Posted on 02/09/2010 12:36:28 PM PST by 1rudeboy
The Saints beat the Colts 31-17 for their first Super Bowl victory. It was a thrilling win, with the outcome in doubt until Tracy Porters' 74 yard "pick six" with 3:12 left in the game and the Colts driving for the potential tying score.
The other big winner in this game was sports books. Evidence shows that bettors love two things: favorites in point spread betting and the over on total betting. According to sportsbook.com, as of about 4pm Eastern on Sunday the line was the Colts -5 and the over-under was 57. Based on action at off-shore sports books, 63% of the sides betting was on the Colts, and 66% of the totals betting was on the over. The Colts didn't cover, and the 48 point total was well under 57. Given the bet-110-to-win100 payoff structure on sides and totals, and the fact that the Super Bowl is the most popular sporting event to bet on all year, that translates to a big payday for sports books.
If so, the line and over/under were badly set. They should have been set so that 50% is taking each side. The Colts needed to be a bigger favorite and the over/under needed to be higher.
Here’s some “stimulus” that worked. Although it’s probably more accurate to call it “anti-stimulus,” as the money appears to be flowing in the wrong direction.
Anybody know what the odds were on a straight-up bet by gametime? Just curious.
Yup.
But then, not “badly set” if you run a booking operation.
No one was taking the Colts at a higher spread and most bettors thought that under/over was low.
Colts -4.5
I'd also ask whether the spread in, say, Vegas, was the same as the spread offshore.
The smart bookie just makes his money on the vig and doesn’t rely on his customers being wrong. I had a coworker who put his hometown bookie out of business because he bet big and the bookie wasn’t smart enough to make sure the other side of the bets were covered - he instead just floated everything himself. After a bad football season he decided to get out of the business.
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
The ‘gamblers’ won a little, lost a little. Those who ‘owned’ the gambling casinos won big, as they always do.
Is that a sufficient allegory?
If you can figure the proper over/under to get that 50% result every time, I have a business proposition for you.
Well, The Who really sucked.
Considering the fact that it was a free musical performance, I guess people shouldn't complain too much.
.
Two dropped passes and one blown route.
That’s all it took.
Yeah, dang that ol’ freedom of speech. People should never complain about anything. Obama said so.
If I were a betting man, and prescient, I would have placed bets on the number of penalty calls.
Did anyone else notice that there were very, very few penalties during the game?
.
I think the quality of the teams had a lot to do with the low penalty count but then , as John Madden once said: “You have to remember — there are three teams on the field.”
So do I.
“You have to remember — there are three teams on the field.”
FOUR TEAMS.
Two teams of football players, the referees, and the advertisers.
Since the number of commericials goes up each year, there is less time to spend on 'penalties'.
I actually saw a few penalties that weren't called, but it is just a game.
If you didn't enjoy The Who's musical performance, then maybe you should ask for your money back. Oh wait....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.