Betting football 1st halfs based on coin flip outcome?

[Bucky-Dat]

I bet tonight's MNF 1st half right before game time (thanks for giving it away Bledsoe). I was wondering if anyone had researched betting a 1st half on the side that wins the coin flip.

Seems like the possible extra possesion would give an edge. Anyone have any thought on this?

[dankhank]

i have wondered about stats on which head coaches choose to defer recieving the ball until the second half. fading those teams in first half plays would seem like easy money if there were any coaches who reliably deferred. or else ones who chose a field side instead of recieving/kicking. but then again, if this were a good angle then someone would already be using it.

[TwoNiner]

I vaguely remember researching this several years back for Oly's props of "who to score first" and I don't beleive I remember finding anyone that seemed to defer (very huge amount of games starting on defense). Now, I think you can definitely find books that will have the lines up after you know the coinflip outcome though. It's gotta be a small edge. Also, take into account that for [censored] reasons, the coach receiving the ball in the 2nd half (Dom Capers is big on this) often uses it as an excuse to not take a risk on his last drive of the half.

[27offsuit]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet tonight's MNF 1st half right before game time (thanks for giving it away Bledsoe). I was wondering if anyone had researched betting a 1st half on the side that wins the coin flip.

Seems like the possible extra possesion would give an edge. Anyone have any thought on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

My thought is you are a bookies wet dream.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
i have wondered about stats on which head coaches choose to defer recieving the ball until the second half. fading those teams in first half plays would seem like easy money if there were any coaches who reliably deferred.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the NFL, at least, those coaches don't exist. This is because the winner of the coin toss does not get the choice of receiving in the 1st or 2nd half. Instead, he can either choose to kick or receive, or he can decide which side of the field to take in the 1st quarter. At the start of the 2nd half, the other coach gets the decision. So, if a coach decided to kick away after winning the toss, it could only cost his team a possession since the other team will always choose to receive the 2nd hald kickoff, as well.

Herm Edwards screwed this up a year or two ago. He decided he wanted his team to start with the wind at their backs, so he opted to kick away after winning the toss. Apparently it never occurred to him that he would have the wind for two quarters regardless.

[Bucky-Dat]

[ QUOTE ]

My thought is you are a bookies wet dream.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you think that?

[youtalkfunny]

It's amazing how many people don't know this.

In the Buccs/Raiders Superbowl, radio announcer Boomer Esiason was stunned that Gruden didn't elect to kick, to start the game with his great defense on the field.

As a bookie, this has always been a sore spot for me. Every year, the public bets the "team to receive opening kick" prop under the logic that they have a 50/50 shot, plus a chance that the team with the good D will defer. No one ever defers, but the public had a great run winning every coin toss, every year, until finally Chucky won a toss and said, "We'll receive!"

Worst of all was the Rams/Pats SB. For the entire week, every Patriot coach and player insisted their only hope was to keep Warner and Faulk on the sidelines as much as they could. Yet the public lined up to bet the Rams to receive opening kick, certain that "we want to keep them on the sidelines" was tantamount to "we want to give them the ball at the first oppurtunity."

And every single one of them had to take the time to explain to me their brilliant reasoning behind it.

And after the game, they'd have to boast to me about how easy that was.

Multiply that by about ten straight Superbowls, until Tampa Bay finally snapped the streak, and you start to understand why my neck hairs stand up at the mention of this subject.

[youtalkfunny]

[ QUOTE ]
My thought is you are a bookies wet dream.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure. I think the thought is worthy of consideration.

Especially if we change "first half" to "first quarter".

[Lori]

I just want to chip in that this is certainly not a stupid idea.

You would need to first find out how many extra possessions the recieving team has on average in the first half and then play around a bit from there.

I have no access to NFL stats (at least not in an easy format) or I would be willing to help out on this.

Lori

[SunOfBeach]

i dont know why some posters are cracking on this idea, i think it has tons of merit. three caveats:

1. likely means more if a good scoring team gets the ball vs a bad defensive team

2. would be much more effective for 1st quarter lines only

3. clearly the biggest caveat - you wouldnt get away with bets like these for long, so you had better have several outs to place them at

[Iplayragstoo]

Your biggest problem will be getting a book to take yor wager after you know who is going to get the ball first. 99-100% of all online books take the games down at there POSTED start time. We all know they don't kick off at that time, thats when they start to get the game going. The coin flip always happens after that time. I think you have great 1st half, or 1st quarter angle here, problem is you cannot use it. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[AvivaSimplex]

I just read The Hidden Game of Football, in which some statisticians look at novel ways to quantify football. (Think Bill James, except football). They have a chart of 10 years of data from kickoffs. They asked, "after a kickoff, which team is more likely to make the next score?" Teams that received the opening kickoff were actually slightly less likely to score than teams that kicked (< 1% difference).

