So you’ve heard about “foolproof” betting systems and famous trends that supposedly beat the odds and make sports betting easy.

The list goes on: martingale, contrarian betting, steam chasing, “fade the public,” bounce-back games, etc. But do these betting systems and trends work in practice?

Let’s explore some of the most popular ones. We’ll break down how they’re supposed to work (and why they’re so appealing), then have a frank chat about whether they hold up in the real world. Consider this an expert's take on the pros and cons of betting systems and trends.

Betting Systems: Quick Fixes or Fool’s Gold?

Betting systems are structured strategies or formulas that tell you how much or which side to bet, regardless of who’s playing. They promise a steady profit or reduced risk.

Let’s look at a few well-known systems and see what they’re all about.

Martingale – Double Down Until You Win (Or Go Broke)

How it works: The Martingale system is one of the simplest betting systems: every time you lose a bet, you double your next wager. Keep doubling until you finally win, which will recover all your previous losses plus win a profit equal to your original bet.

For example, bet $10 and lose, then bet $20 on the next game and lose, $40 on the next, and so on. When a win eventually comes, say at $80, you win back everything you lost ($10+$20+$40 = $70) and gain $10 profit. Then you reset and start at $10 again.

Why it’s appealing: On paper, Martingale seems like a sure thing. After all, how likely is it to lose, say, five or six bets in a row? It feels like eventually you’re “due” for a win.

Indeed, in a vacuum, this system would win nearly 100% of the time. It gives bettors a comforting illusion of inevitability – a guarantee that if you just keep doubling, you can’t lose in the long run. Many gamblers have independently “invented” this idea themselves after a losing streak, thinking they’ve found a logical way to chase losses.

Real-world reality check: The Martingale is “effective but deeply flawed”. Yes, it works until it doesn’t.

The problem is that real-life betting is not done in a vacuum – casinos and sportsbooks have betting limits, and we all have limited bankrolls. A seemingly small chance of a long losing streak can wipe you out.

For instance, imagine you started with $10 and lost 6 bets in a row (not impossible in sports betting). Your next bet needs to be $640 to win $10 profit, and if that loses, you’ve dropped over $1,270.

Runs of bad luck do happen, and when they do, the Martingale bettor faces either a busted bankroll or a sportsbook’s maximum bet limit.

Another trap is the gambler’s fallacy – the idea that after several losses, a win is “due.”

In reality, each game’s outcome is independent. Losing five in a row doesn’t make winning the sixth any more likely.

Martingale can give the illusion of a safe strategy during short streaks, but sooner or later an extended losing streak can and will occur, erasing many small wins in one big swoop.

In short, it’s a high-risk system that most experienced bettors avoid once they learn how brutally it can backfire.

Contrarian Betting – Going Against the Herd

How it works: Contrarian betting means betting against the majority opinion, often phrased as “fading the public.” The idea is simple: identify who “the public” (casual bettors) is loading up on, and then bet the other side. If 80% of people are betting on Team A, you put your money on Team B.

This strategy is about capitalizing on potential bias in heavily bet games. Sportsbooks know the public loves favorites and popular teams, so they may shade the odds to make those sides less profitable. By going the opposite way, contrarian bettors hope to get extra value (like an extra point on the spread or better payout) on the less popular side.

Why it’s appealing: It feels clever and even a bit rebellious. You’re not following the crowd; you’re siding with the house (and “the house always wins,” as the saying goes). The psychological appeal is that you’re thinking like a sharp.

Contrarians often point out that Vegas casinos make a ton of money precisely because the average Joes (the betting public) lose more often than they win. So by betting against those Average Joes, you’re theoretically putting the odds in your favor.

It’s a bit like being the lone wolf who profits while everyone else falls for the hype. It also taps into that satisfying feeling of saying “I told you so” when a hyped-up favorite collapses and you had the guts to bet the underdog.

Real-world reality check: Does fading the public pay off? Sometimes – but it’s not a golden ticket.

The truth is that the public doesn’t lose every single time. Yes, over the long haul, the sportsbooks generally come out ahead, but blindly betting every unpopular side is no guarantee of profit. Results can vary year to year.

For example, one analysis of NFL games found that in 2021, simply betting against the public (taking the lesser-bet side in every game) yielded a 140-137-4 record – 50.5%, which lost money once you factor in the typical -110 odds (you need 52.4% wins to beat the juice).

And the following season, this blunt “fade everyone” approach hit only 47.1%, a losing record. In other words, if you blindly go contrarian on every game, you’re still basically flipping a coin.

That said, contrarian betting can add value when used smartly. The key is picking your spots.

