Quote: jsbgolfer81New to sports betting, which has better success in the long run. Single bets or parlays consisting of 2-3 legs max? Parlays would be either money line or ATS, no crazy prop bets or anything like that. Thank you.
link to original post
If you don’t have any offers (free bets/profit boosts/etc.) the books tend to have a higher house edge on parlays.
There are some ‘correlated parlays’ that might break that rule.
If you are approaching this as a professional might then parlays can allow you to get more money down and can provide profitable bets when there is a related contingency (eg a storm might hold down the score in two different games).
I've taken an interest in the parlay bets for two reasons. One, I once claimed that they aren't the same parlay as you might do at a table game, as they seem different, but I was wrong, it's the same thing ... that this is possible to imagine is one reason the sites like them I think.
The other reason for interest is that the sites increasingly will make you do parlays to take part in an offer, at least this is what I am running into. I was running bad on some offers that I was sure were +EV, though they made you do a parlay to initiate the offer. I needed to figure out the math of it and blogged about it here. BTW after getting confidence I was just having bad luck, I continued and have done very well with it ... partly due to getting smarter about best practices
the link has an excellent article imo on parlays
it shows the house edge on a 2 team parlay being 10% and a hard to believe 41.21% house edge on a 9 team parlay (Las Vegas odds)
another way to look at it - on a 2 team parlay if you bet $100 and you win your profit will be $260
assuming you have no edge you and your betting follows the pattern of 4 bets with no edge you will lose 3 times and win once for a net loss of $40
(one parlay you will lose on team A and win on team B - another parlay you will win on team A and lose on team B - on another parlay you will lose on both team A and team B - and on one parlay you will win on both team A and team B)
if instead you bet $100 4 times on one team to win (4 different bets on 4 different games)
assuming you have no edge and your bet follows the pattern of 4 bets of $100 with no edge you will win 2 and lose 2 for a net loss off only $18.20
and (generally with a couple of exceptions) the greater number of bets in the parlay the greater the house take
of course there are other ways to look at it - the point about correlated parlays, if they are allowed, is a good one
https://www.boydsbets.com/understanding-parlays/
.
Quote: lilredrooster.
the link has an excellent article imo on parlays
it shows the house edge on a 2 team parlay being 10% and a hard to believe 41.21% house edge on a 9 team parlay (Las Vegas odds)
another way to look at it - on a 2 team parlay if you bet $100 and you win your profit will be $260
assuming you have no edge you and your betting follows the pattern of 4 bets with no edge you will lose 3 times and win once for a net loss of $40
(one parlay you will lose on team A and win on team B - another parlay you will win on team A and lose on team B - on another parlay you will lose on both team A and team B - and on one parlay you will win on both team A and team B)
if instead you bet $100 4 times on one team to win (4 different bets on 4 different games)
assuming you have no edge and your bet follows the pattern of 4 bets of $100 with no edge you will win 2 and lose 2 for a net loss off only $18.20
and (generally with a couple of exceptions) the greater number of bets in the parlay the greater the house take
of course there are other ways to look at it - the point about correlated parlays, if they are allowed, is a good one
https://www.boydsbets.com/understanding-parlays/
.
link to original post
I’ve gone into this before but the 41.21% house edge on a nine team parlay is misleading. It’s an artifact caused by the fact that HE uses just the original bet as the denominator.
Odious above gets it correct, the real impact of a parlay is the disguised fact that you are betting so much more each leg that the 10% or 5% bug is multiplied by a larger bet size each leg causing the increased -EV.
Parlaying a $10 bet for nine legs means by the ninth leg you are betting $1,764. If you aren’t comfortable betting $1,764 on a game as a $10 better then you shouldn’t bet a nine leg parlay.
Note there are plenty of other reasons to dislike parlays that RE Dietz would be happy to explain to you if you can find him out there somewhere and stomach the supercilious tone in which he will deign to explain it to you.
Quote: unJonParlaying a $10 bet for nine legs means by the ninth leg you are betting $1,764. If you aren’t comfortable betting $1,764 on a game as a $10 better then you shouldn’t bet a nine leg parlay.
the real impact of the parlay is the disguised fact - etc.
