World Cup Saturday: Sharp Bettors Fading Belgium and Germany
Saturday's three-match slate begins with a Group G matchup featuring Belgium and Tunisia, followed by Group F battles between South Korea-Mexico and Germany-Sweden. It's already shaping up to be another good day to fade the public.
Here's a breakdown of the market for each match and which sides the sharps/public are betting.
Download The Action Network App to track all of your World Cup bets.
Belgium vs. Tunisia, Group G
8 a.m. ET
Belgium were perhaps the most impressive World Cup favorites in the opening week of action, as they dismantled Panama 3-0. However, odds have shrunk from -400 to -260 vs. Tunisia over the past few days even though Belgium are garnering 78% of moneyline bets.
This is a solid indication that sharps are back on plucky underdogs Tunisia to get a result.
As for the total, nearly 70% of bets have come in on over 2.5, but juice is yet again moving toward the under.
South Korea vs. Mexico, Group F
11 a.m. ET
Everyone — and I mean everyone — is betting on Mexico (-138) to beat South Korea. The public has a ton of confidence in the Mexicans after they handed Germany a 1-0 loss in the opening group match, and they're receiving an absurdly high 88% of moneyline tickets vs. South Korea. Do sharps feel the same way?
Not quite. Since Tuesday, Mexico's odds have actually come down from -200, signaling smarter money on South Korea/Draw. Just 8% of tickets have come in on South Korea (+490) and only 4% on the draw (+273).
Germany vs. Sweden, Group F
2 p.m. ET
In the third matchup Saturday afternoon, Germany (-200) are expected to beat Sweden, and nearly 75% of public bettors feel the same way. The betting story around this game is the total, though, and there's a great opportunity to capitalize.
The majority of bettors love the under, which is rare, and it's accounted for 68% of O/U tickets. The over (2.5) has attracted just 32% of bets, but that's where the juice keeps trending this week. This is a fantastic spot to fade the public and go contrarian with the over.
How would you rate this article?