Single Bets or Parlays
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