I don't agree with your point because the total risk of a 9 team parlay at $10.00 is $10.00
the total risk of what you are posting is $1,764 after you have your 8 wins in a row
you are stating that it is actually 9 bets - I see it as just one bet
generally, bettors do not increase individual bets after a series of wins by such a great amount
also, this type of parlay can be used for 9 games going off at approximately the same time which is how it is often done
the type of betting you're referring to cannot be done that way
I also don't agree that there is any kind of disguising of the HE - anybody with just the tiniest bit of common sense can google this or figure it out for themselves
only the very greenest newbie would believe that parlays are actually a very good deal
what happens in parlays is the potentially large payouts influences player to allow themselves WILLINGLY AND KNOWINGLY to be suckered
the type of player who bets a 9 team $10 parlay (most of them anyway) would never in their lives risk $1764 on one bet and don't believe they are doing that, and they are correct - they are not doing it
and lastly the player who bets $1764 on the 9th leg of his parlay done by himself will win $1605 if he wins it and he now will have a total of $3369
the player who wins a 9 teamer $10 parlay thru the books will get paid 300/1 and will now have a total of only $3010
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: unJonParlaying a $10 bet for nine legs means by the ninth leg you are betting $1,764. If you aren’t comfortable betting $1,764 on a game as a $10 better then you shouldn’t bet a nine leg parlay.
the real impact of the parlay is the disguised fact - etc.
I don't agree with your point because the total risk of a 9 team parlay at $10.00 is $10.00
the total risk of what you are posting is $1,764 after you have your 8 wins in a row
you are stating that it is actually 9 bets - I see it as just one bet
generally, bettors do not increase individual bets after a series of wins by such a great amount
also, this type of parlay can be used for 9 games going off at approximately the same time which is how it is often done
the type of betting you're referring to cannot be done that way
I also don't agree that there is any kind of disguising of the HE - anybody with just the tiniest bit of common sense can google this or figure it out for themselves
only the very greenest newbie would believe that parlays are actually a very good deal
what happens in parlays is the potentially large payouts influences player to allow themselves WILLINGLY AND KNOWINGLY to be suckered
the type of player who bets a 9 team $10 parlay (most of them anyway) would never in their lives risk $1764 on one bet and don't believe they are doing that, and they are correct - they are not doing it
and lastly the player who bets $1764 on the 9th leg of his parlay done by himself will win $1605 if he wins it and he now will have a total of $3369
the player who wins a 9 teamer $10 parlay thru the books will get paid 300/1 and will now have a total of only $3010
.
link to original post
Nowhere did I say a parlay is a good bet.
A parlay is identical to manually parlaying the wins except you are correct that the payouts are shorter.
House edge is a misleading way to think of a parlay because of it being identical to raising your bet each leg.
These are mathematical facts. That you disagree with them does not change that.
The fact that a $10 better would never want to wager $1,700 is the reason that better shouldn’t bet a 9 leg parlay.
Stick with a three leg parlay which actually has a smaller house edge than manually parlaying three legs. Run the numbers.
what you're saying is true if you truly believe that a parlay is really, 3, 4 or 9 or however many bets
I cannot think of it that way
to me a parlay is just one bet - it involves several different games because of the type of bet it is - meant to attract players to largish payouts
that doesn't change the fact that it is just one bet
investopedia defines a parlay as such which I agree with - "two or more bets and combines them into ONE wager"
how many bettors would do a 4 team parlay and then go and tell their buddies they just made 4 bets - my guess would be about ZERO
anyway, I think we only disagree about the nomenclature - not anything else
I believe the proper way to compare a parlay to a straight wager on just one game is to calculate what % you lose if all of the parlay's possibilities occur in accordance with probability
and then compare that to the expected loss if you bet the same amount on single games - i.e. - the expected negative return on a $100 parlay versus the expected negative return on a $100 wager on a single game - assuming random bets from the players
and there is a very large difference
the risk is exactly the same - each bettor risked $100 - the player who bet a parlay didn't risk any more than that because he never had any more than that in his hand - he only risked losing more often - and that is not the same thing as actually risking more money
https://www.investopedia.com/parlay-bet-5217711#:~:text=In%20sports%20betting%2C%20a%20parlay,smaller%20bets%20loses%20the%20parlay.
.
What is the payout for the wager? That versus the chances of success are what would matter.
but it is also true that if each edge is +EV then the total magnitude of the EV increases and for the same reason. Learned this from a Wong book. But you don't want to be on the road to thinking you are increasing player edge with parlays
Quote: odiousgambitit occurred to me that I too had been saying the HE increases snip snip
the house edge ABSOLUTELY does increase in a parlay if you consider it to be just one bet as I do and believe it to be the best way to consider it
if you consider it to be several bets as UnJon does than sometimes it increases by a small amount, sometimes it may decrease slightly, but mostly it stays about the same
re the ACTUAL dollars risked in the long run - the bettor making only straight wagers will lose much less assuming both are betting randomly
I cannot consider a bettor making a 4 team $10 parlay as having risked more than $10 - again, he only risked losing more often - and that is not the same thing
.
