Super Bowl props 2014
Then what happens? I get s**t kicked all over my face. For everyone who thinks my math on "no safety" is so flawed and absurd, let's see how you would do it. Telling me that I should factor in the direction of the wind does not constitute an alternative methodology. I want to see an actual probability that there will, or won't be, a safety and some explanation of where it came from.
I was going to post my fair line for a lot more bets that are often good tomorrow but I think I'll just forget about it.
Quote: WizardJust goes to show that no good deed goes unpunished. I've made more money on betting sports, most of on props, through the years than any other form of advantage play. For the first time ever I open my books and give my readers some of my best plays. This all based on hundreds of hours of work and a methodology that took years to perfect.
Then what happens? I get s**t kicked all over my face. For everyone who thinks my math on "no safety" is so flawed and absurd, let's see how you would do it. Telling me that I should factor in the direction of the wind does not constitute an alternative methodology. I want to see an actual probability that there will, or won't be, a safety and some explanation of where it came from.
I was going to post my fair line for a lot more bets that are often good tomorrow but I think I'll just forget about it.
I thought this forum was here for open debate on gambling related issues ? Just because I don't agree with you, you feel your work isn't appreciated? If everyone is expected to just say great job Wizard, and assume because it's your forum you must be right, and not voice a dissenting opinion when one has such.. Then I had the wrong idea about what goes on here.
I simply disagreed with your analysis of when , if, and how often a safety occurs in the Super Bowl, explained my side of the debate thoroughly and clearly without any personal attack or insult whatsoever.. And you consider that "being shit on" ?
Perhaps you are more sensitive than I thought, or read my posts wrong. Sports betting is much more a matter of opinion mixed with math than casino games are Wizard. We aren't talking here about how often a shooter will roll a 7 or how often I'll get dealt a blackjack. We are talking about what happens in a sporting event, and it's not based on cut and dry mathematics.
Again, if I was just supposed to say I agreed with you regardless of what I really think then ill do so from now on. But I'd like you to quote what I said and tell me exactly at which point you felt shit on to the degree that you feel so offended as to no longer provide the info
Quote: WizardThe advantage is only 5.56%, actually.
Yeah but look how high the Kelly bet is...
Quote: michael99000I thought this forum was here for open debate on gambling related issues ? Just because I don't agree with you, you feel your work isn't appreciated? If everyone is expected to just say great job Wizard, and assume because it's your forum you must be right, and not voice a dissenting opinion when one has such.. Then I had the wrong idea about what goes on here.
I simply disagreed with your analysis of when , if, and how often a safety occurs in the Super Bowl, explained my side of the debate thoroughly and clearly without any personal attack or insult whatsoever.. And you consider that "being shit on" ?
Perhaps you are more sensitive than I thought, or read my posts wrong. Sports betting is much more a matter of opinion mixed with math than casino games are Wizard. We aren't talking here about how often a shooter will roll a 7 or how often I'll get dealt a blackjack. We are talking about what happens in a sporting event, and it's not based on cut and dry mathematics.
Again, if I was just supposed to say I agreed with you regardless of what I really think then ill do so from now on. But I'd like you to quote what I said and tell me exactly at which point you felt shit on to the degree that you feel so offended as to no longer provide the info
Michael, I tend to agree with you and from my post earlier today we probably think alike. I come here to try to learn new things since I know for a fact I dont know it all. But I also cant see how pure math can make a sports betting decision. Maybe it works out. The thing is all the math is over my head....I am in the medical field and never got into math really heavily as far as statistics.
But I do (like yourself) seem to need to know team info, matchup info, weather info, coaching tendency info.
Maybe I will have to keep handicapping that way because I dont have the math knowledge. But maybe my way is sound.
If the 6 percent figure is not trusted by me.....I cannot provide a better way to predict the occurance....but maybe the answer is...there is no way to predict. There is no law of nature that says every possible occurance in a team sport can be calculated with accuracy. Maybe its not possible.
