I disagree. The reason parlays are sucker bets is because the odds of each leg are multiplied and therefore so is the juice. However, if you have the edge then it is multiplied in your favour. When you bet with an advantage you are effectively being a bookmaker getting the best of it. So a bookmaker booking a parlay where the player has the edge on each leg is in big trouble.
Betting parlays is a good way for a sharp player to circumvent low limits and there's also some stealth value there too because if a parlay player is winning most narrow minded bookies will think they are a fish that's running hot.
Not saying I think everyone should bet parlays. The variance is much higher. But players can definately magnify their advantage by betting parlays the same way the book's advantage is magnified when regular players bet parlays.
If you're a winner get all your previous plays and run a sim putting them in round robins and you'll see what I mean.
Betting parlays is a good way for a sharp player to circumvent low limits and there's also some stealth value there too because if a parlay player is winning most narrow minded bookies will think they are a fish that's running hot.
Not saying I think everyone should bet parlays. The variance is much higher. But players can definately magnify their advantage by betting parlays the same way the book's advantage is magnified when regular players bet parlays.
If you're a winner get all your previous plays and run a sim putting them in round robins and you'll see what I mean.
Sharps bet correlated parlays. Say a college game with a line of 30 and total of 45. Bet dog and under if you can.
Old hockey was good. Bet dog +1.5 and under 5.5, similar with soccer. Those are gone.
If a book allowed parlaying the first half of a game with the full game, that would be great.
There are other things that are good to parlay, but just can't be posted. Sometimes books allow very correlated props to be parlayed on the superbowl, if they get sloppy.
A 2 teamer is good if you have two bets that are more likely to 2-0 or 0-2, than 1-1.
They can be used late in a season when play-off spots are at stake.
3 teamers can have very low-vig, even no vig... but you get stuck with a place like BCN.
They have a place, but most people misuse them.
Pinny charges more juice on parlays. Anything over 3 teams is bad.
The biggest problem is you won't find the best line on what you want to parlay all at one book.
Old hockey was good. Bet dog +1.5 and under 5.5, similar with soccer. Those are gone.
If a book allowed parlaying the first half of a game with the full game, that would be great.
There are other things that are good to parlay, but just can't be posted. Sometimes books allow very correlated props to be parlayed on the superbowl, if they get sloppy.
A 2 teamer is good if you have two bets that are more likely to 2-0 or 0-2, than 1-1.
They can be used late in a season when play-off spots are at stake.
3 teamers can have very low-vig, even no vig... but you get stuck with a place like BCN.
They have a place, but most people misuse them.
Pinny charges more juice on parlays. Anything over 3 teams is bad.
The biggest problem is you won't find the best line on what you want to parlay all at one book.
I would say that the truly sharp take advantage of parlays for numerous reasons.
Here is just one of the reasons. If you look at a handicapper who consistently picks at a 53% clip, at -110 he has an expected value of 1.1818%. If that same capper would put 3 53% plays in a 3 team parlay paying 6-1 the expected value would be 4.2139%. That is a 256.6% increase over the expected value of the straight bet.
Here is just one of the reasons. If you look at a handicapper who consistently picks at a 53% clip, at -110 he has an expected value of 1.1818%. If that same capper would put 3 53% plays in a 3 team parlay paying 6-1 the expected value would be 4.2139%. That is a 256.6% increase over the expected value of the straight bet.
Sometimes whe they have the best of a number, parlays are not that bad of a deal. But naturally they very hard to hit, thats why they pay so good. Myslef i stay away unless stealing a side an total. Notice nowdays that shme shops will not allow you to play a 2 teamer with side and "that" total.
Sunday an monday nights are famous for going over the posted totals the last few years anyway. Have hit many 2 team parlays on those 2 games.
Green Bay and Over worked yesterday for Nice parlay. 13-5.
Sunday an monday nights are famous for going over the posted totals the last few years anyway. Have hit many 2 team parlays on those 2 games.
Green Bay and Over worked yesterday for Nice parlay. 13-5.
Baker said:
Here is a much simpler way to look at it, and you aren't using salesmen tactics by multiplying out small percenat into HUGE advantages to make it look like you are gaining something special.
I am not going to argue the math. But at 53% he has a theoretical success rate of hitting a winning parlay 14.887% of the time. So at a 6-1 payout, theoretically it is supposed to be profittable. I get a 3.58% advantage (Assuming you hit 53% every time) That is if you hit 148 parlays in 1000 plays you will profit $358 per $10 bet.
The thing is because the books are paying more than they should be you have a built in profit of $297 per $10 right there(6-1 instead of the 5.9579 they should). So by picking 53% rather than a needed break even rate of 52.4% (at -110, where you theoretically will hit 144 parlays) you are basically gaining $61 per $10 bet.
If you just hit the break even point of 52.4%, and do cash 144 parlays in 1000. Then you will make a grand total of $80 dollars profit.
