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.