I , like yourself appreciate the facts and figures posted by the wizard......and appreciate other peoples comments....I am just trying to get better at what i do.
maybe somone will convince me that i am doing it wrong. But until then I will have this opinion..and continue to see better ways to bet sports to incorporate into or replace my methods
As far as other variables, one cannot factor it for a specific event. Does it matter if the QB got in a fight with their girlfriend/wife before the game. maybe. Did they have sex before the game and does it matter? Boxers believe this matters. Given that one cannot account for all variables, one must looks at the odds and see if one can exploit it and that is what the Wizard has done. It is true that he has not factored in variables of these players for this specific game but does it matter? If these two teams played five games in a row, can you predict the odds on the fifth game based on the first four to guarantee a win.
No one has a crystal ball that can predict the future. Wait just in!!!! My crystal ball said to bet on Seattle and the over. Bet no safety.
I'm not sure if anyone else in this forum has studied Econometrics, but if so they'll understand what my point is...
You take the baseline % of an event occurring. In this case I'll trust the Wizards 6% figure. BUT then, you must take all the other factor that increase or decrease that events possibility, assign them each a multiple based on how much or little of a factor it is, apply each of those to the original 6%, and then you've got your true chance of the event occurring.
In this case I can think of at least 7 or 8 factors in a football game which have some effect in causing or preventing a safety.
Quote: michael99000
In this case I can think of at least 7 or 8 factors in a football game which have some effect in causing or preventing a safety.
Like the team not getting sacked in the end zone.
Quote: WizardJust goes to show that no good deed goes unpunished. I've made more money on betting sports, most of on props, through the years than any other form of advantage play. For the first time ever I open my books and give my readers some of my best plays. This all based on hundreds of hours of work and a methodology that took years to perfect.
Then what happens? I get s**t kicked all over my face. For everyone who thinks my math on "no safety" is so flawed and absurd, let's see how you would do it. Telling me that I should factor in the direction of the wind does not constitute an alternative methodology. I want to see an actual probability that there will, or won't be, a safety and some explanation of where it came from.
I was going to post my fair line for a lot more bets that are often good tomorrow but I think I'll just forget about it.
Dude, I feel you. Good work on the lines; I appreciate it and I can't even bet anything! Don't listen to the haters. Haters gonna hate. You do you.
And consequently, if you doing you means not sharing this stuff with all the randos on here, I wouldn't blame you :P
More like disagree'ers
Quote: AcesAndEightsDude, I feel you. Good work on the lines; I appreciate it and I can't even bet anything! Don't listen to the haters. Haters gonna hate. You do you.
And consequently, if you doing you means not sharing this stuff with all the randos on here, I wouldn't blame you :P
Spoken like a guy who obviously didn't read a single word in this thread other than the post you quoted
Quote: WizardJust goes to show that no good deed goes unpunished. I've made more money on betting sports, most of on props, through the years than any other form of advantage play. For the first time ever I open my books and give my readers some of my best plays. This all based on hundreds of hours of work and a methodology that took years to perfect.
I was going to post my fair line for a lot more bets that are often good tomorrow but I think I'll just forget about it.
I think a lot of people are with you on your bets, Wizard. I wouldn't worry about him, at least, I'd like to see his safety data for every game played since 19xx in which the winds was over/under x mph or concerning the quality of the punters, or whatever.
If there's anyone that can ever hope to put a quantitative edge on Prop bets, you're the guy and everyone knows it. If I was going to put any action on Props, which I'm not, I'd just do whatever you were doing. That said, I've got a nice middle on personal bets with two different people such that I either win $100 or lose nothing, overall. I just need one team or the other to win by one point...lol
Probably not, but free shot all the same, right?
Quote: WizardThe advantage is only 5.56%, actually. While a good bet in theory, nobody knows better than me that it has lost 3 out of the last 5 years.
I'll be on suicide watch if there is another one this year.
Please don't let one bad apple sour it for all of us. Yes, stats and just stats. Take them or leave them. At the end of the day, analytics simply form a baseline to then be subsequently tweaked by other factors. Kinda like local knowledge trumping GPS directions.
As a followup, if I am essentially paying 8 to 1 for an event that should fairly pay 15 to 1, how could my advantage only be 5.56%? Thanks. I thoroughly appreciate the info that you provide to the group on the basis of your good graces alone.