I see what you mean [easily because I had seen it that way too] and perhaps the article you refer to looks at it that way tooQuote: lilredroosterQuote: odiousgambitit occurred to me that I too had been saying the HE increases snip snip
the house edge ABSOLUTELY does increase in a parlay if you consider it to be just one bet as I do and believe it to be the best way to consider it
??Quote:if you consider it to be several bets as UnJon does than sometimes it increases by a small amount, sometimes it may decrease slightly, but mostly it stays about the same
or win much less if the bets are +EV each leg [with increased risk]Quote:re the ACTUAL dollars risked in the long run - the bettor making only straight wagers will lose much less assuming both are betting randomly
you may have to take it up with the Wizard, as we both know how he feels about a system changing the HEQuote:I cannot consider a bettor making a 4 team $10 parlay as having risked more than $10 - again, he only risked losing more often - and that is not the same thing
.
link to original post
(a) How, exactly, do you calculate the HE of a sports bet? A spread bet, I assume that there will be equal money on both sides, so for every 22 bet between the two sides, the house wins 11 and loses 10, so the HE is 4.545%, but how is it calculated on a money line - is it also, assume both sides have the same amount bet on it, or perhaps the bets are in a ratio where the house's profit is the same regardless of the result?
For example, in the Army-Navy game, the money line is Army -270, Navy +220
Let a be the amount bet on Army, and n the amount bet on Navy
If the house profit is the same:
a - 12/5 n = n - 10/27 a
37/27 a = 17/5 n
185 a = 459 n
Assume 459 is bet on Army, and 185 is bet on Navy
Check: profit if Navy wins = 459 - 12 x 37 = 15; profit if Army wins = 185 - 459 x 10/27 = 15
Would the HE be 15 / (185 + 459) = 2.3292% ?
(b) Does the parlay pay true odds, or even true odds on 10/11 of your bet (e.g. if you bet 110 on a 2-team parlay, one of which is +100 and other +200, you get paid 600)? For example, most "parlay cards" that pay a fixed value for a certain number of games against the spread do not come close.
*in the former, your only action is to make the one bet, then an almost black box mechanism takes over [almost]
*in the latter, you perhaps would lose the first bet and stop and start over doing a smaller leg parlay ... or maybe keep a profit on the first leg and bet the rest. In other words, you have elements of control ... you very clearly are totally involved in all steps
*site-hosted parlays can use bets that happen close together or simultaneously, difficult or impossible in 'do-it-yourself'
*most of all, do-it-yourself parlays do not carry that sense of the HE/PA changing
nonetheless, the process is very clearly just re-betting full amounts each leg ... the HE or PA is not affected by either way of doing a parlay ... you know the Wizard would agree
I may be able to look at this later. It's a "check someone else's math scenario" ... which I have found to often bring cricketsQuote: ThatDonGuyI think the answer comes down to two things:
(a) How, exactly, do you calculate the HE of a sports bet? A spread bet, I assume that there will be equal money on both sides, so for every 22 bet between the two sides, the house wins 11 and loses 10, so the HE is 4.545%, but how is it calculated on a money line - is it also, assume both sides have the same amount bet on it, or perhaps the bets are in a ratio where the house's profit is the same regardless of the result?
For example, in the Army-Navy game, the money line is Army -270, Navy +220
Let a be the amount bet on Army, and n the amount bet on Navy
If the house profit is the same:
a - 12/5 n = n - 10/27 a
37/27 a = 17/5 n
185 a = 459 n
Assume 459 is bet on Army, and 185 is bet on Navy
Check: profit if Navy wins = 459 - 12 x 37 = 15; profit if Army wins = 185 - 459 x 10/27 = 15
Would the HE be 15 / (185 + 459) = 2.3292% ?
I have heard of this 'fixed value' business with parlay cards. The site-hosted parlays do not do 'fixed value', from what I have found, assuming I understand what the card ones areQuote:(b) Does the parlay pay true odds, or even true odds on 10/11 of your bet (e.g. if you bet 110 on a 2-team parlay, one of which is +100 and other +200, you get paid 600)? For example, most "parlay cards" that pay a fixed value for a certain number of games against the spread do not come close.
link to original post
Quote: MDawgI don't know much about sports betting, but if someone is say playing Baccarat with no advantage and a slightly over one percent HE on a single Bank bet, if the wager is that he will win say three Banks in a row sure the odds that he will win three Banks in a row are lower than that he will one but the house edge doesn't change.
