432 replies to this topic

[Stitch01]

Wouldn't Vegas have hedged against this by skewing the line a tad in the Giants' direction? Or did they screw up?

Bill Barnwell at Grantland has a fun article on Super Bowl prop bets: http://www.grantland...nale-nfl-season

Yeah, makes the 3.5 open an odd decision, but not sure if Im getting bad info or if they thought the true line should be 5 or 6 and just radically underestimated how much the public was going to like the Giants

[bowiac]

Then does this mean Vegas gets killed if they lose?

Vegas is going to lose badly if the Giants win yes. Not just because of the estimated 60-70% of volume coming in on the Giants on this game right now, but because of all the Giants to win the Super Bowl bets they took a month or more ago.

At the start of the playoffs, when the "Giants are unstoppable" meme already had a lot of steam, the Giants were 30-1 to win the Super Bowl in some books. When they were 7-7, those odds were as long as 100-1 on offshore books (and 80-1 in Vegas). There was a NYT article on the subject a few days ago. Their exposure to a Giants win is extremely high.

[bowiac]

Wouldn't Vegas have hedged against this by skewing the line a tad in the Giants' direction? Or did they screw up?

Unless you're poorly capitalized, it's unclear what the value of hedging is. The handle for the Super Bowl is large relative to other sporting events, but it's actually pretty small overall. It's not going to make or break a casino. Yeah it stinks for them that they took a lot of 80-1 bets at something that's now almost even money, but that's functionally a sunk cost. If they believe Patriots -3.5 is a 50-50 proposition, then there's not much reason to try and hedge other than to reduce variance. Yeah they can reduce losses if the Giants lose, but at the price of reducing gains if the Patriots win. If think the Patriots are likely to cover a smaller line, then they're really just throwing more good money after bad there.

The other issue is that Vegas and the offshore books don't act as one. While MGM may have a ton of exposure to Giants at 60-1, Sportsbook.com may actually have randomly taken a ton of Patriots bets at 12-1 or something. Every books exposure can be pretty different, esepcially on futures bets, where the odds change drastically in short periods. Coordinating on a line to prevent arbitrage opportunities from emerging is somewhere between difficult and impossible I would imagine.

Yeah, makes the 3.5 open an odd decision, but not sure if Im getting bad info or if they thought the true line should be 5 or 6 and just radically underestimated how much the public was going to like the Giants

In a similar vein to "I'm not sure you should bother hedging futures bets", I'm not sure Vegas books should bother hedging the point spread in general. I've heard interviews with book managers who have said as much, that hedging in general is a widely overreported phenomenon, and that books are often quite happy to have a 70-30 betting split on a line they're comfortable with. The reason books hedge is that they're uncertain about where the line should be. (According to this interview at least).

If a book notices that 70% of the action in College of Charleston @ Samford is coming in on the College of Charleston side (take Samford +4 btw!), they may want to hedge, because that 70% may really know more about the game than their computers/bookies do. If a book notices that 70% of the action is coming in on the Giants, then it's not clear a hedge is needed. Books probably feel they know as much about the game anyone else does, so they're not really exposed to the line being wrong, they're only exposed to Tyree catches and Osi strip sacks. You might just prefer to sheer those 70% without bothering to balance the overall wagering.

Edited by bowiac, 30 January 2012 - 05:42 PM.

[bowiac]

Also - the NFC has won 13 consecutive coin flips. And take the "Yes" on Madonna to wear fishnets -120.

Edited by bowiac, 30 January 2012 - 05:50 PM.

[SMU_Sox]

Unless they can sell those bets at a discounted price to a buyer who would take on that risk. Although just doing the back of the envelope math I am unsure who would want to take on that kind of risk for somewhat little reward. This kind of reminds me of a situation in distressed fixed income products. Except here obviously the maximum gain is the payment transferred to take on the risk.
Thinking more about it I think this could work if an investor and a casino had different expectations for the final outcome of the game. If an investor thought the Pats would win straight up 75% of the time they perceive the risk a lot differently than a Casino (aren't most still Pats -3 implying a roughly 60% Pats win outcome?). Soon we are going to have CGO's, or collateral gambling obligations, and more and more derivatives. Subprime CGO's are the next financial crisis.

