Super Bowl LIV
Spread:
Chief -1.5
49's +1.5
Money line:
Chiefs -120
49's +100
Am I wrong in wondering why anyone would bet the 49's to win outright at +100 when they could make the same amount of money by betting $100 and getting +1.5 points?
Quote: aceofspadesOdds on the Super Bowl opened as follows:
Spread:
Chief -1.5
49's +1.5
Money line:
Chiefs -120
49's +100
Am I wrong in wondering why anyone would bet the 49's to win outright at +100 when they could make the same amount of money by betting $100 and getting +1.5 points?
$100 gets you $90 on spread.
$100 gets you $100 on money line.
Quote: TDVegas$100 gets you $90 on spread.
$100 gets you $100 on money line.
Hmmm that is interesting - I assume you are calculating in the vig - but, doesn't the vig also apply to the money line as well?
I am not well-versed in sports betting so forgive my igorance
Quote: aceofspadesHmmm that is interesting - I assume you are calculating in the vig - but, doesn't the vig also apply to the money line as well?
I am not well-versed in sports betting so forgive my igorance
The vig is already factored into the +100 moneyline bet. Bet $100 win $100.
Quote: aceofspadesHmmm that is interesting - I assume you are calculating in the vig - but, doesn't the vig also apply to the money line as well?
I am not well-versed in sports betting so forgive my igorance
Yes. See above. Factored in.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/american-football/market/1.154528999
In the UK the exchange odds are about +/-112, and the best odds on bookies are:
KC 4/5 (-125)
SF 11/10 (+110) (shortening)
For what it’s worth, I’m interested in the more basic stuff: overtime, safety, scoreless quarter, etc. Nothing specific to a player or team.
Thanks.
Offense: San Francisco's rushing attack more than makes up for their mediocre quarterback. Like Green Bay, KC is soft against the run, and will be challenged to stop them.
Defense: The 49ers secondary is led by Richard Sherman, perhaps the toughest player to throw against in the NFL. With only the non-Sherman half of the field to work with, KC's main weapon will be Patrick Mahomes' mobility in the second half. He will scramble and score, but if the 49ers can limit him by keeping their offense on the field for time consuming ground and pound drives, they can keep it close, and I think even win the game. As much as I hate the 49ers, Defense wins championships.
I'm looking forward to an exciting, close contest. SF 27 - KC 24
What say you?
Quote: AyecarumbaWhile the lawmakers have made the Chiefs the favorite, I have to think the 49ers will cover or win because of two key strengths:
Offense: San Francisco's rushing attack more than makes up for their mediocre quarterback. Like Green Bay, KC is soft against the run, and will be challenged to stop them.
Defense: The 49ers secondary is led by Richard Sherman, perhaps the toughest player to throw against in the NFL. With only the non-Sherman half of the field to work with, KC's main weapon will be Patrick Mahomes' mobility in the second half. He will scramble and score, but if the 49ers can limit him by keeping their offense on the field for time consuming ground and pound drives, they can keep it close, and I think even win the game. As much as I hate the 49ers, Defense wins championships.
I'm looking forward to an exciting, close contest. SF 27 - KC 24
What say you?
While I also believe that the 49's will win, I am hesitant to claim that KC's rushing defense cannot stop Mostert when I just saw them basically shut down Henry (who is an MVP candidate)
Quote: aceofspadesWhile I also believe that the 49's will win, I am hesitant to claim that KC's rushing defense cannot stop Mostert when I just saw them basically shut down Henry (who is an MVP candidate)
San Fran has two strong backs and an animal for a TE. It will be tough to stop all the options. Their weak link is at QB, but he only needs to hand it off or dink and dunk.
| Team | Avg Pts Scored | Avg Pts Allowed | Exp. Pts |
|---|---|---|---|
| KC | 28.19 | 19.25 | 23.78 |
| SF | 29.94 | 19.38 | 24.59 |
The expected points scored is the average of the points per game scored and points allowed by the opposing team.