Darth
Knowing the EXACT likelihood of a safety based on these teams, weather, stadium, crowd noise, officials etc. is not possible. I would argue that this would be the case for every topic in sports betting. Although, it is probably true that 80 hours of researching safety probabilities would give a more exact probability than the one the Wizard has identified. It would be insane to undertake the endeavor from a time/value perspective. If the true odds of a safety in this particular game are 1505 or 1600 instead of 1520, it makes little substantive difference to the betting value.
In sports betting, you never know the exact edge.
I would compare it to someone who uses the advanced FPDW strategy, but knows that they will give up a nickel every 8,000 hands because even the advanced strategy is not exactly perfect.
So, yeah, he put a diamond in the dust of common discourse out there, and it got treated like just another rock, not because it didn't have value, but because the audience didn't know what it was. He didn't appreciate it. In this case, "Wow, thanks, Wizard!" without a critique was appropriate. I got to learn that lesson with teliot a couple months back, myself; let me pass it forward to you, michael and Larry. An apology would probably be in order, rather than continuing to defend what you're saying, in this particular case.
This story was running around as a meme yesterday; worth a read in illustrating the difference.
"A man sat at a metro station in Washington DC and started to play the violin; it was a cold January morning. He played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time, since it was rush hour, it was calculated that 1,100 people went through the station, most of them on their way to work.
Three minutes went by, and a middle aged man noticed there was musician playing. He slowed his pace, and stopped for a few seconds, and then hurried up to meet his schedule.
A minute later, the violinist received his first dollar tip: a woman threw the money in the till and without stopping, and continued to walk.
A few minutes later, someone leaned against the wall to listen to him, but the man looked at his watch and started to walk again. Clearly he was late for work.
The one who paid the most attention was a 3 year old boy. His mother tagged him along, hurried, but the kid stopped to look at the violinist. Finally, the mother pushed hard, and the child continued to walk, turning his head all the time. This action was repeated by several other children. All the parents, without exception, forced them to move on.
In the 45 minutes the musician played, only 6 people stopped and stayed for a while. About 20 gave him money, but continued to walk their normal pace. He collected $32. When he finished playing and silence took over, no one noticed it. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.
No one knew this, but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the most talented musicians in the world. He had just played one of the most intricate pieces ever written, on a violin worth $3.5 million dollars.
Two days before his playing in the subway, Joshua Bell sold out at a theater in Boston where the seats averaged $100.
This is a real story. Joshua Bell playing incognito in the metro station was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste, and priorities of people. The outlines were: in a commonplace environment at an inappropriate hour: Do we perceive beauty? Do we stop to appreciate it? Do we recognize the talent in an unexpected context?
One of the possible conclusions from this experience could be:
If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world playing the best music ever written, how many other things are we missing?"
Quote: beachbumbabsThere's a difference between this discussion and many others on this board, IMO. Most of the forum is a discussion among peers and interested parties on gambling and non-gambling topics. This, however, is the Wiz's personal area of expertise and study; he has few if any peers in qualitative analysis of sports prop betting, anywhere, anywhen, and pro gamblers know and respect him for it. As he said, he has made a huge investment in time and money in the area, and it's paid off for him. His generosity in sharing his work for the first time ever is shocking, really, because it affects a significant part of his income to make those lines available for anyone who wants to apply them; his edge depends on heavy action on the other side of his bets, following conventional wisdom.
So, yeah, he put a diamond in the dust of common discourse out there, and it got treated like just another rock, not because it didn't have value, but because the audience didn't know what it was. He didn't appreciate it. In this case, "Wow, thanks, Wizard!" without a critique was appropriate. I got to learn that lesson with teliot a couple months back, myself; let me pass it forward to you, michael and Larry. An apology would probably be in order, rather than continuing to defend what you're saying, in this particular case.
I strongly disagree with this. Regardless of who you are, there is no such thing as "proof by authority".
One should expect intelligent people to be skeptical of just about anything that is stated without proof or evidence. That's simply what intelligent people do as a first reaction to just about anything.
I would agree with you if anything disrespectful or insulting was said, but that isn't what happened here.