Usually, it works best on high-profile games where the public piles in and the sportsbooks might exaggerate the line. In those cases, the underdog or unpopular side might indeed cover the spread at a higher rate.

For instance, in college football, heavily bet games where a home team was getting 40% or fewer of bets (i.e., the public overwhelmingly liked the road team) saw the contrarian home side cover about 57% of the time over many years.

And many bettors swear by the mantra “fade the public,” especially when you see lopsided betting percentages on primetime NFL games.

The bottom line: Going against the herd can sometimes put the odds slightly in your favor, but it’s not a foolproof system by itself. Use it as one tool in your toolbox – don’t just bet every underdog blindly. Even contrarian kingpins will tell you the public has its winning days, too.

My advice is: it’s fine (even smart) to consider what the public is doing, but do your homework on the game. Simply being a contrarian for contrarian’s sake won’t pay the bills over the long run unless you’re selective and strategic.

Steam Chasing – Riding the “Smart Money” Wave

How it works: “Steam” is the term for a sudden, sharp line movement on a game, usually caused by a wave of big money from respected bettors (often called “sharp money”).

For example, a team might go from +6 underdog to +4 in a matter of minutes – that’s a steam move, suggesting savvy bettors hammered the +6.

Steam chasers watch the betting screens like hawks and, the moment they see odds moving at one sportsbook, they race to bet the same side at another book that hasn’t moved the line yet. In short, you’re chasing the steam, trying to get the same bet the sharps just made, before the whole market adjusts.

If done perfectly, you’re essentially piggybacking on the insiders’ picks at the old (better) price.

Why it’s appealing: Think of it like hearing a hot stock tip from Warren Buffett and getting in a split-second before everyone else. If legendary investors are buying, you’d want to buy too, right?

In sports, when you see a line suddenly jump, it likely means people with serious bankrolls and info (injury news, matchup edges, etc.) have placed big bets. It’s tempting to follow suit, assuming “they know something we don’t.” The psychological draw is that you feel like you’re following the smart money.

You might not handicap games as well as the pros, but if you can just mirror their bets, you could profit. It’s a bit of a rush, too – you have to be quick on the draw, which adds excitement.

Real-world reality check: Steam chasing can sometimes be profitable, but it’s harder than it sounds and comes with risks.

First, by the time most casual bettors notice a steam move, it’s often too late – the line has already moved everywhere. You might catch a scrap of value if one book lags for a minute. But these opportunities are rare and require having multiple sportsbook accounts open and ready to fire in seconds.

Second, not all steam is “smart” or even genuine. Sharps can fake steam moves by betting one side heavily just to nudge the line, then coming back even harder on the other side at a better number.

Yes, this happens – sometimes big bettors intentionally cause a line to move so they can then grab the opposite side with an extra point or two in hand. If you unknowingly chase a head-fake move, you end up on the side the sharps wanted others to chase, while they laugh all the way to the bank. Ouch.

Finally, sportsbooks don’t particularly like customers who beat them to the punch on line moves. If your account history shows you’re consistently nabbing lines right before they move (an indicator you’re steam chasing or have sharp info), the book may restrict or ban you.

Sportsbooks keep an eye out for this behavior and will quickly limit players who do nothing but chase steam.

In essence, profitable steam chasing is mostly the realm of very sharp or technologically-equipped bettors (think people with live odd screens and maybe betting bots).

For a casual bettor, it’s usually not a reliable system – by the time you see the steam, the value is often gone, or you could get duped by false movement. Following sharp action is wise in theory, but blindly following any line move without context can lead you astray.

Bottom line: There’s nothing wrong with respecting line moves – they can signal important info – but don’t feel like you must chase every moving number. If a point spread suddenly shifts, ask yourself why. If you have a good reason (injury news, etc.) and can still get a decent number, fine. But don’t assume every steam move is a lock. Sometimes it’s real sharp money, sometimes it’s a mirage. Tread carefully.

Popular Betting Trends: Fact or Fiction?

Beyond formal “systems,” many bettors talk about trends – patterns gleaned from historical data or common situations. These aren’t about how you bet (amount or timing) but what you bet, based on situational angles.

Let’s delve into a few famous sports betting trends that casual fans often hear about. We’ll see why they became popular, whether they might hold some truth, and why blindly following them can be dangerous.

“Fade the Public” – Everyone’s on Team A, So Bet Team B

We touched on this in the contrarian section, but “fade the public” is a mantra in sports betting, especially in the NFL and other big markets.

The trend: when a huge majority of bets are on one team (say 75-80% or more of the betting tickets), many bettors will take the other side.

