Parley vs straight bets. No mathematical difference.

[probettor1]

I know there is a difference, sportsbooks make 20% compare with a 5% winning percent when you compare parlays and straight bets. Buy why?
The answer is simple, most professional dont bet parlays. And those who bet parlay dont know when to stop nor where to bet.
If you do a mathematical/stadistical analysis you will see that all that matters is the overall winning percent. If you have a 55% winning percent in your picks you can bet parlays and at some point you will get as much money as if you do it straight.
In fact for people with a very small bankroll parlays could be a better choice. And even for people learning the bussiness, as a parlay could happen by luck at any time, in the other hand to win 600 bets out of 1000 you would need to be a real lucky pro.
Here is my thing: betting 50 to 100 dollars per game and making 150 dollars or 300 dollars a month after handicapping 90 hours per month is crazy when I can do that working just 8 hours.
The only professional I know bet only parlays.
Am I wrong?

[rm18]

you usually can get better odds on straight bets because can shop around for lines, but parlays are good for betting over the limit

[probettor1]

Thanks rm18

[NHL Pro Capper]

i bet correlated parlays only pays 3.5x each fav+over and dog + under 5 years running

[dredmahawkus]

you can hit 80% and still lose money.....parlays are a lottery ticket....doesnt mean they arent fun.

[SportsMushroom]

I know there is a difference, sportsbooks make 20% compare with a 5% winning percent when you compare parlays and straight bets. Buy why?
The answer is simple, most professional dont bet parlays. And those who bet parlay dont know when to stop nor where to bet.
If you do a mathematical/stadistical analysis you will see that all that matters is the overall winning percent. If you have a 55% winning percent in your picks you can bet parlays and at some point you will get as much money as if you do it straight.
In fact for people with a very small bankroll parlays could be a better choice. And even for people learning the bussiness, as a parlay could happen by luck at any time, in the other hand to win 600 bets out of 1000 you would need to be a real lucky pro.
Here is my thing: betting 50 to 100 dollars per game and making 150 dollars or 300 dollars a month after handicapping 90 hours per month is crazy when I can do that working just 8 hours.
The only professional I know bet only parlays.
Am I wrong?

ok lets see

you place 100 single wagers at -110 odds, even if you do manage to hit 55% that means 5 units profit

now if you parlayed those picks into 50 two team parlays at +260 odds

the probability of winning each parlay is .55x.55= 30.25%

so you'd win 15.125 and lose 34.875 of your 50 parlays each with a payout of +260, that is a total profit of 4.45 units


not to mention you increase your variance by a lot, I'm sure a maths guy could do the maths for you

[hels]

Op is retarded so please forget everything he just said. 2 situations:

1) You straight bet 4 games at 1.9 odds (or -110). You win 2 of them. Therefore you get $190 return from each totaling $380

2) You bet 4, two game parlays at 1.9 odds (or -110). You win 1 of them. Therefore you receive $360 -- totaling $360

Gotta love who OP name is 'probettor'

[FourLengthsClear]

From another thread:

Parlays at true odds where the individual legs have +EV compound the +EV. Consider two bets at 2.00 (+100) where the fair line should be 1.909 (-110), these would offer an edge of 4.77% as straight bets or 9.76% (1.0477^2) as a two-teamer.

That increased +EV comes at the cost however of a lower winning percentage and, by extension, increased variance. Maximising growth/ROI would actually be achieved by two combining straight bets with a two-teamer.

The main reasons for parlays being considered sucker bets are that they often pay less than true odds and far more importantly most bets made in reality have -EV and in these cases the bettor is a victim of both the compound effect and increased variance.

[Sunde91]

why is edge calculated relative to the given odds rather than the true odds

+100 on a -110 is even with true odds, but you count not having the 2.38% juice as an edge?

[FourLengthsClear]

why is edge calculated relative to the given odds rather than the true odds

+100 on a -110 is even with true odds, but you count not having the 2.38% juice as an edge?

