Why Everyone Bets Overs (And Why Books Love It)

[SharpEddie47]

I was looking through some closing line data from the last three years of NFL and NBA action, and the trend is still staggering. On average, the "Over" receives about 62/65% of the public betting volume, yet the "Under" actually covers at a slightly higher clip when you look at the long-term closing line value.

It’s the oldest trap in sports betting, but why do we keep falling for it? From a psychological standpoint, human beings are wired to want to see scoring. We want to see the 50-yard bomb or the Steph Curry heater from the logo. Betting an Under feels like rooting for a funeral / you’re basically sitting there for three hours hoping for failure, dropped passes, and missed shots.

The books know this. They shade the lines. If a "fair" total should be 47, they’ll open at 47.5 or 48 because they know the public money is going to come in on the Over regardless. You’re paying a "fun tax" every time you tail the public on a total.

Does anyone here actually have the discipline to be a consistent Under bettor? Or are we all just suckers for the highlight reel?

 

[ParlayPrincess_88]

omg Eddie you’re such a buzzkill lol!!

I get the math or whatever but who actually ENJOYS rooting for an Under?? I tried it once on a Thursday Night Football game that looked like it was going to be a mess and I hated every second of it. Every time someone caught a pass I was screaming at the TV. It’s stressful!!

Plus if you bet the Over, your bet is alive until the very last second. If you bet the Under, one big play in the first quarter and you’re already biting your nails. I’ll keep my "fun tax" thanks!

 

[ThePuntingProf]

One must concur with Eddie’s assessment regarding the inherent bias toward the 'Over' in the betting markets. It is a classic manifestation of what we in the academic sphere refer to as 'optimism bias' coupled with a fundamental misunderstanding of the Poisson distribution as it applies to sporting events. When the average punter looks at a fixture / take a typical Premier League match between two mid-table sides / they visualize the best-case scenarios for both attacks rather than the median outcome. They fail to account for the 'dead time' in a match where neither side possesses the tactical impetus to break the deadlock. I have tracked over 4,000 matches in my personal database and the value consistently resides in the Unders, specifically when the market has been inflated by a high-scoring weekend in the previous round of fixtures. Margaret often asks why I am so quiet during the matches we watch together, and I have to explain that I am simply waiting for the clock to bleed out. It is not 'fun' as the young lady above suggests, but it is certainly profitable if one treats the sports betting market as a cold exercise in probability rather than a social event.

 

[DublinDegen]

One must concur with Eddie’s assessment regarding the inherent bias toward the 'Over' in the betting markets. It is a classic manifestation of what we in the academic sphere refer to as 'optimism bias' coupled with a fundamental misunderstanding of the Poisson distribution as it applies to sporting events. When the average punter looks at a fixture / take a typical Premier League match between two mid-table sides / they visualize the best-case scenarios for both attacks rather than the median outcome. They fail to account for the 'dead time' in a match where neither side possesses the tactical impetus to break the deadlock. I have tracked over 4,000 matches in my personal database and the value consistently resides in the Unders, specifically when the market has been inflated by a high-scoring weekend in the previous round of fixtures. Margaret often asks why I am so quiet during the matches we watch together, and I have to explain that I am simply waiting for the clock to bleed out. It is not 'fun' as the young lady above suggests, but it is certainly profitable if one treats the sports betting market as a cold exercise in probability rather than a social event.

sweet jesus Prof i fell asleep halfway through that post... missing the point entirely lads...

the reason we bet the overs is because the rush is 10x better... nothing like needing one more goal in the 88th minute to land a 50/1 acca...

my heart is nearly coming out of my chest... sure look if i wanted to be bored id go back to work...

i had the under once in a Meath game and i swear it was the longest 70 minutes of my life... never again... f**k that... i want goals i want points i want the chaos...

books love it because they know we're all addicts for the drama... grand job for the books innit...

 

[FadeThePublic]

sweet jesus Prof i fell asleep halfway through that post... missing the point entirely lads...

the reason we bet the overs is because the rush is 10x better... nothing like needing one more goal in the 88th minute to land a 50/1 acca...

my heart is nearly coming out of my chest... sure look if i wanted to be bored id go back to work...

i had the under once in a Meath game and i swear it was the longest 70 minutes of my life... never again... f**k that... i want goals i want points i want the chaos...

books love it because they know we're all addicts for the drama... grand job for the books innit...

You’re the reason the books have gold-plated toilets.

Eddie is right on the money. If you want to find the sharpest guys in the room, look for the ones betting the Under 8.5 in a mid-July MLB game in a pitcher's park. It’s ugly / it’s boring / and it prints money because the public can't help themselves.

I love watching the line move from 44 to 46.5 on a NFL Sunday morning just because some "expert" on Pregame TV mentioned both teams have "explosive offenses." That’s when you hit the Under. You’re fading the collective stupidity of the masses. If the bet makes you feel "good" when you place it, it’s probably a bad bet

 

[TaffyTipster]

Fair play Fade.

I’m mostly on the exchange these days anyway.

Much easier to lay the Over than to sweat an Under with a bookie.

Usually wait for a fast start in the rugby, let the live total skyrocket because everyone thinks it’s going to be a 60-point blowout, then I’ll lay it.

The missus thinks I’m miserable because I cheer when someone knocks the ball on 5 meters from the line.

Tidy profit in it though if you’ve got the stomach for it.

Most blokes don't.

They want to cheer. I want to collect.

Simple as.

 

[GlasgowGrinder]

1. Analysis of market behavior confirms "Over" bias.
2. Personal record: 62% ROI on Under 2.5 goals in Scottish Premiership (Current Season).
3. Strategy:
   • Identify matches with high humidity or poor pitch conditions.
   • Target teams with defensive-minded managers / Negative tactical outlook.
   • Wait for public money to inflate the line.
4. Betting for "fun" is a path to insolvency.
5. Recommendation: Track the "Under" for 30 days. Remove emotion. View the match as a 90-minute struggle for territory, not a highlight reel.
6. Affirmative: Books rely on the "fun tax" to balance their sheets.

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

Great discussion here, guys.

Eddie, you really hit on something important with the psychology side of it. In the film room, we always talk about "complementary football." If a team has a great offense but a slow, ball-control defense, that game is naturally skewed toward the Under, but the public only sees the star QB and hammers the Over.

It's about the game plan. Some managers go into a match looking to "not lose" rather than "win." When you get two of those guys facing off, the Under is the only play, regardless of how many star players are on the field.

It's okay to want to be entertained / we all love the game / but we have to distinguish between being a fan and being a bettor. Adjust your headset, look at the schemes, and don't be afraid to root for a 10-7 defensive struggle. That's where the value is hiding.