Super Bowl props 2014
Let's start by talking about field goals. A lot of my previous props have been based on field goals, and probably all of them were based on a low number of them. Typical props are:
Over/under 3.5 field goals in the game.
Will a field goal be scored in quarter x.
First/last/last score of the first half to be a field goal.
More field goals +x than touchdowns.
As I've written about before, the average number of field goals per game keeps increasing. We also keep longer and longer field goals made.
All that said, the following chart shows the average number of field goals per game by season. The 2013 season is through the regular season. The black line is the least-squared regression line. The equation shown is the equation for that line, where x is the season number, starting with 1 for the 2000 season.
From 2000 to 2007 the average number per game was 2.95. This year the average is 3.37. So, I'm going to be a lot more hesitant to bet against field goals this year.
Now, onto the most dreaded of props, the "no safety." Since 2000 there have been 3,708 games played and 229 safeties scored. The average number of safeties per game is 0.062. However, let's look at the average number by year.
Again, a gradual increase. Not as much as the field goals, but it can't be ignored. The average number in 2013 was 0.078. Given that mean, using the Poisson distribution the probability of at least one is 1-exp(-0.078) = 7.52%. That would make a fair line on the no -1230. I used to put this fair at about -2000, but I'm going to go with the more conservation -1230 for this year. In recent years I had to lay 8 to 1 on it. I'm not going to lay that much this year. We'll have to see if the squares remember that 3 out of the last 5 Super Bowls had a safety and consequently bet the YES, making the NO a better value. The way I feel right now is I'm not going to bet it big unless I see -600 or better.
If anyone else wants to play with the data, this chart shows the average TDs, FGs, and safeties per game since 2000.
| Season | FG | TD | Safety |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 2.919 | 4.618 | 0.062 |
| 2001 | 2.969 | 4.525 | 0.042 |
| 2002 | 2.887 | 5.011 | 0.045 |
| 2003 | 2.974 | 4.689 | 0.082 |
| 2004 | 2.738 | 4.981 | 0.060 |
| 2005 | 3.030 | 4.579 | 0.041 |
| 2006 | 3.045 | 4.618 | 0.052 |
| 2007 | 3.071 | 4.873 | 0.067 |
| 2008 | 3.281 | 4.865 | 0.086 |
| 2009 | 2.921 | 4.918 | 0.052 |
| 2010 | 3.053 | 5.000 | 0.053 |
| 2011 | 3.273 | 4.936 | 0.086 |
| 2012 | 3.321 | 5.116 | 0.056 |
| 2013 | 3.371 | 5.227 | 0.078 |
you know who the teams are and look at their
records for safety's. I was doing this with O/U
in baseball a couple years ago and was quite
good at it, around 60%. But it's way too much
paperwork and I have nowhere to place bets
except online and I hate the way sports betting
is structured anyway, so I gave it up.
Look at the teams safeties for at least the last
two seasons, that will tell what to bet.
I think the other thread you just put up, in which I posted a weather link, is going to be important this year, more than ever before. I think you can clean up on betting a low field goal percentage made vs. attempts, an over for 2pt conversions, an under for field goals altogether, and I bet there will be a safety. There's going to be a lot of stupid in the cold stuff happen, and people will underperform; a minimum of 3 fumbles and 5 interceptions for turnovers (adding up both teams). JMHO, says the person who went 3-4-1 today. lol...better ask Mission; he's got it wired.
Even though it's only a 9% chance historically, I also think they're going to get moderate to heavy snow, which is what I'm basing some of the above on.
Quote: BeardgoatCold does not equate to that many turnovers. The game today was 4 degrees and there was 1 turnover. The snow/rain would be a factor
Totally agree. Cold alone means nothing. Snow/rain? That's a little different.
Quote: EvenBobI would do the safety thing differently. Wait till
you know who the teams are and look at their
records for safety's. Look at the teams safeties for at least the last
two seasons, that will tell what to bet.
With an average 0.062 safeties per game (based on 2000 to 2013 data), and 16 games in a regular season, we can expect each time to have 0.99 safeties per season. That is not a big enough average to get a sense of that particular team's propensity to get them. So I look at overall NFL averages.
