Not much movement, since the four prohibitive favorites had a bye. It is important to note that the changes in the NYG and SEA lines are quite substantial. The Giants' average line went from 63:1 to 33:1, and Seattle's went from 43:1 to 35:1. These don't show up as a large absolute change in percentage, since they are a longshot either way, but New York's percentage more than doubled with their win.Just in comparison with other lines, it looks like Jacksonville's 22.5:1 at The Greek is the best bet of the week. The overall lines give them a 5.1% chance, while they would only need a 4.26% chance for the bet to break even.
From BetUS:
There has been one six TD game in 41 Super Bowls, yet Tom Brady, whose team is two wins away from even playing in the game, is only 10:1 to accomplish this feat.
Winning by 46 or more would mean New England breaks the SB margin of victory record (XXIV, 49ers, 55-10). I'm actually kind of surprised it's this high. There have been 41 Super Bowls, with one team winning by 45 points. New England is about 60% to reach the SB, so they'd need to have a 1 in 25 shot at breaking the MOV record for it to be a good bet.
The Patriots' average MOV was 19.7 points. They beat the Redskins by 45, and Buffalo by 46. So it looks like the 40:1 line is pretty reasonable, and may even be a decent bet.
I don't why the third line is listed under "New England Specials", beyond the fact that they're assuming the Patriots will be playing in the game.
The SB coin toss line is some combination of idiotic and hilarious. It is certainly not a good bet, unless you think New England somehow has greater than a 50% chance of winning the coin toss if they reach the SB.
Lastly, BetUS has some SB MVP odds, which I'll go through by team.
New England (51.7% chance of winning Super Bowl)
Tom Brady, -130
Laurence Maroney, +2000
Wes Welker, +2500
Randy Moss, +1000
The Brady line is atrocious.
If NE wins it all, is there a 1 in 10 chance that Maroney will win the award? 1 in 5 for Moss? Those sound about right to me.
Indianapolis (14.8%)
Peyton Manning, +600
Joseph Addai, +1500
Reggie Wayne, +2000
The would have to be a 96.5% chance that Peyton wins the MVP if Indy wins the SB for that to be a good bet. There isn't.
Addai would need a 42% chance of winning in a Colts SB win; 32% for Wayne. Neither of these are good bets.
Dallas (10.6%)
Tony Romo, +800
Terrell Owens, +1500
Jason Witten, +2800
Romo would have to have a 105% chance of winning the MVP in a Cowboys SB victory for this to be a profitable wager.
Owens would have to be 59%; 33% for Witten. All of theses odds are terrible.
The rest:
Green Bay (7.7%)
Brett Favre, +1100
Ryan Grant, +2500
Greg Jennings, +3000
Jacksonville (5.1%)
David Garrard, +2000
Fred Taylor, +2800
Maurice Jones-Drew, +3000
San Diego (5.0%)
Phillip Rivers, +2000
LaDainian Tomlinson, +2500
NY Giants (2.6%)
Eli Manning, +4000
Plaxico Burress, +6500
Seattle (2.4%)
Matt Hasselbeck, +4000
Bobby Engram, +6500
Please don't bet on any of these, they are awful. It would be absolutely hilarious if Rivers or Eli won the award, though. I think Maroney (20:1) and Moss (10:1) are the only lines even worth considering.
Photos: Young, Eli.
4 comments:
That Brady line really is out of control. That's worse than some of Tiger Woods' odds to win a tournament, given that D-Boat isn't even in the Super Bowl yet.
And am I the only one who finds it really odd that LaDanian has worse odds than David Garrard or Philip Rivers? Him being better not withstanding, Garrard particularly has to get through Mr. Minus 130 before he can even have a shot at the bet. Maybe it's a designed trap, but come on.
According to Wikipedia, 21 of the 42 (there was one tie) SB MVPs have been quarterbacks. So that's 50%, obviously. These odds add up to 164% (which is why most of them are so bad); 105% of that is QBs. That's 64%.
So it does seem like the QB odds are skewed, which could explain Tomlinson being higher than Garrard/Rivers. 25:1 for LDT still isn't a good line at all, but I would agree that it's a lot better than Rivers/Garrard at 20:1.
j holz- If their % was actually 59.8%, they wouldn't be -150 at sites that absolutely ream you on futures odds (Bodog in particular).
It is very possible for a site like Bodog, which normally has very unfriendly futures odds, to screw up and offer a good bet. In 2006, when the Dodgers won 13 of 14 games, Bodog and Sportsbook.com kept posting great odds on LA to win the NL--as good as 25-1, even after they were a mathematical favorite to make the playoffs.
If you ignore the possibility of Bodog being inaccurate, you're going about this wrong. A two-sided market (exchange) is going to provide a better estimate.
Post a Comment