By this method, SF is a 0.8-point favorite, but let's just round that up to one point.
The over/under is the total of both teams expected points scored, which comes to 48.375. Normally this method comes very close to the actual over/under. However in the Super Bowl it is 54. This suggests that the under is a very good bet. However, I don't think this simple math is superior to the market. My question is why is the over/under so high?
One of the reasons the over/under is higher than a normal game because, for whatever reason, many of the past Super Bowls have gone over the average number of points scored in an NFL game... and the public remembers those occasions.Quote: WizardMy question is why is the over/under so high?
The average number of points scored in an NFL game is what... probably 47 points? (I don't know offhand ... that's just an educated guess.) I know it's not as high as 50 and yet 50 or more points have been scored in seven of the last eleven Super Bowls.
55-10, 37-24, 52-17, 49-26, 35-21 have been other final scores from Super Bowls of the past... far more points than the average.
For this game the over/under directly reflects the Chiefs and their ability to score, of course. The Chiefs scored 35 this past Sunday and 51 the week before and the public naturally knows and remembers this.
If you include the two playoff games for the Chiefs and 49ers in your Expected Points formula, it's not much different... but it is a full one point higher. (24.36 for KC and 25.17 for SF for an expected total of 49.52.)
As you know, recall the over/under isn't a prediction... it's just a number hoping to generate equal action for each side. If the books know the average Joe Q Public is going to be betting the Over, they know they have to set it and keep adjusting it accordingly, hoping to draw more action on the other side.
If we throw out last year's Super Bowl, which happened to be the lowest scoring Super Bowl ever (many called it a snooze fest but to me, a low scoring game can be just as exciting, if not more so, than a high scoring game), the prior nine Super Bowls averaged 53.33 points per game... and none of those contests featured these Chiefs. :)
Even knowing I'm getting "value" if I were to take the Under, I think I'd be hard pressed to actually bet on it. I'm just leery to do so knowing KC averaged 43 points over their past two games and SF averaged 32 points over their past two games. If I don't do the entire math to arrive at an expected total by also including the points given up, and I just look at the points they are scoring, I'm looking at a total of 75 total points scored with the two teams... and that's way more than 54. Maybe the general public is doing this too.
Anyway, just my two cents.
I disagree that Super Bowls on average have significantly more point scored than regular season games. In making such points, one can cherry pick his data to make his argument. For example, I recently was in an argument about which is a better investment -- DOW index fund or silver. One can cherry pick a starting date to make a case for either. It is certainly an abuse to throw out one game from the sample because it's an outlier.
If the public were a full 5 or 6 points off, there would be a significant advantage on the under. I do agree that the masses, especially on the Super Bowl, like to bet the over. As the sports books push up the spread, at some point the sharp money will come in on the under. I think this square money argument probably only explains about one point of this.
I respect your ideas, Ed, but I think there's something we're both not seeing.
https://wizardofodds.com/games/sports-betting/nfl/
What about "strength of schedule"? Should the fact that some teams played more opponents with low scoring losing records be factored in?
I saw it reported that about 90% of the money bet so far is on the over.Quote: DRichI always lean to the under in the Super bowl because the public enjoys betting the over and very few of them will bet the under.
Quote: AyecarumbaThe Chiefs main offensive weapon, QB Patrick Mahomes, was out with an ankle injury for a few games during the regular season, and even after returning to start took a few weeks to get his offense together. With a sample of less than 20 games each season, the missing games keep the average artificially low.
There are 16 games per team in a season only. However, I feel going back a season the data gets a bit stale.
Quote:What about "strength of schedule"? Should the fact that some teams played more opponents with low scoring losing records be factored in?
I think over 16 games, that averages out. I recall AFC vs. NFC bets on the Super Bowl before the season started and the point spread was low, like 2.5. I don't recall who it favored. My point being both conferences are about equally strong.
Quote: Wizard\
I think over 16 games, that averages out.
I would disagree because you know they will be playing one of the better teams in the super bowl. I would only factor in the scoring against the other "good" teams.