[Super Nomario]

Unless you're poorly capitalized, it's unclear what the value of hedging is. The handle for the Super Bowl is large relative to other sporting events, but it's actually pretty small overall. It's not going to make or break a casino. Yeah it stinks for them that they took a lot of 80-1 bets at something that's now almost even money, but that's functionally a sunk cost. If they believe Patriots -3.5 is a 50-50 proposition, then there's not much reason to try and hedge other than to reduce variance. Yeah they can reduce losses if the Giants lose, but at the price of reducing gains if the Patriots win. If think the Patriots are likely to cover a smaller line, then they're really just throwing more good money after bad there.

In a similar vein to "I'm not sure you should bother hedging futures bets", I'm not sure Vegas books should bother hedging the point spread in general. I've heard interviews with book managers who have said as much, that hedging in general is a widely overreported phenomenon, and that books are often quite happy to have a 70-30 betting split on a line they're comfortable with. The reason books hedge is that they're uncertain about where the line should be. (According to this interview at least).

If a book notices that 70% of the action in College of Charleston @ Samford is coming in on the College of Charleston side (take Samford +4 btw!), they may want to hedge, because that 70% may really know more about the game than their computers/bookies do. If a book notices that 70% of the action is coming in on the Giants, then it's not clear a hedge is needed. Books probably feel they know as much about the game anyone else does, so they're not really exposed to the line being wrong, they're only exposed to Tyree catches and Osi strip sacks. You might just prefer to sheer those 70% without bothering to balance the overall wagering.

My understanding is that Vegas sets the line such that the action on either side is roughly even. Your suggestion that "books are often quite happy to have a 70-30 betting split on a line they're comfortable with" seems paradoxical if the only goal of betting lines is to get similar action on both sides. It seems like you're suggesting that there are two things going on here: there's what Vegas thinks will get evenish action on both sides of the line, and there's what Vegas thinks will happen in the game itself. If casinos think the Pats are really 6 points better than the Giants but think that action would be 50/50 on a pick 'em, does it makes sense for them to set the line at Pats -6, Pats -3, or 0? Are they concerned with the game at all, or just the betting public?

[Stitch01]

Unless you're poorly capitalized, it's unclear what the value of hedging is. The handle for the Super Bowl is large relative to other sporting events, but it's actually pretty small overall. It's not going to make or break a casino. Yeah it stinks for them that they took a lot of 80-1 bets at something that's now almost even money, but that's functionally a sunk cost. If they believe Patriots -3.5 is a 50-50 proposition, then there's not much reason to try and hedge other than to reduce variance. Yeah they can reduce losses if the Giants lose, but at the price of reducing gains if the Patriots win. If think the Patriots are likely to cover a smaller line, then they're really just throwing more good money after bad there.

The other issue is that Vegas and the offshore books don't act as one. While MGM may have a ton of exposure to Giants at 60-1, Sportsbook.com may actually have randomly taken a ton of Patriots bets at 12-1 or something. Every books exposure can be pretty different, esepcially on futures bets, where the odds change drastically in short periods. Coordinating on a line to prevent arbitrage opportunities from emerging is somewhere between difficult and impossible I would imagine.

In a similar vein to "I'm not sure you should bother hedging futures bets", I'm not sure Vegas books should bother hedging the point spread in general. I've heard interviews with book managers who have said as much, that hedging in general is a widely overreported phenomenon, and that books are often quite happy to have a 70-30 betting split on a line they're comfortable with. The reason books hedge is that they're uncertain about where the line should be. (According to this interview at least).

If a book notices that 70% of the action in College of Charleston @ Samford is coming in on the College of Charleston side (take Samford +4 btw!), they may want to hedge, because that 70% may really know more about the game than their computers/bookies do. If a book notices that 70% of the action is coming in on the Giants, then it's not clear a hedge is needed. Books probably feel they know as much about the game anyone else does, so they're not really exposed to the line being wrong, they're only exposed to Tyree catches and Osi strip sacks. You might just prefer to sheer those 70% without bothering to balance the overall wagering.

They will definitely take positions, but they seem to be really heavy on the Pats here the way things played out.

