Safety bets a winner in XLVI
6 minutes left in game only 7 scores.
Quote: 98ClubsFirst score of the game, and a safety scored in the game. Anyone cash-in?
6 minutes left in game only 7 scores.
I cashed in.
Quote: WizardI lost BIG TIME on that. I don't even want to say how much.
Ouch sorry to here that. I do think it was a better bet to go for the NO, it's a bet I make with my heart rather than my head.
Quote: thecesspitit's a bet I make with my heart rather than my head.
I never bet with my heart -- always my head.
Sorry Wiz about the hit, hope it didn't cramp your style.
Quote: WizardI never bet with my heart -- always my head.
It also took some balls to bet on Kansas City beating the undefeated Green Bay Packers. CONGRATS!
Is that .999 repeating? Because that would make it 100%Quote: IbeatyouracesThis is why 99.999999% of gamblers are losing gamblers.
Quote: buzzpaffIt also took some balls to bet on Kansas City beating the undefeated Green Bay Packers. CONGRATS!
Thanks. I think I had 6 to 1 on that. However, I lost a lot more betting against the safety, laying 9 to 1. I show it fair laying about 20 to 1. 13.5% of my Super Bowl bankroll was on the no safety. I might add that 4.2% was on first score to be a touchdown, which the safety also ruined.
Quote: WizardI lost BIG TIME on that. I don't even want to say how much.
Just remember this " It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet."
ROFLMAO
Quote: buzzpaffJust remember this " It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet."
That's true. I may have lost this year, but I'm still up a lot of money since I started betting props about eight years ago. Whether a good gambler or bad, in the short run your money will go up and down like a roller coaster.
Quote: WizardI never bet with my heart -- always my head.
This is wise, but I'm not always wise.
The superbowl props bets are mostly head, but there's a couple I do for the entertainment value I get from them.
I skipped the over/under on the anthem time, as my research said she'd be right around the 1m35s mark. And she was.
I did take "the number of times Peyton Manning would be mentioned during the game" for the under (<3). That was a good one I thought, as my experience says the commentators rarely mention players who aren't playing, keeping the story on the game, and the players on the field. BoDog I think scored it as one (there was a mention to the "house that Peyton Built" with regards to the stadium).
I lost on not having a defensive or special teams TD (marginal bet at best), first team to get a first down, and number of field goals, and who the winning MVP would thank... I was sure it'd be the team mates, but the way the interview and MVP was announced didn't lead in, so I'd skip that one in the future.
So I'd have taken a loss if it was not for the safety. I suspect the bookies made out alright on it, as for every $20,000 winner on the first score being a safety, there'd have been plenty of action of the first score being a TD from team X.
The FGs would have hit had Bradshaw been able to stop on the 1 yard line. Spikes might have had to do the strange move of shoving his opponent in for a score. The "unimpeded to the end zone" that Belichick called was genius. Very smooth move, might have worked if his receivers hadn't put on the iron gloves for the last drive of the game.
Quote: Wizard13.5% of my Super Bowl bankroll was on the no safety. I might add that 4.2% was on first score to be a touchdown, which the safety also ruined.
These are pretty silly high percentages, isn't it? There are so many different bets to be made on the game, couldn't you have spread your money out on other good bets too? I'm disappointed.
Quote: hhhcccThese are pretty silly high percentages, isn't it? There are so many different bets to be made on the game, couldn't you have spread your money out on other good bets too? I'm disappointed.
Heretic ;)
There have been very few safeties in the Super Bowl, becasue there have been few safeties overall. It's a rare occurence, after all. So it's a good bet to wager on no safeties. And hindsight is 20/20.
As for a TD to open the score, that's reasonable. Given two highly defensive teams, I'd tend to favor a field goal. Otherwise the first score is often a TD.
Question: what's more unusual, ie what happens less often, a game with a safety or a game without any TDs?