Not quite sure what you are saying. I just used two numbers that reflected a +EV situation.
If it makes it easier, use a 55.00% win probability (fair odds would be -122.22) at odds of -110.

This would mean two straight bets with a 5.00% edge or a two team parlay with +EV of 10.25% (1.05^2).

+EV is the win probability divided by the implied probability of the odds bet (in the above case 55.00/52.38).

[mathdotcom]

I know there is a difference, sportsbooks make 20% compare with a 5% winning percent when you compare parlays and straight bets. Buy why?
The answer is simple, most professional dont bet parlays. And those who bet parlay dont know when to stop nor where to bet.
If you do a mathematical/stadistical analysis you will see that all that matters is the overall winning percent. If you have a 55% winning percent in your picks you can bet parlays and at some point you will get as much money as if you do it straight.
In fact for people with a very small bankroll parlays could be a better choice. And even for people learning the bussiness, as a parlay could happen by luck at any time, in the other hand to win 600 bets out of 1000 you would need to be a real lucky pro.
Here is my thing: betting 50 to 100 dollars per game and making 150 dollars or 300 dollars a month after handicapping 90 hours per month is crazy when I can do that working just 8 hours.
The only professional I know bet only parlays.
Am I wrong?

different in almost every aspect

[Sunde91]

Consider two bets at 2.00 (+100) where the fair line should be 1.909 (-110), these would offer an edge of 4.77% as straight bets

thought you were talking about a vig line -110/-110, but you mean +100 on a no vig -110/+110, or am I losing my mind

[smoke a bowl]

I know there is a difference, sportsbooks make 20% compare with a 5% winning percent when you compare parlays and straight bets. Buy why?
The answer is simple, most professional dont bet parlays. And those who bet parlay dont know when to stop nor where to bet.
If you do a mathematical/stadistical analysis you will see that all that matters is the overall winning percent. If you have a 55% winning percent in your picks you can bet parlays and at some point you will get as much money as if you do it straight.
In fact for people with a very small bankroll parlays could be a better choice. And even for people learning the bussiness, as a parlay could happen by luck at any time, in the other hand to win 600 bets out of 1000 you would need to be a real lucky pro.
Here is my thing: betting 50 to 100 dollars per game and making 150 dollars or 300 dollars a month after handicapping 90 hours per month is crazy when I can do that working just 8 hours.
The only professional I know bet only parlays.
Am I wrong?

Yeah.

[Robber]

Yes you're wrong

[trytrytry]

i bet correlated parlays only pays 3.5x each fav+over and dog + under 5 years running

what sport and what situation..can you post a couple u did this week...want to understand you a bit better here.

[135steward]

If you have a bet paying -110, your payout is 1.9:1, right? The odds of hitting a 3-bet parlay (let's keep it simple, ok? I'm not looking for an "EV" argument here) with 1.9:1 on each bet is 1.9^3 = 6.86:1. If the aforementioned parlay pays 6.9:1 or better, it's a good deal. Otherwise, ....

[milwaukee mike]

i think parlays should mainly be used in correlated situations.

for example in ncaa hoops a 12 pt underdog could be parlayed with the over. if they keep it close enough to foul at the end (4-8 pts or so), then it is more likely to go over than if they are losing by 15.

[FourLengthsClear]

i think parlays should mainly be used in correlated situations.

for example in ncaa hoops a 12 pt underdog could be parlayed with the over. if they keep it close enough to foul at the end (4-8 pts or so), then it is more likely to go over than if they are losing by 15.

Not that it matters too much in NCAAB but that is a negative correlation.
Favourite & Over, Underdog & Under are the combinations that have a positive correlation.

[milwaukee mike]

Not that it matters too much in NCAAB but that is a negative correlation.
Favourite & Over, Underdog & Under are the combinations that have a positive correlation.

has anyone done a correlation between 11-13 pt underdogs with the over in ncaab?

i agree with you on most things fav/over are more correlated but i have had some success with underdogs around 12 pts parlayed with the over because of fouling.