So good idea, but the stats don't bear it out.

[ImBen]

[ QUOTE ]
I just read The Hidden Game of Football, in which some statisticians look at novel ways to quantify football. (Think Bill James, except football). They have a chart of 10 years of data from kickoffs. They asked, "after a kickoff, which team is more likely to make the next score?" Teams that received the opening kickoff were actually slightly less likely to score than teams that kicked (< 1% difference).

So good idea, but the stats don't bear it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bullshiit. If this is true why would any team elect to receive?

[kdog]

[ QUOTE ]
Bullshiit. If this is true why would any team elect to receive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well in the NFL there is no deferring your option until the second half. You must either choose to receive the ball or defend a goal. If you choose to defend a goal you will be kicking off to start both halves. That's pretty stupid. Also, if the wind is a factor, more often than not the receiving team is going into the wind, making it more difficult to establish good field position should they be forced to punt.

In the NCAA where deferring your option until the second half is permitted, many teams do.

[Austiger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bullshiit. If this is true why would any team elect to receive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well in the NFL there is no deferring your option until the second half. You must either choose to receive the ball or defend a goal. If you choose to defend a goal you will be kicking off to start both halves. That's pretty stupid. Also, if the wind is a factor, more often than not the receiving team is going into the wind, making it more difficult to establish good field position should they be forced to punt.

In the NCAA where deferring your option until the second half is permitted, many teams do.

[/ QUOTE ]

But when the 2nd half comes and they have the option, they don't choose to kick off again, which is what they should do if they are more likely to score next. That stat can't be right. I know OT in the NFL favors the teams that get the ball first.

[ImBen]

[ QUOTE ]
If you choose to defend a goal you will be kicking off to start both halves. That's pretty stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for reinforcing my point in your feeble attempt to contradict me.

[Performify]

[ QUOTE ]
I just read The Hidden Game of Football, in which some statisticians look at novel ways to quantify football. (Think Bill James, except football). They have a chart of 10 years of data from kickoffs. They asked, "after a kickoff, which team is more likely to make the next score?" Teams that received the opening kickoff were actually slightly less likely to score than teams that kicked (< 1% difference).

So good idea, but the stats don't bear it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

That contradicts the stat floating around about ~75% of overtime games being won by the team that wins the toss.

(not sure on the exact stat but its close to 3/4 IIRC)

[AvivaSimplex]

I'm just telling you what the book said. I was surprised too, but the point was that kicking and receiving were of basically equal value.

Do you have a link for the OT stat?

[goodsamaritan]

Here's kind of a crappy article, but the bottom line seems to be that since the kickoff was moved back to the 30 yard line in 1994, receiving in OT is an advantage, but before that it wasn't. But they don't say how much of an advantage it is. I doubt its close to 75-25 though given the 1974-2003 numbers.


http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20041106/mathtrek.asp

For 30 years, the National Football League (NFL) has mandated sudden-death overtime to decide games that are tied after 60 minutes of play. The first team to score in overtime wins the game. If neither team scores at the end of 15 minutes of overtime, the game ends in a tie.

A coin flip determines which team gets the ball first. The winner of the toss can choose whether the team wants to receive the ball and begin an offensive series or pick a goal to defend.

Many people have the perception that whichever team wins the coin toss and chooses to receive the ball typically goes on to score and win the game, often on the first possession. This perception has led to calls for changes in the overtime rule. In fact, the NFL has suggested an alternative: The first team to score six points in overtime wins the game.

Total no. of overtime games (1974–2003) 365
Both teams had at least one possession 261 (72 %)
Team won toss and won game 189 (52 %)
Team lost toss and won game 160 (44 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 102 (28 %)
Games ending in a tie 15 (5 %)

Overtime games in 2002 26
Both teams had at least one possession 15 (58 %)
Team won toss and won game 16 (62 %)
Team lost toss and won game 9 (35 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 10 (38 %)
Games ending in a tie 1 (3 %)

Overtime games in 2003 23
Both teams had at least one possession 16 (70 %)
Team won toss and won game 12 (52 %)
Team lost toss and won game 11 (48 %)
Team won toss and drove for winning score 6 (26 %)
Games ending in a tie 0 (0 %)


The data appear to support the notion that the football team scoring first in sudden-death overtime is usually the one that had won the coin toss and received the ball.

Interestingly, the cumulative data hide the effect of a rule change that occurred in 1994, when kickoffs were moved back 5 yards to the 30-yard line. Since 1994, nearly one-third of overtime games have been won on the first possession by the team that received the ball first. In the first 20 seasons, under the old rule, slightly more than one-quarter of the games were won in this fashion.

A recent analysis by economist Richard E. Hawkins of Pennsylvania State University in DuBois confirms that these differences are statistically significant.