[MentalDisabldLst]

Line has been moving a little bit to compensate. Pats -3 at 80% of places I've seen, -2.5 at Mirage, Atlantis Reno and a few others, and about half the offshore establishments. My listings here.

Some interesting data points in this article on prop bets, too:

Here is the scoring by quarter (and average per game) for each team...


1Q – New York: 80-81 / 4.21-4.26
1Q – New England: 99-86 / 5.50-4.78

2Q – New York: 135-124 / 8.53–5.37
2Q – New England: 179-100 / 9.94-5.56

3Q – New York: 72-79 / 3.79-4.16
3Q – New England: 151-63 / 8.39-3.50

4Q – New York: 188-145 / 9.89-7.63
4Q – New England: 152-122/ 8.44-6.78

So NE outscored its opponents, by quarter, by 13, 79, 88, and 30 points in its 18 games this year. That can't just be statistical noise, can it?

[Super Nomario]

Line has been moving a little bit to compensate. Pats -3 at 80% of places I've seen, -2.5 at Mirage, Atlantis Reno and a few others, and about half the offshore establishments. My listings here.

Some interesting data points in this article on prop bets, too:

Here is the scoring by quarter (and average per game) for each team...


1Q – New York: 80-81 / 4.21-4.26
1Q – New England: 99-86 / 5.50-4.78

2Q – New York: 135-124 / 8.53–5.37
2Q – New England: 179-100 / 9.94-5.56

3Q – New York: 72-79 / 3.79-4.16
3Q – New England: 151-63 / 8.39-3.50

4Q – New York: 188-145 / 9.89-7.63
4Q – New England: 152-122/ 8.44-6.78

So NE outscored its opponents, by quarter, by 13, 79, 88, and 30 points in its 18 games this year. That can't just be statistical noise, can it?

Low first quarter points scored is probably due to deferring when they win the flip. Same with low third quarter points allowed. Fourth quarter is probably partially garbage time (the Indy game comes to mind). A lot of it probably is noise, though. Over just 18 games a couple 20-point quarters here and there can have a huge impact.

[SMU_Sox]

If a starter has one inning over the course of a season that was much worse than others, for example Lackey's ERA in the second inning was 121.07 last year, it is likely a fluke - just some noise. Without even looking at it I would think that the higher the point differential for a team the more likely they give up more 4th quarter points compared to points given up in the other three. Why? Super Nomario covered it: garbage time.

[WayBackVazquez]

In a similar vein to "I'm not sure you should bother hedging futures bets", I'm not sure Vegas books should bother hedging the point spread in general. I've heard interviews with book managers who have said as much, that hedging in general is a widely overreported phenomenon, and that books are often quite happy to have a 70-30 betting split on a line they're comfortable with. The reason books hedge is that they're uncertain about where the line should be. (According to this interview at least).

I don't know what you're trying to say here. It's self-evident that a casino would prefer to have an equal amount of action on each side and take the guaranteed profit form the vig. Yes, if there were some way that a casino could be certain that the line w set such that it would be a 50/50, most of them wouldn't be on suicide watch if the action was split 70/30, but they most certainly wouldn't prefer it to the even split scenario. Casinos aren't in the business of talking large amounts of action on 50/50 propositions; they do better than that in every game in the house, and there are reasons why table games have betting limits. They're happiest taking their edges on volume. If they're "comfortable" that the line is right (50/50) at Giants +3.5, and most of the money is coming in on the Giants, how is it a "bother" to subtract a half point? If it causes money to start coming in on the Pats, then they get closer to the guaranteed vig profit, and if Giants money keeps rolling in, then they are gaining EV since the "correct" line is 3.5.

[bowiac]

My understanding is that Vegas sets the line such that the action on either side is roughly even. Your suggestion that "books are often quite happy to have a 70-30 betting split on a line they're comfortable with" seems paradoxical if the only goal of betting lines is to get similar action on both sides. It seems like you're suggesting that there are two things going on here: there's what Vegas thinks will get evenish action on both sides of the line, and there's what Vegas thinks will happen in the game itself. If casinos think the Pats are really 6 points better than the Giants but think that action would be 50/50 on a pick 'em, does it makes sense for them to set the line at Pats -6, Pats -3, or 0? Are they concerned with the game at all, or just the betting public?

