# Advice on prop bet

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/advice-on-prop-bet/483963>\
**Category:** The Game Room\
**Created:** [February 1, 2009, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/advice-on-prop-bet/483963 "2009-02-01T07:28:14Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\
**Post date:** [February 1, 2009, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/advice-on-prop-bet/483963/1 "2009-02-01T07:28:14Z")

</div>

There’s a prop bet available at a casino here that I found to be odd regarding the superbowl.

From memory:

“A team will have 3 unanswered scores, not including extra points or conversion attempts”.

Yes -200  
No +170

It seems to me that 3 unanswered scores is fairly uncommon, yet betting on that pays much more than even. Am I missing something? Are 3 unanswered scores comon enough where yes is the favorite bet?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hal\_Briston](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9a28c/32.png) [@Hal\_Briston](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hal_Briston)\
**Post date:** [February 1, 2009, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/advice-on-prop-bet/483963/2 "2009-02-01T20:01:20Z")

</div>

Seems to me that should have _much_ longer odds. I’d drop 50 bucks on the “no”. without batting an eye.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\
**Post date:** [February 1, 2009, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/advice-on-prop-bet/483963/3 "2009-02-01T20:11:04Z")

</div>

I’m pretty confident that you shouldn’t bet either side, but if you did you should be betting Yes. It’s not uncommon at all (particularly in the Super Bowl, a game with a rich history of blowouts), and the initial reaction of every bettor who isn’t too familiar with this prop pulls the odds towards No.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\
**Post date:** [February 1, 2009, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/advice-on-prop-bet/483963/4 "2009-02-01T20:31:15Z")

</div>

Ok, I checked. Betting “Yes” on every Super Bowl to date would have yielded a record of **29-13**. If you risked $200 each time at odds of -200, you’d be up $300.

Now, 4 of the last 5 Super Bowls have not seen a team score three times consecutively (Colts-Bears being the exception). Prior to that, however, Yes came through eight times in a row, and 11 out of 12 times. If you were to exclude each side’s best runs as some kind of outlier (i.e., not counting Super Bowls 26-42), then Yes is still making you money, coming through 17 times out of 25.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\
**Post date:** [February 1, 2009, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/advice-on-prop-bet/483963/5 "2009-02-01T22:21:07Z")

</div>

Thanks. It’s more common than I’d have thought. I guess my perception was skewed by 5 years of close superbowls.

I didn’t end up putting too much on it - bets that intuitively seem too good are usually very wrong and I was cautious.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\
**Post date:** [February 2, 2009, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/advice-on-prop-bet/483963/6 "2009-02-02T03:47:45Z")

</div>

And it’s YES, reasserting it’s dominance over the upstart NO!