[imgv94]

I know a lot of people consider these sucker bets.

So which one is more of a sucker bet?

Multiple choice is accepted with this thread.

[vanman]

both are equally sucker bets,the only way is straight win.

[Breaker]

Did you know that in the NBA 1 out of 3 games winds up at 4 points or less from the spread?

So on average in any 3 team teaser you should only have to guess two right, the other would fall into the teased reach.

[jjgold]

build a bankroll=parlays/exotics


try and break even or possibly win small=straight bets

[MonkeyF0cker]

LOL. That is such backwards thinking....

[vanman]

what the hell does LOL mean??

[MonkeyF0cker]

Laughing out loud....

[raiders72002]

Teasers by far.

Wrong again Taco.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Umm. If you think you need points, why take the bet for less value instead of just taking the other side of the spread? Pure sucker bet to me....

[onlooker]

I feel both are.

[MonkeyF0cker]

I agree for the most part but teasers are worse IMO.

[JBrown1045]

Umm. If you think you need points, why take the bet for less value instead of just taking the other side of the spread? Pure sucker bet to me....

Is this guy kidding me? Does he understand what a teaser is?

[tacomax]

Wrong again Taco.

You know, raiders. I don't mind that a lot of your posts are about me. A little creepy but whatever floats your boat. But if you want to disagree with me then it really does help your point if you are actually disagreeing with something I've actually frickin' posted. When you do what you've just done then you look like a bit of a prick.

But then again, you're the guy who thinks that Martingale is a 100% winning system. That makes you the sucker bet to end all sucker bets.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Is this guy kidding me? Does he understand what a teaser is?

Yeah no idea at all. Teasers are not buying points by any means.

[Dark Horse]

Teasers are the sucker bets. 'No matter what' is a bit strong, but teasers are almost always based on the perception that winning one bet is more important than return on investment. If you can get over a key number, like 3 or 7 in football, it's a different story.

Parlays offer real value, in the same area that teasers don't (ROI), but the downside is that they must be based on a solid, longterm winning percentage. The problem here is that the past season offers no guarantees for the next.

I've studied the area of fluctuating winning percentages from year to year, and have become convinced that, with everything else remaining the same, these can be attributed to astrological influences. (And with the aid of these can be projected).

[JBrown1045]

Yeah no idea at all. Teasers are not buying points by any means.

Obviously from your posts I can see you don't get it. I'll just leave it at that.

BTW read your post again and maybe you will see how stupid it sounded.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Why don't you enlighten me since I'm obviously completely oblivious to the notion of teasers.... I need clarification from an expert apparently.

[JBrown1045]

Why don't you enlighten me since I'm obviously completely oblivious to the notion of teasers.... I need clarification from an expert apparently.

Not an expert. Far from it. Anyways my man I'm not saying your wrong on saying Teasers are sucker bets, I'm saying your wrong on how you posted about it. Thats just my opinion. We'll just leave it at that. No sense in getting into it anymore. We can believe what we want to believe.

[MonkeyF0cker]

I would love to hear what you thought was wrong about what I posted....

[rjp]

Without an edge both are sucker bets, but then again a straight bet is a sucker bet without an edge.

If you have an edge then parlays and teasers are, in some instances, either the better bet or a bet that you can make to complement your straight wagers to maximize your bankroll growth.

Just take a look at the multi-variable Kelly calculator.

[Santo]

Taco: There are certain teaser subsets that have decent EV. Read Wong's book for an explanation, or Dan P's for a more recent one.

[tacomax]

Taco: There are certain teaser subsets that have decent EV. Read Wong's book for an explanation, or Dan P's for a more recent one.

As per raiders, just point me to where I said that teasers were a sucker bet.

[Ganchrow]

As per raiders, just point me to where I said that teasers were a sucker bet.

A lesser man might start thinking it was time to change his avatar ...

[Santo]

Wasn't the avatar, but I saw "Wrong again Taco", an alarm went off telling me to trade out of my under bet on the Copa America game (time dependent on BF), did that, then didn't read the rest of the thread before I typed a reply ;o)

[Justin7]

I've had more books get mad at me for playing teasers than parlays, although I've been tossed from books for both.