Quote: darthvaderAs a followup, if I am essentially paying 8 to 1 for an event that should fairly pay 15 to 1, how could my advantage only be 5.56%? Thanks. I thoroughly appreciate the info that you provide to the group on the basis of your good graces alone.
If you go through the standard edge calculation, that's what it works out to. A fair line of -1520 implies that the probability of the even occurring is 1/16.2 = 6.17%.
If you make one hundred $8 bets at -800, you win 93.83*1 and lose 6.17*$8, for a total profit of $44.47. You put up $800 worth of action, and $44.47/$800 = 5.56%.
Having said that, the variance is also incredibly low (because almost 94% of the outcomes are identical) which makes it a very good bet (assuming that the 6.17% probability is accurate). The Kelly fraction is sky-high.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI strongly disagree with this. Regardless of who you are, there is no such thing as "proof by authority".
One should expect intelligent people to be skeptical of just about anything that is stated without proof or evidence. That's simply what intelligent people do as a first reaction to just about anything.
I would agree with you if anything disrespectful or insulting was said, but that isn't what happened here.
Fair enough. On 95% or better of what is on this forum, I would not have taken this stance. In this case, I will continue to. I agree that nothing disrespectful or rude was said, but it was implicit in the topic by that author that, if a bettor wanted to benefit (and if you read back on the subject over several years, Wiz has been asked many times to share this info but has refused until now) they were now able to do so, if they did not, fine as well. This is not a couple-days thing, and that's what I was referring to in trying to put it into perspective.
I'll certainly take a positive advantage vs. the flip side of this bet. Using the same formula, the Yes bet at +550 is ugly. If you make one hundred $1 bets at +550, you lose 93.83*1 and win 6.17*$5.5, for a total loss of $59.90. You put up $100 worth of action, and -$59.90/$100 = -59.90%.
Quote: michael99000With all due respect to the sharps whom the Wizard says wager on this, the true sharp play on this prop is to not bet it at all. The mistake being made in using the 6% occurrence rate of safeties to determine your fair line is that you're treating it as a completely random occurrence, as though it were a number in roullette. Nothing that occurs on a sports playing field after the coin flip is random. The players themselves cause each event to happen, along with the coaching decisions, and the weather. There is no way to know how often under the conditions we will have on Sunday, that a safety has occurred in a game.
For instance, how often has there been a safety in a game involving the leagues #1 defense? How often has there been a safety when the wind was blowing at > X mph ?
Anyone who studies the game of football knows there are specific sets of events that lead to a safety. The quality of the punters and the punt rush teams plays a huge role. The quality of the interior offensive lineman. Etc etc
If I had no choice but to bet it, I'd bet No just because of the math the wizard has outlined.
Hmmm, the event occurs so little, that adding in other factors means you can't get a good grip on the 'right' line based of those factors. While the defence and punter -may- affect the probability, I'd contend there's not enough data to take that into account. Thus the 'unknowns' are nicely wrapped up in the overall figure given.
(Digression, please ignore if I am teach the obvious)
Consider 10 decks of cards. 8 of them are normal decks of cards. 1 deck has two ace of spades in (and no ace of hearts). The last has no ace of spades (and an extra ace of hearts).
You take a deck at random, and draw a card. If it's the ace of spades, you win. You have no way of knowing which deck you are getting. What are the odds of drawing the ace of spades?
Answer 1 in 52.
How many draws do you need to make to be sure that your chance is about 1 in 52?
Next, you are still grabbing a deck at random, but you can identify each deck. How many draws do you need to work out which deck has the two Aces in?
Many, many more than the previous number.
So while the best defence and a good punter may have an effect, as may the quality of the punt returner, and the average field position when the punt is made (which will require knowledge of the other sides defence and offence), I suspect it's small and unknowable to any good degree. Thus it's a random factor, and assuming every deck has 1 ace in is as good as you can get. As is the 5.52% of number of games with a safety in. Yeah, you can get more accurate in theory.
You can of course 'bet by feel', but those factors you can't model, you can treat as random.
Quote: darthvaderThank you, Axiom. The math makes sense. One might argue that a 5.56% advantage isn't worth the trouble, but I would say that any time the player has a theoretical advantage, he should pound. Analogously, a high count in BJ doesn't guarantee that the next hand will be a winner, just that the probabilities are in your favor.
