Betting 'Plus Money' Underdogs vs 'Laying Juice' on Favorites: What's your approach?

[SharpEddie47]

This is a question that separates casual bettors from serious ones. Let me break down the math that most people ignore.

The Underdog Bias Myth:
A lot of bettors think betting underdogs is automatically "smart" because you get plus money. Wrong. The market is efficient. If a team is +150, there's a reason. The real question is: are you getting VALUE at those odds?

When I bet underdogs (+money):

• The market has overreacted to recent performance (recency bias)
• Public is heavily on the favorite (70%+ on one side)
• I'm getting +EV based on my own probability assessment
• Key injuries favor the dog more than the line suggests

When I lay juice on favorites:

• Clear talent/matchup advantage that justifies the price
• I'm getting -105 to -115 (reasonable juice)
• Situational spot favors the favorite (revenge game, rest advantage)

Here's what matters: Your break-even percentage.

• Betting -110: Need to win 52.38% to break even
• Betting -150: Need to win 60% to break even
• Betting +130: Need to win 43.48% to break even

I track this religiously. Over my last 1,000 bets:

• Favorites (-110 to -140): 58.2% win rate, +6.4% ROI
• Underdogs (+110 to +180): 44.1% win rate, +3.8% ROI
• Heavy favorites (-200+): 71.2% win rate, -2.1% ROI (avoid these)

The key: I don't have a "preference" for dogs or favorites. I have a preference for VALUE. Sometimes that's a +165 dog, sometimes it's a -125 favorite.

If you're blindly betting underdogs because "plus money is better," you're going to lose. If you're blindly laying -150 on every favorite because "they should win," you're also going to lose.

Trust the process, not your gut.

 

[ParlayPrincess_88]

Okay so I LOVE betting underdogs because when they hit it feels SO good!

Like last week I had the Broncos at +180 and they won straight up. Turned $50 into $140! Way better than betting favorites where you risk $150 to win $100 right?

I know Eddie's gonna come at me with math lol but here's my thing - betting favorites is BORING. You're risking so much more money to win less. And when they lose (which happens!) you lose big.

With underdogs you can lose 3 times and then hit ONE and you're basically back to even or even up money. That's way less stressful than laying juice where you HAVE to hit like 60% just to break even.

Plus there's something about rooting for the underdog that makes games more fun to watch. When you bet the Chiefs at -300 it's like... okay they should win anyway? But when you have a +200 dog and they're actually competing it's SO exciting

My strategy is pretty simple:

• Look for dogs between +120 and +200 (sweet spot)
• Make sure they're playing at home or it's a divisional game
• Check if the favorite is on a back-to-back or traveling far
• Bet like $25-40 per game

I'm definitely up overall doing this! Well... I think I am. I don't track it super closely but I've hit some BANGERS on underdogs this season

Am I crazy for thinking plus money is just better value??

 

[FadeThePublic]

Here's what nobody wants to hear: The public LOVES betting favorites, which is exactly why I focus on underdogs.

Look at the betting percentages on any given Sunday. You'll see games where 75-80% of tickets are on the favorite. And what happens? The line doesn't move, or it moves TOWARD the dog. That's reverse line movement - sharp money is on the underdog.

Why the public loves favorites:

• Feels "safer" (it's not)
• Easier to justify ("they're the better team")
• Influenced by brand names and star players
• Scared of losing to "bad teams"

Why I love underdogs:

• Books shade lines toward favorites to attract more public money
• You're getting inflated value on the dog side
• One underdog hit covers multiple favorite losses
• The market inefficiency is built-in

That said, I'm not blindly betting every dog. I'm betting dogs where:

1. Public is heavily on the favorite (70%+ tickets)
2. Line movement shows sharp money on the dog
3. Situational spot favors the underdog (lookahead, division game, playoff implications)

Example from last weekend:
Browns +7 vs Ravens. 78% of public on Ravens. Line opened Ravens -6.5, moved to -7. Sharp money clearly on Browns despite public hammering Ravens. Browns covered easily (lost by 3).

My record on dogs with 70%+ public on the favorite: 48-31 (60.8%) this season. That's literally printing money because I'm getting +130 average odds on these.

Meanwhile, I lay juice on favorites maybe 15% of the time - only when the public has GIVEN UP on a good team and the line is too soft.