Quote: WizardThere are 16 games per team in a season only. However, I feel going back a season the data gets a bit stale.
I think over 16 games, that averages out. I recall AFC vs. NFC bets on the Super Bowl before the season started and the point spread was low, like 2.5. I don't recall who it favored. My point being both conferences are about equally strong.
I think it would be more defensible to say it “averages out” if you ran your analysis based on median rather than mean.
Quote: unJonI think it would be more defensible to say it “averages out” if you ran your analysis based on median rather than mean.
That's a fair point, the over/under is supposed to be a median, not the mean, as I'm calculating. To that, I would say the median is probably only a point or two less. Might make a good Ask the Wizard question.
| Total points | Count |
|---|---|
| 3 | 2 |
| 4 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 |
| 6 | 2 |
| 7 | 0 |
| 8 | 2 |
| 9 | 16 |
| 10 | 8 |
| 11 | 0 |
| 12 | 14 |
| 13 | 50 |
| 14 | 8 |
| 15 | 36 |
| 16 | 106 |
| 17 | 48 |
| 18 | 14 |
| 19 | 106 |
| 20 | 98 |
| 21 | 50 |
| 22 | 102 |
| 23 | 266 |
| 24 | 132 |
| 25 | 82 |
| 26 | 180 |
| 27 | 286 |
| 28 | 86 |
| 29 | 226 |
| 30 | 304 |
| 31 | 228 |
| 32 | 128 |
| 33 | 342 |
| 34 | 284 |
| 35 | 196 |
| 36 | 232 |
| 37 | 488 |
| 38 | 270 |
| 39 | 184 |
| 40 | 334 |
| 41 | 460 |
| 42 | 148 |
| 43 | 356 |
| 44 | 374 |
| 45 | 288 |
| 46 | 182 |
| 47 | 352 |
| 48 | 322 |
| 49 | 182 |
| 50 | 218 |
| 51 | 384 |
| 52 | 238 |
| 53 | 166 |
| 54 | 186 |
| 55 | 256 |
| 56 | 76 |
| 57 | 174 |
| 58 | 204 |
| 59 | 150 |
| 60 | 56 |
| 61 | 146 |
| 62 | 126 |
| 63 | 76 |
| 64 | 80 |
| 65 | 130 |
| 66 | 86 |
| 67 | 42 |
| 68 | 62 |
| 69 | 100 |
| 70 | 30 |
| 71 | 56 |
| 72 | 42 |
| 73 | 56 |
| 74 | 28 |
| 75 | 42 |
| 76 | 24 |
| 77 | 22 |
| 78 | 12 |
| 79 | 24 |
| 80 | 22 |
| 81 | 0 |
| 82 | 10 |
| 83 | 12 |
| 84 | 6 |
| 85 | 10 |
| 86 | 10 |
| 87 | 8 |
| 88 | 4 |
| 89 | 4 |
| 90 | 2 |
| 91 | 2 |
| 92 | 0 |
| 93 | 0 |
| 94 | 0 |
| 95 | 2 |
| 96 | 4 |
| 97 | 0 |
| 98 | 0 |
| 99 | 2 |
| 100 | 0 |
| 101 | 0 |
| 102 | 0 |
| 103 | 0 |
| 104 | 0 |
| 105 | 0 |
| 106 | 2 |
The average points scored is 42.93.
The median is 42.
So yes, the 49ers gave up 19 points a game this season. But what would that figure be if they’d played the Chiefs 16 times? What was their average given up when facing offenses that score 28 a game ?
If for example, the average SF regular season opponent scored 23 a game , while the chiefs average 28 a game, then you have to assume that SF will give up more than 19 when facing the chiefs.
btw does it make any difference that today, I'm guessing here, there would tend to be more 2-pt conversions and missed extra points.
Yes. Don’t take too much away from this data since it ends in 2011.Quote: charliepatrick
btw does it make any difference that today, I'm guessing here, there would tend to be more 2-pt conversions and missed extra points.