I'll certainly take a positive advantage vs. the flip side of this bet. Using the same formula, the Yes bet at +550 is ugly. If you make one hundred $1 bets at +550, you lose 93.83*1 and win 6.17*$5.5, for a total loss of $59.90. You put up $100 worth of action, and -$59.90/$100 = -59.90%.
I don't think too many people would say that an edge that size is not worth the trouble. Not only is the edge massive, but the variance is fractional. The full-kelly bet is over 44% of your bankroll (!!!)
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI don't think too many people would say that an edge that size is not worth the trouble. Not only is the edge massive, but the variance is fractional. The full-kelly bet is over 44% of your bankroll (!!!)
I only said that because the Wizard said he wasn't going to bet it big unless he could get it at -600.
Darth
The most common set of events leading to a safety is as follows:
1. A special teams play (punt) gets downed by the kicking team inside the 5 yard line. This occurrence has a lot to do with the quality of the punter, and if you think that doesn't matter then just look at the statistics for having punts downed inside the 10 yd line. Punt coverage teams also differ greatly from team to team
2. A turnover occurs (interception, fumble) in which the defensive team then begins play offensively inside their own 5 yd line. I'll add in the possibility of a team stopping the other team on 4th down inside the 5 and thus taking over there. ALL of those scenarios are more likely to be created by a great defense. (Note: Seattle #1 defense in NFL.).. And in this specific game, offensively Seattle may be looking to take more chances inside the red zone knowing they can't settle for FGs against the top scoring nfl team. This riskiness could lead to denver gaining possession in prime safety causing area.
The other safety inducing instance is rare but happens. At the end of a game, a team leading by between 3 and 7 points possesses the ball on their half of the field on 4th down with 10 or less seconds to go. Rather than punt, they'll have their punter run out the back of the end zone purposely to waste all additional time. The 2 points doesn't hurt them. The only factor I can see making this more likely is the likelihood of the game being close
Yeah, usually the offensive team has the ball inside it's own 5 yard line. Why else would the quarterback be in his own end zone ?
GREAT DEFENSE. Another crock. Ever year some team has to be 1st in the NFL. That does not make them a great defense by any stretch of the imagination.
Your bookie must love you.
Darth
The Seahawks defense had the second-easiest schedule this season, according to Football Outsiders.
Quote: BuzzardWhat a crock ! I think the last 2 Superbowl safeties were one intentional and one QB guilty of intentional grounding.
Yeah, usually the offensive team has the ball inside it's own 5 yard line. Why else would the quarterback be in his own end zone ?
I wouldn't look at punting specifically (for the reason you point out) but how about just number (not percentage) of drives started inside the 20?
Is there a correlation between number of drives started inside the 5 and safeties allowed? Is there a correlation between number of opponents drives started inside the 5 and safeties scored? The hard part of this is not doing the math; it's getting the data in an easily computer-readable form.
Also, how much data to consider. Rules change, and, even when they don't, the severity of enforcement changes. If you don't go far enough back, you don't have enough data and your confidence interval is massive. If you go too far back, you're including data from an essentially different game.
Quote: BuzzardWhat a crock ! I think the last 2 Superbowl safeties were one intentional and one QB guilty of intentional grounding.
Yeah, usually the offensive team has the ball inside it's own 5 yard line. Why else would the quarterback be in his own end zone ?
GREAT DEFENSE. Another crock. Ever year some team has to be 1st in the NFL. That does not make them a great defense by any stretch of the imagination.
Your bookie must love you.
Yea and a qb being forced into grounding the ball in the end zone had nothing to do with the quality of the defense.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI wouldn't look at punting specifically (for the reason you point out) but how about just number (not percentage) of drives started inside the 20?
.
What do you think causes a drive to be started inside the 20?
Quote: michael99000What do you think causes a drive to be started inside the 20?
Actually, I made a typo when I said 20. I meant 5. Actually, I'd calculate correlations for 5, 10, and 20. I'd suspect that the strongest ones would be 5 or 10 (20 seems to be too far away) but I have no way of knowing without the data.
