Quick: Which of the two Super Bowl teams is more likely to forgo a high-percentage chip-shot field goal, choosing instead to go for it on 4th and short?

Why, the chippy and smash-mouth Arizona Cardinals, of course…

(We’re kinda freaked out by the answer too.)

We were trying to convince ourselves that betting No (-185) on the prop “Will both teams score a field goal of 33+ yards” was a good deal. Already hampered by small sample sizes (2008 only), it’s a better idea to look at when (and why) the teams opted not to kick.

After the jump: Find out how the Steelers stunk it up on 4th down in 2008. Learn which kind of knife Todd Haley most enjoys driving into people’s hearts. And discover whether or not we talk ourselves into dropping a whole unit on this stupid prop once we discover Pinnacle’s offering it for -179.  (Hint: Oh yeah!)

Read the rest of this entry »

Two things to support:

1. People who write about gaming and gambling from a non-hyperbolic angle and aren’t conniving for your money.

2. People who write about gaming and gambling and don’t preface everything with some lame-ass disclaimer like, “Well, it’s not like I gamble, because that’s illegal — but IF I were in a Vegas casino…”

Will Brinson fits both of those categories. He writes for Fanhouse. And when it’s time to cover the gambling angle, Will is there without apology.

So, with Super Bowl props coming out, Will started the week with much the same enthusiasm as a derrickhand who makes isolation pay on a four-day weekend at a big-city brothel.

I freaking love the bet this Sportsbook is offering: “Will both teams make a 33-yard or longer field goal?” And, I, astutely, say, hells to the yes. We’re talking about, again, two defenses that are better than people think. Add in Jeff Reed — bleached blond hair or not — and Neil Rackers, and it seems pretty obvious that we should get at least one chip shot-plus from each team. And the real bonus? Yes it’s +145. It’s called free money, folks, and that’s why they pay me to write at you.

(You mean people get paid for doing this? Really?)

At first, we were all on board with this prop find. Moreover, the bet actually exists.

Jeff Reed's Pectorals Alone Could Kick for 33 or More, No?

So let’s take a look:

+145 means you win $1.45 for every $1.00 you bet.¹ This means the wager will be profitable if your pick is correct 40.82% of the time.

Jeff Reed (PIT) averaged 1.9 field goal attempts per game this season. In 12 of 18 games, 67%, he kicked an FG 33 yards or more.

Neil Rackers (ARZ) averaged 1.8 FGA per game in 2008. In 10 of 19 games, 53%, at least one of his kicks exceeded the 33 mark. So…

67% x 53% = 35%

Almost 6% less than that 40.82% needed to be profitable. Not especially good value…

How about looking at it from the defensive side:

Pittsburgh allowed a field goal of 33 or longer in half (50%) of their games this season. Arizona gave up the same in 11 of theirs (11/19=58%) .

50% x 58% = 29%

Worse…

We tend to think of kicks from the 16 as chip-shot field goals. (And they are, and have a high success rate.) So it’s not an issue of kicker accuracy; it seems to be more a lack of opportunity.

On the other hand, the “No” side of this bet is priced at -185. This translates to 64.91% accuracy to be profitable. So if the game will end without both teams kicking one for 33+ more than 35.19% (100% – 64.91%) of the time, “No” is profitable.

We’d pull the trigger on this now, but -185 are steep odds and we’ll need a closer look at these “opportunities” — something to look at in the next post.

·

·