Quote: beachbumbabsI think the other thread you just put up, in which I posted a weather link, is going to be important this year, more than ever before. I think you can clean up on betting a low field goal percentage made vs. attempts, an over for 2pt conversions, an under for field goals altogether, and I bet there will be a safety. There's going to be a lot of stupid in the cold stuff happen, and people will underperform; a minimum of 3 fumbles and 5 interceptions for turnovers (adding up both teams). JMHO, says the person who went 3-4-1 today. lol...better ask Mission; he's got it wired.
You're the weather expert, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here. Based on everything I've heard and read, the only thing that has much of an effect on sports is wind. Of course if there is a foot of snow on the field that would be an exception. However, I would lay good money the field will be free of (accumulated) snow for the Super Bowl. I'll be certain check the weather, and if a snowstorm is expected I'll be very careful about the props. Otherwise, I don't plan to pay much attention to the weather.
If you disagree, would you be open to betting on such things NOW, based on NFL averages? Since 2000, the average game has had 0.116 two-point conversions. My Poisson estimate of the probability per game is 10.95%. That would make the fair line on the YES +813. I usually can bet the NO on that at about -450, so I'm not going to offer better than that. How about my $45 to your $10 that there will NOT be a two-point conversion? I'm happy to go higher, if you wish.
Definitely will bet NO SAFETY on my last day (Friday). Wonder what price I will get this year?
By the way....thanks for all the data Wizard.
Quote: WizardThat is not a big enough average to get a sense of that particular team's propensity to get them.
That's probably true
Quote:So I look at overall NFL averages.
I still think that you can do better than this. Can you correlate with other stats? Eg, is there any correlation between the numbers of sacks a team gets in a season and the number of safeties it gets?
Quote: michael99000As far as snow goes, the NFL actually has contingency plans to play the game on Saturday or Monday if there's a crazy heavy snow storm. I'm sure travel and hotel plans for many people and workers would be thrown into a mess, but they'd take that over a Super Bowl played in two feet of snow
I think I heard that it would take a storm of like 18 inches or something for that to happen. I saw on the news that they have some crazy ice melting machine that can melt a couple hundred tons of snow.
eta: here is the article
http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/10158176/nfl-vp-frank-supovitz-metlife-super-bowl-let-snow
Quote: WizardWith an average 0.062 safeties per game (based on 2000 to 2013 data), and 16 games in a regular season, we can expect each time to have 0.99 safeties per season. That is not a big enough average to get a sense of that particular team's propensity to get them. So I look at overall NFL averages.
You're the weather expert, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here. Based on everything I've heard and read, the only thing that has much of an effect on sports is wind. Of course if there is a foot of snow on the field that would be an exception. However, I would lay good money the field will be free of (accumulated) snow for the Super Bowl. I'll be certain check the weather, and if a snowstorm is expected I'll be very careful about the props. Otherwise, I don't plan to pay much attention to the weather.
If you disagree, would you be open to betting on such things NOW, based on NFL averages? Since 2000, the average game has had 0.116 two-point conversions. My Poisson estimate of the probability per game is 10.95%. That would make the fair line on the YES +813. I usually can bet the NO on that at about -450, so I'm not going to offer better than that. How about my $45 to your $10 that there will NOT be a two-point conversion? I'm happy to go higher, if you wish.
I think this is fun. Let's figure out the bets in PM, then if you like you can post them here, but I'll be aboard on at least some of it, and you can make the same offers to others. The one new piece of information to me, which changes all of my predictions, is that they're willing to cancel/postpone for "excessive" snow, which is a large factor for me. I thought they would go forward no matter what on Sunday, and I think the seasonal weather pattern exhibited to date is providing a much greater than 9% chance it will be medium to heavy snow (which I mentioned yesterday somewhere in these discussions); I think it's somewhere in the 30-50% range, depending on the intensity, that it will be a factor. I don't know how to structure the bet to account for that eventuality, but it changes the odds greatly IMO with them holding out the possibility of not holding the event as scheduled (waiting for optimum weather).
I definitely defer to your vast knowledge of sports betting and historical studies as far as setting fair lines and choosing which side you'll bet. I just get a kick out of the chance to play. :)
EDIT: I didn't answer your question directly, so let me do that: yes, I'm willing to bet now, but I would like to figure out a provision for them moving the game date for weather; don't know if that makes a no-bet, or we should tier the bets, or something else.