[FourLengthsClear]

has anyone done a correlation between 11-13 pt underdogs with the over in ncaab?

i agree with you on most things fav/over are more correlated but i have had some success with underdogs around 12 pts parlayed with the over because of fouling.

Yeah, the pattern is pretty much what you would expect to see. The bigger the base spread the higher the proportion of Favourite/Overs that hit. No subset is even close to being able to cover the juice however.

If you have been able to find spots where the dog has kept it closer than the base spread would have suggested, then what you say makes sense but that in itself would not be a correlation.

[milwaukee mike]

Yeah, the pattern is pretty much what you would expect to see. The bigger the base spread the higher the proportion of Favourite/Overs that hit. No subset is even close to being able to cover the juice however.

If you have been able to find spots where the dog has kept it closer than the base spread would have suggested, then what you say makes sense but that in itself would not be a correlation.

ok thanks a lot fourlengths

[RyanLeafOfBets]

Very enlightening thread... I clearly don't know enough about +EV/-EV, but this was fun to read.
Parlay's definitely increase variance, but they're so much fun!

[NHL Pro Capper]

You guys are all idiots. I love the calculations about how 2 teamers are less then just straight betting with the winning percentage. WHAT YOU LEFT OUT IDIOT IS YOU BET A LOT ----LESS---- WHEN YOU BET A 2 game Parlay to win , so yes the winning percentages is less but your risking a lot less, fking idiots

1x game: $10 x 1.90 = $9 profit
2x game: $10 x (1.9x1.9) = $36.40
ya guess what...THIS IS THE ONLY REASON WHY YOU HAVE MORE VARIANCE, BECASUE you are betting the SAME amount as the 1 teamer, you DONT HAVE TO, to make the variance the SAME and get paid the SAME BUT with better odds you only need to bet

2x game: $3 x (1.9x1.9) = ~ 10.92 , $9 profit

So IF YOU CAN PICK ~55%, then BET 2 teamers if you have a small bankroll
The TRUE ODDS of a two teamer is 3:1, so if you get paid 3.64:1 THAT is +EV

AND you only need to risk $3 to win $9 profit, $12 total, AS OPPOSED to $10 to win $9, SAME RISK but MUCH LOWER amount of money, SO THE RISK IS REALLY NOT THE SAME

HATE ALL YOU LOSERS WHO are so fking dumb and 2 dimension and say parlays are for suckers WHEN YOU DONT EVEN KNOW WHAT TRUE ODDS ARE vs. PAYOUT ODDS and that you can bet A LOT LESS on a small parlay with +EV odds that payout HIGHER then TRUE ODDS so its a good bet

fking dumb idiots

[milwaukee mike]

wow nhl you're really endearing yourself to the community

not sure what your strategy is of calling people idiots at least 3 times in the same post the day after you said you were never posting again?

[NHL Pro Capper]

This is why I HATE SBR people, you fking idiots read Mr. Wong's sharp sports, and think it's the bible, then you think you are an expert and just repeat what other losers say about parlays that it's for suckers... fking morons

A REAL SHARP on parlays: Parlays are great bets if you can find a payout card, or site that offers a bonus where the payout odds are equal to or greater than the true odds of winning, so it's a +EV bet

SBR "Sharp": Parlays are for sucker. Someone told me and I read it in mr wongs book and when i go to the casino and get paid 5:1 on a 3 teamer, or 2.6:1 on a 2 teamer its a bad bet AND EVERY SINGLE BOOK only pays out less then true odds but its still bad i guess because I am too fat and stupid to understand what EV means and that if the payout odds are greater then true odds then it's actually good but i am too stupid to know this so i am going to keep just saying parlays are bad, black and white, no conditions, just bad for suckers, blablabla i am fat and stupid american lets go bomb countries and steal oil and gas and say its for democracy, then pull out after we gots the oil and gas and let them die again if there is any left from bombing them we killed millions of civillians for cheap gas yeah..

