After spending days poring over 100+ stories on Super Bowl prop bets, we hoped to come to some definitive conclusion on the subject which would justify a thousand-word, posthumous (stale) write-up.
Nope. No such luck.
So instead, here are two thoughts to keep in storage until the SB XLIV hype machine revs its engine in early 2010.
One: Prop bets are generally priced for suckers. The money-line gaps are 40¢, 60¢, 75¢ or more. (Witness the TV ratings prop: Which market yields greater ratings Arizona +300 or Pennsylvania -500. Is that $2 of vig?)
But around Groundhog’s Day, demand for money-backed NFL prognostications runs high, and supply dwindles quickly. It’s a sellers’ market, and buyers who want to bet the over-under on the number of Anheuser-Busch beer commercials can’t afford to be choosy.
Maybe it’s a good lesson in accepting when it’s inevitable that you will force action, and to be prepared to minimize it. (Personally, we hit on one prop, and we proceeded to go out and squander it on another. And we’d be quick to take credit for calling the under on that wacky 1st-to-score-jersey-number prop at 38½. But we can’t claim to have spotted a guy demoted to the practice squad back in week 3 as likely first to break the plane. Frankly, not even Mrs. Russell had money on that one.)
Sidebar: Somebody knew something about someone. Early in the week, Gary Russell was listed at Pinnacle as +1916 to score the game’s first TD. By Saturday, Russell’s number had dropped to +1384. That’s more than all other players (moving down) combined. If this kind of move is indicative of the amount of money being wagered on a player, then Russell took in more money (or “sharper” money) then the all of the other listed players (20). At some books, Russell wasn’t even listed individually.
Two: Tried to find where most of the crazy prop lines originate. Near as we can figure, the “normal” lines comes from the LVSC. Normal in this case refers to the common statistical breakdown bets: Odds to score a TD; whether Tim Halfback gains more than 33.5 yards rushing from scrimmage; first quarter sides (ARZ +½), and so on…
Then there’s the more “exotic” lines: Madden’s food fetish, Michaels’ gambling innuendos, fade Matt Millen’s pick, TV ratings, commercials, cheerleaders, Jay Leno, thanking God —
Which team’s cheerleaders will be shown more often on camera?
Steelers: -175
Cardinals: +135
Who in hell issued these odds? (BoDog gets the initial credit for this one by our estimate.) Whoever set that cheerleader line should be fired because a) they set the cheerleaderless team1 as 60% favorites, and b) they made it a 20¢ line — that’s like the cheapest on the board!
As the first week of Bowl Hype began, gimmick props were in short supply. Degenerates tapped their feet waiting for something other than the over-under for field goals, or whether the shortest touchdown would be longer than 1½ yards.
By Friday of that week, the BoDog press release began making the rounds. Blogs jumped on wholeheartedly. But the odds weren’t posted on BoDog that Friday. Or Saturday. Or Sunday. Or — well, we’re not actually sure when BoDog actually went live with these numbers, but we did see them by about the middle of the following week at certain questionable offshores.
Speaking of questionable offshores, this is a trend we’ve seen before. Books publicize odds well in advance of posting. In effect, their opening lines get vetted by the public before mistakes like the one above get offered to anyone sharper than a butter knife. And if a few blogs can quickly point out the gaping holes in your card, well imagine what the attention of Esquire can do. BetUS bent the ear of Esquire to tout props that bordered on downright embarrassing. (Santonio Holmes was a +1500 to be MVP, but only +200 to be arrested leading up to or after the Super Bowl.)
Springsteen’s set list prognostication was laid to rest as early as Thursday when some paper mag called Rolling Stone advertised a line being offered by Sportsbook.com. That caused thousands to apparently sign up to the on-line sports book and begin pounding the crap out of one specific list.2
And finally, did anybody really cash on the Brenda Warner 3½ appearances during the game coverage? Really? You took the over?
·
·
Entries (RSS)