So basically if you pick enough to break even straight( at -110). Betting parlays you will make a VERY modest profit(theoretcially). Simply because they are paying more than they really should.
But it is all theoretical.
Wantitall-
I found this book you should get, although you probably already have a copy.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1568842481/104-1200007-5379952?v=glance
I am glad you aren't going to argue the math, since mine is correct and the numbers you wrote down are incorrect. Anyway to correct your post.
My numbers are 100% accurate. If you think I employed "salesmen" tactics by stating that it was a 256.6% increase over straight betting at -110 and don't think this is a HUGE advantage and you don't think this would equate to getting something special than that is purely your perception. An expected value of 4.2139% is equal to hitting 54.588% on straight bets paying -110. I think this is huge and something special.
I also have a tough time understanding how you made things much simplier. If you hit 148 parlays paying $60 (profit of $8880) and lose 852 costing $10 (loss of $8520). Since 8880-8520=360 I am having a tough time figuring out where your stated profit of $358 per $10 wager (I would assume you meant to say $3.58 per $10 wager) is coming from.
I will stop picking on the hack job you did on some fairly straightforward probability calculations but there is no way you made anything simple nor was your analysis accurate. Although this stuff may all be theoretical to you it isn't to me. I practice what I preach and try to share some things that won't adversely affect my profits.
Next time if you are bored write 5 paragraphs about why 2+2=4, at least you could get that right.
I found this book you should get, although you probably already have a copy.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1568842481/104-1200007-5379952?v=glance
I am glad you aren't going to argue the math, since mine is correct and the numbers you wrote down are incorrect. Anyway to correct your post.
My numbers are 100% accurate. If you think I employed "salesmen" tactics by stating that it was a 256.6% increase over straight betting at -110 and don't think this is a HUGE advantage and you don't think this would equate to getting something special than that is purely your perception. An expected value of 4.2139% is equal to hitting 54.588% on straight bets paying -110. I think this is huge and something special.
I also have a tough time understanding how you made things much simplier. If you hit 148 parlays paying $60 (profit of $8880) and lose 852 costing $10 (loss of $8520). Since 8880-8520=360 I am having a tough time figuring out where your stated profit of $358 per $10 wager (I would assume you meant to say $3.58 per $10 wager) is coming from.
I will stop picking on the hack job you did on some fairly straightforward probability calculations but there is no way you made anything simple nor was your analysis accurate. Although this stuff may all be theoretical to you it isn't to me. I practice what I preach and try to share some things that won't adversely affect my profits.
Next time if you are bored write 5 paragraphs about why 2+2=4, at least you could get that right.
Again, you ALWAYS assume the best. Something you CANNOT do.
And yes that is how I derivet those figures. If a guy is betting $10 parlays that would be what he would expect to win at the results I cited.
In theory a 53% bettor could in fact hit ZERO parlays. There is really no way to determine HOW that guy hits 53%. Might be getting in on a line move, might be blind luck, might be a number of other factors, might be having someone calling him and telling him the fix is in.
So if he is betting parlays WITHOUT these factors involved, there is no way to figure his REAL win probability straight or otherwise.
THAT is why it is all theory. If the math was as concrete as you say anyone with a Phd inmath would be killing.
But I have to ask which is it Kelley Criterion or parlay betting? Damn, with so many advantages the math geeks must be rolling in the dough. Pretty funny how most of them are living off grants or hiding out in colleges somewhere trying to prove or disprove stuff that is just as theoretical as what we are talking about here.
Other than figuring out what your break even points are at what holds, math really doesn't belong in sports betting. I think that has been proven over and over again every time some whiz kid gets his clocked cleaned every time he tries some off the wall math theory to predict winners or capitalize on some earth shattering moneymanagement scheme.
Show me one rich mathematician that made his money betting SPORTS, and I will retract all my past statements.
And yes that is how I derivet those figures. If a guy is betting $10 parlays that would be what he would expect to win at the results I cited.
In theory a 53% bettor could in fact hit ZERO parlays. There is really no way to determine HOW that guy hits 53%. Might be getting in on a line move, might be blind luck, might be a number of other factors, might be having someone calling him and telling him the fix is in.
So if he is betting parlays WITHOUT these factors involved, there is no way to figure his REAL win probability straight or otherwise.
THAT is why it is all theory. If the math was as concrete as you say anyone with a Phd inmath would be killing.
But I have to ask which is it Kelley Criterion or parlay betting? Damn, with so many advantages the math geeks must be rolling in the dough. Pretty funny how most of them are living off grants or hiding out in colleges somewhere trying to prove or disprove stuff that is just as theoretical as what we are talking about here.
Other than figuring out what your break even points are at what holds, math really doesn't belong in sports betting. I think that has been proven over and over again every time some whiz kid gets his clocked cleaned every time he tries some off the wall math theory to predict winners or capitalize on some earth shattering moneymanagement scheme.
Show me one rich mathematician that made his money betting SPORTS, and I will retract all my past statements.
