends to be most reliable.

For example, a team coming off a short week playing a rested opponent. The public sees the brand name team and bets them anyway, but sharps recognize the disadvantage and bet the other side. In those cases the line movement does seem to be a reliable indicator. But in a straight up "Team A is better than Team B" game, I'm not sure the public vs sharp distinction matters as much.

I also think there's a difference between using this information as one factor in your decision versus using it as your entire strategy. If I like a matchup for coaching or schematic reasons and then I see that sharp money agrees with me, that gives me more confidence. But I wouldn't bet a game solely because the line moved in a certain direction.

The other thing is that books are getting smarter about this stuff. They know bettors are watching line movement now so they might be making moves that are more about managing their overall risk across multiple books rather than pure sharp action. It's an arms race and assuming you can just follow line movement to easy money seems too simple.

 

[ParlayPrincess_88]

Okay I'm probably going to sound dumb here but I've never really understood how you're supposed to use this information. Like I see on Twitter people posting "sharp money on the Packers" or whatever but how do they even know that? And even if it's true, sometimes those sharp bets lose anyway right?

I tried looking at Action Network a few times but it's so confusing with all the percentages and line movements. By the time I figure out what it's saying the game is already starting lol. Do you guys really check this stuff for every single bet you make?

I feel like this is one of those things that sounds really smart but maybe isn't actually that useful for someone like me who just bets on games I'm watching anyway. Like I'm not going to bet on a random Tuesday MACtion game just because sharp money moved the line. I'm still going to bet on the Chiefs on Sunday regardless of what some sharp bettor in Vegas is doing.

Maybe I'm missing out on an edge but it seems super complicated for not that much benefit? I could be wrong though, I usually am when it comes to this stuff lol.

 

[FadeThePublic]

@SharpEddie47 I hear your skepticism but I do actually have the tracked data I mentioned in my first post. Since Week 1 of this NFL season I've logged every bet that met my criteria which is 70% or more public tickets on one side with line movement going the opposite direction. That's 79 bets so far and I'm 48 and 31 for 60.8% win rate at an average of plus 138 odds. That's an 18.4% ROI.

Now you're right that this isn't 500 bets yet so maybe it's variance. I'll know more by end of season. But at some point you have to make decisions based on the best available information even if it's not perfect. And the best available information I have says this approach works.

On your point about incomplete data, yeah obviously I'm not seeing every book in the world. But Action Network pulls from enough major books that it's a reasonable sample. Are there sharps betting offshore that I can't see? Sure. But there are also sharps betting at the books I can see, and that data is useful even if it's not complete.

The circular reasoning argument doesn't really hold up either because I'm not just looking at line movement in isolation. I'm looking at the combination of ticket percentage, money percentage, and line movement all together. That's three independent data points that when they align in a certain way indicate sharp action. It's not circular, it's pattern recognition.

@CoachTony_Bets Yeah I agree it shouldn't be your only factor. I still look at the matchup and situational stuff too. But when multiple signals align, that's when I have the most confidence.

@ParlayPrincess_88 Don't feel dumb, this stuff is complicated at first. Honestly if you're just betting for entertainment on teams you follow, you probably don't need to worry about this. But if you want to actually be profitable you need every edge you can get and this is one of them.

 

[SharpEddie47]

Fade I actually respect that you have the data tracked. 79 bets at 60.8% is a good start but as you acknowledged it's not a large enough sample to be conclusive. The issue with small samples is that you can't distinguish between skill and luck. I've seen betting systems go 65% over 100 bets and then regress to 48% over the next 500 bets.

Here's my real concern with the public fade approach though. You're essentially betting that you can identify market inefficiency based on publicly available information that thousands of other bettors also have access to. If this edge was real and sustainable, wouldn't it get bet away by all the other people doing the same thing? That's how efficient markets work.

The only edges that persist long term are edges based on information or analysis that other people don't have. Things like proprietary models, unique data sources, or film analysis that reveals something the market hasn't priced in. Watching the same line movement that everyone else can see on Action Network isn't a sustainable edge because everyone else can fade the public too.