What I heard Todd Fuhrman (Caesers bookmaker) explain is that the common understanding that Vegas is just trying to split the betting on both sides is overstated. While they will do that sometimes, they are also often quite happy to take a position and risk exposure to a loss. They aim to split the betting more on games where they have less data/confidence in what their engine spits out as a fair line, while on other well scouted games (like the Super Bowl), they're less likely to do that, and are willing to essentially make a bet against the public.

So yes, it's paradoxical if their goal is to split the action, but it's unclear to me (assuming what Fuhrman and what I've heard a few other say) that that's their goal with a game like the Super Bowl. If your hypo, assuming they were risk neutral, if they think the true line is -6, then a line of -3 might make sense given that it's still generating 70% action on the Giants. Lets say a line of -6 generates 90% betting on the Giants, and a pickem splits the betting evenly. On $1.1 Million in betting:

The pickem line which splits the action will have an expected value of $45,455. The -6 line will have the same expected value of $45,455. The line -3 line, if it generates 30% Giants action, who will cover about 40% of the time (assuming the "true line is -6), will have an expected value of $121,818. Now each of these three will have different risk profiles. The pickem line is riskless. The -6 line has a ton of variance, half the time making a big profit, half the time losing almost as much. The -3 line, assuming you're really getting a 70/30 split and the "true" line is -6, is the most profitable of the bunch.

[bowiac]

Soon we are going to have CGO's, or collateral gambling obligations, and more and more derivatives. Subprime CGO's are the next financial crisis.

Sports Betting Hedge Fund collapses.

[Marciano490]

What I heard Todd Fuhrman (Caesers bookmaker) explain is that the common understanding that Vegas is just trying to split the betting on both sides is overstated. While they will do that sometimes, they are also often quite happy to take a position and risk exposure to a loss. They aim to split the betting more on games where they have less data/confidence in what their engine spits out as a fair line, while on other well scouted games (like the Super Bowl), they're less likely to do that, and are willing to essentially make a bet against the public.

So yes, it's paradoxical if their goal is to split the action, but it's unclear to me (assuming what Fuhrman and what I've heard a few other say) that that's their goal with a game like the Super Bowl. If your hypo, assuming they were risk neutral, if they think the true line is -6, then a line of -3 might make sense given that it's still generating 70% action on the Giants. Lets say a line of -6 generates 90% betting on the Giants, and a pickem splits the betting evenly. On $1.1 Million in betting:

The pickem line which splits the action will have an expected value of $45,455. The -6 line will have the same expected value of $45,455. The line -3 line, if it generates 30% Giants action, who will cover about 40% of the time (assuming the "true line is -6), will have an expected value of $121,818. Now each of these three will have different risk profiles. The pickem line is riskless. The -6 line has a ton of variance, half the time making a big profit, half the time losing almost as much. The -3 line, assuming you're really getting a 70/30 split and the "true" line is -6, is the most profitable of the bunch.

Numbers make my head dizzy, so let me see if I have this, because I think it's an interesting point. When bookmakers don't have any special insight into a game's outcome, they aim to split the betting 50/50 and profit off the vig. However, in cases where the bookmakers know more than the betting public, they actually 'bet' on an outcome by making the lines such that the majority of the money will be placed on the side they expect to lose?

[SMU_Sox]

Lawfirm's rushing O/U is 47.5. His seasonal average was 41.7 but he was limited in games due to his injury. He looked very solid against the Ravens. I wouldn't be surprised to see him get between 70-90 yards against the Giants to keep them honest. I am going to take the over. Both the over and under for this are -115. Frankly I figured the over should have been in the -105 to +115 range.

I'm also wagering rather heavily on Gronk.

Rob Gronkowski receptions O/U is 5.5, under wins if he does not play, over is -145, under is +105. I'm taking the over.

Gronk longest reception O/U 21.5, Over is -140, under is +110. I will take the over.

Reception yards for Gronk O/U 79.5, I will take the over, they are both -115.

Will he score a TD (Gronk)? Yes -160, No +130. I want Yes.