Quote: WizardFrom 2000 to 2010 the probability of a safety was 5.8%. That makes it fair laying 1633 against a safety. The fact that there were safeties in Super Bowls 2008 and 2012 will not deter me from making the same bet next year. It isn't whether you win or lose, it's whether or not you had a good bet.
Wiz- you did not include in your analysis which two teams were playing. Teams with strong pass rushes (the Giants) against a team coached by a man not afriad to be aggressive and call pass plays deep in his own zone (the Patriots) would have a far higher likelihood of a safety than, say, a chicken shit team like the Bills who would run 3 times rather than 'risk' something bad happening. Your assumption that all matchups have an equally likely chance of a safety may be incorrect. If the average number of TDs in a game is 7, but the Ravens are playing the Bills, I would guess that 5 1/2 is the fair line. If its the Saints and Packers, maybe 9. Safety chances may vary, too... but its not as easy to track.
Fan who bet on first score safety and won $50k is donating it to charity
--Ms. D.
Quote: NareedHeretic ;)
There have been very few safeties in the Super Bowl, becasue there have been few safeties overall. It's a rare occurence, after all. So it's a good bet to wager on no safeties. And hindsight is 20/20.
As for a TD to open the score, that's reasonable. Given two highly defensive teams, I'd tend to favor a field goal. Otherwise the first score is often a TD.
Question: what's more unusual, ie what happens less often, a game with a safety or a game without any TDs?
Good bet on no safety? YES!
Good bet on first score is TD? YES!
My question is simply betsizing.
I have no doubts that they were very good, solid bets. I also trust and agree with Wizard's numbers on the probability of a safety.
All I am questioning is relative bet-sizing versus other prop bets out there. Surely there were many other good prop bets, and thus to lose, even after losing the safety bet, seems like a poor spreading of bankroll.
Quote: SOOPOOWiz- you did not include in your analysis which two teams were playing. Teams with strong pass rushes (the Giants) against a team coached by a man not afriad to be aggressive and call pass plays deep in his own zone (the Patriots) would have a far higher likelihood of a safety than, say, a chicken shit team like the Bills who would run 3 times rather than 'risk' something bad happening. Your assumption that all matchups have an equally likely chance of a safety may be incorrect. If the average number of TDs in a game is 7, but the Ravens are playing the Bills, I would guess that 5 1/2 is the fair line. If its the Saints and Packers, maybe 9. Safety chances may vary, too... but its not as easy to track.
I factor in the spread and the total in the probability for the specific game. In the case of the safety bet it doesn't make much difference, so I didn't want to muddy the waters with discussion about that. However, since you bring it up, I put the probability of a safety in Sunday's game at 6.1%, a little higher than the 5.8% average.
I'm sure my numbers would be a little sharper if I considered individual team strategy, but I don't deem it a good use of my time.
Quote: WizardI'm sure my numbers would be a little sharper if I considered individual team strategy, but I don't deem it a good use of my time.
Do you try individual team stats? I mean, if the Springfield Isotopes, for example, comit more safeties than average, does that influence your calcualtions? Of course, safeties being so rare it probably doesn't.
Was there a bet on whether a team would make a 4th down conversion? That would be a good bet to make on the Pats on any close game.
Quote: WizardI factor in the spread and the total in the probability for the specific game. In the case of the safety bet it doesn't make much difference, so I didn't want to muddy the waters with discussion about that. However, since you bring it up, I put the probability of a safety in Sunday's game at 6.1%, a little higher than the 5.8% average.
I'm sure my numbers would be a little sharper if I considered individual team strategy, but I don't deem it a good use of my time.
Philosophical aside about probabilities: I have a strong background in statistics and probabilities, even if I mess up the calculations occasionally. I can explain some really hard stuff to colleagues when I need to. That being said, I am always bothered by these probabilities of events occurring, especially during human contests like sports. It's not a die being tossed, it's people! You can look at the historical data and grab a sample mean, and hope it's the 'best estimator' for the true probability... but what was the REAL probability of it happening? Impossible to determine, I'm sure. Coin Flip + opening snap + first coaching calls of the game all came together to cause the safety. The probability even evolved over time, like a die spinning on the table.
