If your parlays are 13/5 and 6/1 you should look to avoid the parlays.
The square sharps love to talk about how a 55% type player will have a much higher ROI.
Too complicated to get into here, but when you evaluate the risk/reward of parlays vs. straight bets the Sharpe Ratios will show you that betting optimally you will make more money betting straight bets than parlays. The reason is that when straight betting you can justify much larger bets than your bet sizing when playing parlays since parlaying betting carries considerably larger risk of ruin based on set betting levels.
So if all the lines are the same, the straight bets are still a bit superior to parlays. If all the lines are off by 1/2 here and there, it would represent g**** incompetence to play three two and three team parlays with, for example, Clemson +22.5, when a place had a +23 out there you could straight bet.
The square sharps love to talk about how a 55% type player will have a much higher ROI.
Too complicated to get into here, but when you evaluate the risk/reward of parlays vs. straight bets the Sharpe Ratios will show you that betting optimally you will make more money betting straight bets than parlays. The reason is that when straight betting you can justify much larger bets than your bet sizing when playing parlays since parlaying betting carries considerably larger risk of ruin based on set betting levels.
So if all the lines are the same, the straight bets are still a bit superior to parlays. If all the lines are off by 1/2 here and there, it would represent g**** incompetence to play three two and three team parlays with, for example, Clemson +22.5, when a place had a +23 out there you could straight bet.
If you can get the best line on all bets at one shop, bet parlays.
Especially the ones that pay 14-5 on 2-teamers and 6.5-1 or better on 3-teamers.
You should have no RISK OF RUIN EVER, so I disagree in a small way with what Fezzik is saying.
You want to get into real RISK OF RUIN theory, try playing 100.13% video poker on $25 machines!! This is when one has to be concerned with risk of RUIN!
Especially the ones that pay 14-5 on 2-teamers and 6.5-1 or better on 3-teamers.
You should have no RISK OF RUIN EVER, so I disagree in a small way with what Fezzik is saying.
You want to get into real RISK OF RUIN theory, try playing 100.13% video poker on $25 machines!! This is when one has to be concerned with risk of RUIN!
I think your angle makes sense Fezzik, if you have respect for the closing line. I have next to zero respect to the any lines and especially the ones I bet into, I play primarily wnba and nov,dec,mar coll halftimes. I like to parlay favorites and under. The answer I am looking for is a math quetion with an obvious answer. I am looking into 8 team parlays, I think that is where the real money is.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Railbird:
I think your angle makes sense Fezzik, if you have respect for the closing line. I have next to zero respect to the any lines and especially the ones I bet into, I play primarily wnba and nov,dec,mar coll halftimes. I like to parlay favorites and under. The answer I am looking for is a math quetion with an obvious answer. I am looking into 8 team parlays, I think that is where the real money is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
8 teamers are where its at.
I think your angle makes sense Fezzik, if you have respect for the closing line. I have next to zero respect to the any lines and especially the ones I bet into, I play primarily wnba and nov,dec,mar coll halftimes. I like to parlay favorites and under. The answer I am looking for is a math quetion with an obvious answer. I am looking into 8 team parlays, I think that is where the real money is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
3 teamers roi acceptable under certain conditions; anything beyond that is STUPID. you will be giving up too much in vig. Unless you are straight betting a parlay w/no overlapping games to get true odds. As always there is an exception to every rule. The other thing is getting a large straight bet; say the 6th game of your run. gl.
Luca: don't ask me to elaborate on these because all I did was find the info - lol ... from an old Motley Fool link ...
Calculating Sharpe Ratios
by Robert Sheard
(TMF Sheard)
LEXINGTON, KY. (August 20, 1998) -- One measure investors like to look at is the risk-adjusted performance of different strategies. And of the many ways of looking at risk, perhaps the most popular is the Sharpe Ratio.