[WayBackVazquez]

Lawfirm's rushing O/U is 47.5. His seasonal average was 41.7 but he was limited in games due to his injury. He looked very solid against the Ravens. I wouldn't be surprised to see him get between 70-90 yards against the Giants to keep them honest. I am going to take the over. Both the over and under for this are -115. Frankly I figured the over should have been in the -105 to +115 range.

I'm also wagering rather heavily on Gronk.

Rob Gronkowski receptions O/U is 5.5, under wins if he does not play, over is -145, under is +105. I'm taking the over.

Gronk longest reception O/U 21.5, Over is -140, under is +110. I will take the over.

Reception yards for Gronk O/U 79.5, I will take the over, they are both -115.

Will he score a TD (Gronk)? Yes -160, No +130. I want Yes.

Wow, I really don't like your Gronk bets, especially receptions and receiving yards. Those numbers look like about right before having to fade injury chances and the big vig.

[SMU_Sox]

Wow, I really don't like your Gronk bets, especially receptions and receiving yards. Those numbers look like about right before having to fade injury chances and the big vig.

Let me make a confession. My friend and I are making the bets and using the vigs as odds to bet against each other. Our standard bet is $1.00. He is going to make some of the same types of player prop bets but for the Giants. I guess my personal feelings are getting in the way of my objectivity. These aren’t great bets. I’ll gladly admit my bets on Gronk are more optimistic than what they should be. I feel that he is going to be healthier than we expect. When reading the vigs though, yes, I was shocked that I was going to have to pay a premium on an injured player. But that reflects one or two things: that 1) Vegas doesn’t think his health is an issue, and/or 2) Vegas thinks their customers don’t think his health is an issue.

I also took a flyer on Deion Branch as well, that his first reception will be over 9.5 yards.

I don’t recommend these, just saying this is what I am gambling on this weekend based on what I think will happen.

I’m betting on my gut, which FYI is pretty…robust, so to speak.

I have other bets too which I will list just for the halibut:

Money line is -135 for the Pats and +115 for the Giants. Give me the Pats.

Point spread bet - I'd take NE -2.5.
55 is the O/U. I am leaning towards the under.

Team to score first: the odds are -120 for the Giants and -105 for the Pats. I'd take the Giants.

First score of the game will be: -180 for TD, +150 for FG or Safety. I'd take FG or safety.

Will the team that scores first win the game? -165 for Yes, +135 for No. I want No.

Team to score last in the first half - Giants -115, Pats -115. I'd take Pats.

I am going to end up losing more than winning here, I think, but I will have fun doing it. Plus, I’ve built up a whopping 9 dollar and 2 cent cushion against him by winning every bet except for 1 (a push) this post season. If I end up paying him 5 bucks or so but it made the game that much more interesting for me I am willing to eat that cost.

[savage362]

Just found this offered at my book:

Super Bowl XLVI - New York (Giants) vs New England (Patriots) - L. Tynes vs S. Gostkowski - Who will Record the longest FG ATTEMPT (Missed or made) Both players must play in game for action

Tynes: +125 +3.5 (-135) O 70.5 (-105)
Gostkowski: -155 -3.5 (+105) U 70.5 (-125)

The Under 70.5 is really jumping out at me here. Really, would either team even attempt that, even down 3 pts at the end of the game? Seems like they'd have a better chance throwing down field and hoping a receiver makes a play than they would relying on a 70+ yard field goal. I know it's indoors, but I just can't see that happening.

[fawstahcu]

Just found this offered at my book:

Super Bowl XLVI - New York (Giants) vs New England (Patriots) - L. Tynes vs S. Gostkowski - Who will Record the longest FG ATTEMPT (Missed or made) Both players must play in game for action

Tynes: +125 +3.5 (-135) O 70.5 (-105)
Gostkowski: -155 -3.5 (+105) U 70.5 (-125)

The Under 70.5 is really jumping out at me here. Really, would either team even attempt that, even down 3 pts at the end of the game? Seems like they'd have a better chance throwing down field and hoping a receiver makes a play than they would relying on a 70+ yard field goal. I know it's indoors, but I just can't see that happening.

I think you're reading that wrong.

[johnmd20]

I think you're reading that wrong.

