Our guests this week are Frank B. and Anthony Curtis. We discuss this week’s super bowl, and talk about proposition bets. We focus not just on good bets to make, but more importantly on how sharp players think and analyze bets in order to get an edge.
podcast
Click to listen – alt click to download
Show Notes
[00:37] http://fivethirtyeight.com/
[02:04] How does public’s sentiment apply to bettors? Getting an advantage over the over-reacting public
[07:13] Betting props: who would be some of the more interesting players for New England?
[11:33] The effect of specific players in the New England Super Bowl
[16:58] Cross sports prop bets and the basic strategy
[29:31] The value on the rushing yards for the quarterbacks
[32:19] Betting no safety, no overtime, and no 2 point conversions, no 3 point margin of victory (bridge jumper bet of sorts)
[42:18] Over/Under on field goals
[45:13] Market Efficiency and the basic strategy for sports betting
[47:51] Interesting off the wall props this year
Never miss another post
A rare treat for listeners: guests who are extremely knowledgeable, interesting, AND articulate. Bravo!
Eagles 34, Patriots 20
I don’t want to be overly critical, but some of the information about calculating edge between different bets was definitely wrong near 35 mins. Richard is right about using an estimation of kelly instead of how Frank was describing.
I want to clear this safety prop bet up so no one overbets their bankroll. At -900 on the no you have about a conservative 4% edge and kelly says you bet 30%, which is too aggressive. I would say a 1/4 to 1/2 kelly so roughly 12 to 15% of bankroll. Frank said he tells people it is the equivalent of a getting a bet of even money when it should be -200 which is way off. That bet would be a 32% edge. I just want to make sure everyone is aware of the edge and makes smart bankroll descisions with the proper information. Good luck on sb props everyone !
Yes. The example I was trying to give was on the win end, not the risk end. It wasn’t delivered
well to say the least. The objective was to steer the bettor to to look at the bet from a different
angle than normal. Instead of winning around $67 you get paid $100 (laying 900/100). That didn’t
come out the way I wanted it to so the analogy with the EV money example didn’t make much sense.
I knew I should have stuck to saying the safety bet has a 3% edge but that the 3% has to be looked at much
differently than one around the EV money range. That would have been enough instead of the botched
example I gave. I was trying to say you’re getting paid a certain percentage more than you would
at the break-even price (over 30% more) which looks better than it is after considering all factors
but that didn’t come across at all. Sorry for that confusing and poorly articulated moment.
Nice podcast. Was a great game and great analysis. I usually stick to juts a few prop bets overall.