Need Math Help Figuring Fair Value on Prop

[statnerds]

McAfee no touchback on a punt is -250
Morstead no touchback on a punt is -260

but the prop for no touchback on any punt is +110

how the hell do i figure the fair value on the last one, +110, when the likelihood of the first two are both -260 and -250?

just adding the prob of 27% and 29% doesn't make sense at all. used the parlay calculator and odds came out at +113.

McAfee 6 TBs on 64 punts...1 at miami and 1 at tenn
Morestead 4 TBs on 58 punts...i don't see any TBs for him on grass

[Dunder]

McAfee no touchback on a punt is -250
Morstead no touchback on a punt is -260

but the prop for no touchback on any punt is +110

how the hell do i figure the fair value on the last one, +110, when the likelihood of the first two are both -260 and -250?

just adding the prob of 27% and 29% doesn't make sense at all. used the parlay calculator and odds came out at +113.

McAfee 6 TBs on 64 punts...1 at miami and 1 at tenn
Morestead 4 TBs on 58 punts...i don't see any TBs for him on grass

71.42% multiplied by 72.22% = 51.59% (so -106 more or less)

[statnerds]

71.42% multiplied by 72.22% = 51.59% (so -106 more or less)

thanks Dunder.

so you are saying that the there is a 51.59% that there will not be a touchback?

so the -106 is what i should compare to the +110?

[donjuan]

Are your -260 and -250 values your fair values, the mid-market values or the odds available to bet at?

If it is either of the latter 2, I would strongly suggest not making a bet based on this. If they are your fair values then getting +110 when your fair value is -106 would make for a good bet, although you would probably be better off betting some bigger edges with all of the SB props available out there.

[statnerds]

Are your -260 and -250 values your fair values, the mid-market values or the odds available to bet at?

i was cross-eyed last night after about an hour of studying props at 5Dimes. it wasn't until mid-afternoon today that i remembered seeing Justin post something about McAfee No Touchback. had to wait until SBR was up today and find it. he said he felt fair value was -420. and i'm lazy so i'll adjust based on Justin's view and the market price and -350 that puts it over 59% and around -144 a fair price.

you're right though, i forgot to determine fair value on the first two props. sometimes i get moving too fast when i see something that strikes me as being a steal.

[bleedblue]

I'd love to see the math/reasoning behind fair value of -420 on the McAfee no touchback bet; my numbers make this a no-bet.

3.8 punts, 9% touchback rate ---> No touchback = ~ 66% = ~-247

I don't think grass vs. turf makes much of a difference on the 9% (NFL average over last 7-8 years), but maybe 3.8 punts is too high?

[mr.ed]

I am very clsoe to your numbers, Bleed. Using Indy punters going back 5 years you have 24 games in which they did kick a TB and 64 in which they did not, making the number approx. -267. For the Saints going back 5 years, they are 21 Yes and 54 no, or -257. Saints punting a little less this year than past few, so perhaps you could slightly adjust and say they should be about -270.

Based ona bove, looks like good numbers for punter props is each in the -250 to
-280 range.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Would you include the 2007 Patriots' stats in Patriot props for this year? I wouldn't.

[Dunder]

thanks Dunder.

so you are saying that the there is a 51.59% that there will not be a touchback?

so the -106 is what i should compare to the +110?

Sorry, I couldn´t get back to you. Yes that would be the line for No touchback but as others (and yourself for that matter) have elaborated on, this assumes that the first two represent fair value.

[Dunder]

I have bets on two props for the SB, both eating a lot of chalk but both great value statistically

1) No safety in game (-1000) better odds were available but with small limits.
2) Game not decided by exactly 3 points (-460)

Just, fwiw.

[statnerds]

2) Game not decided by exactly 3 points (-460)

Just, fwiw.

Bookmaker F-ed this one up bad the other day, but i wasn't fast enough. they listed at -130. was going to Arb the shit out of it.

you guys really think grass or turf doesn't make a difference?

[byronbb]

lol -130!!!!!!! HAhahahah arbing that?? Put max bet imo.

[statnerds]

lol -130!!!!!!! HAhahahah arbing that?? Put max bet imo.

it merely proves once again my conservative approach to sports investing. much like stocks, you never go wrong taking a profit.

i would rather lock in a sure profit and remove the 21.74% of the game landing on 3 (that is based on a spread of 4.5 since the year 2000 including all reg and post-season games). and based on that the No should be -360.

[Dunder]

it merely proves once again my conservative approach to sports investing. much like stocks, you never go wrong taking a profit.

i would rather lock in a sure profit and remove the 21.74% of the game landing on 3 (that is based on a spread of 4.5 since the year 2000 including all reg and post-season games). and based on that the No should be -360.

Unless the line that you are arbing with represents fair value, I fundamentally disagree with this. If having taken the -130 that you hoped to, you then arb at lines which are -EV you end up in a less favourable position, even if there is a possibility of a loss.

[statnerds]

Unless the line that you are arbing with represents fair value, I fundamentally disagree with this. If having taken the -130 that you hoped to, you then arb at lines which are -EV you end up in a less favourable position, even if there is a possibility of a loss.

whilst i completely respect your position, because it is the right one, i can only speak for myself and my conservative betting style. remove the risk and take only the money.

Arb would have been wrong in this case because BM may have canceled the play for intentionally betting a bad line, then i would have a huge -EV laying out there ready to hammer me on gameday.

[donjuan]

Dunder,

Kelly criterion calls for -EV bets at times for optimal bankroll growth. Add in personal risk aversion and arbing may be Statnerds' optimal play, depending on his bankroll size. That said arbing props like this is absurd on anything resembling a bankroll.

[dinaro7]

indy will win by 7 pts

[roasthawg]

Dunder,

Kelly criterion calls for -EV bets at times for optimal bankroll growth. Add in personal risk aversion and arbing may be Statnerds' optimal play, depending on his bankroll size. That said arbing props like this is absurd on anything resembling a bankroll.

When does kelly call for -ev bets? I don't believe it ever does.

[statnerds]

wasn't a true Arb i guess.

had $40*4.25= $170

and $150 to win $115.38 on the -130

so it was win $20 or win $75.38, with the latter number being important as it represents ~2% of my current bankroll (can something that small be considered a bankroll?).

have a slight aversion to risk. more of a pessimistic view to my own plays though. even though games with teams favored between 3.5 and 6 landed on 3 ~15% of the time since 2000, i would focus on the 15% of the time it does happen and sweat the bet. stopped watching games because of the negative view. always think my Over or Under will lose...it sucks.

[Dunder]

have a slight aversion to risk. more of a pessimistic view to my own plays though. even though games with teams favored between 3.5 and 6 landed on 3 ~15% of the time since 2000, i would focus on the 15% of the time it does happen and sweat the bet. stopped watching games because of the negative view. always think my Over or Under will lose...it sucks.

Polish Middles are my favourite type of bet, but yes they can make for an uncomfortable viewing experience. GL with your plays.

[donjuan]

When does kelly call for -ev bets? I don't believe it ever does.

It does. http://forum.sbrforum.com/handicappe...-strategy.html

[The fiddler]

I would play no touchbacks in this game. Mainly, because it will be an offensive game. Fewer punts...but more importantly, teams will go for it on 4th and five from the other team's 40 more often than normally.

[byronbb]

I wasn't laughing @ u stats...I was laughing @ bookmaker.