The logic: sportsbooks set odds knowing public bias, so the heavily bet favorite might be overpriced, and the underdog is undervalued.

Historically, there have been stretches where betting against crowded public favorites yielded slightly above 50% wins (enough to beat the spread if done very selectively). It’s appealing because it aligns with the idea that “the public loses in the long run,” so being on the opposite side sounds profitable.

Does it work? It can, in the right situations, but be careful. Earlier, we noted that blindly fading public on every game doesn’t guarantee money – over a full season, it might barely break even or even lose.

However, there is evidence that in certain scenarios, like primetime NFL games or marquee matchups where casual bettors overwhelmingly back one team, fading the public can produce winning results.

For example, one long-term study showed home teams getting 40% or less of bets in very heavily bet college games covered 57% ATS. Those are good odds – if you isolate the right situations.

The catch: As a trend becomes well-known, oddsmakers and the market adjust. You won’t be the only one trying to fade a popular team – and if everyone does it, the underdog’s line value shrinks.

Also, remember that the public isn’t always wrong. There are days when all the big favorites win and cover (sportsbooks dread those days). If you rigidly fade the public on those days, you’ll get cleaned out.

A friend of mine jokingly calls it “fading the public until you’re faded.” The smarter play is to use this trend as a factor, not a rule. Yes, be suspicious of “everyone and their mother” being on the same favorite. But still handicap the game yourself.

If the favorite still has solid reasons to back them, don’t bet on an underdog only because of the betting percentages.

In short, “fade the public” is a nice slogan, not an automatic strategy. It works best in extreme cases and when combined with sound analysis of why the public might be wrong in that particular spot.

The NBA Blowout Bounce-Back

This trend is about NBA teams responding after getting blown out in their previous game. Say a team lost by 25 points last game – the idea is to “buy low” on them in the next game, expecting a better effort and perhaps an undervalued point spread.

The psychological angle is understandable: professional athletes have pride. If they were embarrassed, they’ll come out extra focused next game. Meanwhile, casual bettors have recency bias – putting too much weight on the last result. A team that just got crushed will be unattractive to bet, and the opponent might be a bit overvalued due to that recent blowout result.

Does it work? At times, yes – but it’s not a sure thing, and the effectiveness can change over time. This trend did have a strong run for a while.

In NBA playoff games from 2005 to 2013, teams that lost the previous game by 20+ points went 57-37-1 against the spread (60% cover rate) in the next game. That’s a great number – it means those embarrassed teams bounced back and covered the spread far more often than not.

The reason makes sense: oddsmakers would inflate the line for the team that won big (because they knew the public would hammer that team in the next game), so the losing team was undervalued. It was a classic overreaction spot, and contrarian bettors who “bought low” were rewarded.

However, after a while, everyone caught on. Since 2014, that bounce-back-after-blowout angle cooled off dramatically – those same situations went 29-43-1 ATS (only ~40% wins). It flipped – teams coming off a big loss started underperforming against the spread.

What happened? Oddsmakers adjusted.

They realized bettors were onto the trend, so they stopped inflating the lines as much for the team that had won big. The value of the embarrassed team disappeared once the market expectation evened out.

The lesson: Trends like these can be fleeting. They might work for a period until the bookmakers and bettors adapt. As of now, an NBA team that got blown out isn’t automatically a good bet next game – the lines have likely accounted for that motivational angle.

Still, it’s something to consider: if nobody believes in a team after a bad loss, you might get an extra point or two of value on them. But always check if the current line reflects that or not. Don’t assume yesterday’s trend is still today’s edge.

Underdogs in Low-Scoring College Football Games

Another popular trend among seasoned bettors involves college football underdogs in games with low projected scores. In football, the total (over/under) of a game indicates how many points are expected. A “low-total” game might be under 45 points in college (where scoring can often be high). The trend here says: when the total is low, take the underdog, especially if they’re on the road.

The logic: In a low-scoring game, points are at a premium. If not many total points are expected, it’s harder for a favorite to run up a big margin of victory. A touchdown or two means more in a 17-14 type game than in a 45-42 shootout.

Fewer points make it harder for the favorite to cover the spread. So the underdog has a better chance to stay within the number or even pull an upset. This makes intuitive sense – a grind-it-out defensive battle often comes down to a few key plays, which can go either way, favoring the team getting points.

Does it work? Historically, this trend has shown some promise. Betting research shows that, indeed, underdogs do slightly better against the spread in low-total games.

For example, since 2005, college road underdogs when the total was 50 or less hit at about a 53% rate ATS, and if the total was 45 or under, they covered roughly 54.6% of the time. That’s a modest but real edge (remember, 52.38% is breakeven at -110 odds).

