Quote from: Wexnident on Today at 01:42:43 AM

Kinda weird how we're basing the strength of a team based on the best placed by bookmakers on them, and not how bookmakers base their odds based on the strength of the teams themselves. I've never really tried this (or ever will) really, just doesn't make sense to me. Has anyone actually tried this and made work of it? Preferably in cases where you ignored the teams themselves, just the odds.

Granted I've rarely bet on underdogs though. They're called underdogs for a reason after all, they may have made a significant one or two matches, but it doesn't mean it's a solid display of their strength. Can't exactly forget their past records ofc.

But if you know very well the sports, you have the insights on why bookies are making them as underdogs.
Because if you follow a specific sports closely, you can get the idea about their weaknesses and strengths.
And if you still prefer to bet on a losing team, it means, you are seeing some advantage that you think can play out during the game.
A good example is in the boxing sports, even if the boxer is the underdog, he has the chance to win and get an upset as there are some blind factors that bookies and bettors can't see.
Like the preparation, their strategies, actual power during the fight, coaching and many others.