[Ganchrow]

Parlays are sucker bets....period.

With all due respect to the poster, that statement is 100% incorrect. While it is indeed true that an unadvantaged gambler will on average lose more quickly betting parlays, for the value bettor, parlays can be an extremely valuable tool.

First let's look at a non-advantage bettor betting at a -110 style shop paying 13/5 on 2-team parlays and 6/1 on 3-team parlays (fair parlays odds at a -110 shop are actually about 13.223/5 and 5.958/1 respectively -- but 13/5 and 6/1 are still pretty close). If the bettor's picks are no better than a coin flip then betting two or three teams straight, we of course know his expected profit or loss ("P&L") to be -4.545%. But what if instead the bettor bets a two team parlay? Well, (assuming that all bets are independent) we know his chances of winning the 2-team parlay are 25% (50% x 50%) and his chances of winning the 3-team parlay are 12.5% (50% x 50% x 50%). Which means his expected P&L on the 2-team:

= 25% x 13/5 - 75% x 1
= -10%

And his expected P&L on the 3-team

= 12.5% x 6 - 87.5% x 1
= -12.5%

Now that's pretty bad. Betting a 2-team parlay, the unadvantaged bettor lowers his expected P&L from -4.545% to -10%, and betting a 3-team parlay he lowers his P&L further down to -12.5%.

OK, so that about sums it up for your 50/50 bettor. Parlaying (independent) coin flip bets is always a bad idea from a pure expected P&L perspective (although for a risk-lover it could be a very good idea). But what about for the advantage bettor, say a bettor who is able to pick 55% winners? The expected P&L for the 55% bettor:

= 55% x 100/110 + 45% x -110/110
= 5%

And for a 2-team parlay (of independent bets):

= 55% x 55% x 13/5 + (1 - 55% x 55%) x -1
= 8.9%

And for the a 3-team parlay (independent):

= 55% x 55% x 55% x 6 + (1 - 55% x 55% x 55%) x -1
= 16.463%

So that’s pretty dramatic. For a bettor able to consistently pick 55% winners, he can do much better on average (EV-wise) betting 2-team parlays than straight bets and better still on 3-team parlays (And it gets even better the more teams one parlays -- assuming that the book pays true parlay odds. Note however, that a book offering a 4-team parlay at just a 10/1 payout is not offering true parlay odds. True parlay odds for a 4-teamer at a -110 book are about 12.283/1.)

The downside of betting parlays, however, is that one drastically increases one’s risk, which in turn is detrimental to the long-term growth of one's bankroll To illustrate using an extreme example you'll note that while betting a 25-team parlay at a -110 book paying the fair parlay odds of 10,487,336/1 will yield the 55% bettor an expected P&L of a whopping +238.64%, one mustn't neglect the fact that such an outcome only occurs about 0.0000323% of the time. Now that’s not what I’d call a particularly likely occurrence. Not a good bet for the sufficiently risk-averse investor.

Now you may have noticed that I keep emphasizing that the parlayed bets need to be independent for the above to hold true. Well, what happens if the bets aren’t independent (i.e., correlated)? Well the answer is actually that betting correlated parlays will further increase expected P&L for both advantage bettors and (depending upon the degree of correlation) could even transform a parlay into a positive expectation bet for a nonadvantage bettor.

[wehitandrun]

Parlays are the way to go.

[picantel]

I love the 3 team parlays at 6-1. I also love teasing the points up to around 10 which I think gives me like 2.5-1 or something like that. If you find the line that turns up ridiculous with 10 points added I can usually turn it into a winner.

[raiders72001]

I posted this at another thread here which agrees with Ganchrow.

Parlays can be good bets if you are good but if you are cold they'll beat you up bad. I'll use an example of a two team parlay having 55% winners and 45% winners at 13/5 for 100 games at $100/game.

Win 55% of each individual game.
You will win (55/100) * (55/100) = 30% winning parlays and 70% losers.

Win 30 * 2.6 = $7800
Lose 70 * 1 = $7000
Profit = $7800 - $7000 = $800

-------------------------

Now if you win 45%
(45/100) * (45/100) = 20% winning parlays and 80% losers
Win 20 * 2.6 = $5200
Lose 80 * 1 = $8000
Loss = $2800

[bigboydan]

Parlays can be good bets if you are good but if you are cold they'll beat you up bad.

that perty much sums it up raiders but, let me ask you this. if you were a bookmaker and, lets say 75% of your customers are squares and 25% of your costumers were sharps and, they were all playing parlys on a daily basis. wouldn't you look at it as a suckers bet from that point of view ?