That said, I'll give you credit for actually tracking your results which is more than 95% of bettors do. If you keep this up through a full NFL season and multiple seasons across different sports and the edge persists, then you might have something. But I remain skeptical based on everything I've seen over two decades of betting.

The other issue is that even if this works in aggregate, individual bets still have variance. You could correctly identify sharp money and still lose the bet because that's just how sports work. So people using this approach need to understand they're going to have plenty of losses even when they're doing everything "right" according to the system.

Trust the process, not your gut.

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

Eddie makes a good point about efficient markets. If everyone knows that fading the public works, then eventually books will adjust their lines to account for that behavior and the edge disappears. It's like how weather used to be a big edge in football betting but now everyone knows cold weather helps the under so it's fully priced in.

I do think there's still some value in tracking this stuff though, especially for smaller market games where the books might not be as sharp. Like a random Tuesday night college basketball game between two mid majors probably has less sophisticated line setting than Sunday Night Football. So maybe the public vs sharp money distinction matters more in those spots.

The way I use line movement personally is more as a confirmation signal rather than a primary decision factor. If I've already done my homework on a game and identified a matchup edge, and then I see the line moving in my favor despite public money going the other way, that gives me confidence I'm not completely off base. But I wouldn't bet a game just because of line movement alone without understanding the actual matchup.

I think where people get in trouble is treating line movement like it's some kind of secret code that guarantees winners. It's just one more piece of information in a complex puzzle. Sometimes it's useful, sometimes it's not. You still need to do the actual work of handicapping the game.

 

[FadeThePublic]

@SharpEddie47 The efficient market argument is interesting but I'm not sure I buy it completely. Sports betting markets are not perfectly efficient like stock markets. There's still tons of emotional money, homer money, brand name bias, all kinds of inefficiencies. The public isn't some rational actor, they're betting on their favorite teams and chasing last week's winners.

And yeah everyone can see line movement on Action Network, but most people don't act on it. Most people still bet based on their gut or who they think will win, not based on analyzing market behavior. So even though the information is public, the edge persists because most people don't use it properly or at all.

I do take your point about needing a larger sample size though. I'll keep tracking this through the rest of the season and into next year. If it stops working I'll be the first to admit it. But right now based on everything I'm seeing, this approach has been profitable for me and I'm going to keep using it until the data tells me otherwise.

@CoachTony_Bets Yeah smaller market games are definitely where this works best. When there's a primetime NFL game with massive handle, the line is probably pretty efficient. But like you said, a Tuesday night college basketball game where 90% of the bets are coming from drunk college kids betting their school, that's where you can find real edges with line movement analysis.

The key is combining multiple factors like you said. Line movement plus situational analysis plus matchup evaluation. Any one of those alone might not be enough but all three together gives you a real edge. At least that's been my experience.

 

[ParlayPrincess_88]

This is all really interesting but I'm realizing I'm way out of my depth here lol. You guys are talking about efficient markets and proprietary models and I'm over here just trying to figure out if the Chiefs are going to cover the spread on Sunday.

I think for someone at my level it's probably better to just focus on the basics like bankroll management and not making emotional bets. Once I have that down maybe I can start looking at this more advanced stuff. But right now it honestly feels like trying to learn calculus when I haven't mastered basic algebra yet.

Do you guys think someone can be profitable without tracking all this line movement and public percentage stuff? Or is that basically required to have any edge at all?

 

[SharpEddie47]

Princess that's actually a really mature take. You're right that there's no point worrying about advanced market analysis if you haven't mastered the fundamentals yet.

To answer your question directly, yes you can be profitable without tracking line movement and public percentages. Plenty of successful bettors focus on things like injury analysis, matchup evaluation, situational spots, or even just having a model that's better than the market consensus. There are multiple paths to profitability.

The key is finding where your edge is. Some people have an edge in analyzing coaching matchups like Tony does. Some people have an edge in building statistical models. Some people claim to have an edge in reading market behavior like Fade does. The common thread is that they all track their results and can prove their edge exists over a large sample size.