Quote: GWAEI think I heard that it would take a storm of like 18 inches or something for that to happen. I saw on the news that they have some crazy ice melting machine that can melt a couple hundred tons of snow.
eta: here is the article
http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/10158176/nfl-vp-frank-supovitz-metlife-super-bowl-let-snow
http://www.nj.gov/treasury/purchase/notices/010214b.shtml
They are renting massive snow melters that an end loader would dump snow into, melt and discharge into storm drains and snow blowers with chutes that can load semis to haul away. They are doing this just for the Super Bowl as they do not want to have any hiccups. Problems I could foresee are snowfall coupled with extremely cold weather whereas rock salt won't melt snow or ice. Which would make travel impossible, 60000 ton and 800 trucks would hardly make a dent on ice pack. As salts effective temp would be above 10 degrees or there about. Unless they added mag chloride or calcium chloride or some additive to the salt which is expensive and probably not equipped to handle on that massive of a scale. But on the whole NJ is pretty progressive on the winter maintenance side I wouldn't totally rule out.
Another thing that irks me is this is "New York's" Super Bowl and they get all the publicity but New Jersey foots the bill, ugh.
There was no train service to the facility when I was there.
So if transportation has to occir to the stadioum, i would guess that peoples first choice will be to stay in NY, and eat in NY etc,,,,so yes NJ is footing the bill, and NY will get the big chunk of tourist dollars.
Quote: WizardWith an average 0.062 safeties per game (based on 2000 to 2013 data), and 16 games in a regular season, we can expect each time to have 0.99 safeties per season. That is not a big enough average to get a sense of that particular team's propensity to get them. So I look at overall NFL averages.
Quarterback sacks might be a better indicator, for teams that apply pressure well I would -guess- get more safeties overall.
But that factor might so small that it's too hard to see in the 1 safety/season metric.
Quote: Wizard
If you disagree, would you be open to betting on such things NOW, based on NFL averages? Since 2000, the average game has had 0.116 two-point conversions. My Poisson estimate of the probability per game is 10.95%. That would make the fair line on the YES +813. I usually can bet the NO on that at about -450, so I'm not going to offer better than that. How about my $45 to your $10 that there will NOT be a two-point conversion? I'm happy to go higher, if you wish.
Is this offer open to others? If so, I would be interested. Also, to be very clear, is the event in question an attempt or a successful 2 point conversion?
Quote: AyecarumbaIs this offer open to others? If so, I would be interested. Also, to be very clear, is the event in question an attempt or a successful 2 point conversion?
Sorry, I'm too late for that now.
Based on the early line, we're looking at Denver -1.5 and over/under of 47.5. Small spreads are very bad for props. I will probably have the smallest amount bet in ten years on this one.
Stay tuned for some specific suggestions once the props come out and I have a chance to do the math.
Quote: kewljWhy are small spreads bad for props, wiz? I mean they have props for everything under the sun?
They makes props like:
Team to score first
Team to score last in first half
Team to score last in game
Team to punt first
Team to score first TD
Team to score first FG
Team to 10 points first
Team to do _______ first
all no good. The casinos will put a -115 line on both sides and you just can't beat that since the teams are about equally as good.
Quote: zippyboyAnybody else see how Denver versus Seattle gives new meaning to Superbowl?
PUFF PUFF I got the munchies
It's good to be back in the big game. 15 years; I remember the last 2. John Elway riding off into the sunset...helicopter run...Mobley knocking down that last pass from Favre. Damn it feels good to be a Bronco fan right now!
Quote: zippyboyAnybody else see how Denver versus Seattle gives new meaning to Superbowl?
Makes my eyes red just thinking about it...:-)
Quote: chickenmanQuote: zippyboyAnybody else see how Denver versus Seattle gives new meaning to Superbowl?
Makes my eyes red just thinking about it...:-)
Team props
Player props
"No Safety" is currently at -1000. I know the Wiz has said he wouldn't bet "big" on the no saftey at higher than -600.
I've been trying to get friends and coworkers to bet the "yes safety" with me, offering them +1000. I feel like this should be an attractive offer for squares, there have been several safeties recently and they get 10 times their bet for a safety? No bites yet though :(
Does anyone have a report on the "No Safety" line at Vegas casinos? Or other interesting props?
