Parlay Thoughts and Advice
I have a four-teamer for college bowls and have hit the first three. Game 4 is Tuesday (Bowling Green-Minnesota).
I picked all dogs, so my $5 bet would pay $525 if BG wins.
Normally, not someone who hedges, because I follow the gambling commandments of the Wizard of Odds (Thou shall not hedge), but thinking about it.
Adding intrigue, it's part of a contest on the online app I'm on for college bowl season. The 20 players who hit the bets with the longest odds win a share of 10K (4K for first).
There are a lot of games (and bets) left to go, but this would put me well in front. Of course, I have no idea what others have bet or will hit.
Would you? If so, how much. For the record, MN is -189.
I am rethinking parlays pretty hard myself. I posted recently some stuff about them that was inaccurate, but one thing is correct, and that is a parlay with respect to the original amount bet increases the house edge. I guess it was shown that it's not logical to consider it 'with respect to the original amount bet', but if you do ... it's there.Quote: PlayYourCardsRightOK, looking for thoughts, non-binding advice, etc.
I have a four-teamer for college bowls and have hit the first three. Game 4 is Tuesday (Bowling Green-Minnesota).
I picked all dogs, so my $5 bet would pay $525 if BG wins.
Normally, not someone who hedges, because I follow the gambling commandments of the Wizard of Odds (Thou shall not hedge), but thinking about it.
Adding intrigue, it's part of a contest on the online app I'm on for college bowl season. The 20 players who hit the bets with the longest odds win a share of 10K (4K for first).
There are a lot of games (and bets) left to go, but this would put me well in front. Of course, I have no idea what others have bet or will hit.
Would you? If so, how much. For the record, MN is -189.
link to original post
If it's possible to hedge on the original amount bet, then I think that'd be a good way to go. It seems though that would be hard to do. Maybe pick the weakest link and hedge on that to get the amount bet covered?
PS: reread your post . What you are considering is not hedging but arbitrage. I'd definitely go for it
Quote: odiousgambitI am rethinking parlays pretty hard myself. I posted recently some stuff about them that was inaccurate, but one thing is correct, and that is a parlay with respect to the original amount bet increases the house edge. I guess it was shown that it's not logical to consider it 'with respect to the original amount bet', but if you do ... it's there.Quote: PlayYourCardsRightOK, looking for thoughts, non-binding advice, etc.
I have a four-teamer for college bowls and have hit the first three. Game 4 is Tuesday (Bowling Green-Minnesota).
I picked all dogs, so my $5 bet would pay $525 if BG wins.
Normally, not someone who hedges, because I follow the gambling commandments of the Wizard of Odds (Thou shall not hedge), but thinking about it.
Adding intrigue, it's part of a contest on the online app I'm on for college bowl season. The 20 players who hit the bets with the longest odds win a share of 10K (4K for first).
There are a lot of games (and bets) left to go, but this would put me well in front. Of course, I have no idea what others have bet or will hit.
Would you? If so, how much. For the record, MN is -189.
link to original post
If it's possible to hedge on the original amount bet, then I think that'd be a good way to go. It seems though that would be hard to do. Maybe pick the weakest link and hedge on that to get the amount bet covered?
PS: reread your post . What you are considering is not hedging but arbitrage. I'd definitely go for it
link to original post
It is hedging. Not arbitrage.
As far as the longest odds contest, 105-1 tends to be nowhere close to winning one of these.
Hedge if it makes you feel better! I tend to make -EV bets on the other sites when I’ve the opportunity you do. My guess what I’d do? $25 to win around $13. By betting the $25 I get a ‘square’ on BetRivers so adds some fun as well. So either win $8, or $507!
I already have a parlay needing Minnesota! (Not nearly as big a payout as yours…). I think I’ll root for you!
he says "I have a four-teamer for college bowls and have hit the first three" Usually you can guarantee a win at this point, but he doesn't say so, I admitQuote: SOOPOO
It is hedging. Not arbitrage.
link to original post
My definition of arbitrage in betting is to lock in a win. Do we differ?
Quote: odiousgambithe says "I have a four-teamer for college bowls and have hit the first three" Usually you can guarantee a win at this point, but he doesn't say so, I admitQuote: SOOPOO
It is hedging. Not arbitrage.
link to original post
My definition of arbitrage in betting is to lock in a win. Do we differ?
link to original post
That's halfway to describing what an arbitrage is. The other half is that you have to know you're going to win at the time of making both bets. What's being described in this thread is definitely a hedge.
This doesn't seem like it's a ton in profits, and certainly, the initial bet was made with the expectation of losing. I'd probably just say let it ride unless this is part of some larger advantage play and you don't mind sacrificing EV to guarantee realization of the advantage. If this was purely recreational play and this bet wasn't made with an advantage going in, then my opinion is $5 lost is nothing and no need to chase one -EV bet with another, more sizable, one.
emphasis mine. If you've hit the first 3, and for 4 it pays $525, it has to be the case that you can bet the opposite way to recover $5 on the last leg . Once you've done that, you are on your way to guaranteeing a win, I suggest, I dunno, covering at least $6.Quote: PlayYourCardsRightOK, looking for thoughts, non-binding advice, etc.
I have a four-teamer for college bowls and have hit the first three. Game 4 is Tuesday (Bowling Green-Minnesota).
