Parlays - Good or Bad

[Bsims]

It seems to me that I periodically see people post that parlays are bad bets. I agree if the books don't offer a true multiplier of the individual odds. But if they offer a true multiplier than it should be a fair wager.

For instance, say I have two bets at -110. If I make both as single wagers my expected return (assuming each has a 50% chance of winning) is $0.9091.

If I parlay them at a book offering $260 for $100, then my return is $0.9000.

However, if I parlay them at a book paying $264.46 for $100, then my expected return would be $0.9112).

So have I gone wrong, and if so, where?

[skrtelfan]

Yes, if the book offers true odds and the events are independent, your EV is the same whether you make straight bets or parlay bets, however the variance is higher with parlays.

[RickySteve]

Yes, if the book offers true odds and the events are independent, your EV is the same whether you make straight bets or parlay bets, however the variance is higher with parlays.

Not true.

[skrtelfan]

How is that not true? If two bets have a 52.38% chance of winning and are independent, you will break even in the long run betting either individual bets at -110 or two team parlays at +264.46.

[RickySteve]

Parlays amplify edge.

[Hybris]

The juice gets higher for each team you add.

[Bsims]

The juice gets higher for each team you add.

If they offer true odds, then this would not be a problem. So I decided to look at more examples.

In the 2-team parlays listed above WSEX offered 100-264.26 (true odds), while BETJ offered 100-260 (not true odds).

So I looked at 3 team parlays and to my surprise, BETJ offered a better return 100-600, while WSEX offered 100-595.79. Neither are true odds.

So I looked at a two team example from ParlayMakers where the teams were a -108 and -109. They offered 100-268 (true odds would be 100-269.28). adding a third team with lines of +100, +101, and +102 they offered 100-700 instead of the true odds of 100-712.04. (Note: while not true odds, about a $100 better offer than WSEX or BETJ).

Another example where one really needs to look at the offers in detail.

[Pancho sanza]

If you have an edge and use Kelly, you will make more money just playing em straight.

Example

2 independant games, 50 % win prob, +125 odds, 10k bankroll

2 team parlay

Kelly bet = 654
Win exp = 173.72

Single bets

Kelly bet = 1000 X 2
Win exp = 250

[benjy]

If you have an edge and use Kelly, you will make more money just playing em straight.

Example

2 independant games, 50 % win prob, +125 odds, 10k bankroll

2 team parlay

Kelly bet = 654
Win exp = 173.72

Single bets

Kelly bet = 1000 X 2
Win exp = 250

While I disagree with your math (e.g Single bets: E[r]=2*(50%)*1250-(2*1000)=125) you make a solid point; money management issues can make a parlay the right(or wrong) play.

[Pancho sanza]

Hmm, they are 2 independant bets so you would Kelly size them seperate.

An adjustment would be needed if they were simultaneous events but I left that part out just to keep it simple.

[mihaita666]

i think parlays are good, but i have my own rules, no matter what the sport is :
1) max 4 matches on a ticket...usually 3
2) small amounts played, less than a straight bet

[squallsquall]

Parlays amplify edge.

This is simply not true. EV is unaffected by parlaying. Remember that playing a parlay is the exact equivalent of playing two consecutive singles, investing the EV+ from the first single into the second one.

[skrtelfan]

Unless I'm missing something, non-correlated parlays only amplify edge by effectively allowing to bet more, not unlike a $200 bet at -110 with 55% expectation having a higher return than a $100 one simply because the size of the bet is higher, but both have the same EV in terms of percentage.

[Pancho sanza]

This is simply not true. EV is unaffected by parlaying. Remember that playing a parlay is the exact equivalent of playing two consecutive singles, investing the EV+ from the first single into the second one.

Sure it's true

Take 2 games with identical odds

Odds +120

Win prob 50 %

Betting the game straight you have a 10 % edge, parlaying the 2, your edge on the parlay is 21 %

[Glitch]

if fun is good then parlays are good. the fluke factor....turnovers and unpredictabe weather; is so much more of a variable in them.. .this is probably the reason why having less picks in one has such a drastic increase in success-rate.

one of the main reasons i feel so confidant about the Packers this week is their ability to force turnovers- takeaways. being good at producing game-changing moments is pretty clutch...more chances to try to score for yourself and less for them.