Quote: AcesAndEightsBovada has released a bunch of props:
Team props
Player props
"No Safety" is currently at -1000. I know the Wiz has said he wouldn't bet "big" on the no saftey at higher than -600.
I've been trying to get friends and coworkers to bet the "yes safety" with me, offering them +1000. I feel like this should be an attractive offer for squares, there have been several safeties recently and they get 10 times their bet for a safety? No bites yet though :(
Does anyone have a report on the "No Safety" line at Vegas casinos? Or other interesting props?
If I can get 10:1, I'll be putting a little on the Safety. I bet it every year, though. I don't percieve it to have value, apart from the amount of joy I get from safeties in the game.
Quote: AcesAndEights
Does anyone have a report on the "No Safety" line at Vegas casinos? Or other interesting props?
The Hilton is usually the first to put their props out in Vegas and they are releasing their's tonight at 7pm.
Quote: AcesAndEightsBovada has released a bunch of props:
Team props
Player props
"No Safety" is currently at -1000. I know the Wiz has said he wouldn't bet "big" on the no saftey at higher than -600.
I've been trying to get friends and coworkers to bet the "yes safety" with me, offering them +1000. I feel like this should be an attractive offer for squares, there have been several safeties recently and they get 10 times their bet for a safety? No bites yet though :(
Does anyone have a report on the "No Safety" line at Vegas casinos? Or other interesting props?
I would think +1000 might be close to a fair number considering the site and weather. I would assume that the safety is more likely to happen in cold or poor weather.
Quote: AcesAndEightsBovada has released a bunch of props:
No offense to Bovada, but you always get the best lines on props here in Vegas. LOTS of square action.
Quote: WizardNo offense to Bovada, but you always get the best lines on props here in Vegas. LOTS of square action.
Yah, I wasn't planning on betting anything at Bovada (in fact I can't easily even if I wanted to, because of where I live).
It was more just an FYI. I didn't know the Vegas books hadn't released anything yet.
Of interest to me... "The last score of the game will be?" NOTE option B and C... this year it might be so, considering the teams.
A.) Touchdown + extra point
B.) Touchdown with 2 point conversion
C.) Touchdown with failed extra point or failed 2 point conversion
D.) Field Goal or Safety
Quote: AcesAndEightsLet the record show that AxiomOfChoice and I have agreed to a safety bet. I am taking the "no safety" at -1000 and he is taking the "yes safety" at +1000. His $30 against my $300.
Yup!
If it's good enough for Bovada, it's good enough for me...
Quote: thecesspitDarn, wouldn't mind +1000... +600 on bodog.ca, -1000 for the no.
Due to heavy axiom, I mean action, on the YES side, the line at AcesAndEights book has moved to +900 for a "YES SAFETY." PM to book your bets :)
I will take one more bet at +800 if anyone wants to play...then I will have had enough exposure for my liking on this prop...
Quote: AcesAndEightsthecesspit has booked a YES SAFETY bet with me at the line of +900.
Confirmed.
Quote: JimRockfordLooks like the NO SAFETY at LVH is -800
Hmm, if you're looking for -600 (what the Wiz said he'd bet it big at), this doesn't look too bad. Depending on the action I imagine it might move. Although, with the YES only at +550, may not get as much square action from tourists.
Quote: AcesAndEightsDue to heavy axiom, I mean action, on the YES side, the line at AcesAndEights book has moved to +900 for a "YES SAFETY." PM to book your bets :)
$30 moves the line? High stakes!
Quote: darthvaderOn a prop like this, would one have to lay at least 800 or could you lay 400 to win 50?
You can definitely bet less than $800. I have no idea what the minimum bets that sportsbooks take are, though.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceYou can definitely bet less than $800. I have no idea what the minimum bets that sportsbooks take are, though.
Most Nevada sports books will take bets as low as $2.
So at -800 you would need to bet at least $80.
Edit: I stand corrected by DRich. Everywhere I've been has always said $10, so I guess YMMV.
Quote: AcesAndEightsI await with bated breath the Wizard's analysis of fair lines for various prop bets, and which ones he will be plunking down that hard-earned Wizard money on :)
You are really hoping that he will tell you that you got good bets down aren't you? ;-)
And, yet, the casino lines move further and further.... -800 now...