I picked all dogs, so my $5 bet would pay $525 if BG wins.
ignoring the above part for nowQuote:Normally, not someone who hedges, because I follow the gambling commandments of the Wizard of Odds (Thou shall not hedge), but thinking about it.
Adding intrigue, it's part of a contest on the online app I'm on for college bowl season. The 20 players who hit the bets with the longest odds win a share of 10K (4K for first).
Maybe the 'share of 10k' factor is what I don't get ?Quote:There are a lot of games (and bets) left to go, but this would put me well in front. Of course, I have no idea what others have bet or will hit.
Would you? If so, how much. For the record, MN is -189.
link to original post
PS of course you would cover more than $5 or 6 to arbitrage, we all get that
The contest the book is having is the longest odds bet that wins during bowl season. Top 20 places pay. First place is 4k, all the way to 20th place for $50. That's in addition to whatever your bet pays.
If I hit the 4th leg Tuesday, my bet will be top of the leader board.
Does that make sense?
How would the 10k be jeopardized if you arbitraged your way to a win? Certainly you shouldn't cash out! And you want to arbitrage by using a different betting site
Arbitrage is placing some bets that guarantee a profit at the moment you place them. Thats what SOOPOO did when he found a +650 line on a dog and a -600 line on a favorite.
Hedging is where you eliminate risk from your existing bets by taking an opposite (or negatively correlated) bet, usually at the cost of losing some EV. For example when you when three legs of a four leg parlay and bet opposite on the fourth leg to derisk the bet and lock in some profit, that’s a hedge.
Thank you for your input! I see what you mean, though it was +650 and -600 on the same outcome [wasn't it?]Quote: unJonMy two cents:
Arbitrage is placing some bets that guarantee a profit at the moment you place them. Thats what SOOPOO did when he found a +650 line on a dog and a -600 line on a favorite.
Hedging is where you eliminate risk from your existing bets by taking an opposite (or negatively correlated) bet, usually at the cost of losing some EV. For example when you when three legs of a four leg parlay and bet opposite on the fourth leg to derisk the bet and lock in some profit, that’s a hedge.
link to original post
to me a hedge ... getting Wizard disapproval, after all ... is combining oppositional bets to reduce risk without benefit
I think the wizard would approve of locking in profit most of the time, if you want to . Perhaps he also would not like the term 'arbitrage'. I think of it that way, so we differ.
Quote: unJonMy two cents:
Arbitrage is placing some bets that guarantee a profit at the moment you place them. Thats what SOOPOO did when he found a +650 line on a dog and a -600 line on a favorite.
Hedging is where you eliminate risk from your existing bets by taking an opposite (or negatively correlated) bet, usually at the cost of losing some EV. For example when you when three legs of a four leg parlay and bet opposite on the fourth leg to derisk the bet and lock in some profit, that’s a hedge.
link to original post
Often unJon clarifies my points better than I do. The above is an example.
As far as the leaderboard $10k thing, All of the ones I’ve been involved in you don’t sniff a prize at 100-1. Maybe the OP found a different type of competition.
the gist of this has already been stated in the link but here is some detail
The Professor - (see link & images) details why he believes parlays are a bad bet compared to just betting on your strongest single play
but then there is the fun factor - maybe the bettor is having more fun with parlays which makes it worthwhile to him
and maybe the bettor is getting more free play and profit boosts betting parlays which changes the picture completely
https://www.professormj.com/pages/sports-betting-lessons-stop-doing-parlays
.
Quote: lilredrooster.
the gist of this has already been stated in the link but here is some detail
The Professor - (see link & images) details why he believes parlays are a bad bet compared to just betting on your strongest single play
but then there is the fun factor - maybe the bettor is having more fun with parlays which makes it worthwhile to him
and maybe the bettor is getting more free play and profit boosts betting parlays which changes the picture completelyI guess I need to find that article! I certainly agree that parlays are nuts, but they are also can be possibly +EV in certain offers. SGPs may be only marginally +EV in those offers, partly due to unknown formulas, partly due to having to choose dubious bets for legs.Quote: from the provided linkThe popular belief is that hedging is a good idea. IT IS NOT! Plain and simple.
I wrote another article that clearly shows why you should NOT hedge your parlay bets.
In summary, doing a parlay bet is a bad idea to start with. Then, many sports bettors make another bad decision by hedging their parlays. In the long run, those two things will ruin you. Plain and simple.
https://www.professormj.com/pages/sports-betting-lessons-stop-doing-parlays
.
link to original post
I would not say all hedging is arbitrageQuote: billryanArbitrage is simply taking advantage of market inefficiencies. Hedging is placing two bets on opposite results. Without giving it a whole lot of thought, I'd say all hedging is a form of arbitrage, while not all arbitrage is a form of hedging.
link to original post
btw in the matter of betting +650 on one side, then finding -600 on the other, one has to first make the one bet and then wait and see if you get to make the other [at least almost always]. So, again, it is a matter of waiting for events to develop. I feel that is much the same as waiting for 3 legs of a 4 leg parlay to be won.
Quote: lilredrooster.
the gist of this has already been stated in the link but here is some detail
The Professor - (see link & images) details why he believes parlays are a bad bet compared to just betting on your strongest single play
but then there is the fun factor - maybe the bettor is having more fun with parlays which makes it worthwhile to him
and maybe the bettor is getting more free play and profit boosts betting parlays which changes the picture completely
https://www.professormj.com/pages/sports-betting-lessons-stop-doing-parlays
.
link to original post
The math in the above is fine, but I feel it’s misinterpreted. (And I think parlays are usually bad bets for other reasons).