Quote: WizardThere are 16 games per team in a season only. However, I feel going back a season the data gets a bit stale...
I was thinking of playoff games too.
Injuries to key players have to affect scoring. I don' t know if the injuries average out across all the teams. Some seem to consistently have more than others during the season, while contenders in the playoffs have healthy rosters.
Since you are only forecasting one game, if you only consider games with more similar circumstances than differences (e.g., grass vs. turf, all key players healthy, both teams with winning records, etc.), would you get a better line? There are lots of factors, but I don't know how easy it is to get accurate and easy to parse data.
What if you only consider playoff/championship games?
Quote: AyecarumbaI was thinking of playoff games too.
Injuries to key players have to affect scoring. I don' t know if the injuries average out across all the teams. Some seem to consistently have more than others during the season, while contenders in the playoffs have healthy rosters.
Since you are only forecasting one game, if you only consider games with more similar circumstances than differences (e.g., grass vs. turf, all key players healthy, both teams with winning records, etc.), would you get a better line? There are lots of factors, but I don't know how easy it is to get accurate and easy to parse data.
What if you only consider playoff/championship games?
I'd start by eliminating all games that were played in snow. I'd eliminate all games that one team had zero incentive to win and rested regular starting QB. If this game is on grass, I'd only count games played on grass. And vice-versa of course. Including the ridiculously snowy Bills game (remember snow angels on the one touchdown?) just skews the number down and has almost zero correlation with a game played in a dome or sunny Florida.
Most importantly for this game, including games where Mahomes didn't play, is, as my wife likes to say, useless as tits on a turtle.....
Quote: unJonI saw it reported that about 90% of the money bet so far is on the over.
This is the key point that refutes Ed Collins assertion about how the line is set to balance the public's wagers. If the betting is 90/10 than why didn't the books shift the line already???
What I observe is that each week there are several games in which the public's wagers are lopsided (on the spread, or less frequently on points.) The meaning of lopsided?? Maybe greater than 65/35 or > 70/30. Why do the books allow this to happen; i.e. why didn't they shift the line?
The answer is two fold.
1. The books pay attention to the "sharps" far more than to the general public. The wagering of the "sharps" is what principally drives shifts in the line.
2. If the books have a number of lines that the public is betting in a lopsided way then the side that the public is heavily wagering on had better lose with a frequency of 50% or more - otherwise the books will take a bath. This is especially true in the SB where wagering is so heavy.
If the books observe that 90% of the wagers are on OVER and 10% are on UNDER, don't you think that the books believe that UNDER is going to win >50%?? Because the vig won't help the books that much if the public is right and the points are over.
Quote: gordonm888This is the key point that refutes Ed Collins assertion about how the line is set to balance the public's wagers. If the betting is 90/10 than why didn't the books shift the line already???
What I observe is that each week there are several games in which the public's wagers are lopsided (on the spread, or less frequently on points.) The meaning of lopsided?? Maybe greater than 65/35 or > 70/30. Why do the books allow this to happen; i.e. why didn't they shift the line?
The answer is two fold.
1. The books pay attention to the "sharps" far more than to the general public. The wagering of the "sharps" is what principally drives shifts in the line.
2. If the books have a number of lines that the public is betting in a lopsided way then the side that the public is heavily wagering on had better lose with a frequency of 50% or more - otherwise the books will take a bath. This is especially true in the SB where wagering is so heavy.
If the books observe that 90% of the wagers are on OVER and 10% are on UNDER, don't you think that the books believe that UNDER is going to win >50%?? Because the vig won't help the books that much if the public is right and the points are over.
This probably answers the question I've had for years after reading that sports books lost big after a particular Super Bowl: how could they lose—aren't they supposed to balance the lines so they always make money?!
Quote: gordonm888This is the key point that refutes Ed Collins assertion about how the line is set to balance the public's wagers. If the betting is 90/10 than why didn't the books shift the line already???
What I observe is that each week there are several games in which the public's wagers are lopsided (on the spread, or less frequently on points.) The meaning of lopsided?? Maybe greater than 65/35 or > 70/30. Why do the books allow this to happen; i.e. why didn't they shift the line?