Curiously, Pinnacle won't let me play either.

[LT Profits]

Teasers by FAR, and it's not even close.

If you could win 54% of the time or better, 2-team parlays (especially 3x2 or 4x2 round robins) offer tremendous value.

Teasers almost NEVER offer value exepct for the rare case where you can pass through two key numbers in football, and even there I feel the edge is taken away by the poor odds. The bottom line is that the teaser line does not bail you out enough times to compensate for usually having to lay odds on having to win two or three games. If someone would do a study on playing two-team parlays vs. two-team teasers playing the same games, I'm am fairly certain that the parlays woold yield more profit.

[rjp]

If someone would do a study on playing two-team parlays vs. two-team teasers playing the same games, I'm am fairly certain that the parlays woold yield more profit.

I just have to wonder how you can give such a strong response without actually having studied this yourself.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Hmm. Well 13:5 vs 10:11 for a 2 team parlay vs a 2 team 4-point teaser. So.... $2.60 for every $1 in the parlay and $0.91 for every $1 in the teaser. That's a $1.69 difference per $1 laid. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but in my estimation, you'd need 3 teaser bets that fall into that 4 point differential to make them more profitable than a single parlay. I hardly think that's going to play out.

[Justin7]

This is killing me.

Compare bets versus a straight sides play at -110. You have to hit 52.4% to break even there.

A 2-team 6-pt teaser in NFL or NCAA at +100. This is just a 2-play parlay with 6 extra points. If W=your win percentage, then W^2>0.5 to break even. You have to hit 70.7% on teasers to break even. If the extra 6 points you get increase your win percent by 18.3%, teasing the game is better than playing it straight. This happens on any NFL game with a home favorite of -7.5 to -8.5, and most NFL dogs from +1.5 to 2.5. It also works in NCAAF for home favorites with totals less than 42 (most often in ACC).

A 2-teamer at 2.6:1... If W^2>1/3.6, you're at breakeven. This amounts to 52.7 to breakeven. In most cases, you're better off playing a straight side than a 2-teamer. The main reason pros play parlays is to increase how much they bet. A lot of books won't move on parlays, so pros can bet much more than the limit on these if they have other games to bet with them. In Vegas, you can do round-robin parlays, and get a ton down without moving the line.

A 3-teamer at 6:1... If W^3>1/7, you're at breakeven. This is just about the same as a straight side play (52.3, which is slightly better). But, your volatility is higher. Most players shouldn't play these unless they have the same reasons for 2-teamers.

Throw in correlated parlays, and things look much different.

[Dark Horse]

Justin, I'm impressed by the numbers, and assume this is based on -110 juice, as is usually the case with discussions or articles about parlays, teasers, and RR's. The problem is that such numbers are rarely, if ever, adjusted to -105 juice (which typically is good for straight bets only). Would you happen to know how reduced juice adjusts the above numbers? Thanks.

[Ganchrow]

Justin, I'm impressed by the numbers, and assume this is based on -110 juice, as is usually the case with discussions or articles about parlays, teasers, and RR's. The problem is that such numbers are rarely, if ever, adjusted to -105 juice (which typically is good for straight bets only). Would you happen to know how reduced juice adjusts the above numbers? Thanks.

If you're betting at -105, then breakeven is ¹⁰⁵ / _(100+105) ≈ 51.22%.

Is that what you're asking?

[LT Profits]

I just have to wonder how you can give such a strong response without actually having studied this yourself.

rjp,

It is simple common sense. At the traditional 13/5 odds, the breakeven point on parlays is 27.8%. A 54% handicapper can be expected to hit a 2-team parlay 29.2% of the time (.54^2), thus giving him an edge on this so-called "sucker" bet.

However, on 2-team 6-point teasers where you are laying 5/6, the breakeven point is 55.6%. Even if you could hit 70% of your individual games with the 6-point adjustment, which I maintain is impossible to sustain long-term, you would only hit 49% of the teasers (.70^2).

[THE HITMAN]

I have to agree with some of the above on teasers.................Football: in the right situations, in the pros, off of key numbers, teasers can work for you. I have done very nicely with them. I don't use them in colleges,tho. Plus some houses offer vig free 6 pointers.