[natrass]

I ask because of this scenario.

Two teams, hot favourites at 1.4 to win their games (ie each bet $100 and win $40).

Now, place two $100 singles and you :

win $80 if both win
lose $60 if one wins
lose $200 if none win

If you place a $100 double

you win $96 if both win
lose $100 if one or both lose.

So thats half the exposure for a higher gain when playing short favourites.

Do you think this is the smarter play given you think the 1.4 prices are good value plays?

[natrass]

Just, for me personally, I am currently playing the singles and I am seriously thinking of "regressing" back to my niave parlay days of old in such cases.

[bigloser]

There should be no difference . The amount you bet of your starting bank should relate to the risk of losing. You have a greater risk of losing with a parlay and should therefore bet less.

[Sam Odom]

Is a parlay ever the smart play?

Depends if the 2 bets are correlated even if slightly.

[jjgold]

Better off betting 2 separate games and doubling up the bet from the 1st game.

[Aces]

any time I parlay teams i back it with a teaser.

[Ganchrow]

I potsed the following some time ago:

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-ta...1-parlays.html
http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-ta...d-parlays.html

And you can find my Parlay Calculator here:

Betting Tools Temporary Home

[Sam Odom]

Ganchrow is sharp as a tack

[natrass]

Ganchrow is the man ... I will read this when i get time (friends round at the mo)

thanks gents for the feedback in the meantime (jjj ... not sure I follow your logic there ... not a first i know ... but, wheres the advantage?)

[Dark Horse]

One of the best books that covers parlays indepth: win more, lose less. An instant classic. Key to success with parlays is your winning percentage. If it's not high enough, don't mess with parlays.

[Aces]

JJs talking about the double up catch up method. It works fine if you have very-very deep pockets. I dont like doing it myself. Or he's saying take your winnings from game 1 and invest it along with your original stake on game 2.

[Brick Tamland]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

One of the best books that covers parlays indepth: win more, lose less. An instant classic. Key to success with parlays is your winning percentage. If it's not high enough, don't mess with parlays.

key to success is the payout odds.... doent matter how many teams in your parlay if the payut is high enough.

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by Aces

JJs talking about the double up catch up method. It works fine if you have very-very deep pockets. I dont like doing it myself. Or he's saying take your winnings from game 1 and invest it along with your original stake on game 2.

Rather, I think that JJ is indicating that in the case of two (or more) non-contemporaneous bets, the payout structure of a parlay can be duplicated by risking the proceeds of the first bet on the outcome of the second.

[Aces]

LOL!!! In Alabama we call it take the winnings from game 1 put it with your original stash and pound the hell out of game 2.

[Justin7]

Stay away from parlays, unless you 1. master the math, and 2. have sharp opinions. As Dark Horse mentioned, Don Peszynski's "Win more, lose less" is great material on this topic.

Generally, the payouts on a 2-team parlay are close to what you get if you bet your winnings and principal from the first game on the second (retail on a 2-teamer is 2.6, but 2.64 is "fair" if -110 is fair).

The real problem with parlays is that it increase your variance. Losing streaks last longer playing these. The one time parlays are good (other than correlated parlays) is when you are a winning player. If you are a 55% handicapper, you can make more money (EV) with parlays... but variance still lowers your max bet.

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by Justin7

If you are a 55% handicapper, you can make more money (EV) with parlays... but variance still lowers your max bet.

One interesting (although largely academic) point here is that for large enough favorites, a proper Kelly bettor would actually choose the parlay in preference to the singles. (Assuming for some reason he couldn't bet both the parlay AND the singles).

A bit of a surprising result.

[SBR_John]

There was a poster named Roo from long ago that actually brought down a couple of decent size offshore books betting nothing but parlays.

[Brick Tamland]

i hate when players win the first legs of parlays and i fiond out i have 20 time more on one game. but if you offer shitty odds... the book will never lose.

