Oh yes, before you ask, I did call them first and ask them about this question. They say that you cannot parlays the total of Calgary with Calgary under tonight for example.
Is that bullshit or what??? Guys tell me if i am wrong here in terms of betting hockey, but i know that I have bet at about 10 other sportsboks hockey and always could parlay the total with the game
Is that bullshit or what??? Guys tell me if i am wrong here in terms of betting hockey, but i know that I have bet at about 10 other sportsboks hockey and always could parlay the total with the game
Well it is correlated, but that is not a correlated parlay. Correlated parlay would be first half and full game in the NFL and 1st period to the whole game in hockey.
This would really suck if I a guy wanted to chase late a night with only 1 game left on the hockey card!
www.Playersonly.com doesnt seem like a bad option after seeing all of the wagering rules from these various sites. I mean you cant even parlay prop bets at most shops. Not sure why since 75% of the people lose with those pro bets
This would really suck if I a guy wanted to chase late a night with only 1 game left on the hockey card!
www.Playersonly.com doesnt seem like a bad option after seeing all of the wagering rules from these various sites. I mean you cant even parlay prop bets at most shops. Not sure why since 75% of the people lose with those pro bets
Seems like smart bookmaking to me. I'm surprised more books don't restrict this.
Consider Minnesota playing Detroit. If the total is 5.5 you know that if it's under then Minnesota has a GREAT chance to cover. Why? Because the Star (like the Devils & others) rely on a tight checking neutral zone trap style of play whereas the Wings like to attack.
Minnesota is going to with the 2-1, 1-0, 3-2, because these scores mean that they played their style of hockey (ie, they dominated). Detroit will win the 4-3, 5-2, etc .. games more often than not.
Sure, Minnesota can put up 4 now and then, but most often than not they won't. It's not how their system is drawn up.
Consider Minnesota playing Detroit. If the total is 5.5 you know that if it's under then Minnesota has a GREAT chance to cover. Why? Because the Star (like the Devils & others) rely on a tight checking neutral zone trap style of play whereas the Wings like to attack.
Minnesota is going to with the 2-1, 1-0, 3-2, because these scores mean that they played their style of hockey (ie, they dominated). Detroit will win the 4-3, 5-2, etc .. games more often than not.
Sure, Minnesota can put up 4 now and then, but most often than not they won't. It's not how their system is drawn up.
Lander, I will agree that maybe it is smart bookmaking. I mean taking the under, which is all that i do in hockey, along with the underdog should be nice.
But i am not betting $5000 parlay on these hockey games. Maybe just $500-1000 parlays. And other books allow it! I guess that I should have checked the hockey rules before depositing, but as luck would have it, I DID! Nothing in the rules that states that this is a correlated parlay unless i missed it. I probably did overlook that rule, but oh well.
But i am not betting $5000 parlay on these hockey games. Maybe just $500-1000 parlays. And other books allow it! I guess that I should have checked the hockey rules before depositing, but as luck would have it, I DID! Nothing in the rules that states that this is a correlated parlay unless i missed it. I probably did overlook that rule, but oh well.