What is the payout for the wager? That versus the chances of success are what would matter.
link to original post
It’s a little complicated to make a one bet parlay on banker because of the commission. Easier on player where is you make the 3-leg Player parlay bet for $10, if the next three hands are Player wins then you win $70 (and of course keep your $10 bet). If any Banker comes in the next three hands, you lose the $10. Pushes would be ignored for purposes of the bet.
So the bet is functionally the same as adding the winnings to the bet and increasing it (a parlay) for three hands.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: odiousgambitit occurred to me that I too had been saying the HE increases snip snip
the house edge ABSOLUTELY does increase in a parlay if you consider it to be just one bet as I do and believe it to be the best way to consider it
if you consider it to be several bets as UnJon does than sometimes it increases by a small amount, sometimes it may decrease slightly, but mostly it stays about the same
re the ACTUAL dollars risked in the long run - the bettor making only straight wagers will lose much less assuming both are betting randomly
I cannot consider a bettor making a 4 team $10 parlay as having risked more than $10 - again, he only risked losing more often - and that is not the same thing
.
link to original post
It is nomenclature. I do think it leads people to think about the comparison between a straight bet and a parlay incorrectly. But I think the way you view it is fine.
ETA: lilrooster, if I manually parlayed 3 straight bets. Starting with $10, no matter how it plays out (lose first game, win first but lose second, win first two and lose third) would you still say I only had $10 at risk? I think most people wouldn’t say that and would scoff at someone thinking it’s only $10 because the first and second win means “playing with house money.”
Quote: unJonETA: lilrooster, if I manually parlayed 3 straight bets. Starting with $10, no matter how it plays out (lose first game, win first but lose second, win first two and lose third) would you still say I only had $10 at risk? I think most people wouldn’t say that and would scoff at someone thinking it’s only $10 because the first and second win means “playing with house money.”]
I don't consider that to be the same thing because in your example you had the money in your hand
you had control to do what you want
once you give your 4 team $10 parlay to the sports book the funds are out of your hands
you don't have control
you can't lose more than $10
only 2 things can happen - you lose your original $10 or you win the parlay for $150 (if all the bets were even money money line bets)
for example - what if if you won the first 3 legs of the parlay but lost the 4th in your $10 parlay (for example purposes all were money line bets of even money)
would you tell someone you won $60 but then lost $70____________?
of course not - the proper way to describe your experience is that you lost $10
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: unJonETA: lilrooster, if I manually parlayed 3 straight bets. Starting with $10, no matter how it plays out (lose first game, win first but lose second, win first two and lose third) would you still say I only had $10 at risk? I think most people wouldn’t say that and would scoff at someone thinking it’s only $10 because the first and second win means “playing with house money.”]
I don't consider that to be the same thing because in your example you had the money in your hand
you had control to do what you want
once you give your 4 team $10 parlay to the sports book the funds are out of your hands
you don't have control
you can't lose more than $10
for example - what if if you won the first 3 legs of the parlay but lost the 4th in your $10 parlay (for example purposes all were money line bet of even money)
would you tell someone you won $60 but then lost $70____________?
of course not - the proper way to describe your experience is that you lost $10
.
link to original post
It’s an interesting question. If the games aren’t at the same time, I could in theory hedge after the first three games and lock in profit. So I don’t know that it’s right in that circumstance to say I lost $10. I mean it’s technically right in one sense. But I also passed up a lucrative opportunity to lock in a nice profit with a hedge. To me that’s the same as money in hand so I would feel like I lost more than $10.
That’s at least how my brain analyzes it.
if you lock in your profit with a hedge you've made another bet which does nothing but make the whole scenario more complicated
we're no long really discussing the advantages or disadvantages of a 4 team parlay
if you were going to do that you would have been better off just making a 3 team parlay - then you wouldn't pay the vig on the hedge bet
my bottom line - ten thousand $100 straight wagers versus ten thousand $100 4 team parlays
assuming random betting by both players the guy making ten thousand $100 straight wagers will lose much, much less than the guy making ten thousand $100 4 team parlays - almost all of the time
.