The answer is two fold.
1. The books pay attention to the "sharps" far more than to the general public. The wagering of the "sharps" is what principally drives shifts in the line.
2. If the books have a number of lines that the public is betting in a lopsided way then the side that the public is heavily wagering on had better lose with a frequency of 50% or more - otherwise the books will take a bath. This is especially true in the SB where wagering is so heavy.
If the books observe that 90% of the wagers are on OVER and 10% are on UNDER, don't you think that the books believe that UNDER is going to win >50%?? Because the vig won't help the books that much if the public is right and the points are over.
While I don’t disagree with your points, I want to point out that the total opened at 51.5 and has moved to 54. Betting still lopsided.
Quote: gordonm888
...1. The books pay attention to the "sharps" far more than to the general public. The wagering of the "sharps" is what principally drives shifts in the line....
I think most bookmakers consider themselves "sharp", so maybe there is some ego built into the line. Alternately, the reports of 90% action on the over may be inaccurate, and perhaps even disinformation proffered by the books to encourage more squares to take the wrong side.
Quote: unJon
While I don’t disagree with your points, I want to point out that the total opened at 51.5 and has moved to 54. Betting still lopsided.
I interpret that early movement (and most movement does occur immediately after the line is posted) was based on action by the sharps.
I am not an expert on "sharps" but in general I believe they are professional bettors who are known to the bookies and who place large bets, in the neighborhood of $10K or more, when they see an opportunity. Some of these people are highly respected by the books and essentially serve as "peer review" on the lines.
Immediately after opening, I understand that 'sharps' place bets where they believe the lines are incorrect by a significant amount and the books tend to move the lines until the 'sharps' stop betting. Usually, the line does not move much afterwards unless there is new information on injuries/player availability or (rarely) weather.
There are some touts who recommend betting against the public when the public wagering is extremely lop-sided. Theoretically, I think this makes sense -but I have looked at this as a betting strategy and there appears to be significant variance; it's hard to tell what kind of edge (if any) this strategy provides. I don't know - I think that maybe the public has more sense than they are given credit for. What does everyone else think?
Quote: smoothgrhThis probably answers the question I've had for years after reading that sports books lost big after a particular Super Bowl: how could they lose—aren't they supposed to balance the lines so they always make money?!
The problem with balancing the lines is, you run the risk of getting a result between the original line and the ending one, and the books lose at both ends.
Quote: unJonWhile I don’t disagree with your points, I want to point out that the total opened at 51.5 and has moved to 54. Betting still lopsided.
I think the original number was about right or even on the high side. Why so much action is coming in on the over is what I want to understand. Everyone keeps talking about the great offenses of both teams, but I'm looking for some numbers or a more specific reason other quick one-liners. I should also say that I respect line movements and they are generally in the correct direction.
Quote: smoothgrhThis probably answers the question I've had for years after reading that sports books lost big after a particular Super Bowl: how could they lose—aren't they supposed to balance the lines so they always make money?!
Standford Wong once posted on his site that the "balance the action" philosophy is a myth and good sports book managers want to maximize EV, not minimize risk. However, I would respectfully disagree with him. I have known lots of sports book managers and assistant managers and their basic philosophy is to balance. In the gaming business there is a saying -- You're only as good as you were yesterday. The philosophy of most casino executives I've met is CYA in and out of the sports book. That was definitely the order of the day at one I used to work for, which shall remain nameless.
Quote: gordonm888...I think that maybe the public has more sense than they are given credit for. What does everyone else think?
"Wisdom of the Crowd" is real. But so is "Groupthink". I generally recall that most years the books do really well on the Super Bowl, and a few where they got killed. Since the two teams are fairly evenly matched, the action should be balanced, but I expect that due to it's proximity to S.F., more 49ers than Chiefs supporters will be putting bets down in Nevada, so maybe the Las Vegas line skews a bit that way?
Is sports betting legal in Kansas or Missouri?