"The analysis finds with 99.99 % certainty that the [coin] flip has made a difference in the outcome of the game over the last 10 years," he concludes. "But for the period prior to those 10 years, the coin flip cannot be shown to be important."

Would a first-to-six overtime rule do any better?

In the current issue of the College Mathematics Journal, Michael A. Jones of Montclair State University in New Jersey uses a probability model and data from the 2002 NFL regular season to compare the current overtime rule with the suggested first-to-six rule. His analysis looks at the impact of the coin toss on both the outcome of the game and the efficiency of eliminating ties.

Using a so-called Markov chain model, Jones examines the consequences of sudden-death overtime on two fairly matched teams, assuming that both teams have equal probabilities of scoring a touchdown and kicking a field goal. He does the same for the first-to-six proposal.

"The first-to-six proposal does decrease the probabilities that the receiving team wins the game on the first possession and that they win the game eventually," Jones concludes. However, "although the first-to-six rule reduces the impact of the coin toss on the outcome of the game, it is less efficient at eliminating ties."

Applied to 2002 data, the model developed by Jones suggests that the team winning the coin toss and receiving the ball would win with a probability of 49 percent under the first-to-six rule (versus 60 percent for sudden-death overtime). The probability of games ending in a tie would rise to 12 percent (versus 9 percent).

Is the suggested rule worth implementing?

"This reduction in the impact of the coin toss on the outcome of the game is a trade-off because of the increase in the number of tie games," Jones writes. "Although fans would be happy that the outcome of the game is decided less by luck and more by play on the field, coaches may regret Monday morning quarterbacks second-guessing their decisions of whether or not to attempt field goals in overtime. Scoring three points still gives the other team an opportunity to score a touchdown and win the game."

"One thing is certain," he adds. "The first-to-six proposal increases the probability that fans will discuss the National Football League in the off-season."

[VarlosZ]

First to six would be one possible solution, but there's another, much simpler and more obvious solution that I wish would get some consideration: just go back to the old kickoff rules for overtime. Kick off from the 35, and use the old, kicker-friendly tees. When they did that, overtime victories were split almost exactly 50-50 between kicking team and receiving team.

[CieloAzor]

That was always the obvious solution to me as well. The kicking team actually used to win more often than the receiving team. I realized it had swung pretty hard back in the other direction after the kickoffs were moved to the 30, but I'm surprised to hear the receiving teams are ahead now overall. Could there be other factors? Have other rule changes made it easier for offenses to dominate? Are today's FG kickers stronger and more accurate than in the past? In any case, I would assume the statistic about receiving teams not scoring first at the start of the game includes pre-'94 stats and is outdated as a result.

What I'd like to see, and I'm sure this will never happen, would be if the ball started on the 50 yard line and the offenses got two plays at a time, then switched off, until one of them is able to punch it in for a TD. It's an idea similar to the minigame on NCAA '07 called Tug-of-War.

As to the original topic here, well...it's actually not that original. We had this discussion a little while ago and most people seemed to agree it would provide a nice edge on first quarter/half betting if you can find a book that offers those bets late enough. However, I don't know that anybody was able to make use of the strategy consistently.

[Lori]

[ QUOTE ]
First to six would be one possible solution, but there's another, much simpler and more obvious solution that I wish would get some consideration: just go back to the old kickoff rules for overtime. Kick off from the 35, and use the old, kicker-friendly tees. When they did that, overtime victories were split almost exactly 50-50 between kicking team and receiving team.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd let the team that was most recently in front have the option. That would encourage sides to go for the win in regulation time rather than tying it up. Purists won't like it, but oh well ... the last second make-or-break 2 point attempts from time to time would be worth it. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Lori

[AvivaSimplex]

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's kind of a crappy article, but the bottom line seems to be that since the kickoff was moved back to the 30 yard line in 1994, receiving in OT is an advantage, but before that it wasn't. But they don't say how much of an advantage it is. I doubt its close to 75-25 though given the 1974-2003 numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, that explains it. The book was written in 1988, and used data from 1976-1986.

[MicroBob]

what if it's 0-0 at end of regulation? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[goodsamaritan]

Even though receiving seems to be only a slight edge on average, I could see the edge getting bigger depending on the matchup. If you have two teams with good offenses but crappy defenses, then I would imagine the edge would get much bigger.

[CieloAzor]

I just made use of this with no problem on the OSU/Mich game. Pinny left the lines up until kickoff so I took Michigan +0.5 for the 1st Q.

We'll see how it works out.

[CieloAzor]

Wager graded, money awarded.

...This seems like something I need to do more often.

[Lori]

[ QUOTE ]
what if it's 0-0 at end of regulation? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Give both teams a loss. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Lori