Yeah. Not sure what that bet actually means, but there is no way there is an over under of 70.5 on a field goal attempt. That would be the easiest money vegas ever offered.

[fawstahcu]

Just found this offered at my book:

Super Bowl XLVI - New York (Giants) vs New England (Patriots) - L. Tynes vs S. Gostkowski - Who will Record the longest FG ATTEMPT (Missed or made) Both players must play in game for action

Tynes: +125 +3.5 (-135) O 70.5 (-105)
Gostkowski: -155 -3.5 (+105) U 70.5 (-125)

The Under 70.5 is really jumping out at me here. Really, would either team even attempt that, even down 3 pts at the end of the game? Seems like they'd have a better chance throwing down field and hoping a receiver makes a play than they would relying on a 70+ yard field goal. I know it's indoors, but I just can't see that happening.

At first glance, I thought that the book was just copying the spread and O/U line from the game. But 70.5 is a good 15 points higher than the O/U. The Tynes +125 / Ghost -155 line passes the smell test.

[savage362]

Not sure how else that could be read. Clearly states that it's an attempt and doesn't matter if it's made or missed.

[johnmd20]

Not sure how else that could be read. Clearly states that it's an attempt and doesn't matter if it's made or missed.

I am stumped. I can't believe that is for FG attempt. When has a 70 yard field golf EVER been attempted? If the line was +8000 for the over 70.5 I could believe it. I am missing something.

[fawstahcu]

Not sure how else that could be read. Clearly states that it's an attempt and doesn't matter if it's made or missed.

I don't get the second or third column there.

[savage362]

I am stumped. I can't believe that is for FG attempt. When has a 70 yard field golf EVER been attempted? If the line was +8000 for the over 70.5 I could believe it. I am missing something.

To be honest, I couldn't believe this when I saw it at first either. I went and did some research and the longest FG ever attempted was 76 yds by Sebastian Janikowski - he missed. Only 9 have ever been made from 60+ yds in the history of the NFL.

[savage362]

And now the O/U has been removed.

[CaptainLaddie]

What book do you use?

[CaptainLaddie]

Ah damn.

[savage362]

Back up! At Sportsbetting.ag

And at -115 now!?



Going to throw whatever the max prop bet is on it before they take it off again and see what happens. Worst case someone actually does attempt a mile long FG and I lose the money. Best case I win a good chunk of change. Most likely case, bet gets no-actioned.

[WayBackVazquez]

Back up! At Sportsbetting.ag

And at -115 now!?



Going to throw whatever the max prop bet is on it before they take it off again and see what happens. Worst case someone actually does attempt a mile long FG and I lose the money. Best case I win a good chunk of change. Most likely case, bet gets no-actioned.

The second column is a spread. The third could be the o/u on combined long attempts by each kicker (though that seems low).

EDIT: Betus has a prop with the edge to the "No" on whether each team will make a 33-yard or longer field goal, so 70.5 on combined long attempts actually may be right.

Edited by WayBackVazquez, 01 February 2012 - 01:38 PM.

[Stitch01]

I'll lay -1000 you arent getting paid money for no attempt under 70.5 yards. Whatever that column means, that aint it.

[Myt1]

The second column is a spread. The third could be the o/u on combined long attempts by each kicker (though that seems low).

EDIT: Betus has a prop with the edge to the "No" on whether each team will make a 33-yard or longer field goal, so 70.5 on combined long attempts actually may be right.

That's exactly it.

[savage362]

The third could be the o/u on combined long attempts by each kicker (though that seems low).

You are correct. They made a change to the wording a few minutes after I placed a bet with the old verbiage.

[WayBackVazquez]

Super Bowl XLVI - Giants vs Patriots - L Tynes vs S Gostkowski - Longest FG ATTEMPT and SUM of BOTH Longest Attempts. (Missed or made) Both kickers must play in game and record at least one FG attempt for action

Seriously, would it have been hard to just click on the link and read the rules?

[fawstahcu]

n/m

Edited by fawstahcu, 01 February 2012 - 02:03 PM.

[Stitch01]

You are correct. They made a change to the wording a few minutes after I placed a bet with the old verbiage.

You should try and get them to void it if you dont want the current language bet.