And then there's always the chance, maybe not this time, but in any sport, that the players were in on it somehow. Blows my mind.
tl:dr? Probabilities that can't be expressly measured make my head hurt.
Quote: dwheatleyThat being said, I am always bothered by these probabilities of events occurring, especially during human contests like sports. It's not a die being tossed, it's people!
I'd rather bet on something perfectly quantifiable too, but it isn't easy find a card game with a player advantage any more. Maybe my number crunching in sports betting isn't perfect, but it has served me well through the years.
Yes ...here... see later in the same thread when tmz reported it with a picture. This was my original post before that appeared and it seems the UK bookies were initially a bit more generous in their odds.Quote: DorothyGaleDid anyone post this link yet?...Fan...won $50k is donating it to charity...
Quote: charliepatrick(1) fwiw The odds for a safety at the first play for each team on one of the uk bookmakers a few hours before kick off was 125/1.
(2) Seems someone managed $200 to win $15,000; and the BBC on their live showing of the Superbowl were saying bookies might have lost £20k (though can't find anything about it on the internet).
And this win seems to be on several websites ..
$50,000 won - ...the punter placed $1000 and only won $50,000. So I think the odds were 50-1. However same story here.
btw when an outsider wins (such as a UK horse race) it is usually the best result for the bookmaker. However I remember one race (many years ago) where it was the worst for one bookie as they had taken a bet of £150 to win £5,000. Also at Newton Abbott where a 66/1 won the last race it was easy to see that two people on the track had found the winner, everyone else had left!
I used to run bets out to the track when a bookie had too much action on an outsider. If horse won he would collect at 40 or 50 to 1 and payoff at 20 to 1. Also would run win bets to the track on bet down first time starters, Would bet place. If horse wins at 3.00 win, 2.80 place, books loses 20 on 200 bet, Horse runs second bookie win 280. Not a bad straddle, eh.
Okay, if its unpleasant you can simply drop the issue but I wonder if you were then or are now at all curious as to just why the lines on the bet were so unusually unfavorable. Do you think there might be anyone who was "in the know" for real as opposed to unjustified claims.Quote: WizardI lost BIG TIME on that. I don't even want to say how much.
Quote: WizardI lost BIG TIME on that. I don't even want to say how much.
But did you not say how much on the radio ???
Quote: buzzpaffBut did you not say how much on the radio ???
Yes, I guess I let the cat out of the bag. Okay, here you go. Click on it for a larger version.
Quote: buzzpaffSure would make for some expensive wallpaper.
I save all my losing tickets. I should have enough to cover at least one wall of my office. The thing is they fade fast, and wouldn't look good in a couple years.
and it doesn't hurt to have the proof that the tax-man needs to offset the winnings.Quote: WizardI save all my losing tickets. I should have enough to cover at least one wall of my office. The thing is they fade fast, and wouldn't look good in a couple years.
Quote: s2dbakerand it doesn't hurt to have the proof that the tax-man needs to offset the winnings.
That's why I keep them.
__________________________
Bet Online Sports Betting
Quote: WizardYes, I guess I let the cat out of the bag. Okay, here you go. Click on it for a larger version.
I know you've said that laying money can be some of the best bets, but at most sportsbooks are you able to bet the "Don't" on pretty much any bet that is offered? (e.g. can you lay the odds against Ole Miss winning the BCS championship for a long shot of 125/1) Since in reality wouldn't anything below 500/1 be a good bet to lay??? :)....
The final tally: $93.89 million wagered at 184 sportsbooks, resulting in a net profit of $5.06 million.
Second largest Super Bowl handle (first: Super Bowl XL between the Seattle Seahawks and Pittsburgh Steelers with $94.5 million wagered).