Just note that his comparison of betting one game a day vs 8 team parlay shows expected loss of -328.50 vs -2,2730.30.
But the takeaway isn’t “parlays bad relative to straight bets”. The takeaway is betting one -EV bet a day is better than eight -EV bets a day.
In other words betting 1 bet a day leads to -328.59. If you multiple it by 8 so betting 8 straight bets a day you get:
-328.50 * 8 = -2,628.00
That’s worse than the 8 game parlay per this guys chart!
So making fewer -EV bets is a good thing! Well obviously.
Quote:So making fewer -EV bets is a good thing! Well obviously.
also, to parlay a bunch of legs is to go against Kelly Criterion big time
now, I realize the Kelly Criterion for -EV bets says "bet exactly zero" . But parlays exacerbate the problem with a crazy increase beyond zero that you don't realize you are doing till you analyze it. I guess that's saying the same thing you did but with a different perspective
So I get a bunch of 50% boosts. When I don’t want to ‘think’ I just flip a coin on the spread (-110) and the over/under (-110). I’ll bet my $25 and win (around) $100 if I win. So 3/4 times I lose $25. 1/4 I win $100. So if I do this repeatedly I win ( around) $6 each bet.
If I had 4 accounts I could guarantee that $25 win.
As I’ve detailed, there are certain offers that parlaying is the only way to go. If you just go parlay your 8 ‘favorite’ bets for the day, you will be the loser you describe.
That may be me today! I definitely have too much $$ on the Bucks!
Quote: odiousgambitQuote:So making fewer -EV bets is a good thing! Well obviously.
also, to parlay a bunch of legs is to go against Kelly Criterion big time
now, I realize the Kelly Criterion for -EV bets says "bet exactly zero" . But parlays exacerbate the problem with a crazy increase beyond zero that you don't realize you are doing till you analyze it. I guess that's saying the same thing you did but with a different perspective
link to original post
Yes agree. I think most people that would happily bet a $20 five leg parlay would NEVER make the following bets:
1) Bet $20 and win
2) Bet $38.18 on next game and win
3) Bet $72.89 on next game and win
4) Bet $139.16 on next game and win
5) Bet $265.67 on next game
Most $20 betters would blanch at betting $265.67 on a straight bet. It’s 23 times their normal bet!!
But that’s all a 5 leg parlay is.
Quote: unJonQuote: lilredrooster.
the gist of this has already been stated in the link but here is some detail
The Professor - (see link & images) details why he believes parlays are a bad bet compared to just betting on your strongest single play
but then there is the fun factor - maybe the bettor is having more fun with parlays which makes it worthwhile to him
and maybe the bettor is getting more free play and profit boosts betting parlays which changes the picture completely
https://www.professormj.com/pages/sports-betting-lessons-stop-doing-parlays
.
link to original post
The math in the above is fine, but I feel it’s misinterpreted. (And I think parlays are usually bad bets for other reasons).
Just note that his comparison of betting one game a day vs 8 team parlay shows expected loss of -328.50 vs -2,2730.30.
But the takeaway isn’t “parlays bad relative to straight bets”. The takeaway is betting one -EV bet a day is better than eight -EV bets a day.
In other words betting 1 bet a day leads to -328.59. If you multiple it by 8 so betting 8 straight bets a day you get:
-328.50 * 8 = -2,628.00
That’s worse than the 8 game parlay per this guys chart!
So making fewer -EV bets is a good thing! Well obviously.
link to original post
here is another way to look at a 2 team parlay - and please correct me if I'm wrong
if a bettor bets four 2 team parlays ats for $11.00 paying 13/5 and over the long run his performance is average he will win one and lose 3 for a net loss of $4.40 (winning $28.60 on his one win and losing $33.00 on his 3 losses)
if a bettor instead makes four straight bets of $11.00 (same exact risk) ats paying 10/11 and over the long run his performance is average he wlll win two and lose two for a net loss of only $2.00 (winning $20.00 and losing $22.00)
and if I do the math for all of the other multi game parlays won't that show something similar___________?
correct_____________?
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: unJonQuote: lilredrooster.
the gist of this has already been stated in the link but here is some detail
The Professor - (see link & images) details why he believes parlays are a bad bet compared to just betting on your strongest single play
but then there is the fun factor - maybe the bettor is having more fun with parlays which makes it worthwhile to him
and maybe the bettor is getting more free play and profit boosts betting parlays which changes the picture completely
https://www.professormj.com/pages/sports-betting-lessons-stop-doing-parlays
.
link to original post
The math in the above is fine, but I feel it’s misinterpreted. (And I think parlays are usually bad bets for other reasons).
Just note that his comparison of betting one game a day vs 8 team parlay shows expected loss of -328.50 vs -2,2730.30.
But the takeaway isn’t “parlays bad relative to straight bets”. The takeaway is betting one -EV bet a day is better than eight -EV bets a day.
In other words betting 1 bet a day leads to -328.59. If you multiple it by 8 so betting 8 straight bets a day you get:
-328.50 * 8 = -2,628.00
That’s worse than the 8 game parlay per this guys chart!