It appears that when points are expected to be scarce, the underdogs have come through a bit more often. The effect can be even stronger in conference games (where teams know each other well, which levels the playing field).

But – and there’s always a “but” – 54% for past games doesn’t guarantee 54% going forward. If everyone knows this trend, sportsbooks can adjust spreads slightly. Also, not all low-total games are equal. You still have to consider the matchup: why is the total low? Is it weather (windy/rainy)? Two teams with strong defenses? If the favorite is a triple-option service academy that plays slow, maybe the underdog is indeed a good play.

However, if the total is low because one team’s offense is dreadful, that team might be a bad underdog to bet despite the total. In other words, context matters. Blindly betting every underdog in games with a sub-45 total could yield a small profit in theory, but it can also lead you to some ugly sides if you’re not careful. Use this trend as a piece of insight rather than a rulebook.

Other Tempting Trends (and Why Caution Is Key)

There are countless other trends people tout: “bet the under on windy NFL days,” “take the underdog after Monday Night Football on a short week,” “always fade the Super Bowl champ in Week 1,” and so on. Some have sound reasoning, others are more superstition or coincidence.

As a casual bettor, it’s easy to get lured by a cool-sounding stat like “Team X is 11-1 in its last 12 games when playing on Tuesday nights!” But remember: past trends can regress or reverse without warning. If a trend becomes well-known, odds will shift to account for it, erasing the edge. And sometimes trends are just statistical noise – they stick out until they inevitably don’t.

My advice: treat trends like clues, not commands. They can point out interesting angles to explore, but always analyze the why behind the trend. If there’s a solid reason (e.g., teams might undervalue conference underdogs in low-total games due to style of play), then it could be worth considering. If it sounds arbitrary or overly specific (“quarterback with a mustache covers 70% in night games” – yes, I’m being facetious), probably not something to put your hard-earned money on.

The Final Verdict: No Magic Bullet, But Lessons to Learn

After walking through these systems and trends, you’re probably wondering: “So, is there any way to beat the book consistently?” The honest answer from your friend here: there’s no magic bullet. If any single system or trend worked all the time, the sportsbooks would have gone out of business long ago.

However, there are valuable insights we can take away:

  • Money management and realism: A system like Martingale teaches a harsh lesson about bankroll management. There’s no “guaranteed win” system – risk and variance are always present. Any strategy that claims you can’t lose is one you should run away from. The best bettors accept losses as part of the game and manage their bet sizes wisely (usually flat betting or modest unit increases, not wild doubling schemes).

  • Think independently (but not opposite, just to be opposite): Contrarian betting reminds us not to follow the crowd blindly. If everyone is on one side, ask yourself if the line might be overinflated. But also remember that just going against the crowd blindly is still blind. The sweet spot is to be selectively contrarian – when you have reason to believe the public is off-base.

  • Markets adjust: The steam-chasing discussion and the boom-and-bust of the NBA blowout trend show that the sports betting market is dynamic. What worked yesterday might not work tomorrow once it’s widely known. Sportsbooks are very quick to adapt to bettors’ strategies. Always be ready to adapt yourself. That’s why experienced bettors often keep developing their approaches, and they don’t rely on one trend forever.

  • Use trends smartly: Betting trends can be fun and sometimes profitable if you catch one early or apply it with discretion. But use them as guidelines, not gospel. Combine trend insights with your own analysis of the matchup, context, and current season dynamics. For instance, the low-total underdog angle makes sense as a general principle – fewer points = more variance – but you’d still handicap the teams involved before betting it.

At the end of the day, sports betting is hard, and that’s why casinos exist. There’s no shortcut to instant success. But by understanding these systems and trends, you’ve taken a step toward thinking like a sharper bettor. You know why certain strategies lure people in, and you can spot their pitfalls.

So next time someone at the sportsbook tells you they have a “can’t-miss system” or you read about a trend that “has hit 12 straight times,” you’ll smile knowingly. You have this guide in your back pocket. You’ll remember that every system has its cracks, every trend its expiration date. Instead of blindly following, you’ll approach your bets with a bit more skepticism and a lot more knowledge.

In summary, Betting systems and trends can be interesting tools and make for great discussion, but none are a substitute for careful betting and good old-fashioned homework. Treat them as influences, not infallible truths.

And always bet within your means – no system can save you from over-betting or chasing when luck runs cold. Stay smart, stay curious, and enjoy the game. After all, the goal is to have fun and maybe win a few bucks along the way.

Good luck!