Quote: AyecarumbaIs sports betting legal in Kansas or Missouri?
From what I have read, no in both of those states. I think the nearest state that has it is Iowa. It's legal in Illinois, but I don't think anybody is up and running there yet.
Quote: Wizard
Standford Wong once posted on his site that the "balance the action" philosophy is a myth and good sports book managers want to maximize EV, not minimize risk. However, I would respectfully disagree with him. I have known lots of sports book managers and assistant managers and their basic philosophy is to balance. In the gaming business there is a saying -- You're only as good as you were yesterday. The philosophy of most casino executives I've met is CYA in and out of the sports book. That was definitely the order of the day at one I used to work for, which shall remain nameless.
So, why don't they balance? Why do they not shift the line further when they first realize that bets are coming in at 9:1 on the OVER?
Each week, during the NFL season there are 1-4 games that the public bets 70/30 against the spread. If their goal is to balance, then why do they do such a poor job of balancing?
If this SB goes OVER, the books will lose about 70% of the total amount bet on the over/under line. How is that CYA? Its more like Lose Your Ass. Its a high variance way of managing the line.
Quote: gordonm888So, why don't they balance? Why do they not shift the line further when they first realize that bets are coming in at 9:1 on the OVER?.
Because then the line gets out of whack in relation to what the statistics say, and that’s when the Sharps, who were waiting for just that occurrence, jump in on the Under with large wagers.
And then the book sits there with a ton of public money on over 51/52 and a ton of sharp money on under 54/55, expiring them to a few results that everyone wins
Quote: gordonm888So, why don't they balance? Why do they not shift the line further when they first realize that bets are coming in at 9:1 on the OVER?
Each week, during the NFL season there are 1-4 games that the public bets 70/30 against the spread. If their goal is to balance, then why do they do such a poor job of balancing?
If this SB goes OVER, the books will lose about 70% of the total amount bet on the over/under line. How is that CYA? Its more like Lose Your Ass. Its a high variance way of managing the line.
Can you quote a source for these figures?
Quote: gordonm888So, why don't they balance? Why do they not shift the line further when they first realize that bets are coming in at 9:1 on the OVER?
Each week, during the NFL season there are 1-4 games that the public bets 70/30 against the spread. If their goal is to balance, then why do they do such a poor job of balancing?
If this SB goes OVER, the books will lose about 70% of the total amount bet on the over/under line. How is that CYA? Its more like Lose Your Ass. Its a high variance way of managing the line.
At the moment, I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I was trying to find an article that I read a few years ago that "some books like to have lop-sided action" ***, the link below is the closest I could find so far (it was not the article I was looking for).
https://sportshandle.com/super-bowl-betting-lopsided-patriots-rams/
***: according to this article, they are sometimes "forced" to take "lop-sided action" because they want to avoid "passing through key -numbers" (this is not my opinion, but it makes sense to me).
Normally when we bet there's a rule not to hedge your bets. The same applies to this. I imagine in the long term bookies are best just to ride the storm rather than offering over-book odds to try and even out their book. For instance if it was Heads or Tails, most books offer -105 (20/21). Thus it would not be worth offering Tails at +102 (51/50) just because you had lots of Heads bets.
Quote: DJTeddyBearHow soon are the prop bets published?
For what it’s worth, I’m interested in the more basic stuff: overtime, safety, scoreless quarter, etc. Nothing specific to a player or team.
Thanks.
I don't know how long until the official prop bets are published, but below is what I would offer, if you are interested:
"yes. there will be overtime": +1300
"number of safeties scored, over 0.5": +1500
"yes, there will be a scoreless quarter": +450
"successful 2-pt conversion, over 0.5": +500 (I know you didn't specifically ask about this prop, but it is a common one...)
Note: I like betting on the "no" or "under" for these sorts of props, so that is why I am only quoting/offering "yes" or "over" props.
Note 2: This offer is open to anyone ("first come first served")
Note 3: these prices are valid until 430 pm (pac time) this afternoon.