[jjgold]

Your better off betting 2 TEAM parlay wheels ONLY if you have a big edge on a game so you bet Game A with E,F,G,H,I,J

[natrass]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

Rather, I think that JJ is indicating that in the case of two (or more) non-contemporaneous bets, the payout structure of a parlay can be duplicated by risking the proceeds of the first bet on the outcome of the second.

That is, a parlay then. You are saying the same as jj ... what am I missing here?

I will do the maths (us Europeans are a bit more opinion-based in betting than maths-based I think) on the stuff youve all posted and (undoubtedly) come back with some brilliant and suprising points.

If not, thanks for the pointers there. Good stuff.

[Ganchrow]

Originally Posted by natrass

That is, a parlay then. You are saying the same as jj ... what am I missing here

Nothing at all.

I was just attempting to clarify JJ's point.

[TheLock]

One of the first pieces of advice I was given when I first began wagering on sports was to "stay away from parlays, they're for suckers". So I did.

But then I found this place and I noticed that a few sharp posters (St. Andrew for instance) often make parlay plays and are relatively successful (Andrew appears to be running around 55%).

So my question is, do sharps make habits of utilizing the parlay?

[frostno98]

Originally Posted by jjgold

Better off betting 2 separate games and doubling up the bet from the 1st game.

Agree 100% with JJ. I have hit many Par 2's and a good amount of Par 3's during Feb to Late April with all them Basketball games. But I have also lost many of them to 1 misses too. Before going completely cold on Parlays in May.

I think doubling up on a straight wagers several times then cashing out is more easier and profitable in the long run. It will require a lot of patient on your part though.

[Wheell]

Originally Posted by SBR_John

There was a poster named Roo from long ago that actually brought down a couple of decent size offshore books betting nothing but parlays.

If Roo is who I think he is than Roo was a VERY sharp bettor who used parlays to evade limits and get a tremendous amount of action down on games. The books would find themselves down 100k on a game that they thought they were balanced on due to the fact that their software didn't show them the parlay information.

For the average bettor I recommend avoiding parlays if only to avoid tilt. A true Kelly bettor might be able to avoid tilt but most players can become emotional when they lose money despite not having a losing record. The amount that a player can lose when acting irrationally (tilt!) should be balanced against the incremental gains one gets from betting Kelly as opposed to betting straight up.

[LT Profits]

I play small round robins to accompany my straight bets fairly often (always two-team only).

[Wheell]

I should note that I am talking here about uncorrelated parlays. Correlated parlays are an entirely different manner and should almost be viewed as a straight bet even if there are 4 outcomes and you only profit from one. Unfortunately correlated parlays have become harder to find as books have wised up (possibly due to rectal bleeding).

[The HG]

Originally Posted by Ganchrow

One interesting (although largely academic) point here is that for large enough favorites, a proper Kelly bettor would actually choose the parlay in preference to the singles. (Assuming for some reason he couldn't bet both the parlay AND the singles).

A bit of a surprising result.

Right, to expand on this and give a real-world example, let's say hypothetically you have a card and you have three plays at -250 that you think will win 80% of the time.

This is not a situation that is unthinkable at all. If you are betting NHL pucklines for instance, a situation similar to this could easily present itself.

Well if your bankroll is $1,000, the Kelly calculator shows that in addition to your straight bets, you would also want to bet $63 on a parlay for each 2-team combo, and do a $27 parlay on all three.

[Wheell]

HG: you are correct on the math but that ignores the psychological effects.

When Chris (Jesus) Ferguson was an up and coming math guy he found out that poker pros were over betting AA. Math wise he was correct. However, a lot of poker pros admitted that they HATED getting aces cracked and wanted to either win a pot fast or make the pot large. Making the pot medium size and then getting beat later would hurt their future play much more than the incrimentel benefit they would gain from betting aces "correctly."

When you go x-1 and don't win it can be very frustrating.

[warriorfan707]

Originally Posted by jjgold

Better off betting 2 separate games and doubling up the bet from the 1st game.

what if both games start at the same time?