Quote: lilredrooster.
if you lock in your profit with a hedge you've made another bet which does nothing but make the whole scenario more complicated
we're no long really discussing the advantages or disadvantages of a 4 team parlay
if you were going to do that you would have been better off just making a 3 team parlay - then you wouldn't pay the vig on the hedge bet
.
link to original post
I agree. It’s another reason not to make parlays.
But if you do make the 4 leg parlay bet, you aren’t “stuck” in it for all time. Many sites give an early cash out option depending on how the games are going. And you can choose to hedge.
So I’m just saying that’s why I don’t think of a parlay as always capped at $10 risk. Because I do think of that fourth leg, if I get there, as about $70 at risk, which in theory I could cash out before the fourth leg.
Just explaining how I think about it. And, IMO, it’s a cleaner way to analyze the situation. The conclusion isn’t different.
You say a parlay is bad because the HE is high.
I say a parlay is bad because a $10 better is unwittingly wagering much more than $10 without realizing it.
Quote: unJonI say a parlay is bad because a $10 better is unwittingly wagering much more than $10 without realizing it.
I think we've about exhausted this
I believe the crux of your point of view is that when the player wagers $10 on a 4 team parlay he is really wagering much more because he might win some or all of his bets
so, it's not fair to compare it to a $10 straight wager - it's not accurate to say that they are comparable
I don't agree but I get where you're coming from
.
Quote: odiousgambitI may be able to look at this later. It's a "check someone else's math scenario" ... which I have found to often bring cricketsQuote: ThatDonGuyI think the answer comes down to two things:
(a) How, exactly, do you calculate the HE of a sports bet?
{ lots of math removed - read the OP if you want details }
Would the HE be 15 / (185 + 459) = 2.3292% ?
The math looks right to me; the question is, is this what is meant by a money line bet's HE?
Quote: odiousgambitI have heard of this 'fixed value' business with parlay cards. The site-hosted parlays do not do 'fixed value', from what I have found, assuming I understand what the card ones areQuote: ThatDonGuy(b) Does the parlay pay true odds, or even true odds on 10/11 of your bet (e.g. if you bet 110 on a 2-team parlay, one of which is +100 and other +200, you get paid 600)? For example, most "parlay cards" that pay a fixed value for a certain number of games against the spread do not come close.
link to original post
link to original post
I think you understand how the cards work. There is a list of games with point spreads; you pick a certain number, and if they all win, you get a specified return - William Hill pays 6-1 for 3 games, 11-1 for 4, 22-1 for 5, and so on, up to 720-1 for 10.
Obviously, betting a card instead of individual bets is a Bad Thing. Betting a true odds parlay instead of individual bets is another question.
well, I can answer that I think. A moneyline bet is binary, and the oddsmaker sets the lines so that it pays short of fair odds no matter which side of the bet you take. You have to deduce what you think the oddsmaker thought fair odds would be. Of course there are calculators to use, I recently used https://www.oddschecker.com/us/ which will tell you the theoretical 'vig' when you set values. It can also tell you quickly how a parlay should pay. I hope I answered your questionQuote: ThatDonGuyQuote: odiousgambitI may be able to look at this later. It's a "check someone else's math scenario" ... which I have found to often bring cricketsQuote: ThatDonGuyI think the answer comes down to two things:
(a) How, exactly, do you calculate the HE of a sports bet?
{ lots of math removed - read the OP if you want details }
Would the HE be 15 / (185 + 459) = 2.3292% ?
The math looks right to me; the question is, is this what is meant by a money line bet's HE?
I have never come across a *regular* site-offered parlay that didn't pay fair vis a vis the legs of the bet. However, same game parlays will fudge and they don't tell you how they arrive at the payoff. They are allowed to do this due to correlating factors that will exist in the same game. I stay away from same game parlays unless an offer makes them necessary to tolerate.Quote:Obviously, betting a card instead of individual bets is a Bad Thing. Betting a true odds parlay instead of individual bets is another question.
link to original post
Apparently not - it appears to be equivalent to trying to find the overall HE on craps by combining all of the individual bets somehow.Quote: ThatDonGuy
The math looks right to me; the question is, is this what is meant by a money line bet's HE?
What I need is a value where a bet on one team has the same HE as a bet on the other.
Here's a method that matches what comes up on the Wizard's Sports Straight Bet calculator:
Again, use the example of Army -270, Navy +220
The assumed probability of an Army win is 27/37, since you are betting 27 against the house's 10, and of a Navy win is 10/32, or 5/16.
