Super Bowl betting oddities?

OK folks now that the Super Bowl is over, I have a few betting questions.

The first points were a safety by the Giants. Were there props bets on that? What were the odds?

Given that it was a safety and there is a free kick that can be a drop kick or a place kick how does that count towards the punt or kick-off totals? I believe the free kick after the safety was a drop kick so does that count as a punt for the props bet?

Were there other betting oddities from the Super Bowl that people were aware of?

--helpmespock

The line on a first-score safety was 50:1. I don't know the actual odds of the event, but I'd imagine it's much much more remote than a 2% chance.

There are certainly more experienced sports bettors on this board than me, but I think the kick-related wagers usually use the terms "punt" and "kickoff". The free kick was a kickoff despite the fact that it was a dropkick and not a place kick.

Quote: rdw4potus

The line on a first-score safety was 50:1. I don't know the actual odds of the event, but I'd imagine it's much much more remote than a 2% chance.

I was telling somebody that this event alone may have made all the prop bets unprofitable for the places that cater to such action. Anyone else agree?

Quote: AZDuffman

I was telling somebody that this event alone may have made all the prop bets unprofitable for the places that cater to such action. Anyone else agree?

I don't think so. Someone had mentioned they made a prop bet on the Giants scoring exactly 36. If there are that many ridiculous bets available of course some will hit. I would guess that if safety was one choice, fg and td would have also had action... ALL losers. My guess is there was FAR more action on FG or TD, to more than override the safety bets.
And a free kick is not a punt..... it is a free kick. I remember that point being discussed before, maybe here on WoV?

Quote: SOOPOO

And a free kick is not a punt..... it is a free kick. I remember that point being discussed before, maybe here on WoV?

Might have been. To settle the issue, the kicking team may kick OR punt OR drop-kick the ball, but the ball may never be placed on a Tee. Since there has been exactly one successful drop-kick in the NFL in what, 50 years, teams don't do that. They seem to prefer the hang-time you get from the punt vs letting a player hold the ball and use the kicker, field-goal style.

Quote: rdw4potus

The line on a first-score safety was 50:1. I don't know the actual odds of the event, but I'd imagine it's much much more remote than a 2% chance.

I put the fair line on that at about 150 to 1. In other words, it was a terrible bet with about a 66% house edge.

Sometimes it is better to be lucky than good.

Quote: SOOPOO

I don't think so. Someone had mentioned they made a prop bet on the Giants scoring exactly 36. If there are that many ridiculous bets available of course some will hit. I would guess that if safety was one choice, fg and td would have also had action... ALL losers. My guess is there was FAR more action on FG or TD, to more than override the safety bets.
And a free kick is not a punt..... it is a free kick. I remember that point being discussed before, maybe here on WoV?

A fair catch free kick was discussed here. Which is a kick for the goal after a fair catch, with no pressure from the opposition.

A free kick after a safety can be a drop kick, punt or kick, non with a tee. You'll never see anyone select a drop kick, as the kick is always going to be from the 20 yard line of the team that gave up the score. Drop kicks with a pointy ball... bloody hard to do. Much easier in rugby. A team can onside kick it's own safety kick.

A punt is more normal as you get the hang time, and kicking without a tee is pain in the butt.

The last successful scoring drop kick was Doug Flutie in his last NFL game. No, it wasn't crucial. I don't think I've ever seen anyone try a drop kick for any other reason.

...

As for the original point, the long shots should still make the bookmaker money, as he'll have plenty of the sharp action on the shorter odds. I'd expect the safety to have a few big winners and a LOT of small losers (all those first TD bets are now in the bookmakers back pocket. A whole bunch of exact score bets go out of the window, etc.). Part of balancing you book is to try and get every result to be a winner, or be at least get far better odds for one event than a punter can get (e.g. get an uneven book, but such that it means you have 3-1 on a 50/50 proposition).

Quote: Wizard

I put the fair line on that at about 150 to 1. In other words, it was a terrible bet with about a 66% house edge.

Sometimes it is better to be lucky than good.

Absolutely. You would be better off betting the point spread, or betting one of the alternative point spreads or point totals. There are a few other bets that are smarter if you know the history and trends of the teams.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/man-wins-50-000-tom-brady-safety-155056494.html

I would want better odds than this. But it is amazing someone made this bet.

I think most here look at this the wrong way believe it or not... long-odds props like "First score of the game = Safety" are dens of the wise gambler that takes "bet against" or "lay" position. Seeing 50:1 for normal 150:1 prop means the wrong-way prop pays 51 for 50, instead of 151 for 150. In fact there can be huge action against the prop. In the particular case of the OP, and another thread I started on the same general subject, most "smart-guys" looking for easy action got taken to the cleaners. The insidious part of this is that the Giants gave one up vs. Atlanta a few weeks prior.