[raiders72001]

Dan- I do look at it as a sucker bet because it's much too risky for me to chance. The only time I use it is if a book allows correlated parlays or gives you true odds of 7-1.

[smoothsuave]

I currently use Betcris for parlays, What is the bestbook for parlays

[Ganchrow]

that perty much sums it up raiders but, let me ask you this. if you were a bookmaker and, lets say 75% of your customers are squares and 25% of your costumers were sharps and, they were all playing parlys on a daily basis. wouldn't you look at it as a suckers bet from that point of view ?

Yeah, but this isn't a site for bookmakers. It's a site for players. And from a player's perspective, it belies a comprehensive understanding of sports betting to say that parlays are strictly a sucker bet. It's simply a false statement.

[raiders72001]

BCN and BHB use to give 7-1 on three teamers. I don't know of anyone giving true odds anymore.

[Ganchrow]

I currently use Betcris for parlays, What is the bestbook for parlays

I know that LessJuice offers 14/5 on 2-teamers and 6.5/1 on 3-teamers.

And Loose Lines offers true parlay odds (up to 8 ways) on its -108 (pro) and -105 (college) lines. That's 13.55/5 or 14.05/1 on 2-teamers and 6.14/1 and 6.44/1 on 3-teamers.

[bigboydan]

Yeah, but this isn't a site bookmakers. It's a site for players. And from a player's perspective.

point well taken, carry one sir

[picantel]

I love parleys so much I played one for fun.

NY GIANTS/WASHINGTON Under u56½
CINCINNATI +4
DETROIT/CHICAGO Under u46
HOUSTON TEXANS/CLEVELAND Under u51½
PHILADELPHIA +17½
VIRGINIA TECH +1
MICHIGAN STATE -4
WISCONSIN -6
WAKE FOREST pk
AUBURN -6

[Ganchrow]

I love parleys so much I played one for fun.

NY GIANTS/WASHINGTON Under u56½
CINCINNATI +4
DETROIT/CHICAGO Under u46
HOUSTON TEXANS/CLEVELAND Under u51½
PHILADELPHIA +17½
VIRGINIA TECH +1
MICHIGAN STATE -4
WISCONSIN -6
WAKE FOREST pk
AUBURN -6

Out of curiosity, what sort odds did you get?

[picantel]

it was a 14 pt 10 team monster parley I think. odds are 2.75-1

[Max Levine]

I play a lot of round-robins (including Lucky 15, Yankee, etc.). I still play a few straight parlays but mainly teasers. When I do play a parlay, I usually pick my last game to be played on a different day or late at night. It gives me an opportunity for hedging, if need be.

Max

[BuddyBear]

Ganchrow for new fed chair!

[jjgold]

If you can get a good number on the games you bet in the parlays they are decent bets only up to 3 teams.

[Ganchrow]

the odds are better the higher teh parlay.

Whether you truly believe this or not is rather irrelevant. But lest anyone else take you at your word on this, the following chart relates typical Vegas fixed parlay odds to the house edge:

# of teams	payout	house edge
1		10/11	 4.55%
2		 13/5	10.00%
3		  6/1	12.50%
4		 10/1	31.25%
5		 20/1	34.38%
6		 40/1	35.94%
7		 75/1	40.63%
8		150/1	41.02%
9		300/1	41.21%
10		700/1	31.54%

[Max Levine]

Ganchrow, go on with the correlated parlays. This is very interesting.

Max

[marc]

The only times parlays make sense to me are

1) using a free play
2) Getting better odds by betting the parlay then by straight bet.
3) small bank roll

IF you have a large enough bank roll, and you are not getting improved odds, it doesn't make sense to bet parlays no matter how sharp your are.

When you are betting parlays what you are essentially doing is saying if I win my first wager, then I'm going to double down on my next wager, and if I win that wager, I'm going to double down again. That type of betting system goes against good money management philosophy.

[onlooker]

1) using a free play

That would be the only reason I would do it.