[NHL Pro Capper]

mil mike, I dont care about anyone here man, because when I first came to the site, ppl are great, till you post 1 loss, then they attack you cause you posted a play. When I won it's all ignored and I got lucky, ppl here are degenerate losers, most, and they are all miserable. This site is ENTERTAINMENT for me, i could care less about what ppl think

[probettor1]

Quote: you can hit 80% and still lose money.....parlays are a lottery ticket....doesnt mean they arent fun

You also can hit only 20% and win. Yes is more about luck maybe but unless you are a pro, luck might be a good thing. And remember you are a pro if you make a living out of betting. How many pros in here? [/color]
<!-- / message --><!-- sig --><!-- / sig -->

[milwaukee mike]

mil mike, I dont care about anyone here man, because when I first came to the site, ppl are great, till you post 1 loss, then they attack you cause you posted a play. When I won it's all ignored and I got lucky, ppl here are degenerate losers, most, and they are all miserable. This site is ENTERTAINMENT for me, i could care less about what ppl think

there are a lot of haters here that like nothing more than to kick someone when they're down, i'll agree.

but you can be the better man and not go on the attack.

[YouMama]

im pretty sure unless you have a decent amount of capital, you cant make any real money betting single games... if you are at a level at a couple hundred bucks a month and bet most your roll on each bet, I dont really see why parlays are so bad. I do 2-6 match parlays and probably do about as well as I would betting single games, and Since my bank charges me fees to for wire transfers etc... its not really worth cashing out until i get my balance up to 1k anyways... single match betting seems to be to me only worth it if you bet like 500$ a night... if that were 100$ a game and won at 55%, u would be up what?... 1000$ a month?

[NHL Pro Capper]

im pretty sure unless you have a decent amount of capital, you cant make any real money betting single games... if you are at a level at a couple hundred bucks a month and bet most your roll on each bet, I dont really see why parlays are so bad. I do 2-6 match parlays and probably do about as well as I would betting single games, and Since my bank charges me fees to for wire transfers etc... its not really worth cashing out until i get my balance up to 1k anyways... single match betting seems to be to me only worth it if you bet like 500$ a night... if that were 100$ a game and won at 55%, u would be up what?... 1000$ a month?

Exactly. You can't live off singles unless you are betting at least $300 a game and having at least 30 bets a week. That's betting $9000 a week, and if you hit a crap patch of variance, you are sunk. $300x1.90=$570. 17/30 is 56.7% which is fair and accurate for a solid capper. BUT, that only $9690, so $690 profit. Can you live off of $690 a week betting $300 a game? Sure if you are 20, but not if you are 30 and want a house, nice car, and support a family.

You need $25,000 CASH min and bet $500 a game, with lots of volume and a good 55-58% sustainable win % to realistically make a good living of 50-75k a year. I mix it up. I bet singles, 2 game correlated parlays, soft props, and take big long shots on true odds=payout odds for some 8 teamers. Just have to find a good book with a parlay bonus. Mix and match. The whole parlay is for suckers is so wrong, you just gotta know what to do.

[cecil127]

Exactly. You can't live off singles unless you are betting at least $300 a game and having at least 30 bets a week. That's betting $9000 a week, and if you hit a crap patch of variance, you are sunk. $300x1.90=$570. 17/30 is 56.7% which is fair and accurate for a solid capper. BUT, that only $9690, so $690 profit. Can you live off of $690 a week betting $300 a game? Sure if you are 20, but not if you are 30 and want a house, nice car, and support a family. You need $25,000 CASH min and bet $500 a game, with lots of volume and a good 55-58% sustainable win % to realistically make a good living of 50-75k a year. I mix it up. I bet singles, 2 game correlated parlays, soft props, and take big long shots on true odds=payout odds for some 8 teamers. Just have to find a good book with a parlay bonus. Mix and match. The whole parlay is for suckers is so wrong, you just gotta know what to do.

