New Jersey has some unusual Super Bowl odds

AP

With sports betting now legal in New Jersey, and even with football season still more than two months away, bets can be placed on one important NFL proposition: Who will win the Super Bowl?

Accompanying an article from Connor Orr of SI.com is a photo of the betting board at Monmouth Park, revealing some of the odds to win the 53rd installment of the game.

The Browns are only 75-1 underdogs to win it all. Making that number even more amazing is the fact that the Bengals are at 125-1.

Other teams deemed by oddsmakers to be less likely to win it all than the Browns include the Bills (100-1), the Dolphins (100-1), the Buccaneers (100-1), the Colts (100-1), the Jets (100-1), the Cardinals (100-1), and Washington (100-1).

The Bears also have 75-1 odds.

Then there’s this: The Seahawks, one of the best teams of the past six years, have 50-1 odds. While the Seahawks are hardly favorites to win it all, they seem like a MUCH better bet to climb the mountain than a team that hasn’t been to the playoffs since 2002 — and that has won only one game in the past two seasons.

39 responses to “New Jersey has some unusual Super Bowl odds

  1. The odds are set only as a way to attract bets. So they feed into popular delusions and the madness of crowds.

  2. The Legion of Boom is dead and the Seahawks have no offensive line. They’re finished and are now in a rebuild mode because of clown shoes Carroll who has screwed up the locker room.

  3. Maybe NJ just has better handicappers????
    I mean Vegas almost got hammered in the Stanley Cup Finals cause they bungled the Golden Knights odds.
    The real qualifier is the Kansas City Chiefs:::: They should be the favorite to win the next five Super Bowls, so watch their odds.
    They have the best offense in the league, top 10 defense, along with the best young QB and future HOFer in Patrick Mahomes

  4. Does it matter what the odds are for the Browns on a single result Super Bowl payout? Since they clearly aren’t even remotely close to even possibly having a chance at winning it, the only way these Odds would matter is if you could take the other side of the bet 1/75 that they wouldn’t win it, which would be about as safe a bet as you could make in Sports.

    They have a laughable draft, appear to have sped up the QB carousel again, and somehow improved their odds? Hmm. Possibly because their division looks weaker? Can’t be because of a talent improvement because that is very much yet to be seen.

    Give me the opportunity to place the reverse bet that the Browns don’t win it and I’ll take that bet every. single. year.

  5. The board I saw didn’t have the Patriots on it, which I thought was strange. Don’t remember seeing the Saints, either.

  6. The name of the team is the Redskins. Like the Red Mesa High Redskins, located on a Navajo reservation.

  7. Rarely is a betting line the same for a team to win just one game the same as winning it all.

  8. Those numbers don’t mean anything now. The small amount of bets taken so far have probably skewed the lines. As more bets are taken, the lines will stabilize and look like Vegas. Some guy probably took a flier on Cleve

  9. This is all based on last year. As anyone with a brain knows, with the possible exception of the Golden State Warriors, each team experiences a different season than the one past.

    Please. It’s June.

  10. Aarrgh!! Bookies’ odds are NOT simply about teams’ talent and chances of winning!! They are ALL about measuring fans’ expectations and then offering an odds level to garner the best balance of relative outlays to maximize the bookies’ profit margins at those given odds. To fool yourself to think otherwise is to prove what my late grandpa called betting: the idiots’ tax.

  11. Not sure what I’m doing wrong here, but it looks like a lot of teams are missing. I didn’t see Dallas I didn’t see the Vikings and I didn’t count them but it looks like the photo is incomplete.

  12. Finally!

    The bandwagon is moving out, and all of the nay-sayers and panty-waist commenters had better get a move on. It’s filling up FAST!

    Go Browns!!!

  13. Picking the winner is hard enough on game day how about what are the odds for teams to just make it to the SB.

  14. Give me the opportunity to place the reverse bet that the Browns don’t win it and I’ll take that bet every. single. year.
    +++++++++

    I’ll take that bet.

    You give me $75 if they win the super bowl, I’ll give you a dollar when they lose.

    Let’s say I make that same bet on all 32 teams. Sure, I will pay out $31 after the SB but I will collect $75 plus the vig — which is a pretty good ROI.

  15. Seahawks lost 6 out of their top 10 players. That’s not counting Earl Thomas, which if he leaves would make it 7 out of 10.

    OL still sucks. WR’s still subpar. With new gaping holes at TE, CB, S, DT, DE.

    Scapegoated Tom Cable. Scapegoated Bevell. Signed the worst DC you’ll ever see in Ken Norton.