Note 4: I prefer using PM to work out the details.
---
5dimes has a lot of props up at the moment, but I can't find all the props you mentioned, atm.
---
Odds Update (about 1245 pm):
Due to "note 2". I have taken enough on the prop with the strike-through, so the new odds are +275 for "successful 2-pt conversion, over 0.5".
Quote: ksdjdjI don't know how long until the official prop bets are published, but below is what I would offer, if you are interested:
"yes. there will be overtime": +1300
"number of safeties scored, over 0.5": +1500
"yes, there will be a scoreless quarter": +450
"successful 2-pt conversion, over 0.5": +500 (I know you didn't specifically ask about this prop, but it is a common one...)
Note: I like betting on the "no" or "under" for these sorts of props, so that is why I am only quoting/offering "yes" or "over" props.
Note 2: This offer is open to anyone ("first come first served")
Note 3: these prices are valid until 430 pm (pac time) this afternoon.
Note 4: I prefer using PM to work out the details.
---
5dimes has a lot of props up at the moment, but I can't find all the props you mentioned, atm.
It is expected that most of the books will have most if not all of their prop bets out tonight.
Only four times in the past 25 years has the Super Bowl Over/Under line been less than what the "projected point total" was for that game. The four times in happened was in 2015, 2013, 2003, and 2000.
The following data shows this:
Projected Point Total is just the sum of the predicted score for each team.
The predicted score for each team is arrived at by finding that team's average points scored throughout the regular season, the average points given up during the season of their Super Bowl opponent, and then splitting the difference.
For example...
2015 Season, Super Bowl 50. The Panthers represented the NFC that year and the Broncos represented the AFC. Carolina scored 500 points during the regular season (PF = Points For) while giving up 308. (PA = Points Against) Denver scored 355 points while giving up 296.
Carolina's projected score against Denver was 24.9. ((500/16) + (296/16) / 2)
Denver's projected score against Carolina was 20.7. ((355/16) + (308/16) / 2)
Thus, the projected point total for this game was 45.6. The actual Super Bowl Over/Under line for this game was 43.5, for a difference in this case of -2.1.
Again, only four games in the past 25 years was the line less than the projected point total.
Note: All Super Bowl Over/Under lines were taken from this ESPN site:
https://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/18592627/super-bowl-liv-which-team-won-covered-every-super-bowl.
Summary:
If you had bet on the Over/Under for each of these 25 Super Bowls, and if you based your Over/Under selection upon nothing more the Projected Point Total (by betting the OVER if the Projected Point Total was greater than the line, and betting the UNDER if the projected point total was less than the line), you would have gone 13-12... winning just one game more than you lost.
Even when the difference in the line vs. the projected total was a full six points or greater (six of the games) your record would only have been 3-3.
I was hoping to discover that taking the "smart bet" and betting in accordance with the projected point total (which in all but four of the games meant taking the UNDER), you would have benefited with a better record than 13-12.
The data sample size is, of course, very small. And yet I'm hesitant to go back further since the game has changed a bit (rules favoring the offense) since the early '90s.
This is a poor follow-up, but I believe there IS value betting the under in the Super Bowl. Almost every square is going to bet the over no matter what the line is. I could be wrong, but I officially say the under is a good bet this year.
Wait. The total still has upward pressure on it. Up to 54.5 in some places. Super Bowl puts the bookies in a tough spot because there’s so much action. Quite the dilemma to have the action so lopsided when the handle is so large Vs risking a middle.Quote: WizardOutstanding post Ed!
This is a poor follow-up, but I believe there IS value betting the under in the Super Bowl. Almost every square is going to bet the over no matter what the line is. I could be wrong, but I officially say the under is a good bet this year.
I’m still holding out for 55.5.
Quote: WizardOutstanding post Ed!
This is a poor follow-up, but I believe there IS value betting the under in the Super Bowl. Almost every square is going to bet the over no matter what the line is. I could be wrong, but I officially say the under is a good bet this year.
I agree with that. Bet against the public.