So making fewer -EV bets is a good thing! Well obviously.
link to original post
here is another way to look at a 2 team parlay - and please correct me if I'm wrong
if a bettor bets four 2 team parlays ats for $11.00 paying 13/5 and over the long run his performance is average he will win one and lose 3 for a net loss of $4.40 (winning $28.60 on his one win and losing $33.00 on his 3 losses)
if a bettor instead makes four straight bets of $11.00 (same exact risk) for $11.00 ats paying 10/11 and over the long run his performance is average he wlll win two and lose two for a net loss of only $2.00
and if I do the math for all of the other multi game parlays won't that show something similar___________?
correct_____________?
.
link to original post
Yes math looks right.
But . . .
The apples to apples of making four two-game parlays a day is making 8 straight bets a day, not 4 straight bets a day.
Quote: unJonQuote: lilredroosterQuote: unJonQuote: lilredrooster.
the gist of this has already been stated in the link but here is some detail
The Professor - (see link & images) details why he believes parlays are a bad bet compared to just betting on your strongest single play
but then there is the fun factor - maybe the bettor is having more fun with parlays which makes it worthwhile to him
and maybe the bettor is getting more free play and profit boosts betting parlays which changes the picture completely
https://www.professormj.com/pages/sports-betting-lessons-stop-doing-parlays
.
link to original post
The math in the above is fine, but I feel it’s misinterpreted. (And I think parlays are usually bad bets for other reasons).
Just note that his comparison of betting one game a day vs 8 team parlay shows expected loss of -328.50 vs -2,2730.30.
But the takeaway isn’t “parlays bad relative to straight bets”. The takeaway is betting one -EV bet a day is better than eight -EV bets a day.
In other words betting 1 bet a day leads to -328.59. If you multiple it by 8 so betting 8 straight bets a day you get:
-328.50 * 8 = -2,628.00
That’s worse than the 8 game parlay per this guys chart!
So making fewer -EV bets is a good thing! Well obviously.
link to original post
here is another way to look at a 2 team parlay - and please correct me if I'm wrong
if a bettor bets four 2 team parlays ats for $11.00 paying 13/5 and over the long run his performance is average he will win one and lose 3 for a net loss of $4.40 (winning $28.60 on his one win and losing $33.00 on his 3 losses)
if a bettor instead makes four straight bets of $11.00 (same exact risk) for $11.00 ats paying 10/11 and over the long run his performance is average he wlll win two and lose two for a net loss of only $2.00
and if I do the math for all of the other multi game parlays won't that show something similar___________?
correct_____________?
.
link to original post
Yes math looks right.
But . . .
The apples to apples of making four two-game parlays a day is making 8 straight bets a day, not 4 straight bets a day.
link to original post
okay - but if he makes 8 straight bets of $5.50 instead of $11.00 so the total risk is the same as the four $11.00 parlay bets ($44.00) and wins 4 and loses 4 his net loss is still just $2.00
not tryin to be argumentative - jus tryin to figure it out - I might have it wrong - not 100% sure - thanks for your review
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: unJonQuote: lilredroosterQuote: unJonQuote: lilredrooster.
the gist of this has already been stated in the link but here is some detail
The Professor - (see link & images) details why he believes parlays are a bad bet compared to just betting on your strongest single play
but then there is the fun factor - maybe the bettor is having more fun with parlays which makes it worthwhile to him
and maybe the bettor is getting more free play and profit boosts betting parlays which changes the picture completely
https://www.professormj.com/pages/sports-betting-lessons-stop-doing-parlays
.
link to original post
The math in the above is fine, but I feel it’s misinterpreted. (And I think parlays are usually bad bets for other reasons).
Just note that his comparison of betting one game a day vs 8 team parlay shows expected loss of -328.50 vs -2,2730.30.
But the takeaway isn’t “parlays bad relative to straight bets”. The takeaway is betting one -EV bet a day is better than eight -EV bets a day.
In other words betting 1 bet a day leads to -328.59. If you multiple it by 8 so betting 8 straight bets a day you get:
-328.50 * 8 = -2,628.00
That’s worse than the 8 game parlay per this guys chart!
So making fewer -EV bets is a good thing! Well obviously.
link to original post
here is another way to look at a 2 team parlay - and please correct me if I'm wrong
if a bettor bets four 2 team parlays ats for $11.00 paying 13/5 and over the long run his performance is average he will win one and lose 3 for a net loss of $4.40 (winning $28.60 on his one win and losing $33.00 on his 3 losses)
if a bettor instead makes four straight bets of $11.00 (same exact risk) for $11.00 ats paying 10/11 and over the long run his performance is average he wlll win two and lose two for a net loss of only $2.00
and if I do the math for all of the other multi game parlays won't that show something similar___________?
correct_____________?
.
link to original post
Yes math looks right.
But . . .
The apples to apples of making four two-game parlays a day is making 8 straight bets a day, not 4 straight bets a day.
link to original post
okay - but if he makes 8 straight bets of $5.50 instead of $11.00 so the total risk is the same as the four $11.00 parlay bets ($44.00) and wins 4 and loses 4 his net loss is still just $2.00
not tryin to be argumentative - jus tryin to figure it out - I might have it wrong - not 100% sure - thanks for your review
.
link to original post
We are both sorta right and sorta wrong.
The right apples to apples comparison to 4 $11 parlays is a better than makes 4 $11 straight bets in the morning, and for each winning morning bet, he makes that many $21 straight bets that night. So if all four morning bets lose, there are no evening bets. If one morning game only wins, he makes a single $21 straight bet. Etc.