i would so love to bash your phucking brains in.
says if he loses he wont post, loses (of course) and comes back
says he unloaded $7.5K and after it loses says he only went $500 in. i doubt there was even a dime.
you've got way more issues than id care to see clogging up sbr so i hate to say this wittle guy but ima hafta do a lil research on the "ignore" mode here.
in closing though id like to invite you to take anything (and i mean anything) up with me that you may have buried inside you against americans at Boldt Castle (NY). easily accessable from both us/canada (and very close to my cabin). we can discuss your deep routed desire to be an Amercian high in the spires....or how about buffalo? the falls would be a nice backdrop for an old skool beat down

[smoke a bowl]

This is why I HATE SBR people, you fking idiots read Mr. Wong's sharp sports, and think it's the bible, then you think you are an expert and just repeat what other losers say about parlays that it's for suckers... fking morons

A REAL SHARP on parlays: Parlays are great bets if you can find a payout card, or site that offers a bonus where the payout odds are equal to or greater than the true odds of winning, so it's a +EV bet

SBR "Sharp": Parlays are for sucker. Someone told me and I read it in mr wongs book and when i go to the casino and get paid 5:1 on a 3 teamer, or 2.6:1 on a 2 teamer its a bad bet AND EVERY SINGLE BOOK only pays out less then true odds but its still bad i guess because I am too fat and stupid to understand what EV means and that if the payout odds are greater then true odds then it's actually good but i am too stupid to know this so i am going to keep just saying parlays are bad, black and white, no conditions, just bad for suckers, blablabla i am fat and stupid american lets go bomb countries and steal oil and gas and say its for democracy, then pull out after we gots the oil and gas and let them die again if there is any left from bombing them we killed millions of civillians for cheap gas yeah..

No fukin shit Sherlock. Do you want a cookie for enlightening us with such great and new info?

[NHL Pro Capper]

i would so love to bash your phucking brains in.
says if he loses he wont post, loses (of course) and comes back
says he unloaded $7.5K and after it loses says he only went $500 in. i doubt there was even a dime.
you've got way more issues than id care to see clogging up sbr so i hate to say this wittle guy but ima hafta do a lil research on the "ignore" mode here.
in closing though id like to invite you to take anything (and i mean anything) up with me that you may have buried inside you against americans at Boldt Castle (NY). easily accessable from both us/canada (and very close to my cabin). we can discuss your deep routed desire to be an Amercian high in the spires....or how about buffalo? the falls would be a nice backdrop for an old skool beat down

Cecil you fat fk, i would destroy you, you have no idea who you are dealing with. You are just a fat loser punk that thinks he's a tough guy over the internet. You sit in your crappy apartment and talk $%t. If we were to actually meet up and you saw me, you would beg for mercy. Stop trying to be some big tough guy. I know you are just a fat ugly loser with no money. This is why you have no friends and your family laughs at you. They don't even pitty you. They are just ashamed you're a losing degenerate fat fk that has no life and sits at home all day and pretends to be a big shot gambler. You can't even afford your world of warcraft subscription anymore because you spent it all on mr. noodles cause you got no cash cause your a broke fat loser.

[SportsPedagogy]

Cecil you fat fk, i would destroy you, you have no idea who you are dealing with. You are just a fat loser punk that thinks he's a tough guy over the internet. You sit in your crappy apartment and talk $%t. If we were to actually meet up and you saw me, you would beg for mercy. Stop trying to be some big tough guy. I know you are just a fat ugly loser with no money. This is why you have no friends and your family laughs at you. They don't even pitty you. They are just ashamed you're a losing degenerate fat fk that has no life and sits at home all day and pretends to be a big shot gambler. You can't even afford your world of warcraft subscription anymore because you spent it all on mr. noodles cause you got no cash cause your a broke fat loser.

Would you wager on a boxing match ? Yourself and I at the SBR bash ?

You sure do call people fat and ugly and say they have horrible lives alot. sounds like you have some built up issues with that subject.

[probettor1]

Any one here would be happy to play as my bookie for a $500 bet. The question is how many of you would like to be my bookie in a 6 games parlay with $500?. Most of those cursing on the parlays here wont have the courage to do it. Am I wrong?