- One of the more bizarre ‘highlights’ of Super Bowl LV was a hot pink clad streaker running on the field late in the game.
- The streaker, Yuri Andrade, was arrested following the stunt which initially was reported as a PR gimmick for a website.
- Since then, Andrade has claimed to have taken down a sizable chunk of money by betting on a ‘Will there be a streaker?’ prop bet.
The Super Bowl streaker saga has taken a strange twist. For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, one of the ‘highlights’ of Super Bowl LV was a streaker in a hot pink onesie ‘invading the pitch‘ during the fourth quarter of the game. He was pursued by security, the whole time trying less than successfully to keep his ass covered with a pair of sweatshorts.
Initially, reports suggested that the streaker had made his questionable life decision at the behest of a website called ‘Vitaly Uncensored’ launched by Vitaly Zdorovetskiy whom the New York Post hilariously called a ‘disgraced YouTube star’. You can see their logo scrawled on the front of his pink ‘playsuit’. The streaker was identified as Yuri Andrade, age 31 of Boca Raton, Florida:
The Super Bowl prankster who ran onto the field wearing a neon pink thong suit and had more success juking than the Chiefs was part of a marketing ploy for a porn website.
The x-rated site launched by YouTube star and prankster Vitaly Zdorovetskiy was emblazoned on the man’s outfit.
“We f–king did it,” the 28-year-old Zdorovetskiy tweeted shortly after the man, later identified as Yuri Andrade, was pinned down by security guards in the fourth quarter of Tampa Bay’s 31-9 win.
I was hoping to not have to say anything about the stunt. I’ve been fortunate to avoid having to write about bare assed men in pink onesies throughout my career. Unfortunately, the story has veered into my lane. Earlier today, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported on Andrade’s claims to have bet $50,000 at +750 odds on a prop that asked ‘Will a fan run onto the field during the game?’ pocketing $375,000. This type of prop–as well as ones that specifically ask ‘Will there be a streaker at the Super Bowl?’–appear almost every year among the myriad of props at offshore sportsbooks.
THE STREAKER BETTING STORY SOUNDS FISHY FROM THE GET-GO
TMZ also covered the story today and those of you who are familiar with Nevada gaming regulations will quickly see where his story starts to…uh…’unravel’:
Okay, maybe the Super Bowl streaker deserves a little more credit than we thought …
Yuri Andrade — the man who broke onto the field while wearing a pink thong bathing suit — says he came up with the idea for the stunt after seeing a prop bet that offered GREAT ODDS if someone actually ran onto the field during the SB55.
Andrade explained the whole thing during an interview with WILD 94.1— saying the gambling website Bovada offered +750 odds ($100 bet pays $750) so he decided to take matters into his own hands.
He called up everyone he knew and had them BET on someone storming the field — then he got tickets to the game and recruited a buddy to serve as a decoy.
Andrade says once security was distracted by his pal — he ran onto the field … and the rest is history.
The 31-year-old says he also sent someone to Vegas to make the prop bet at a sportsbook there — but he didn’t identify which book took the action.
Bottom line … Andrade says he walked away with $370,000 in profit!!
Of course, he was arrested and booked for trespassing — but chalks the whole thing up as no big deal.
The worst part was he couldn’t pick the wedgie that was up his ass while in custody because he was in handcuffs … but he’s clearly over that now.
We know what you’re thinking … is it even legal to make a bet and then personally interfere with the game to get the desired result?? We’re looking into it.
But, until someone says otherwise … tip of the cap to you, sir.
Now we’re going to analyze the quote above like a Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorist picks apart the Zapruder film. Let’s start with the most glaring inconsistency about Andrade’s betting narrative:
The 31-year-old says he also sent someone to Vegas to make the prop bet at a sportsbook there — but he didn’t identify which book took the action.
The reason that ‘he didn’t identify which book took the action’ is because no sportsbook licensed in the state of Nevada would have had the relevant prop bet on the board in the first place. Nevada gaming regulations require that sports bets be limited to what takes place on the field pursuant to the game itself. It wasn’t that long ago that this definition was expanded somewhat to include the NFL draft and postseason awards (MVP, Rookie of the Year).
If you take a look at the Super Bowl props offered at a Nevada sportsbook such as the Westgate Superbook or William Hill this stipulation is obvious. If you want a more expansive backstory of how this stipulation came to be a part of Nevada sports betting regulations you can read it here. This is why you will find ‘Result of the Opening Coin Toss’ props at a Silver State sportsbook but won’t find, say, the increasingly popular ‘Running Time of National Anthem Over/Under’ prop. It’s also why you won’t find a prop related to a streaker or someone ‘invading the pitch’. Here’s how Jim Barnes at the Las Vegas Review Journal explained it:
Andrade has offered conflicting accounts of how he placed the alleged bet. At one point, he said he placed the wager with a legal sportsbook in Las Vegas, but that is impossible. Las Vegas sportsbooks do not offer props on events such as a fan running onto the field; they are limited to offering props on events that can be verified in the final box score.
Andrade could have plausibly ‘sent someone to Vegas’ but he wouldn’t have been able to place a bet on the stunt he pulled.