Thats all a parlay is. Make a straight bet, if it wins take the stake and winnings and put it on another straight bet, etc.
Note that some places pay less than “true parlay odds” and most places pay better than “true parlay odds” for a three legger at -110.
one last comment and then I'm done
if a bettor does his own parlay -
he wins an $11 bet in the afternoon
he then does his own parlay on a night game now for $21 - both bets pay 10/11
that win plus his afternoon win will get him a total of $29.11
more than the books traditional payout of 13/5 which would get him $28.60
whoopee - he won 55 cents more__________________:)
.
Quote: lilredrooster.
one last comment and then I'm done
if a bettor does his own parlay -
he wins an $11 bet in the afternoon
he then does his own parlay on a night game now for $21 - both bets pay 10/11
that win plus his afternoon win will get him a total of $29.11
more than the books traditional payout of 13/5 which would get him $28.60
whoopee - he won 55 cents more__________________:)
.
link to original post
Yes agrees. Most shops short the odds on a two legger.
If you like, do a three legger at 6/1 versus morning, afternoon and evening increasing straight bets and you’ll see the opposite.
Quote: unJonQuote: lilredrooster.
one last comment and then I'm done
if a bettor does his own parlay -
he wins an $11 bet in the afternoon
he then does his own parlay on a night game now for $21 - both bets pay 10/11
that win plus his afternoon win will get him a total of $29.11
more than the books traditional payout of 13/5 which would get him $28.60
whoopee - he won 55 cents more__________________:)
.
link to original post
Yes agrees. Most shops short the odds on a two legger.
If you like, do a three legger at 6/1 versus morning, afternoon and evening increasing straight bets and you’ll see the opposite.
link to original post
okay
he bets $11 and wins $10__________he now has $21________he bets $21 and wins $19.11___________he now has $40.11
he bets $40.11 and wins $36.50
he now has a total of $76.61
a book paying 6/1 - he would win $66 and have a total of $77
you are correct_____________thanks
don't feel like showing all the math but it looks like the books payout much worse compared to doing it yourself on 4 legger even when they pay 11/1 and I think many pay only 10/1
of course the books know you can't do your own parlays if the games go off at around the same times
.
Quote: billryanThere should be a way to place an If-Then bet. $10 on the Giants to win, and if they do, bet the winnings on the Jets. It's not traditional, but the right program and software could easily do it.
link to original post
My father, the bookie, had lots of If-Then bets back 40-50 years ago.
Quote: billryanThere should be a way to place an If-Then bet. $10 on the Giants to win, and if they do, bet the winnings on the Jets. It's not traditional, but the right program and software could easily do it.
link to original post
Some Vegas casinos did IF THEN bets.
Quote: DRichQuote: billryanThere should be a way to place an If-Then bet. $10 on the Giants to win, and if they do, bet the winnings on the Jets. It's not traditional, but the right program and software could easily do it.
link to original post
Some Vegas casinos did IF THEN bets.
link to original post
Does that mean they no longer do? Sports betting doesn't interest me, but I'm curious.
To clear up a few things:
* I am a recreational better. I don't chase lines and books, looking for arbitrage plays (although now I will be more aware of them)
* I know parlays are not great bets, especially taking four underdogs. I make most of my sports bets for entertainment value only. I enjoy picking 4-6 team parlays, or betting against a streak, etc. It is not a source of income for me either way.
* The parlay bet here was strictly made for the purposes of the promotional contest on the online sports book that I play most of my action with.
* In my home state, we are very restricted to what sports books are available, as they must be affiliated with a casino. That means each casino runs its own book and there are no FanDuel, Bet MGM, etc. options. We have three options in the state.
* The bet that I referenced was my second attempt. My first one flamed out badly. I truthfully expected this one to as well. But since I have hit three of the four legs and had a gap before the fourth game, I wanted to generate discussion about what people thought might be a good strategy. Let it ride or hedge for a guaranteed (but smaller) profit.
My final decision was to hedge, but with a twist. I opened an account at one of the sportsbooks in my state where I didn't have one, because they are matching the first wager (up to $250) if it loses. So I deposited $250 and bet Minnesota.
Possible outcomes:
Bowling Green wins:
1) I win the parlay (+519)
2) I vault to the top of the standings in the contest and probably clinch a pretty good position (prizes range from $4,000 for first to $50 for 20th)
3) I lose my hedge (-250), but I have a free bet of that value available to try and recoup most of my investment.
Profit: 269 plus the TBA contest prize
Minnesota wins:
1) I lose the parlay (-5) and do not place in the standings (as of yet)
2) I win the hedge (+142.5)
Profit: $137.50
Either way, i make a little money (and hopefully option 1 comes through and I make even more).
Go Bowling Green!
Quote: billryanQuote: DRichQuote: billryanThere should be a way to place an If-Then bet. $10 on the Giants to win, and if they do, bet the winnings on the Jets. It's not traditional, but the right program and software could easily do it.
link to original post
Some Vegas casinos did IF THEN bets.
link to original post
Does that mean they no longer do? Sports betting doesn't interest me, but I'm curious.
link to original post
I honestly have no idea. I just know that it used to be an option.
Quote: PlayYourCardsRightFirst off, thank you everyone for commenting. I did learn some things on this thread and am glad I started it...