Taking the ratios of the two, you get:
P(Army win) = (27/37) / (27/37 + 5/16) = 432 / 617
P(Navy win) = (5/16) / (5/16 + 27/37) = 185 / 617
HE on an Army bet = (value of an Army loss - value of an Army win) / amount bet; if 270 is bet on Army, this is (270 x 185/617 - 100 x 432/617) / 270 = 4.0519%
HE on a Navy bet = (value of a Navy loss - value of a Navy win) / amount bet; if 100 is bet on Navy, this is (100 x 432/617 - 220 x 185/617) / 100 = also 4.0519%
my initial reaction to that is 'you gotta be kidding" ... but as I read the rest of this it seems you don't mean that [emphasis mine]Quote: SandybestdogI’ve seen several books having promos of up to 50% boosts based on the number of legs or where you get a refund if one leg loses. These were promos that lasted weeks at a time so I examined it because there was a chance to get a lot of bets down. Even if it’s say 8 legs it wouldn’t be too difficult to just bet all the different combination to guarantee a winner.
Quote:It was just amazing how much the house edge compounds on these. Even with a 50 % boost it doesn’t come anywhere close to becoming profitable.
link to original post
If you do enough legs you can get a 100% boost ... I'm confident this is for suckers but I've dismissed it without truly checking it out
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: unJonI say a parlay is bad because a $10 better is unwittingly wagering much more than $10 without realizing it.
I think we've about exhausted this
I believe the crux of your point of view is that when the player wagers $10 on a 4 team parlay he is really wagering much more because he might win some or all of his bets
so, it's not fair to compare it to a $10 straight wager - it's not accurate to say that they are comparable
I don't agree but I get where you're coming from
.
link to original post
Sorry lilrooster, not to revive this at all, but thought of something you might be interested in. My “issue” with using house edge for parlays to compare them with straight bets disappears if instead you just use -EV for the comparison.
I find using EV to compare bets (like straight bets and parlays) is always apples to apples in a way that house edge isn’t.
Anyway, will just leave that for you in case interesting to you.
one last thought - ( I promise_______(-:/______) if I understand you correctly I believe you are stating that when a player bets a 3 team parlay for $10 he is actually betting much more than $10 - correct______?
so how much is he betting______?
I guess you would say if he loses his first bet he only bet $10
and if he loses his 2nd bet he only bet $30
it's only when he wins his first 2 bets that he then bets $40 for a total of $70
so for the purpose of calculating EV how can you say how much he actually is betting___________?
.
Quote: lilredrooster.
one last thought - ( I promise_______(-:/______) if I understand you correctly I believe you are stating that when a player bets a 3 team parlay for $10 he is actually betting much more than $10 - correct______?
so how much is he betting______?
I guess you would say if he loses his first bet he only bet $10
and if he loses his 2nd bet he only bet $30
it's only when he wins his first 2 bets that he then bets $40 for a total of $70
so for the purpose of calculating EV how can you say how much he actually is betting___________?
.
link to original post
That’s the beauty of EV. Don’t need to know that. But see end of this post if interested in how I think about it.
EV of a 3 leg parlay that pays 6:1. 7/8 of the time you lose $10 and 1/8 of the time you win $60.
$60 * 1/8 - $10 * 7/8 =$-1.25
So every $10 3-leg parlay I make I expect to lose $1.25.
So the average handle is 1/2 * $10 + 1/4 * $29.09 + 1/4 * $65.54 =$28.66.
So I would say a $10 3-leg parlay is size equivalent to making a $28.66 straight bet to make house edge apples to apples.
Not coincidentally the EV of making a $28.66 straight bet is $-1.30.
That’s just slightly worse than the $-1.25 EV of making the $10 parlay. About same but as you may know a 3-leg parlay that pays 6:1 pays slightly better than “true odds”, which is why the EV is slightly better.
here is one more possible way to look at it - if all possibilities happen one time in a $10 parlay
lose first bet - lose $10
win first bet and lose 2nd - you have now bet a total of $30
win first 2 bets and lose 3rd - you have now bet a total of $70
win all 3 bets - you have now bet a total of $140
.
you have bet a total of $140 and your profit on your winning bet is $60
you have $70 of total losses for a net loss of $10 in the long run
betting $140 on a straight bet would cause a loss of about $12.60 - in the long run
so, after doing all of this your point seems more clear and more valid
I'm officially done now__________________(-:/
.