[LT Profits]

This is simply not true. EV is unaffected by parlaying. Remember that playing a parlay is the exact equivalent of playing two consecutive singles, investing the EV+ from the first single into the second one.

That's only true with 0 edge. If your straight bets have en edge, then parlaying at true odds DOES amplify edge.

Just do a simple comparison between playing 100 straight bets and 50 2-team parlays with all teams having a 54% expectancy.

[BigdaddyQH]

Parlays are sucker wagers. It is that simple. You guys who think they are not are either talking about ML wagers and assuming that you are getting the correct line, (which you are not), or comparing lines from one book to another. Pay attention and learn. Starting with the simplist of parlays, the two team parlay using team's A and B, 4 things can happen. Teams A and B can win. Teams A and B can lose. Team A can win and B can lose. Team A can lose and B can win. That means the true odds are 3 to 1 (or 15 to 5) that you will lose your wager. The books pay 13/5. That is a 2/15th's difference, or 13.33% edge for the house, compared to the usual 10% vig. The more teams you add, the higher the edge for the house becomes. It is similar to exacta's in horse racing. The odds are tougher because the take-out is higher.

If you really think that the books are going to give a wager that makes them less than 10% vig (unless it is some promotion or gimmick), you are sadly mistaken. Having many friends and relatives in the business, I can tell you that it never happens. They have made a ton of money off of all of you people who wager parlays and teasers. If parlays are profitable, how come you never see the sharps, wiseguys, high rollers, and other big players playing them? That is because they know the true odds. So feel free to play away gentlemen. I do not mind seeing my friends and relatives making more money off of people I do not know. And for all of them, thank you for falling into this trap. Your business and money is greatly appreciated.

[LT Profits]

2-team parlays, even at the conventional +260, are +EV if you are a better than 53% handicapper.

[BigdaddyQH]

You are using hypotheticals here. If you are a "better than 53% handicapper". The truth is that only 15% of the handicappers are better than 53% accurate. This is what the books are depending on. The other 85% of the gaming public that are losers. Just how many people in here hit 53% of their plays? In all honesty, I would be shocked if it were over 20%, and there are some pretty knowledgeable people in here. Take it from someone who has been doing this for longer than most people in here have been alive. It is very difficult for anyone to hit 53% and break even for the year. Again, the proof is in the way the high rollers gamble. My group has been very successful this year. If you look at my scorecard, you will not see one parlay or teaser. The only people I know who play teasers and parlays for big money are the people in here who claim to do it. If you read some of those posts, I am sure you can see how rediculous some of them are. Some claim to wager more than offshore books would allow. Take those posts for what they are worth. Nada.

[LT Profits]

Well, I was only taking about sharps, and they are all better than 53%. If you can't win 53%, not only should you not bet parlays, but you should not be betting at all.

And you are wrong about teasers too, many sharps have cleaned up on NFL Wongs over the years.

[BigdaddyQH]

And I guess you consider yourself a sharp, right? Well, there are a few things you should learn. First, the term is used to describe the amount of money wagered, not necessairily the winning percentage. Second, the big winners in Vegas NEVER play parlays or teasers. I dare you to find me one who ever said that they did, and won on a consistant basis. I know many of them personally. Next, the number of people who win 53% or more in this site are very few and far between. You could not do it. You claim to have lost for the first time in 14 years on baseball. While I seriously have problems believing this, because no one has ever heard of you, the fact is that you have lost. You also stopped making wagers on your spread sheet, telling me that you doid not win in the football season. The amount that you wager indicates that you are not a sharp. Therefore your information is simply not valid. Ou are plaing a guessing game, and like all people who do this, you will eventually lose.