To clear up a few things:
* I am a recreational better. I don't chase lines and books, looking for arbitrage plays (although now I will be more aware of them)
* I know parlays are not great bets, especially taking four underdogs. I make most of my sports bets for entertainment value only. I enjoy picking 4-6 team parlays, or betting against a streak, etc. It is not a source of income for me either way.
* The parlay bet here was strictly made for the purposes of the promotional contest on the online sports book that I play most of my action with.
* In my home state, we are very restricted to what sports books are available, as they must be affiliated with a casino. That means each casino runs its own book and there are no FanDuel, Bet MGM, etc. options. We have three options in the state.
* The bet that I referenced was my second attempt. My first one flamed out badly. I truthfully expected this one to as well. But since I have hit three of the four legs and had a gap before the fourth game, I wanted to generate discussion about what people thought might be a good strategy. Let it ride or hedge for a guaranteed (but smaller) profit.
My final decision was to hedge, but with a twist. I opened an account at one of the sportsbooks in my state where I didn't have one, because they are matching the first wager (up to $250) if it loses. So I deposited $250 and bet Minnesota.
Possible outcomes:
Bowling Green wins:
1) I win the parlay (+519)
2) I vault to the top of the standings in the contest and probably clinch a pretty good position (prizes range from $4,000 for first to $50 for 20th)
3) I lose my hedge (-250), but I have a free bet of that value available to try and recoup most of my investment.
Profit: 269 plus the TBA contest prize
Minnesota wins:
1) I lose the parlay (-5) and do not place in the standings (as of yet)
2) I win the hedge (+142.5)
Profit: $137.50
Either way, i make a little money (and hopefully option 1 comes through and I make even more).
Go Bowling Green!
link to original post
I like your solution for the same reason that I wouldn't have liked a straight up hedge (without a promotion).
Basically, the, 'No Sweat, Risk Free, Whatever Terminology," bet is +EV on its own. I don't know that Minnesota is the best thing that could have been done with that bet, but since you kind of wanted to hedge on this parlay anyway (and are doing this recreationally), I like it.
The main reason I wouldn't normally suggest hedging for a recreational player is because, in theory, you're committing to a potential -EV bet later if you're going to do it every time. What I mean is, suppose you always took four team parlays with the last game starting long enough after the first three to get a bet down: if you know, going in, that you're going to hedge if you win the first three, then you're pre-committing to a bet that (in some cases) might even have more juice than the entire amount of your original bet in the first place.
WHY IS MINNESOTA(5-7) IN A BOWL? I thought you had to win six games to be bowl-eligible?
not about parlays but I didn't wanna start another thread - somewhat related
I looked at all 3 big faves for the upcoming NFL week and per Boyds bets calculations (linked) - some books were giving worse deals on the fave than what they should be and better deals on the the dog than they should be on the money line per what Boyds says the money line should be
𝘮𝘢𝘺𝘣𝘦 because many bettors think these big faves are a sure thing and are over betting them__________?_____________not 100% sure________just my best guess
examples:
Bills - 11.5 faves over Patriots per covers.com - Boyds says the fave should be -646 and the dog should be +450 - but at FanDuel the fave is -750 and the dog is +530
the other books too but not as much difference
Eagles -10.5 over Arizona - Boyds says the fave should be -538 and the dog +389_____________FanDuel has the fave at -650 and the dog at +480
49ers -13.5 over Commanders - Boyds says the fave should be -819 and the dog should be +539_________FanDuel has the fave at -900 and the dog at +610
is this difference enough to make a bet on these big dogs +EV on the money line__________?__________I dunno - not at all sure about that - but pretty interesting - to me anyway
edit - I also looked at the smaller faves and dogs - and it did not follow this - if there was a difference it was smallish
https://www.actionnetwork.com/betting-calculators/moneyline-converter
https://www.covers.com/sports/nfl/matchups
.
Quote: billryanI suspect the number of people who have gotten rich betting on the Golden Gophers is rather small. I can't believe someone put them in a Bowl game, or that a Big Ten team is playing Bowling Green.
WHY IS MINNESOTA(5-7) IN A BOWL? I thought you had to win six games to be bowl-eligible?
link to original post
Row the boat!!
If there are not enough 6 win teams to fill the bowls they can select pretty much anyone they want.
Quote: PlayYourCardsRight
Normally, not someone who hedges, because I follow the gambling commandments of the Wizard of Odds (Thou shall not hedge), but thinking about it.
Wizard is wrong. Math says to always hedge.
-profit is edge x amount bet, making a hedge bet increases the amount bet, which increases profits.
-knowing I will bet the other side means I could bet 50% of all my money on all bets and still have risk of ruin be zero.
-if the hedge isn't going to be an arb, I probably shouldn't have made that first bet to begin with.
-doesn't have to decrease the edge side of the equation and there should be lots of times it doesn't. Bowling Green - Minnesota is the perfect example. Yesterday morning there was +140 at Circa and -140 on the other side at Fanduel at the same time. Hard to say either one of those would have been bad, certainly not by more than minus 1% in value - and could have very well been +2 or 3%. And could have done even better than those numbers betting at different times and different places.
Quote: TomGQuote: PlayYourCardsRight
Normally, not someone who hedges, because I follow the gambling commandments of the Wizard of Odds (Thou shall not hedge), but thinking about it.
Wizard is wrong. Math says to always hedge.
-profit is edge x amount bet, making a hedge bet increases the amount bet, which increases profits.