The Sharpe Ratio takes into account three elements: the average return of a strategy over a given period, the rate of risk-free return one could have received during that period (Treasury bills, for example), and the standard deviation of the strategy's returns (how wild the ride can be).
The formula for calculating the Sharpe Ratio is to subtract the risk-free rate from the average return of the strategy and then divide that result by the standard deviation.
For example, let's look at the returns for the Keystone 5 from 1986 through the end of last year:
1986 22.0
1987 8.1
1988 8.5
1989 59.2
1990 (0.3)
1991 71.8
1992 12.4
1993 36.3
1994 9.0
1995 43.8
1996 38.2
1997 56.6
The average return (mean) for that period was 30.5%. The average T-bill return for those 12 years was 5.5%. Subtract that from the average strategy return, leaving 25%. Now divide that by the standard deviation of those returns (22.9%), and you get a Sharpe Ratio of 1.09.
Now for that to be meaningful, it needs to be compared with an alternative strategy or benchmark. If we use the Standard & Poor's 500 Index over the same period, the average return was 17.7%, less the risk-free return of 5.5%, leaving 12.2%. Divide that by the standard deviation for the S&P 500 Index of 13.0% and the Sharpe Ratio comes out to 0.94.
By contrast, the High Yield 10 looks this way:
Average Return for the 12 years: 19.6%
Risk-Free Return: 5.5%
Standard Deviation: 14.7%
Sharpe Ratio: 0.96
When comparing Sharpe ratios, the higher the ratio the better the risk-adjusted return, but be careful in associating this with a measure of pure risk. It's not. The Sharpe ratio measures how well an investor would have been rewarded for taking on that level of risk associated with the strategy over that particular period. It's possible to have a strategy with a high Sharpe Ratio that is still a "risky" strategy. Nevertheless, it's one good measure of how a strategy performs when compared to other approaches.
Calculating Sharpe Ratios
by Robert Sheard
(TMF Sheard)
LEXINGTON, KY. (August 20, 1998) -- One measure investors like to look at is the risk-adjusted performance of different strategies. And of the many ways of looking at risk, perhaps the most popular is the Sharpe Ratio.
The Sharpe Ratio takes into account three elements: the average return of a strategy over a given period, the rate of risk-free return one could have received during that period (Treasury bills, for example), and the standard deviation of the strategy's returns (how wild the ride can be).
The formula for calculating the Sharpe Ratio is to subtract the risk-free rate from the average return of the strategy and then divide that result by the standard deviation.
For example, let's look at the returns for the Keystone 5 from 1986 through the end of last year:
1986 22.0
1987 8.1
1988 8.5
1989 59.2
1990 (0.3)
1991 71.8
1992 12.4
1993 36.3
1994 9.0
1995 43.8
1996 38.2
1997 56.6
The average return (mean) for that period was 30.5%. The average T-bill return for those 12 years was 5.5%. Subtract that from the average strategy return, leaving 25%. Now divide that by the standard deviation of those returns (22.9%), and you get a Sharpe Ratio of 1.09.
Now for that to be meaningful, it needs to be compared with an alternative strategy or benchmark. If we use the Standard & Poor's 500 Index over the same period, the average return was 17.7%, less the risk-free return of 5.5%, leaving 12.2%. Divide that by the standard deviation for the S&P 500 Index of 13.0% and the Sharpe Ratio comes out to 0.94.
By contrast, the High Yield 10 looks this way:
Average Return for the 12 years: 19.6%
Risk-Free Return: 5.5%
Standard Deviation: 14.7%
Sharpe Ratio: 0.96
When comparing Sharpe ratios, the higher the ratio the better the risk-adjusted return, but be careful in associating this with a measure of pure risk. It's not. The Sharpe ratio measures how well an investor would have been rewarded for taking on that level of risk associated with the strategy over that particular period. It's possible to have a strategy with a high Sharpe Ratio that is still a "risky" strategy. Nevertheless, it's one good measure of how a strategy performs when compared to other approaches.