[LT Profits]

And I guess you consider yourself a sharp, right? Well, there are a few things you should learn. First, the term is used to describe the amount of money wagered, not necessairily the winning percentage. Second, the big winners in Vegas NEVER play parlays or teasers. I dare you to find me one who ever said that they did, and won on a consistant basis. I know many of them personally. Next, the number of people who win 53% or more in this site are very few and far between. You could not do it. You claim to have lost for the first time in 14 years on baseball. While I seriously have problems believing this, because no one has ever heard of you, the fact is that you have lost. You also stopped making wagers on your spread sheet, telling me that you doid not win in the football season. The amount that you wager indicates that you are not a sharp. Therefore your information is simply not valid. Ou are plaing a guessing game, and like all people who do this, you will eventually lose.

That is simply a FACT, as the plays were posted and monitored right here in the forum.

What do you mean I stopped posting football plays? They are posted here every weekend. As for the SBR Spreadasheet, I have not used it since it was in testing stage, as it is just too time consuming when I am scrambling to get plays in.

[LT Profits]

And as for sharps that win playing parlays and teasers consistently, look no further than Justin7.

[skrtelfan]

Just do a simple comparison between playing 100 straight bets and 50 2-team parlays with all teams having a 54% expectancy.

That isn't a fair comparison because you are effectively betting more on the 50 2 team parlays. A winning $100 2 team parlay is like 1 bet at $100 and a second bet at $191, so the average bet size is more like $145.50.

[LT Profits]

That isn't a fair comparison because you are effectively betting more on the 50 2 team parlays. A winning $100 2 team parlay is like 1 bet at $100 and a second bet at $191, so the average bet size is more like $145.50.

Well no matter how you slice it dollar wise, the ROI on straight plays at 54% at -110 is 3.09%.

The ROI on 2-team parlays at 29.16% (.54^2) at +264 is 6.14%.

[Rich Boy]

Parlay or no parlay if the cumulative edge is negative (ie. -EV) then you will lose. Doesnt matter how you combine your plays.

[LT Profits]

Parlay or no parlay if the cumulative edge is negative (ie. -EV) then you will lose. Doesnt matter how you combine your plays.

Of course, but I am talking about 54% plays (+EV).

[Sirus73]

the lotto has bad odds also but millions of people play it every day.

[Hybris]

the lotto has bad odds also but millions of people play it every day.

And?

[THEGREAT30]

My theory is that parlays should only be used as a jumpstart to your bankroll rather than a consistent betting philosophy or method. On the other hand, if you can hit at a 30% rate of 2 team parlays that pay $260 on a $100 bet you can make a slight profit over the longhaul. So, 30% would seam a lot more likely to the average Joe than 52 to 55%.

[Sawyer]

4+ Team parlays are sucker bets but 2-Game Parlays can be handy. There's only two type of bets in my world; Singles and Doubles (2-game Parlays)

[Justin7]

Parlay or no parlay if the cumulative edge is negative (ie. -EV) then you will lose. Doesnt matter how you combine your plays.

Unless your -EV plays are correlated...

[Justin7]

4+ Team parlays are sucker bets but 2-Game Parlays can be handy. There's only two type of bets in my world; Singles and Doubles (2-game Parlays)

The single biggest use for parlays with bigger players is circumventing limits on the straight bets.

[Rich Boy]

Correct Justin, forgot about that. But as we know, must books wont allow correlated parlays.

Also, if you are a 54% handicapper, then making single wagers would yield the highest expected growth (unless your plays are correlated).

So unless your plays are correlated, your better off straight betting (if your betting Kelly)

[Justin7]

Correct Justin, forgot about that. But as we know, must books wont allow correlated parlays.

Also, if you are a 54% handicapper, then making single wagers would yield the highest expected growth (unless your plays are correlated).

So unless your plays are correlated, your better off straight betting (if your betting Kelly)

Assume your unit size is 10k. How much can you bet on an NCAAB total betting only at "A" books at one number?

What if I like 4 sides and 3 totals... How much can I risk on 2 and 3 teamers?

CPs... Most books offer them. Most people don't know how to find them. Last weekend, there were tons of CPs if you knew how to study weather.