I now pretty much accept the points you are making
just one final thought
since the player will naturally lose much more often playing parlays the frustration factor (which is not really something that can be calculated) will often imo be something he has to deal with
.
Quote: lilredrooster.
I now pretty much accept the points you are making
just one final thought
since the player will naturally lose much more often playing parlays the frustration factor (which is not really something that can be calculated) will often imo be something he has to deal with
.
link to original post
Agree that! And happy to have this conversation concluded amicably. I always enjoy your posts.
-parlays have two major advantages: higher expected value and helping accounts last much longer
-singles can have higher expected growth and much more viable charting; parlays can wreck havoc on risk management at the highest levels.
-parlays are a lot slower, so I'm not messing around with them on a busy Saturday
-except for the places that close overnight and haven't fixed the lines when they open at 6:00 or 7:00. I'll put everything into a round robin parlay
-lots of great stuff still out there in the same game parlay world, which obviously can only be parlays
-a lot of the easiest markets like futures and props can't even be put into parlays.
-like most things in sports betting a lot of the time it's just taking what the sportsbooks give us. In Las Vegas Wynn is very quick to cut parlay limits to zero, in which case we can't bet them there at all; at Stations or MGM, parlays are often the only way to get down more than $100 on a bet, so they are much better.
-if it's betting randomly or with a negative expectation, the correct answer is to not bet at all, so in that case they are exactly equal.
Why is this not something to be seriously looked at? If a particular promo was positive on an 8 leg parlay that means you just make 64 different bets and one would win. I saw 2 different books offering such promos. These were at the kiosk. I don’t remember the exact promo but I think one was a 50% boost for 8 legs. The other was a 100% boost for 15 legs. Anyways I did some quick calculations (I’m not really a math guy) but found this was nowhere near profitable. But it was worth taking a quick look at. But basically it showed me just how crazy the house edge compounds against you on parlays. It’s like drinking from a fire hydrant.Quote: odiousgambitmy initial reaction to that is 'you gotta be kidding" ... but as I read the rest of this it seems you don't mean that [emphasis mine]Quote: SandybestdogI’ve seen several books having promos of up to 50% boosts based on the number of legs or where you get a refund if one leg loses. These were promos that lasted weeks at a time so I examined it because there was a chance to get a lot of bets down. Even if it’s say 8 legs it wouldn’t be too difficult to just bet all the different combination to guarantee a winner.
Quote:It was just amazing how much the house edge compounds on these. Even with a 50 % boost it doesn’t come anywhere close to becoming profitable.
link to original post
If you do enough legs you can get a 100% boost ... I'm confident this is for suckers but I've dismissed it without truly checking it out
link to original post
So if I do find something better I’ll be sure not to mention it to you as you’ll dismiss it anyways.
Quote: SandybestdogWhy is this not something to be seriously looked at? If a particular promo was positive on an 8 leg parlay that means you just make 64 different bets and one would win. I saw 2 different books offering such promos. These were at the kiosk. I don’t remember the exact promo but I think one was a 50% boost for 8 legs. The other was a 100% boost for 15 legs. Anyways I did some quick calculations (I’m not really a math guy) but found this was nowhere near profitable. But it was worth taking a quick look at. But basically it showed me just how crazy the house edge compounds against you on parlays. It’s like drinking from a fire hydrant.Quote: odiousgambitmy initial reaction to that is 'you gotta be kidding" ... but as I read the rest of this it seems you don't mean that [emphasis mine]Quote: SandybestdogI’ve seen several books having promos of up to 50% boosts based on the number of legs or where you get a refund if one leg loses. These were promos that lasted weeks at a time so I examined it because there was a chance to get a lot of bets down. Even if it’s say 8 legs it wouldn’t be too difficult to just bet all the different combination to guarantee a winner.
Quote:It was just amazing how much the house edge compounds on these. Even with a 50 % boost it doesn’t come anywhere close to becoming profitable.
link to original post
If you do enough legs you can get a 100% boost ... I'm confident this is for suckers but I've dismissed it without truly checking it out
link to original post
So if I do find something better I’ll be sure not to mention it to you as you’ll dismiss it anyways.
link to original post
256 bets not 64. 2^8
thank you.Quote: unJon
256 bets not 64. 2^8
link to original post
and apologies, SandyBD, for being blunt, but it did seem you were coming to the same conclusion, after all. You're right, it was worth a look
Agree with UnJon that I mostly just look at them from an ‘EV’ perspective. But I do willingly give back some +EV by hedging occasionally. If I have an 8 legger for $10 (on favorites) that will pay $200 and 7 have hit I will bet some $$ on the 8th underdog to guarantee a win of some sort. Good for me psychologically, and also good for me to give someone that -EV bet.