-knowing I will bet the other side means I could bet 50% of all my money on all bets and still have risk of ruin be zero.
-if the hedge isn't going to be an arb, I probably shouldn't have made that first bet to begin with.
-doesn't have to decrease the edge side of the equation and there should be lots of times it doesn't. Bowling Green - Minnesota is the perfect example. Yesterday morning there was +140 at Circa and -140 on the other side at Fanduel at the same time. Hard to say either one of those would have been bad, certainly not by more than minus 1% in value - and could have very well been +2 or 3%. And could have done even better than those numbers betting at different times and different places.
link to original post
Wizard is not wrong. The hedge is an individual bet. If it is +EV (usually not) it is a good bet. If it is -EV (usually) it is a bad bet.
Your example of finding -140 and +140 at the same time is rare. In that case I’d be betting both sides as heavy as possible accumulating ‘points’ or ‘Rewards’ or ‘Crowns’ free of charge. That’s another story…..
don't get hung up on when the bets were made as to the name of it
Quote: SOOPOOWizard is not wrong. The hedge is an individual bet. If it is +EV (usually not) it is a good bet. If it is -EV (usually) it is a bad bet.
Your example of finding -140 and +140 at the same time is rare. In that case I’d be betting both sides as heavy as possible accumulating ‘points’ or ‘Rewards’ or ‘Crowns’ free of charge. That’s another story…..
A bettor bets 20% of all they money they have on UNLV at +400. There is a lot of expected value, but still a bad bet according to Kelly Criterion. Later they bet 95% of the rest of their money on Kansas at -300, that is another bad bet. Explain how it is possible to only make bad bets, but still profit.
The Bowling Green example was not rare. Missouri - Ohio State is available at even better odds right now in Las Vegas (SuperBook to Boyd (or most anywhere)); there was even an NFL moneyline available before I bet it and one NBA still out there. Expand beyond just Las Vegas to other states and offshore and not just full game moneylines and to not just this one moment in time and there are going to be a lot.
There is a pretty clear distinction that can be made between arbitrage and hedging. The Wiz did not say you should never lock in a profit by arbitrage.Quote: TomGQuote: SOOPOOWizard is not wrong. The hedge is an individual bet. If it is +EV (usually not) it is a good bet. If it is -EV (usually) it is a bad bet.
Your example of finding -140 and +140 at the same time is rare. In that case I’d be betting both sides as heavy as possible accumulating ‘points’ or ‘Rewards’ or ‘Crowns’ free of charge. That’s another story…..
A bettor bets 20% of all they money they have on UNLV at +400. There is a lot of expected value, but still a bad bet according to Kelly Criterion. Later they bet 95% of the rest of their money on Kansas at -300, that is another bad bet. Explain how it is possible to only make bad bets, but still profit.
The Bowling Green example was not rare. Missouri - Ohio State is available at even better odds right now in Las Vegas (SuperBook to Boyd (or most anywhere)); there was even an NFL moneyline available before I bet it and one NBA still out there. Expand beyond just Las Vegas to other states and offshore and not just full game moneylines and to not just this one moment in time and there are going to be a lot.
link to original post
In the context of this thread, the distinction could not be more clear. OP can only execute an arbitrage before the first leg of the parlay. After any of the legs are completed, any betting the opposite way is a hedge, not an arbitrage. In the OP, three of four legs are complete.
Quote: PlayYourCardsRightI have a four-teamer for college bowls and have hit the first three. Game 4 is Tuesday (Bowling Green-Minnesota).
Quote: MentalThere is a pretty clear distinction that can be made between arbitrage and hedging. The Wiz did not say you should never lock in a profit by arbitrage.
In the context of this thread, the distinction could not be more clear. OP can only execute an arbitrage before the first leg of the parlay. After any of the legs are completed, any betting the opposite way is a hedge, not an arbitrage. In the OP, three of four legs are complete.
But nothing about that distinction goes against the math that says betting both sides maximizes profits by increasing the amount bet, whether parlay bets or not parlay bets. If the UNLV bettor had +13 and +400 in parlays or outside of parlays, can still bet Kansas at -7' and -270. In practice it usually would be something like UNLV in some parlays and Kansas not in parlays. Same thing with Oklahoma State today. Opening lines are like $1k limits with low liquidity, before going to as much as $20k day of. So to maximize value before the line moves means betting them in parlays.
I stand by my analysis agreeing with the Wiz that in most cases hedges are bad bets.
I’ll give my list of exceptions….
A. Life changing money. If you have a 15 team parlay and your $1 bet will win $1,000,000 on the 15th bet. And you can lock in a win of around $480,000, for many that’s a reasonable hedge.
B. Cover plays. If you feel you need to place -EV bets so that you are not banned, or just continue to get offers, then the -EV may be worth it.
C. New Tier. If you are in need of ‘points’ to get to a higher Tier, thus better future offers, it may be worth it to make the -EV hedge bet.
D. Bragging rights. I (foolishly!) like to show son/wife/friends examples of ‘free’ money I’m getting. They bug me less if I need to take a minute to look at one of the aps.
E. And maybe TomG’s example…. If the hedge bet is in and of itself +EV, then of course make that bet!
Quote: SOOPOOTom…. If you can find ‘many’ examples where you can get -200 and +220 then more power to you. I find very few. I’ve mentioned some of them in the Sports Betting Chatter thread.
I stand by my analysis agreeing with the Wiz that in most cases hedges are bad bets.