RIP to anyone paying -150 to win $100 on "sure things" that hit 65% of the time. Math says you're broke.

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

I think there's truth in what everyone's saying here, but you're all missing the most important part: context and situational matchups matter more than the price.

As a coach, I can tell you that some favorites are worth laying juice on, and some underdogs are legitimately bad. The price doesn't tell you the full story.

When I lay juice on favorites:

1. Coaching Matchup Advantage
If Andy Reid is coaching against a first-year head coach, I don't care if it's -180. The experience gap matters, especially in situational playcalling (red zone, two-minute drill, adjustments).

2. Schematic Mismatch
Some teams just can't defend certain offensive schemes. If I see a team with poor gap discipline facing a power running team, that favorite is worth the juice.

3. Motivation/Desperation Spot
Playoff implications matter. A team fighting for playoff position at -140 vs a team that's eliminated? I'll lay the juice.

When I bet underdogs:

1. Lookahead Spot
If the favorite is playing next week's opponent while preparing for this week, the underdog has a massive focus advantage.

2. Stylistic Advantage
Maybe the dog is a running team facing a defense that can't stop the run. Doesn't matter if they're +160 - the matchup favors them.

3. Rest/Travel Disadvantage for Favorite
East coast team traveling west for a noon game? That's worth backing the dog.

My actual approach:
I don't have a bias toward dogs or favorites. I have about a 55/45 split favoring underdogs, but that's because situational spots tend to favor underdogs more often than favorites.

Here's my rule: If I wouldn't bet this team at -110, I'm not betting them at -150. The price matters, but the matchup matters MORE.

Eddie's right about tracking break-even percentages. Princess, you need to actually track your bets - "I think I'm up" isn't good enough. Fade makes good points about public action, but sometimes the public is right (see: Chiefs -200 in most games).

The question isn't "dogs or favorites?" - it's "where's the matchup advantage and am I getting fair value?"

 

[SharpEddie47]

@ParlayPrincess_88 "You can lose 3 times and then hit ONE and you're back to even" - this is exactly the kind of flawed logic that costs people money.

Let's do the actual math since you won't:

• Lose 3 bets at $50 each = -$150
• Win 1 bet at +180 ($50 to win $90) = +$90
• Net result: -$60

You're not "basically even" - you're down $60. And that's if you hit 25% of your bets. Most underdogs at +180 are that price because they win LESS than 25% of the time.

To break even at +180 odds, you need to win 35.7% of your bets. If you're winning 25%, you're losing money. If you're winning 30%, you're still losing money.

This is why tracking matters. You "think" you're up because you remember the wins and forget the losses. Recency bias is expensive.

@FadeThePublic Your contrarian approach has merit, but correlation doesn't equal causation. Yes, sometimes heavy public favorites lose - but they also win at a rate that makes them profitable. You're cherry-picking wins.

Show me your tracked results over 500+ bets with verified timestamps, and then we can discuss whether your method actually works or if you've just hit a positive variance streak.

@CoachTony_Bets We agree on the core principle: value matters more than the price format. But I'd push back on "coaching matchup advantage" at -180. That's priced in. The market knows Reid is elite. You're not getting an edge - you're paying premium price for information everyone has.

The bottom line: Most bettors have no idea what their win rate actually is by odds category. They're guessing. Pull your data and calculate:

1. Win rate on favorites (-110 to -150)
2. Win rate on underdogs (+110 to +200)
3. ROI for each category

THEN make a strategy. Until then, you're gambling blind.

Trust the process, not your gut.

 

[ParlayPrincess_88]

@SharpEddie47 Okay okay you got me on the math I definitely wasn't calculating it right.

But like... I DO hit more than 25% on my underdog bets! At least it feels like I do. You're probably right that I should actually track it though.

Question: if I download one of those bet tracking apps would that be good enough? Or do you really need a full spreadsheet like you do?

Also @CoachTony_Bets that's a really good point about the matchup mattering more than the price. I never really thought about it that way. Like maybe I should look at WHY a team is an underdog instead of just seeing "+180" and getting excited lol.

I'm gonna try something new - I'll track my underdog bets for the rest of the NFL season and see what my actual win rate is. If I'm really at like 25-30% then yeah I need to change what I'm doing.

But I still think underdogs are more fun! Even if the math says favorites might be better.

