ACW,
By "due" theory I'm referring to the tendency to irrationally believe that just because something hasn't been happening lately it is more likely to happen because it's "due". It could be anything really, a hitter or pitcher on a slump, straight up results, ATS results, over-under, or any trend at all.
There is a (seemingly) equal tendency to irrationally believe in streaks because some people expect results to alternate more than they do. When they see a streak they say to themselves "this couldn't be just random" so they assume it has significance and therefore bet on it.
Of course there could also be perfectly rational reasons to believe in either theory -- the "due" theory because of umpires or refs. manipulating outcomes or the "streak" theory because of legitimate emotional or other human factors which cause de facto good periods and bad periods.
My question does NOT ask which theory is better to follow in sports betting. My question DOES ask which of the two philosophies does Joe Public use more often for irrational reasons!?
If the question is unclear for sports betting, let's consider instead on games of pure chance like craps or baccarat where the "due" and "streak" theories are obviously irrational. Is there a psychological tendency for the average player to favor one or the other?
I'm not looking for a handicapping angle here (at least not directly). I just want to better understand the average bettor's psychology.
By "due" theory I'm referring to the tendency to irrationally believe that just because something hasn't been happening lately it is more likely to happen because it's "due". It could be anything really, a hitter or pitcher on a slump, straight up results, ATS results, over-under, or any trend at all.
There is a (seemingly) equal tendency to irrationally believe in streaks because some people expect results to alternate more than they do. When they see a streak they say to themselves "this couldn't be just random" so they assume it has significance and therefore bet on it.
Of course there could also be perfectly rational reasons to believe in either theory -- the "due" theory because of umpires or refs. manipulating outcomes or the "streak" theory because of legitimate emotional or other human factors which cause de facto good periods and bad periods.
My question does NOT ask which theory is better to follow in sports betting. My question DOES ask which of the two philosophies does Joe Public use more often for irrational reasons!?
If the question is unclear for sports betting, let's consider instead on games of pure chance like craps or baccarat where the "due" and "streak" theories are obviously irrational. Is there a psychological tendency for the average player to favor one or the other?
I'm not looking for a handicapping angle here (at least not directly). I just want to better understand the average bettor's psychology.
Assuming that the line you are getting on a team that is "due" keeps adjusting due tp their losing or rather not covering the spread I like to pound those teams until I come away with my win. This is for a single event and not in the case of riding a team for several games.
Almost every single person I've ever asked who is just a rec bettor always goes to the streak side:
Me: I was thinking of taking the over in the Braves game tonight
Them: Why in the world? Braves can't score much and you KNOW the Expos can't score
Me: I was thinking of taking the +9 on Minny
Them: Why in the world? Lakers are on a roll and Minny knows it, go with the team that is rolling, lay the -9
This conversation goes on DAILY........
Me: I was thinking of taking the over in the Braves game tonight
Them: Why in the world? Braves can't score much and you KNOW the Expos can't score
Me: I was thinking of taking the +9 on Minny
Them: Why in the world? Lakers are on a roll and Minny knows it, go with the team that is rolling, lay the -9
This conversation goes on DAILY........
Darryl, is this a rhetorical question? I think someone of you'r stature and experience knows that the average person would follow a streak as opposed to go against it. I get a lot of crap from my sop called "expert bettor friends" saying that if you go against a streak you can only win once but if you bet with a streak you can win a lot of times. Durrrr...we have durrrr in Kazakhstan too! Ya but then you don't know when to stop.
If you do the math and track the streaks you are betting on or against, then you can find the point inwhich the edge for the streak to end is of a great chance/spot to play it. Some laugh at due, but the tern means more than most want to or can comprehend. There is much work to be done and then you can reap the rewards. You need data and that data needs to show you when the edge is in your favor. Betting against trends blindly without data is not the best approach.
Borat,
It's not at all a rhetorical question. Believe it or not I am not too clued in about how the average bettor thinks since I am isolated here in Hungary. You must know the feeling since it must be similar in Kazakhstan. The Rx is not representative either because people here are way above average! I forgot how average American sports bettors think! I know, shame on me.
I've read people like Mad Capper saying how many people there are who use the "due" theory and how wrong they are etc. And then there are guys like you and Rog above who say everyone and his grandmother follows streaks. I just want to know whether this is what the consensus thinks or not. If it's obvious then call me a dumdum, that's ok, at least I learned something.
General, thanks but GRRRR!
That answer is intelligent and interesting (and true) but it's not what I was asking.
It's not at all a rhetorical question. Believe it or not I am not too clued in about how the average bettor thinks since I am isolated here in Hungary. You must know the feeling since it must be similar in Kazakhstan. The Rx is not representative either because people here are way above average! I forgot how average American sports bettors think! I know, shame on me.
I've read people like Mad Capper saying how many people there are who use the "due" theory and how wrong they are etc. And then there are guys like you and Rog above who say everyone and his grandmother follows streaks. I just want to know whether this is what the consensus thinks or not. If it's obvious then call me a dumdum, that's ok, at least I learned something.
General, thanks but GRRRR!
When I booked bets back in the days, the majority of lifetime losers bet the 'due theory'. Lifetime losers have no confidence and backing a winning streak is incongruent with their loser belief system. They'd rather go with the due theory if it hits, their ego would be stroked better than it would have if they went with the streak.