Anyway, obviously punting is the most common reason, but for our purposes we don't care WHY the drive started there; only that it did start there. So I would look at the number of drives specifically, rather than breaking it down by cause.
Quote: michael99000What do you think causes a drive to be started inside the 20?
Gee I have no idea. Unless , well maybe, could it be ?
2. A turnover occurs (interception, fumble) in which the defensive team then begins play offensively inside their own 5 yd line. I'll add in the possibility of a team stopping the other team on 4th down inside the 5 and thus taking over there.
Quote: BuzzardGee I have no idea. Unless , well maybe, could it be ?
2. A turnover occurs (interception, fumble) in which the defensive team then begins play offensively inside their own 5 yd line. I'll add in the possibility of a team stopping the other team on 4th down inside the 5 and thus taking over there.
Ok. And you don't think some teams are more likely to cause those situations to occur than others?
The prop to bet on this game, if you can find the right price, is Yes it will go to overtime
Just for grins , what exactly is that right price for YES it will go to overtime ?
Quote: AceCrAAckersLike the team not getting sacked in the end zone.
I agree with michael
possibly having one of the most immobile quarterbacks going up against the best defense in the NFL can increase the chances
combaibe with playing outdoors on a hard frozen field, possibly slippery field....can decrease the escapability.
Quote: michael99000In order to decipher the probability of a safety, it's the events leading up to the safety whose chances should be measured also, not just the play itself. If I told you beforehand that either team at some point in the game would possess the ball on their own 1 yard line, I'd guess that you wouldn't be as excited about your -1800 odds bet on NO. But Until that happens you don't even have to think about your NO bet losing.
The most common set of events leading to a safety is as follows:
1. A special teams play (punt) gets downed by the kicking team inside the 5 yard line. This occurrence has a lot to do with the quality of the punter, and if you think that doesn't matter then just look at the statistics for having punts downed inside the 10 yd line. Punt coverage teams also differ greatly from team to team
2. A turnover occurs (interception, fumble) in which the defensive team then begins play offensively inside their own 5 yd line. I'll add in the possibility of a team stopping the other team on 4th down inside the 5 and thus taking over there. ALL of those scenarios are more likely to be created by a great defense. (Note: Seattle #1 defense in NFL.).. And in this specific game, offensively Seattle may be looking to take more chances inside the red zone knowing they can't settle for FGs against the top scoring nfl team. This riskiness could lead to denver gaining possession in prime safety causing area.
The other safety inducing instance is rare but happens. At the end of a game, a team leading by between 3 and 7 points possesses the ball on their half of the field on 4th down with 10 or less seconds to go. Rather than punt, they'll have their punter run out the back of the end zone purposely to waste all additional time. The 2 points doesn't hurt them. The only factor I can see making this more likely is the likelihood of the game being close
I understand all that. At one safety per team per season, it's just not occuring enough for you to be able to sort out all that chaff to really understand the effects. It's not like 'number of 10 yard plus plays' or 'number of passing yards'. These are things were there is enough data to collect and make better judgements than a league wide average. I contend that there is not enough data to make it worthwhile on the safety, and the edge the Wizard calculates is good enough to guide you in a direction. It may be that from that info you want to dig further, or decide that some other factor (defence, kicker, wind) means that the bet, looking strong after numerical analysis, is not worth it.
Anyways, I have +900 on YES for the safety. I don't argue it's a good bet. I do argue that I'll be cheering on every play inside the offense own five yard line, and hoping for a time wasting intentional safety. I know two members here will not be happy if I win (again).
Quote: BuzzardOh Yeah, that Manning guy has such a SLOW release, he is just a sitting duck bath there. Why, it's amazing the number of times he has been sacked for a safety in his career. What exactly is that number, fellas !
Aw It is ZERO. And he has the best offensive line now he has ever had.
Still waiting for that fair line on OT, by the way !
Quote: BuzzardI wonder if this might have anything to do with Settle having a " GREAT" defense ?