they changed on me quickly, I think it's unlikely they studied my betting, more likely something else. Unless they are using AI and can thus spot gambling patterns very quickly . Eventually AI will cause the end of +EV gamblers online , I predict
Quote: odiousgambitEventually AI will cause the end of +EV gamblers online , I predict
Do you mean by being able to backoff all winning bettors? Or setting odds that never have an edge to the player? Neither is ever going to happen in our lifetimes. It does bring up an interesting paradox: if the sportsbooks ever thought they did stop everyone from winning, we could all go out and earn millions off them.
I think AI could be used to identify players who are taking the right steps to benefit from the offers they put out. As it is now, I get the feeling only a few people employed at any particular place know what to look for. The site I've been hitting hard lately seems to be thrilled with me, tossing me some bonus bet money out of the blue 'cuz I seem like their kind of guy. That says they looked at me either with someone who doesn't know what to look for, or it's a computer program that doesn't know either.Quote: TomGQuote: odiousgambitEventually AI will cause the end of +EV gamblers online , I predict
Do you mean by being able to backoff all winning bettors? Or setting odds that never have an edge to the player? Neither is ever going to happen in our lifetimes.
Naturally it's very tedious to try to look at everybody with the best people doing it. With AI, they could look at everybody.
Care to elaborate on that?Quote:It does bring up an interesting paradox: if the sportsbooks ever thought they did stop everyone from winning, we could all go out and earn millions off them.
link to original post
Quote: odiousgambit
Eventually AI will cause the end of +EV gamblers online , I predict
link to original post
I agree.
I don't know about the US, but in many places in Europe and the CIS countries accounts are blocked fairly quickly, regardless of the predominant tactics of the adv gamblers.
Quote: odiousgambitThe site I've been hitting hard lately seems to be thrilled with me, tossing me some bonus bet money out of the blue 'cuz I seem like their kind of guy. That says they looked at me either with someone who doesn't know what to look for, or it's a computer program that doesn't know either.
It is a computer program. I have developed many that the casinos use. They tend to be very simplistic because the data they can collect is very basic.
Quote: odiousgambitI think AI could be used to identify players who are taking the right steps to benefit from the offers they put out.
identifying winning bettors does not mean they must be backed off. It could also mean using their information to make a better market price so that both the bettor and bookmaker can earn off the bets.
Quote: odiousgambitAs it is now, I get the feeling only a few people employed at any particular place know what to look for.
if they use AI without recruiting, training, and paying for quality people they will remain vulnerable. If they use AI to reduce human intervention, they become even more vulnerable.
Quote: odiousgambitThe site I've been hitting hard lately seems to be thrilled with me, tossing me some bonus bet money out of the blue 'cuz I seem like their kind of guy. That says they looked at me either with someone who doesn't know what to look for, or it's a computer program that doesn't know either.
the fact that we are able to hit these places hard shows how far away they are.
Quote: odiousgambitNaturally it's very tedious to try to look at everybody with the best people doing it. With AI, they could look at everybody.
they could backoff all winners today if they wanted to. The problem is that lots of losers would also get caught up and it would hurt profits overall. If they don't want to take bets, they shouldn't be operating a sportsbook.
Quote: odiousgambitCare to elaborate on that?Quote:It does bring up an interesting paradox: if the sportsbooks ever thought they did stop everyone from winning, we could all go out and earn millions off them.
-if they think no one can win against the odds they are offering, they will take any bet and not change the odds with new information and it will be very easy for bettors to win and win a lot
-if they backoff all winning bettors, the only money going into the market will be from losing bettors. I'll just sit in the retail sportsbook all day betting as much as I can against an inefficient market. . .
Quote: odiousgambitBetrivers I hardly even check now offers are so lame
they changed on me quickly, I think it's unlikely they studied my betting, more likely something else. Unless they are using AI and can thus spot gambling patterns very quickly . Eventually AI will cause the end of +EV gamblers online , I predict
link to original post
I am not sure AI will ever get that good. At the moment the main danger from AI is to clueless bookmakers using it incorrectly.
If AI does ever get that good then it still has to establish with a reasonable degree of confidence a gambler is an AP. Their are approaches which make that impossible. They tend to be a lot of work so few go to those extremes currently.