 

[FadeThePublic]

@SharpEddie47 Fair point on verified tracking. I actually do track everything in a Google Sheet (not as detailed as yours but it's something).

Here's my real data since Week 1 this NFL season:

• Underdog bets (with 70%+ public on favorite): 48-31 (60.8% as I said)
• Average odds: +138
• ROI: +18.4%

Those aren't cherry-picked - that's every single bet that met my criteria. The reason it works isn't luck, it's market inefficiency created by public overreaction.

But you're right that I should track longer term. This could be variance. I'll revisit at end of season.

@CoachTony_Bets I respect the coaching analysis angle, but here's my question: if coaching matchups were that predictable, why would the books offer -180? They'd offer -300. The fact that it's -180 means the market thinks there's a 64% chance of winning, not 80%.

So either:

1. The market is wrong (unlikely)
2. The coaching advantage isn't as clear as you think
3. Other factors offset the coaching edge

I'd bet on #2 or #3.

Here's what I know: When I see a game with heavy public % on a favorite and the line doesn't move toward that favorite, sharp money is on the dog. That's not theory - that's observable reality. And it's been profitable for me.

Maybe we're all right in different ways? Eddie finds value in math/models, Tony finds it in matchups, I find it in market behavior. As long as we're all making +EV bets, we'll all profit.

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

@SharpEddie47 You make a fair point about coaching advantages being priced in. I'm probably overvaluing my "edge" there. But I still think there are spots where the market undervalues coaching - specifically in-game adjustments and situational playcalling.

Example: Last season, Doug Pederson vs Matt Eberflus. Pederson is miles ahead in red zone playcalling and two-minute situations. When I saw Jaguars -140 against the Bears in a game that profiled as close, I laid the juice specifically because I trusted Pederson to win the key moments.

Is that priced in? Maybe. But I hit those bets at 64% over a full season. Not huge sample size, but enough to suggest there's something there.

@FadeThePublic 18.4% ROI is fantastic if it holds up. I think you're onto something with the public fade strategy - my concern is just that it might be harder to scale. Once you're betting $500 per game instead of $50, will the books limit you? Serious question.

@ParlayPrincess_88 Yes! Download a tracking app (Action Network is decent) and start tracking EVERY bet. You might be surprised. And honestly, if you find out you're hitting 40% on underdogs at +150 average odds, you're profitable! The math would actually work.

Here's what I think we're all agreeing on:
There's no universal "dogs are better" or "favorites are better" answer. It depends on your methodology, what you're looking for, and most importantly - what your ACTUAL results show, not what you think they are.

Track everything. Calculate your ROI by bet type. Then double down on what works for YOU.

 

[SharpEddie47]

@FadeThePublic 18.4% ROI over 79 bets is impressive, but let's be honest - that's not statistically significant yet. You need 200+ bets minimum to know if this is skill or variance. Keep tracking and let's revisit in February.

That said, IF your method holds up over a full season (or multiple seasons), then you've found a legitimate edge. The contrarian approach CAN work - I'm just skeptical of small sample sizes because I've seen too many "systems" fall apart after 150 bets.

@CoachTony_Bets Your coaching matchup angle is interesting. I'd love to see your tracked results on "coaching edge" bets specifically. If you're truly at 64% on favorites where you identify a coaching advantage, that's +EV at typical -140 pricing.

My only caution: make sure you're not retrofitting your analysis. It's easy to say "I knew Pederson would outcoach him" after the game. Did you bet it before? That's the question.

@ParlayPrincess_88 Good for you for being willing to track. Most people get defensive when challenged. You're actually open to learning, which is rare.

Here's my final take on this topic:

Favorites vs underdogs is the wrong question. The right question is: "Am I consistently finding +EV bets regardless of the odds format?"

If your edge is in underdogs, bet underdogs. If your edge is in favorites, bet favorites. If your edge is in totals, bet totals. The market doesn't care about your preference - it only cares about long-term profitability.

I bet whatever offers value. Sometimes that's a -130 favorite, sometimes it's a +175 dog. The common thread? I've done the work to identify spots where my assessment differs from the market's, and I have historical data proving my edge.

Most bettors pick a "style" first and then justify it. That's backwards. Let the data tell you where your edge is.

Trust the process, not your gut.