The Seahawks defense had the second-easiest schedule this season, according to Football Outsiders.
http://www.theredzone.org/Features/NFLStrengthofSchedule.aspx
as far as strength of schedule....seattle had the 10th hardest/// denver had weakest strength of schedule.
so what can happen when the number one defense goes up against a poorly battle tested offense???
it does increase the chance of turnovers....and yes safety
Quote: michael99000The other safety inducing instance is rare but happens. At the end of a game, a team leading by between 3 and 7 points possesses the ball on their half of the field on 4th down with 10 or less seconds to go. Rather than punt, they'll have their punter run out the back of the end zone purposely to waste all additional time. The 2 points doesn't hurt them. The only factor I can see making this more likely is the likelihood of the game being close
This scenario happened in the 86 Super Bowl with Chicago and New England.
Quote: BuzzardAw It is ZERO. And he has the best offensive line now he has ever had.
Manning fumbled for a safety this year versus the Colts.
The Seahawks scored two safeties this year.
Poorly battle tested offense ROFLMAO. Tell that to the NFL teams watching the SB on TV instead of playing it.
Seattle's best chance of a turn over is an interception. When that happens, the guy who intercepted it might score a touchdown , but not a safety !
Quote: mickeycrimmThis scenario happened in the 86 Super Bowl with Chicago and New England.
It happened last year with the Ravens. Burnt off time.
Quote: mickeycrimmThis scenario happened in the 86 Super Bowl with Chicago and New England.
I was not aware of that but I'm surprised it happened in a blowout
Quote: thecesspitI understand all that. At one safety per team per season, it's just not occuring enough for you to be able to sort out all that chaff to really understand the effects. It's not like 'number of 10 yard plus plays' or 'number of passing yards'. These are things were there is enough data to collect and make better judgements than a league wide average. I contend that there is not enough data to make it worthwhile on the safety, and the edge the Wizard calculates is good enough to guide you in a direction. It may be that from that info you want to dig further, or decide that some other factor (defence, kicker, wind) means that the bet, looking strong after numerical analysis, is not worth it.
This logic doesn't really make sense to me.
Suppose that 95% of all safeties happen on a drive that starts inside the 10 yard line (I pulled that number out of my ass, so just assume that it's true for the sake of the argument). Clearly, then, the probability of a safety occurring would increase significantly if many drives start inside the 10, and decrease significantly if very few drives start inside the 10.
Safeties are rare occurrences, but drives starting inside the 10 are not. Assuming that the probability of a safety for each game is the same is no more valid than assuming that the probability of a safety on any drive that starts inside the 10 is the same (at least, without data).
Quote:Anyways, I have +900 on YES for the safety. I don't argue it's a good bet. I do argue that I'll be cheering on every play inside the offense own five yard line, and hoping for a time wasting intentional safety. I know two members here will not be happy if I win (again).
I have it for +1000. I believe that it is a good bet. I know for a fact that it is a better bet than yours :P It's also $30 so I don't really care.
I would like to get more money down but with the books offering it at -800 I don't think that too many people will give me +1000.
Quote: michael99000I was not aware of that but I'm surprised it happened in a blowout
OMG MICKEY THE 86 BEARS WERE A GREAT DEFENSE.
Seattle is a long way from being great. Above average, even very good, but GREAT ? ? ?
In the old days after a missed field goal, that team kicked off to the other team.
When you pull figures out of your ass, you usually wind up flushing your money down the toilet !
Quote: BuzzardAnother crock. That ranking has to do with win-loss record of opponenet. So if you beat several teams twice it hurts your rating. LOL
Done properly, strength of schedule ignores the games you play against that team. I can't be arsed to work out if they've done it properly.
Even if you take that into account on that chart, the Seahawks have a far higher strength of schedule than the broncos... hence the Broncos had an easier time of it.
You can only beat three teams twice in a regular season.
Quote: BuzzardAw It is ZERO. And he has the best offensive line now he has ever had.
!
Sunday Night Football is on NBC, you should stay up late and catch a game some time
Quote: BuzzardGee, did they have a reply of Peyton being sacked in the end zone for a safety. I must have missed that.
http://fansided.com/2013/10/20/robert-mathis-sacks-peyton-manning-fumble-safety-gif/#!tzPdq
Fumble after being sacked, result of play - safety.