THE BOVADA CONNECTION: PART 1
Here’s a pro tip from someone who was once called ‘The Billy Walters of non-sport entertainment props’ back in the early days of offshore sportbooks: if you do have inside information on a non-sport prop–say, the outcome of the Miss Universe pageant or the ‘first character to get whacked’ on the final season of The Sopranos–and you want to leverage that information for profit you keep it on the QT. It’s like the first rule of Fight Club–you don’t talk about it.
In addition, you do everything possible to avoid drawing attention to yourself. This is easier for someone who actually bets on sports regularly and has active, preexisting accounts offshore. It’s much more difficult for someone who opens a new account and immediately places this type of bet. Under no circumstances would you a) try to bet an amount completely out of line with the posted limits on the prop or b) share your ‘inside information’ indiscriminately with everyone you know.
Bookmakers and the people that work for them didn’t just fall off of the proverbial turnip truck. They’ve seen it all and they’re pretty good at figuring out who is trying to put one over on them. Andrade doesn’t strike me as someone sharp enough to even have a chance at outwitting a sportsbook. That’s why the claim that he got down for $50,000 at Bovada immediately sounded the alarm bells for anyone who knows anything about prop betting. The limit on the relevant prop at Bovada was $1,000. Translated–there’s no way that Andrade would have been able to get approved for even a fraction of the amount he says he wagered. He’s now amended his story a bit and is saying that he used ‘multiple people’ to get down $50k. The suggestion that he got 50 people to all open new accounts at Bovada and to bet the limit on the same side of the prop without detection is even more outlandish than the idea that he got down for fifty large himself. Which brings us to…..
THE BOVADA CONNECTION: PART DEUX
Earlier today, Bovada told TMZ Sports that they had detected some betting irregularities on the ‘Will a fan run on the field during the game?’ prop:
7:17 AM PT — 2/10 A rep for the betting site Bovada tells TMZ Sports the company has launched an investigation into the claims — and DID “identify some betting irregularities on our Super Bowl prop ‘Will a fan run onto the field during the game?'”
As a result, Bovada says it will refund all losing bets on the streaker wager — along with “all those ‘YES’ wagers we’ve determined to have had no part in the betting irregularities.”
The implication from the statement is Bovada could nullify wagers connected to the pre-meditated stunt — which would mean they would NOT get paid.
“We’ll be reaching out to all those players impacted by this event shortly.”
Later in the day, the LVRJ’s Jim Barnes expanded on TMZ’s information with this statement from Bovada:
“Bovada identified some betting irregularities on our Super Bowl prop ‘will a fan run onto the field during the game?’”
“Our players have always trusted us to ensure the integrity of all props offered in our sportsbook. We will continue to make sure that any publicity stunts or ill-intended behavior cannot adversely affect the outcome of a player’s wager.”
“All of our players are on a level playing field, so if you bet ‘NO’ on this market we’re going to refund your bet. Additionally, we’re honoring all those ‘YES’ wagers we’ve determined to have had no part in the betting irregularities. We’ll be reaching out to all those players impacted by this event shortly.”
Barnes followed up with the Bovada rep and obtained this information:
“The line moved a lot. It opened at +500, but the majority of players were betting ‘No,’ which forced us to move the line out for yes. It was only late on that all the money started coming for ‘Yes.’ It was then closed at +175. At one point it was at +750, but there were many different prices offered between open and close.
“Later on, pretty much all of the bets were on yes.”
For a prop like this on an event like the Super Bowl the simple fact that everyone was betting the ‘Yes’ late wouldn’t in itself suggest a ‘betting irregularity’. Based on the dramatic line movement alone you might surmise that ‘somebody knows something’ and try to jump on the bandwagon. My guess is that most people who ‘followed the money’ innocently will get paid. As I’ve intimated previously, there are plenty of ways that Bovada could detect anyone who was potentially involved with Andrade or otherwise ‘knew something’. If they were dumb enough to open an account and only bet on this specific prop they don’t deserve to get paid. That there were plenty of other offshore books offering similar props and they didn’t figure out they should spread their wagers around further underscores their lack of candlepower.
Barnes also points out that “Bovada didn’t mention Andrade and did not confirm the details of his story”. It’s extremely plausible that he could have told others that he planned to pull the ‘streaking on the field in the pink onesie’ scheme and could have even tried to orchestrate them to wager on the relevant prop but more than likely for an amount far less than the $50k that he’s claiming. You can also be sure that any other sportsbook that offered a similar prop is giving their betting patterns the same type of scrutiny.
Leave it to the always erudite Rob Gronkowski to provide us with the final word:
The Kansas City Chiefs probably weren’t as enthused by the streaker, considering they never even scored a touchdown. But Gronkowski thinks the streaker might actually bolster their team. “He actually scored,” said Gronkowski. “The Chiefs didn’t. He scored, they should definitely sign him.”
As always, great coverage of sports betting by the team at the Las Vegas Review-Journal. That alone more than justifies the cost of a subscription. At the other extreme, it was incredible that the majority of the mainstream outlets and particularly sports media outlets that reported on the initial story of Andrade’s bet swallowed his claims hook line and sinker. At this point, anyone covering sports without at least a peripheral understanding of the betting component just isn’t doing their job. The coverage of sports betting in the US has improved significantly since the overturn of PASPA but there’s still an astounding amount of ignorance throughout the media at all levels.
I’ll update this story if necessary but hopefully it won’t be.