[savage362]

You should try and get them to void it if you dont want the current language bet.

Already in the process of doing so. Luckily I still had the screen up showing the verbiage of the bet I placed and was able to capture the 2 different descriptions.

[WayBackVazquez]

Already in the process of doing so. Luckily I still had the screen up showing the verbiage of the bet I placed and was able to capture the 2 different descriptions.

Can you post it here?

[savage362]

Can you post it here?

Basically added "SUM of BOTH Longest Attempts." and that both kickers must "record at least one FG attempt for action."

[weeba]

Work pool prop bets. Anyone feel like scripting the first drive?

1 .COIN TOSS……………………...………………………..…….…..HEADS or TAILS
2. TEAM WINNING COIN TOSS…………………………………….............. NE- NYG
3. TEAM RECEIVING BALL FIRST………………………………………… NE- NYG
4. TEAM-FIRST 1^ST DOWN MADE…………………………………………- NE- NYG
5. TEAM-FIRST PENALTY………………………………………. ………… NE- NYG
6. FIRST PENALTY………………………………..………………_________________
7. FIRST OFFENSIVE PLAY……………………………………………..RUN or PASS
8. FIRST PASS COMPLETED TO...................................................RB,TE,WR,OTHER
9. FIRST SCORE……………………………...………………………...TD,FG,SAFETY
10. FIRST TV COMMERCIAL-(after kickoff)…….Car, Soda, Insurance, Beer, Food, Other
11. FIRST TEAM TO SCORE……………….……………………….………... NE- NYG
12. Tom Brady -PASS YDS. OVER/UNDER…….……...279.5….….OVER or UNDER
13. Eli Manning - PASS YDS-OVER/UNDER…………..275.5……...OVER or UNDER
14. Brandon Jacobs...RUSHING YDS OV/UND ……….…65.5……...OVER or UNDER
15. B.J.G.Ellis…..RUSHING YDS. OVER/UND…..……..37.5……...OVER or UNDER
16. Wes Welker……... REC. YDS. OVER/UND………….93.5.......... OVER or UNDER
17. Rob Gronkowski… REC. YDS. OVER/UND………....98.5…..… OVER or UNDER
18. Victor Cruz…….REC.YDS. OVER/UNDER..……....106.5….….. OVER or UNDER
19. Hakeem Nicks…..REC.YDS. OVER/UNDER.…….….70.5…...... OVER or UNDER
20. Chad Ochocinco …. Receptions. OVER/UNDER……….0.5......... OVER or UNDER
21 .FIRST COACH’S CHALLENGE BY…………………………..………..… NE- NYG
22. FIRST COACH’S CHALLENGE IS………………....UPHELD or OVERTURNED
23. FIRST TURNOVER BY………………………………………………..….. NE- NYG
24. FIRST TURNOVER………………………………...FUMBLE or INTERCEPTION
25. FIRST SACK BY……….………………..……………………….………... NE- NYG
26. FIRST PUNT BY…………………………..……………………………..... NE- NYG
27 .FIRST FIELD GOAL BY……………………………………S.Gostkowski/ L.Tynes
28. FIRST FIELD GOAL DISTANCE- OVER/UNDER…...34.5…..…..OVER/UNDER
29. S.Gostkowski- FIELD GOAL MADE IN FIRST HALF…………..……...YES or NO
30. POINTS SCORED END OF 1^ST QT……… OVER/UNDER 6.5........OVER/UNDER
31. FIRST PLAYER- FAMILY MEMBER SHOWN ON T.V. (after kickoff)__________________
32. A.Hernandez…SCORING A TOUCHDOWN……………………………YES or NO
33. V.Cruz…….. SCORING A TOUCHDOWN…………………………...…YES or NO
34. N.E. Patriots Leading Rusher (in Yards)……………………____________________
35. S.Gostkowski LONGEST F.G. MADE OVER/UNDER...47.5 YDs…….OVER/UNDER
36. WHO’S WINNING AT HALFTIME…………………..………………….. NE- NYG
37. FIRST TOUCHDOWN SCORED BY…………… RB/WR/QB/TE/K/DEF/OTHER
38. FINAL SCORE- TOTAL OVER/UNDER……….48.5……….…..….OVER/UNDER
39. WHO WINS THE SUPER BOWL ……………………………………….... NE- NYG
40. WHO WINS THE SUPER BOWL M.V.P…………………..____________________

