NFL playoff props

[Dark Horse]

Some interesting ones out there. This is the area of the math guys, which I'm not. I'd love to be able to calculate what the exact value is of:

- Neil Rackers scores more than 7 pts.

There's a beauty to that prop that's almost poetic. "The frog jumps into the splash." But I find myself so enraptured by the Zen of it all, that I find it hard to focus on the dry numbers behind it.

Anybody wants to give this a shot?

[20Four7]

Dark Horse,

While expecting to play he did have a groin injury, but did practice fully on Wednesday. I looked at how I predicted this game and came up with a score of 24 for the Cards. Now to break that down. If it's 3 td's and a FG it stays under, if he kicks 2 FG it would definately go over. Interesting prop.

[Dark Horse]

Looks like he may have missed the long FG at the end of the half because of the injury. That was within his reach, but the ball didn't get there.

I haven't seen this prop before. It brings in a whole set of dynamics, but looks so simple. I wonder if there's a way of really breaking down this prop and come up with a winning expectation.

[20Four7]

Here is how I analyzed this prop. I assumed he was kicking every PAT and every FG.

I came up with Arizona should get about 1.1 FG in this game. 3.3 points. I had already calculated a final score for Arizona of 24 which is 3 TD and 1 FG certainly close enough to the 1.1 the math said they should get. So I came up with 6 points. I did see this prop but didn't bet it, but I did take under 3.5 FG for the game and under 1.5 FG's for Arizona.

Probably isn't the most scientific or math method available.

[floridagolfer]

Here is how I analyzed this prop. I assumed he was kicking every PAT and every FG.

I came up with Arizona should get about 1.1 FG in this game. 3.3 points. I had already calculated a final score for Arizona of 24 which is 3 TD and 1 FG certainly close enough to the 1.1 the math said they should get. So I came up with 6 points. I did see this prop but didn't bet it, but I did take under 3.5 FG for the game and under 1.5 FG's for Arizona.

Probably isn't the most scientific or math method available.

Arizona had 16 FGs in 16 regular-season games, so I'm curious as to how you came up with 1.1 FGs you expected.

[20Four7]

Arizona had 16 FGs in 16 regular-season games, so I'm curious as to how you came up with 1.1 FGs you expected.

Arizona was 18 out of 19 attempts this year my friend..... if your going to quote something get it right.

Now Rackers had 16 out of 17 attempts if that's what you mean.

[snapstick]

[Bswitz32]

Good thing you didnt do this bet this year

bol

[20Four7]

Dark horse, I don't generally do points props because I haven't figured out an accurate way of evalutating them. But I assume you can do a poisson distribution on the FG's and one for the TD's. Then figure out how many points will be accumulated using 0 field goals and 1 TD 0 fG and 2 tds. 1 FG and 1 td etc..... a little on the tedious side but then anything worth while isn't ever easy.

[Dark Horse]

20Four7, that's what I liked about this prop. It looks so simple, and yet there's a whole 'matrix' of possibilities behind that simple outcome.

I suppose it could have been simplified in this case by taking the, almost standard, 1 FG as a given, and ask if Arizona would or wouldn't score five TD's. Then compare to projected points for team. So if Arizona was projected to score <38 pts, that would give Rackers 7 or fewer points.

[20Four7]

Props are made to look simple so they get action on them. I play a lot of props at this time of year and some are simple to evaluate and others are not. I tend to find the simple ones that are off market (IMO) and go from there. Seer (I believe) posted about Favre throwing an INT yes -155 no +125...... some of the responses were amazing..... People saying YES he's good for 1 or 2 a game..... this from a QB that threw 7 total during the regular season. Do these people watch games or evaluate stats.... of course not. I sided NO and won me some points. I never saw this prop out there but would have hammered the NO if I saw it.