    Seahawks aren’t going anywhere. Their roster is decimated as well as their coaching staff. Everyone else in the division got better. They got massively worse.

  16. The 2 guarantees in the 2018 season will be the browns & the seahawks will NOT be in the Super Bowl.

  17. wiltmellow says:
    June 17, 2018 at 10:18 am

    I’ll take that bet.

    You give me $75 if they win the super bowl, I’ll give you a dollar when they lose.

    Let’s say I make that same bet on all 32 teams. Sure, I will pay out $31 after the SB but I will collect $75 plus the vig — which is a pretty good ROI.
    ———————————————————————————
    You’ll pay out $31. If the Browns win (or the Bears, Redskins, etc…), you’ll collect $75 or more. But in the likelihood that a “favorite” team with lower odds wins (say, the Patriots at 1:1), you would collect $1. That would give you a net loss of $30

  18. That’s because the AFC is weak compared to the NFC. You put the Browns in the NFC and there odds would be 1-150. Or better yet, put the Patriots and Steelers in the NFC and watch them stumble in the playoffs.

  19. What were the eagles at the start of last year? The giants in 2007, patriots in 2001, rams in 1999. Probably a lot of other 75;1 teams that won it all, maybe the Browns are good

  20. It’s Truly Pathetic the amount of hate that the Seahawks get on every thread on PFT. You girls need to put down the Cheetos and Mountain Dew, get a job and stop living in your Moms basement.

  21. But in the likelihood that a “favorite” team with lower odds wins

    +++++++++++

    Please learn to read. I clearly said, “Let’s say I make that same bet on all 32 teams.”

    Obviously different odds will bring different ROIs. If every team had 75-1 odds, most of the money would end up on the worst teams.

    As the oddsmaker, I donn’t care which team wins or loses. I don’t care who you think will win or lose.

    I simply calculate results (odds) that increase my profit.

    The article (and most people) think the oddsmakers make tacit judgments about this or that team when they post odds.

    But that’s a wrong way of looking at it.

    Instead, consider the goal of oddsmakers.

    They’re not trying to predict outcomes; they’re there to make money.

  22. I have a hard time believing that the author doesn’t understand how bookmaking works. So why does he reinforce the myth that the oddsmakers are in any way making judgements on teams/talent?

  23. wiltmellow says:
    June 17, 2018 at 10:18 am

    Let’s say I make that same bet on all 32 teams. Sure, I will pay out $31 after the SB but I will collect $75 plus the vig — which is a pretty good ROI.
    ——————————————————————————————–
    Sure , it’s a great return…IF the Browns win. If the Patriots, or another low odds team wins, then your ROI is in the toilet.
    ——————————————————————————————–

    If every team had 75-1 odds, most of the money would end up on the worst teams.
    ————————————————————————————–
    So you’re saying that if the Browns and the Patriots had the exact same odds, more people would bet on the Browns? I mean, I know how to read, but I’m not sure you know how to write.

  24. The Browns in 2018 are infinitely better than the 2016 or 2017 Browns … that’s why the odds are what they are. They have well over 20 new players, many of them seasoned vets as well several high round draft picks. They have a 2 new QB’s, 2 new running backs, 3 new wide receivers and a ton of new defensive players. This is no 0 or 1 win team.

  25. davewr58 says:
    June 17, 2018 at 8:08 pm
    The Browns in 2018 are infinitely better than the 2016 or 2017 Browns … that’s why the odds are what they are. They have well over 20 new players, many of them seasoned vets as well several high round draft picks. They have a 2 new QB’s, 2 new running backs, 3 new wide receivers and a ton of new defensive players. This is no 0 or 1 win team.

    ********************************************************

    I completely agree that the 2018 Browns have improved the quality of their roster.

    A problem with that logic is that we really do not know how bad the 0-16 team was. I suspect that if we could go back and improve the 2017 Browns at 50 or so of the 53 roster spots, they probably would have STILL gone 0-16. The improved 2018 roster may actually be a vast upgrade, but 3-13 is not out of the question.

    Another problem is the continued presence of a 1-31 coaching staff. There is not really much evidence of player development on either the 2016 or 2017 roster. That may be due to having so little NFL-caliber talent on either team, or it may be a staff that has simply swapped out playing time among the players in the hope that ‘someone will step up.’

    This is a ‘prove it’ for Hue and the staff. They need to show they can ‘coach up’ the existing players. And they probably need a win in September and at least 4 on the season to keep their jobs.

    There seems to be some genuine excitement about this year. But an 0-4 start would likely make it an exciting year for a different staff.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!