TIE BREAKER……….TOTAL COMBINED POINTS SCORED…..._______________

[Oil Can Dan]

12. Tom Brady -PASS YDS. OVER/UNDER…….……...279.5….….OVER
13. Eli Manning - PASS YDS-OVER/UNDER…………..275.5……...OVER
14. Brandon Jacobs...RUSHING YDS OV/UND ……….…65.5……...UNDER
15. B.J.G.Ellis…..RUSHING YDS. OVER/UND…..……..37.5……...OVER
16. Wes Welker……... REC. YDS. OVER/UND………….93.5.......... UNDER
17. Rob Gronkowski… REC. YDS. OVER/UND………....98.5…..… UNDER
18. Victor Cruz…….REC.YDS. OVER/UNDER..……....106.5….….. UNDER
19. Hakeem Nicks…..REC.YDS. OVER/UNDER.…….….70.5…...... OVER
20. Chad Ochocinco …. Receptions. OVER/UNDER……….0.5......... UNDER

Best bet on the board:
3. TEAM RECEIVING BALL FIRST…………………………………………NYG

Edited by Oil Can Dan, 02 February 2012 - 02:18 PM.

[weeba]

I really see that if the Pats win the toss, taking the ball and driving fast.

[Oil Can Dan]

It would be very unusual for them to do so. They haven't won a toss and taken the ball to start a game since the game Brady got hurt vs the Bills. And the Giants almost always take the ball first when they win the toss. They didn't vs Dallas in week 17 but that was because they wanted Romo out there with his hurt wrist to start the game (or maybe more appropriately, wanted him to have a longer layoff from end of 2nd Q to beginning of 3rd).

[weeba]

Yeah, I know that.... but something about this week makes me think that if they win, they'll want to come out swinging.

Who knows

[Marciano490]

It would be very unusual for them to do so. They haven't won a toss and taken the ball to start a game since the game Brady got hurt vs the Bills. And the Giants almost always take the ball first when they win the toss. They didn't vs Dallas in week 17 but that was because they wanted Romo out there with his hurt wrist to start the game (or maybe more appropriately, wanted him to have a longer layoff from end of 2nd Q to beginning of 3rd).

I think it's likely, but my book is giving me -285, which I don't think is a great bet. I like Eli's longest pass being over 45.5 yards. I still think the best bet on the board is no team scores three consecutive times for +155.

[bowiac]

I like no safety at -1600.

[WayBackVazquez]

I like no safety at -1600.

Why? The teams have allowed 3 safeties in 37 games. The Giants have scored 3 in 19 games, and there have been 4 in 45 Super Bowls. Seems like pretty bad odds for this prop.

So, I'll take 10 against your 160 in the Jimmy Fund bet thread.

[normstalls]

I heard on the radio that about 66% of the money in Vegas is going toward NYG. Is this true and is there any way to see this or prove it? Or (and maybe more likely) was Cowherd just talking out of his arse?

Just curious, thanks.

Edited by normstalls, 02 February 2012 - 04:57 PM.

[RSN Diaspora]

Each team has an o/u of four punts. Hard not to take the over for both.

[bowiac]

I heard on the radio that about 66% of the money in Vegas is going toward NYG. Is this true and is there any way to see this or prove it? Or (and maybe more likely) was Cowherd just talking out of his arse?

Just curious, thanks.

He's not talking out of his ass - there are a lot of bookmakers from both offshore books and Vegas books who have said as much. That said, it might not be true. These guys have their own reasons to suggest the money is coming in one way or another.

Why? The teams have allowed 3 safeties in 37 games. The Giants have scored 3 in 19 games, and there have been 4 in 45 Super Bowls. Seems like pretty bad odds for this prop.

Bill Barnwell went through the math on safeties in general, and the odds are well off if you think these two teams are about equally likely to allow a safety as a random NFL team. I tend to think they are, and that the clumping on these two teams in particular is basically just random. They're such fluke events that the additional sample size of using the entire NFL outweighs the significance of using the data on these two particular teams.