It looks like it's happening in most of the bowl games, and a lot better than a 3% edge. In addition to UNLV and Bowling Green, still to come there is:
OK State 140 for a few days, now A & M 150
Auburn -130 now Maryland 220
Rutgers 150 now Miami 115
Ohio State 125 Missouri 130
Wyoming even money Toledo 140
Oregon State 350 Notre Dame -220
NC State 145 Kansas State -120
Georgia -600 FSU 800
Kentucky 230 Clemson -195
Iowa State -270 Memphis +310
and that's just numbers that were widely available for days. There have definitely been better. I don't believe anyone is getting all of these, but if I can get just one ahead of the moves I'll bet as much as I can, in both parlays and not in parlays, then bet the other side. I'm trying to get as close to breakeven or better, and usually I can, but even if I don't, theory and practice shows it to be correct.
And that's just Bowl season, can multiply that by 1000 when it comes to NBA injury news. In just the past few minutes could have bet the Mavs as soon as Luka was announced in, then bet against them as soon as the market reacts to the news.
Quote: TomGQuote: SOOPOOTom…. If you can find ‘many’ examples where you can get -200 and +220 then more power to you. I find very few. I’ve mentioned some of them in the Sports Betting Chatter thread.
I stand by my analysis agreeing with the Wiz that in most cases hedges are bad bets.
It looks like it's happening in most of the bowl games, and a lot better than a 3% edge. In addition to UNLV and Bowling Green, still to come there is:
OK State 140 for a few days, now A & M 150
Auburn -130 now Maryland 220
Rutgers 150 now Miami 115
Ohio State 125 Missouri 130
Wyoming even money Toledo 140
Oregon State 350 Notre Dame -220
NC State 145 Kansas State -120
Georgia -600 FSU 800
Kentucky 230 Clemson -195
Iowa State -270 Memphis +310
and that's just numbers that were widely available for days. There have definitely been better. I don't believe anyone is getting all of these, but if I can get just one ahead of the moves I'll bet as much as I can, in both parlays and not in parlays, then bet the other side. I'm trying to get as close to breakeven or better, and usually I can, but even if I don't, theory and practice shows it to be correct.
And that's just Bowl season, can multiply that by 1000 when it comes to NBA injury news. In just the past few minutes could have bet the Mavs as soon as Luka was announced in, then bet against them as soon as the market reacts to the news.
link to original post
I think your thinking is flawed. If you were lucky and got a bet in on the team that was, say, a -150 favorite, but after a change that occurred AFTER you made that bet, you can now get the team as a -250 favorite, your FIRST bet is now +EV. Yes, you can lock in a profit making a bet against your first bet. But I still contend all of my reasons to not make that hedge apply.
Now, if you can get those lines SIMULTANEOUSLY, then that is an arbitrage opportunity. If you are alert and quick enough to find them and get bets on both sides in, that’s great. I try, but rarely find them.
Quote: SOOPOOIf you were lucky and got a bet in on the team that was, say, a -150 favorite, but after a change that occurred AFTER you made that bet, you can now get the team as a -250 favorite, your FIRST bet is now +EV.
On this I might agree. For anyone who earns profits because they are lucky, never hedge. But what about for bettors who beat the line moves for reasons other than they were lucky? The first bet was always +ev and because they can always bet the other side, they can bet a lot more on that +ev bet. That's the reason the math says always hedge (or arbitrage for anyone who wants to use different jargon based on parlay bets and non-parlay bets).
Like in the UNLV example from yesterday. Betting only on the Rebels had an expected value of like 40%. But even at full Kelly, with a 72% chance of losing, expected growth is only 1.9%. Betting both Rebels and Jayhawks, like in the example I asked about earlier had an expected value of only around 5%, but because there was 0% chance of losing and the bettor could bet all the money they have, the expected growth is also around 5%.
But the example I used was maximizing the bad bets to maximize growth, we could instead maximize EV by betting a little more on one side than the other. Like comparing the same risk betting when betting only one side to betting both sides. Betting UNLV at +400 with a 28% of winning means betting 10% of all our money at full Kelly. Instead we could risk 30% of all money on UNLV early lines and a to win amount equal to 20% of all our money on Kansas on game day. It's like getting UNLV at +600, or increasing the ev from 40% to 100%.
Quote: TomGQuote: SOOPOOIf you were lucky and got a bet in on the team that was, say, a -150 favorite, but after a change that occurred AFTER you made that bet, you can now get the team as a -250 favorite, your FIRST bet is now +EV.
On this I might agree. For anyone who earns profits because they are lucky, never hedge. But what about for bettors who beat the line moves for reasons other than they were lucky?
This is a TOTALLY different issue than we are discussing. I can assure you the OP had NO KNOWLEDGE of any reason the line might move. If you somehow have information that a line might move that is not available to the books, once again, good for you! For those who cannot reasonably expect or predict a line move, hedging is not wise except in the specific examples I’ve given.
Quote: SOOPOOIf you somehow have information that a line might move that is not available to the books, once again, good for you!
It is possible to make good bets using only publicly available information. I am fairly confident that inside information and being lucky are some of the rarer reasons people are able to make good bets and profit.
For those who aren't going to make good bets, isn't hedging as equally unwise as any every other bet? The 'never hedge' theory is unnecessary.
For those who are going to make good bets, the math says it is correct, along with like at least five other examples (some specific and some broad).
