What do you guys think of a two team parlay versus two straight bets? Is there more value in a correlative parlay or the straight bets? What I mean by correlative is for example if you think the Dallas Mavericks as an underdog have to engage in a high scoring game to win then you'd take the Mavericks and the over.
2 team parlay
risk win
100 260
5 possible outcomes
A. Both teams win you win $260 risking 100.
B. One of the teams lose the other wins you lose $100.
C. One bet is a push the other wins, you win your winning bet at $90.
D. Both push, you get a refund.
E. Both lose you lose $100.
Two seperate wagers
risk $100 each wager to win $95 on a dime line.
4 possible outcomes
A. Both teams win you win $190 on a dime line risking $200.
B. One of the teams lose the other wins you lose $5.
C. One bet is a push the other wins, you win $95.
D. Both push you get a refund.
E. Both lose you lose $200.
In situation A the parlay bettor comes out $70 better or 37% better.
In situation B the straight bettor come out $90 bettor or 95% better.
Situations C + D are pushes.
In situation E, the parlay bettor comes out 100% ahead of his luckless partner losing only $100 rather than $200.
Conclusion
The parlay bettor is always risking less to win more. That is the essence of value. When both win not only did he risk less that his friend, but he won more as well. When both teams lose he also did twice as good. The only time the straight bettor comes out on top is when one wins and one loses. So two out of three times the parlay bettor is the victor. While in only one situation will the straight bettor prevail (See B above).
I want to hear the other side of the argument against a two team parlay with some math to back it up. Any help is greatly appreciated.
2 team parlay
risk win
100 260
5 possible outcomes
A. Both teams win you win $260 risking 100.
B. One of the teams lose the other wins you lose $100.
C. One bet is a push the other wins, you win your winning bet at $90.
D. Both push, you get a refund.
E. Both lose you lose $100.
Two seperate wagers
risk $100 each wager to win $95 on a dime line.
4 possible outcomes
A. Both teams win you win $190 on a dime line risking $200.
B. One of the teams lose the other wins you lose $5.
C. One bet is a push the other wins, you win $95.
D. Both push you get a refund.
E. Both lose you lose $200.
In situation A the parlay bettor comes out $70 better or 37% better.
In situation B the straight bettor come out $90 bettor or 95% better.
Situations C + D are pushes.
In situation E, the parlay bettor comes out 100% ahead of his luckless partner losing only $100 rather than $200.
Conclusion
The parlay bettor is always risking less to win more. That is the essence of value. When both win not only did he risk less that his friend, but he won more as well. When both teams lose he also did twice as good. The only time the straight bettor comes out on top is when one wins and one loses. So two out of three times the parlay bettor is the victor. While in only one situation will the straight bettor prevail (See B above).
I want to hear the other side of the argument against a two team parlay with some math to back it up. Any help is greatly appreciated.
