Has noone on here mentioned Shackleford's recommendation on Gambling With an Edge of betting "No Safety" for about -1000 when the true odds are 19-1? I nearly put $1300 on it but balked at the crappy -1300 odds at Caesar's Palace. Then just got off the plane to see how much money I saved! I figured a fair number of people on this board lost their shirt.
Btw, I think Super Bowls in Indy must be gaffed. Safeties happen at a much larger rate than would be predicted. 
Sammy Katz
What was the price for "There will be a safety"
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tooncesthecatwhocoulddriveacar" <tooncestdc@...> wrote:
Has noone on here mentioned Shackleford's recommendation on Gambling With an Edge of betting "No Safety" for about -1000 when the true odds are 19-1? I nearly put $1300 on it but balked at the crappy -1300 odds at Caesar's Palace. Then just got off the plane to see how much money I saved! I figured a fair number of people on this board lost their shirt.
Btw, I think Super Bowls in Indy must be gaffed. Safeties happen at a much larger rate than would be predicted.
Sammy Katz
Toonces, if the true odds were -1900 and you could get -1300, isn't that still a good bet? Not as good as -1000 but still a good wager. Sports books do tend to overjuice the prop bets.
6 safeties in superbowl history in 46 games. Even at -1000, you would have lost money betting every superbowl ( if the same bet/odds were in place for each superbowl).
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tooncesthecatwhocoulddriveacar" <tooncestdc@...> wrote:
Has noone on here mentioned Shackleford's recommendation on Gambling With an Edge of betting "No Safety" for about -1000 when the true odds are 19-1? I nearly put $1300 on it but balked at the crappy -1300 odds at Caesar's Palace. Then just got off the plane to see how much money I saved! I figured a fair number of people on this board lost their shirt.
Btw, I think Super Bowls in Indy must be gaffed. Safeties happen at a much larger rate than would be predicted.
Sammy Katz
It makes me skeptical that the true odds are 19 to 1. What is that
based on and why do the sports books offer such a supposedly
ridiculous overlay?
johnnyzee wrote:
Toonces, if the true odds were -1900 and you could get -1300, isn't that still a good bet? Not as good as -1000 but still a good wager. Sports books do tend to overjuice the prop bets.
6 safeties in superbowl history in 46 games. Even at -1000, you would have lost money betting every superbowl ( if the same bet/odds were in place for each superbowl).
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tooncesthecatwhocoulddriveacar" <tooncestdc@...> wrote:
Has noone on here mentioned Shackleford's recommendation on Gambling With an Edge of betting "No Safety" for about -1000 when the true odds are 19-1? I nearly put $1300 on it but balked at the crappy -1300 odds at Caesar's Palace. Then just got off the plane to see how much money I saved! I figured a fair number of people on this board lost their shirt.
Btw, I think Super Bowls in Indy must be gaffed. Safeties happen at a much larger rate than would be predicted.
Sammy Katz
I haven't independently calculated it, but I'd expect if M.S. was using 19:1 as the true odds it's because that's the ratio for all NFL games going back for something like 10 years.
The books offer 1:10 because the general public is happy to bet the 'yes' at 7:1 due to A) they don't know the true odds, and B) they like to bet rare events with big payoffs.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <007@...> wrote:
It makes me skeptical that the true odds are 19 to 1. What is that
based on and why do the sports books offer such a supposedly
ridiculous overlay?johnnyzee wrote:
Also, people generally can't exploit the bet too much, since even sharp betters don't particularly like the idea of locking up a bunch of their bankroll for a small return, not to mention the hassle of cashing the ticket. As it is, if I wanted to make the bet at -1300, assuming Shackleford's numbers are accurate, it would have been a $27 EV bet for every $1000 I had to lay out, and win $77 at best. I also knew it was -1100 at Stations casinos, and even though I wasn't going to be able to get back there, I didn't want to bet Caesar's crappier spread.
By the way, I think that the common "First Score" is a Safety prop bet may have been closer to 50:1.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Kamango_" <vetsen@...> wrote:
I haven't independently calculated it, but I'd expect if M.S. was using 19:1 as the true odds it's because that's the ratio for all NFL games going back for something like 10 years.
The books offer 1:10 because the general public is happy to bet the 'yes' at 7:1 due to A) they don't know the true odds, and B) they like to bet rare events with big payoffs.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Tom Robertson <007@> wrote:
>
> It makes me skeptical that the true odds are 19 to 1. What is that
> based on and why do the sports books offer such a supposedly
> ridiculous overlay?
>
> johnnyzee wrote:
>
On a ESPN radio a day or two before the game, a gentleman in charge of posting the prop bets at the Las Vegas Hotel (was the LV Hilton) said the current odds on the safety there were 6-1 and he thought they might go down to 5-1. He added that most tourists don't want to vote on the "no" so that affects the movement of the odds. He added that when there is a safety or over-time, the casinos take a bath on those bets.
LA Bum
---------------------------------------
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tooncesthecatwhocoulddriveacar" <tooncestdc@...> wrote:
Has noone on here mentioned Shackleford's recommendation on Gambling With an Edge of betting "No Safety" for about -1000 when the true odds are 19-1? I nearly put $1300 on it but balked at the crappy -1300 odds at Caesar's Palace. Then just got off the plane to see how much money I saved! I figured a fair number of people on this board lost their shirt.
Btw, I think Super Bowls in Indy must be gaffed. Safeties happen at a much larger rate than would be predicted.
Sammy Katz