Arbitrage Opportunity in NFL Futures

Question

The Bets:GB -3 (-135)Chicago to win Super Bowl (&#x2B;600)The only risk to this bet is GB not covering. You can immediately hedge out on the opposing ML if CHI beats GB. If CHI wins this week, you&#x27;re risking 210 to win 600 (&#x2B;285). Does anyone think the Super Bowl ML for the opponent of CHI would be higher than that?Thoughts?

Jokeheads · Answer

The Bets:GB -3 (-135)Chicago to win Super Bowl (&#x2B;600)The only risk to this bet is GB not covering. You can immediately hedge out on the opposing ML if CHI beats GB. If CHI wins this week, you&#x27;re risking 210 to win 600 (&#x2B;285). Does anyone think the Super Bowl ML for the opponent of CHI would be higher than that?Thoughts?

Jokeheads · Answer

Correction, you&#x27;re risking 235 to win 600 (&#x2B;255).

vanzack · Answer

&#xD;&#xA;Lots of holes in that....&#xD;&#xA;1.  GB wins but doesnt cover.  Chances of that?  About 15% (according to the ML and spread).&#xD;&#xA;The real way to look at it is to bet the GB ML this week (-200) and the bears to win the SB.  That way, the SB bet on the bears would be &#x2B;200, probably a little less than they would be against the steelers but a little more than they would be against the Jets.&#xD;&#xA;I dont really see this as an arb opportunity, seems like the line is just about right....

rangerz2478 · Answer

The Pack can EASILY win by 3 in which case you lose your Bears future and push your Pack -3. (which you obviously know)

Besides, we they will be dogs whoever they play in the superbowl so I don't think the risk is worth the reward.

ndsent1 · Answer

GB -3

depeche2 · Answer

Bad.  Really bad.  I mean really, really bad.  That ain&#x27;t arbitrage.

aallen45 · Answer

this is good idea but there are some kinks. u can vary the betting amounts to get better odds. what he has is 100 on both the future and the spread on the GB game. i almost did this with the Jets last week when they were getting 11:1 to win the Super Bowl. a simple computer program...let alone excel can tell u the optimal amount to place on each bet that would increase your odds and lower downside losses. but that being said all this goes out the window if GB wins and doesn't cover because both bets will no longer be live

gallotron · Answer

You both are calculating this wrong anyways. When you lose the first bet on GB it is not like you are wagering 235 to win 600 because you won't get the 135 back you lost on GB like you would with a normal bet. To make this scenario exactly break-even would look something like this:

Risk:          Win:
100            600             Bears win SB
135            100             GB covers
465            235             ML on team playing bears in SB

You can see from this scenario that if GB covers first game you break even with the 100. If the bears win the SB you will win 600 but will have lost 135 on GB bet and another 465 on opponent's ML breaking even. If the opponent wins you win 235 which is exactly how much you would lose on your SB and GB bet. 465 to win 235 is -198 so to make this arbitrage profitable at all you would need a better than -198 line. This doesn't even take into account the possibility of GB winning but not covering. Vanzack's scenario of taking the GB ML at -200 would result in needing a -133 ML just to break-even which ain't gonna happen.

vanzack · Answer

&#xD;&#xA;This is 100% correct.&#xD;&#xA;Sorry about my math above, I did it too quickly on the fly, but good catch!

Jokeheads · Answer

Thanks for clearing this up.

$$$_in_the_bank · Answer

Good thread...At least we are "thinking"...Lets make some

KktdocT · Answer

GL.

Arbitrage Opportunity in NFL Futures

Hot Forum Topics