Rail,
Assume you play an 8 teamer for $100 that pays "true" odds of 255:1 and assume your win % is 55%. Then the expected amount you will be effectively wagering is:
1 x 100 +
.55 x 200 +
.55^2 x 400 +
.
.
.
.55^7 x 12800
= 100 x 10 x (1.1^8-1)
= $1144
which is larger than the 8 x $100 straight bets that parlays are normally compared to.
If you make the adjustment and make 8 straight bets of $100x1144/800 = $143, then your EV will be the same as the parlay yet your variance will be much, much less. Straight wagering, therefore, is the superior strategy.
There is no advantage at which you cannot determine a similar level for your straight wagers to have the same EV with smaller variance. Therefore, if the odds are the same in both cases (parlay vs. straight) and you know your advantage on each play, it is always better to make straight wagers if the amounts are chosen correctly.
The guy you met in Vegas gave you bad advice I'm afraid.
Just wondering, what is it about Jan and Feb that makes it less attractive to bet college hoops!?
Assume you play an 8 teamer for $100 that pays "true" odds of 255:1 and assume your win % is 55%. Then the expected amount you will be effectively wagering is:
1 x 100 +
.55 x 200 +
.55^2 x 400 +
.
.
.
.55^7 x 12800
= 100 x 10 x (1.1^8-1)
= $1144
which is larger than the 8 x $100 straight bets that parlays are normally compared to.
If you make the adjustment and make 8 straight bets of $100x1144/800 = $143, then your EV will be the same as the parlay yet your variance will be much, much less. Straight wagering, therefore, is the superior strategy.
There is no advantage at which you cannot determine a similar level for your straight wagers to have the same EV with smaller variance. Therefore, if the odds are the same in both cases (parlay vs. straight) and you know your advantage on each play, it is always better to make straight wagers if the amounts are chosen correctly.
The guy you met in Vegas gave you bad advice I'm afraid.
Just wondering, what is it about Jan and Feb that makes it less attractive to bet college hoops!?
Darryl,
By this time of the year you see effort dwindle, teams are saving energy for confrence tournaments. Also you have refs manipulatuing confrence games, where non confrnce games are easy to handicap. There is 3 systeyms that are profitable, but I wont play them becasue I dont play systeyms. take 8 pts or more when the home team is the fav and they are 200 or higher rpi. 2. Take team if the pr pts are 30 off of match up from OCt 30 pr rating. 3. and this works well yr round is fade team down at half if they are laying 25% or more of 1st half total pts scored. I feel I could hit 55% right now in coll hoops but thats not enough for me. I feel I can hit 65% starting Mar1. Conf tourneys on.
I feel the start of any season is the best time to make money. I play baseball April,May only. I am full throtle in WCS Golf and Arena Football right now. Im winning ridiculous in these 2.
Im looking at coorelated tempo related halftime parlays in coll hoops, Im hitting close to 40%. I think its a major breakthrough.
By this time of the year you see effort dwindle, teams are saving energy for confrence tournaments. Also you have refs manipulatuing confrence games, where non confrnce games are easy to handicap. There is 3 systeyms that are profitable, but I wont play them becasue I dont play systeyms. take 8 pts or more when the home team is the fav and they are 200 or higher rpi. 2. Take team if the pr pts are 30 off of match up from OCt 30 pr rating. 3. and this works well yr round is fade team down at half if they are laying 25% or more of 1st half total pts scored. I feel I could hit 55% right now in coll hoops but thats not enough for me. I feel I can hit 65% starting Mar1. Conf tourneys on.
I feel the start of any season is the best time to make money. I play baseball April,May only. I am full throtle in WCS Golf and Arena Football right now. Im winning ridiculous in these 2.
Im looking at coorelated tempo related halftime parlays in coll hoops, Im hitting close to 40%. I think its a major breakthrough.
