Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1310
  • Posts: 21483
January 22nd, 2020 at 6:54:41 PM permalink
Quote: gordonm888

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.



Can you quote a source for these figures?
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
ksdjdj
ksdjdj
Joined: Oct 20, 2013
  • Threads: 78
  • Posts: 815
January 23rd, 2020 at 2:33:21 AM permalink
Quote: gordonm888

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.


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).
Last edited by: ksdjdj on Jan 23, 2020
charliepatrick
charliepatrick
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
  • Threads: 30
  • Posts: 1950
Thanks for this post from:
ksdjdj
January 23rd, 2020 at 3:23:43 AM permalink
As you probably know the UK has on-course bookies at racetracks. At most larger meetings there are bookmakers who will take a big bet. A few bookmakers play against the favourite, but typically a bookmaker will lay the favourite and, having done that, be happier to take bets on the other horses. Thus the average book will lose if the favourite wins, break even or thereabouts on the next priced horses, and win nearly everything when an outsider comes in. Obviously sometimes there's a particular horse that's worst for the bookie, I remember one who lost after a £5000/£150 bet came in. Many years ago I recall the last race at Newton Abbot where a 66/1 came in; there were only two people collecting winnings, the rest of the bookies were packing up and going home. Quite often you'll hear Day 1 was bad for bookies as lots of favourites came in.

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.
ksdjdj
ksdjdj
Joined: Oct 20, 2013
  • Threads: 78
  • Posts: 815
January 23rd, 2020 at 4:30:39 AM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear

How soon are the prop bets published?

For what itís worth, Iím 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".
Last edited by: ksdjdj on Jan 23, 2020
michael99000
michael99000
Joined: Jul 10, 2010
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 2082
January 23rd, 2020 at 7:44:14 AM permalink
Double post
DRich
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
  • Threads: 71
  • Posts: 5892
Thanks for this post from:
ksdjdj
January 23rd, 2020 at 7:51:01 AM permalink
Quote: ksdjdj

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.



It is expected that most of the books will have most if not all of their prop bets out tonight.
Living longer does not always infer +EV
EdCollins
EdCollins
Joined: Oct 21, 2011
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 1240
Thanks for this post from:
unJonAyecarumba
January 23rd, 2020 at 4:45:26 PM permalink
Super Bowl Past History OVER/UNDER Analysis

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.
Last edited by: EdCollins on Jan 23, 2020
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1310
  • Posts: 21483
Thanks for this post from:
EdCollinsonenickelmiracleaceofspadesIndyJeffrey
January 23rd, 2020 at 6:53:07 PM permalink
Outstanding 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.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
unJon
unJon
Joined: Jul 1, 2018
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1626
January 23rd, 2020 at 7:11:10 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Outstanding 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.

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 thereís so much action. Quite the dilemma to have the action so lopsided when the handle is so large Vs risking a middle.

Iím still holding out for 55.5.
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong; but that is the way to bet.
DRich
DRich
Joined: Jul 6, 2012
  • Threads: 71
  • Posts: 5892
January 23rd, 2020 at 7:27:13 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Outstanding 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.
Living longer does not always infer +EV

  • Jump to: