Super Bowl Betting Opportunity

digamma · 01-05-2016, 06:57 AM

Bovada has some lines up that seem a bit too good to be true.

Simply put, right now, the site is allowing you to parlay a super bowl futures bet with a general line a -2.5 NFC TO WIN. For a bet on the Cardinals and the Patriots (the current betting favorites), that takes their current +450 line to +850 (or 9.5 to 1). (Obviously for the Pats the parlay is to AFC +2.5.)

Depending on how you might size your bets, you can come very close to locking in a win at this point, or at the very least getting really attractive odds on what amounts to an "NFC Won't Win by 1 or 2 Points Bet." For historical reference, I believe only one of the previous 49 Super Bowls has had a spread of less than a field goal. And, again, depending on bet sizing you would likely have a chance to hedge once the teams are set to remove any risk from the table.

Hypothetically, I looked at bets on all 12 teams, with various sizes, and the result is ending up with something like a -250 line on not getting middled by the Panthers or Cardinals. (My worst implied odds on these hypothetical bets actually end up being the Packers and Redskins due to betting relatively little on those teams.)

Who knows how long they'll keep this up or if they view it as a glitch or what? Passing along in case others might be interested as well.

digamma · 01-05-2016, 09:56 AM

Bovada has moved the NFC line to -2.5 -120, which means they may be close to moving that to -3, which would take a lot of the value of this away.

QuikSand · 01-05-2016, 11:03 AM

Intrigued but short on time to work through the math... this is totally my cup of tea, though.

digamma · 01-05-2016, 11:10 AM

And it was too good to be true. My "hypothetical" bets were just cancelled.

albionmoonlight · 01-05-2016, 11:25 AM

As an attorney working for the federal government, I have always felt it not worth it to deal with quasi-legal online betting.

Which is why DFS pisses me off more than it should. If the rule is "no sports gambling outside of Vegas," then I don't agree, but whatever.

But it is so irking to have the leagues openly encourage a type of gambling in which I have no interest while still maintaining the fiction that legal and regulated online sportsbooks would destroy the integrity of the sport.

First world problems.

QuikSand · 01-05-2016, 11:27 AM

01-05-2016, 11:27 AM	#6
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	+1

01-05-2016, 09:56 AM	#2
digamma Torchbearer Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: On Lake Harriet	Bovada has moved the NFC line to -2.5 -120, which means they may be close to moving that to -3, which would take a lot of the value of this away.

01-05-2016, 11:03 AM	#3
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	Intrigued but short on time to work through the math... this is totally my cup of tea, though.

01-05-2016, 11:10 AM	#4
digamma Torchbearer Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: On Lake Harriet	And it was too good to be true. My "hypothetical" bets were just cancelled.

01-05-2016, 11:25 AM	#5
albionmoonlight Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: North Carolina	As an attorney working for the federal government, I have always felt it not worth it to deal with quasi-legal online betting. Which is why DFS pisses me off more than it should. If the rule is "no sports gambling outside of Vegas," then I don't agree, but whatever. But it is so irking to have the leagues openly encourage a type of gambling in which I have no interest while still maintaining the fiction that legal and regulated online sportsbooks would destroy the integrity of the sport. First world problems.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)