For you right now, the priority should be tracking every single bet you make and calculating your ROI over time. Once you know whether you're actually profitable or not, then you can start thinking about what's working and what's not and where you might be able to improve. But you can't improve what you don't measure.

Forget about the advanced stuff for now. Just focus on making disciplined bets with proper unit sizing and tracking your results. If you can do that consistently for six months you'll be ahead of 90% of bettors.

Trust the process, not your gut.

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

Yeah Princess I agree with Eddie here. Don't get overwhelmed by the advanced stuff. I've been betting for 10 years and I barely look at line movement. My edge comes from understanding coaching and situational spots, not from tracking market behavior.

I think the real answer to your question about public vs sharp money is that it matters if you make it part of your process and you can prove it works for you specifically. But it's not some magic bullet that everyone needs to use. Different approaches work for different people.

The mistake would be thinking you need to do everything all at once. Pick one area where you think you can develop an edge, focus on that, track your results, and go from there. For Fade that's market analysis. For me that's coaching matchups. For Eddie that's data and models. You need to find what works for you.

And honestly most people never develop a real edge at all, they just bet for entertainment and that's fine too. Not everyone needs to be a professional bettor. But if you do want to be profitable long term, you need to pick a lane and get really good at it rather than trying to do a little bit of everything.

 

[StatManDave]

I've been using betting percentages and line movement as a core part of my strategy for years now and I keep seeing people say it's all just noise or that you can't really distinguish sharp money from public money. So I wanted to start a discussion about this because I think there's a lot of misunderstanding.

Here's how I look at it. When you see a game where 75% of tickets are on Team A but the line is moving toward Team B, that's telling you something. The sportsbooks aren't stupid. They're not going to move the line in the direction that creates more liability unless sharp money is forcing them to. The public is hammering one side but the line is going the other way, which means bigger bets from more respected accounts are coming in on the opposite side.

I use Action Network mostly and sometimes Pregame for this data. The key is looking at ticket percentage vs money percentage. If 70% of tickets are on the favorite but only 55% of money is on the favorite, that tells you the sharp money is on the underdog because they're betting bigger amounts. Then if the line actually moves toward the underdog despite all those tickets on the favorite, you know for sure sharps are on the dog.

This has been legitimately profitable for me. I'm not saying it works 100% of the time but over a full season it absolutely creates an edge. The market inefficiency exists because books have to protect themselves from sharp action even if it means taking on more public liability.

Anyone else using this approach or am I crazy for thinking this matters?

I wouldn’t call you crazy at all, mate — your logic is sound, and you’re describing one of the oldest sharp-vs-public tells in the market. The “reverse line movement” concept isn’t snake oil; it’s just often misunderstood and misapplied.

Here’s how I’d frame it from a numbers perspective:

1. Line movement ≠ always sharp money.
Books move lines for multiple reasons — not only to balance action but to manage exposure, follow market consensus, or even bait other books. Sometimes a move is just a herd effect triggered by a single syndicate’s early push.

2. Percentages from Action or Pregame are sample-limited.
They’re pulling from a few public books, not the full market. If DraftKings or BetMGM show 75% of tickets one way, that doesn’t necessarily represent the offshore or sharper Euro books.

3. True signal comes from timing of moves.
When a line shifts immediately after open or during low-volume windows, that’s usually sharper money. When it drifts late on Saturday/Sunday, it can just be public weight. Tracking timestamped data gives more insight than just comparing ticket vs money split.

That said, your approach can absolutely be profitable if you:

Track it over hundreds of samples;

Combine it with contextual filters (market size, day of week, total volume, injury timing);

Don’t overreact to 1-2% shifts in hold.

I’ve run similar datasets in the past and found a small, consistent ROI on sides showing strong reverse movement and volume imbalance. The edge isn’t massive — usually in the 1.5–3% range — but it’s real enough for disciplined bettors.

So, no, you’re not crazy. You’re just one of the few actually doing the work to verify the data.

If you’ve got season-long tracking on your end, I’d love to see a sample (even anonymized). Always keen to compare methodology rather than opinion.