Fish, you're a great mod, and I really like you. But with all due respect, you're wrong here, and there is nothing funny about it. Sure, the odds are 7-1 if you have juice-Bonus Betting. 100 wins 100, 200 wins 200, then 400 wins 400 for 800. 800 -100 of it that is yours nets you 700 won. But nobody has juice Bonus Betting, except for the game of the week on V-Wager.
Whether or not it is against a pointspread or not is irrelevant.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FISHHEAD:
You will recieve TRUE odds like you mentioned if you were betting baseball............where money goes into money.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is my point. You don't receive true odds on 3-teamers. You receive universally accepted odds of 6-1. It may be a longshot, but odds that are better than true odds cannot be called a ripoff.
You will recieve TRUE odds like you mentioned if you were betting baseball............where money goes into money.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is my point. You don't receive true odds on 3-teamers. You receive universally accepted odds of 6-1. It may be a longshot, but odds that are better than true odds cannot be called a ripoff.
Illini-
I agree with what your saying and totally understand what your saying, believe me.
It is one of the reasons I love betting 3 teamers at 6.5-1 when given the oppurtunity with the pointspreads.
In different theories, we are both correct, depending on what perception we are looking from.
I agree with what your saying and totally understand what your saying, believe me.
It is one of the reasons I love betting 3 teamers at 6.5-1 when given the oppurtunity with the pointspreads.
In different theories, we are both correct, depending on what perception we are looking from.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FISHHEAD:
You will recieve TRUE odds like you mentioned if you were betting baseball............where money goes into money.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
very naive fish.
same concept is at work in either case. You are still betting into a line where their is "juice" involved.
For instance, you are betting football -110/-110 (fav/dog). Betting against a ML doesn't mean there is not juice involved.
Just because you are betting a +160 dog and parlaying that to a +160 dog, doesn't mean you are closer to "true odds". True odds on the football spread wager are +100 on each side. True odds on a -160/+140 baseball game are +150. Either way you are still getting hit.
You will recieve TRUE odds like you mentioned if you were betting baseball............where money goes into money.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
very naive fish.
same concept is at work in either case. You are still betting into a line where their is "juice" involved.
For instance, you are betting football -110/-110 (fav/dog). Betting against a ML doesn't mean there is not juice involved.
Just because you are betting a +160 dog and parlaying that to a +160 dog, doesn't mean you are closer to "true odds". True odds on the football spread wager are +100 on each side. True odds on a -160/+140 baseball game are +150. Either way you are still getting hit.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Fish, you're a great mod, and I really like you. But with all due respect, you're wrong here, and there is nothing funny about it. Sure, the odds are 7-1 if you have juice-Bonus Betting. 100 wins 100, 200 wins 200, then 400 wins 400 for 800. 800 -100 of it that is yours nets you 700 won. But nobody has juice Bonus Betting, except for the game of the week on V-Wager. Whether or not it is against a pointspread or not is irrelevant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
actually, IMO, Fish is right....when fish is talking about 'true odds' he is talking about the likelehood of the event happening....The likelehood of being able to predict three games against the spread is 7-1....
The likelehood of picking 1 game against the spread is 50/50.
Bookies will usually Pay 6-1 even though the likeelyhood is 7-1, that is how the bookie makes money.
In the case of a straight bet a Bookie will pay you roughly 91$ on a 100$ wager...even the odds of picking the game against the spread is 50/50. Again this is how they make their money....
Like fish is saying, I think we are all arguing the same thing, however it is the definition of 'true' odds that we are disagreeing on.
actually, IMO, Fish is right....when fish is talking about 'true odds' he is talking about the likelehood of the event happening....The likelehood of being able to predict three games against the spread is 7-1....
The likelehood of picking 1 game against the spread is 50/50.
Bookies will usually Pay 6-1 even though the likeelyhood is 7-1, that is how the bookie makes money.
In the case of a straight bet a Bookie will pay you roughly 91$ on a 100$ wager...even the odds of picking the game against the spread is 50/50. Again this is how they make their money....
Like fish is saying, I think we are all arguing the same thing, however it is the definition of 'true' odds that we are disagreeing on.
That is the only reason that I posted, to clarify to people who may be reading and don't understand the thought behind it.
If you can break even on straight bets, then you will do just as good long-term getting 13:5 on 2-teamers and 6:1 on 3-teamers. Only your variance will change (you will have bigger swings up and down in bankroll).
If you can break even on straight bets, then you will do just as good long-term getting 13:5 on 2-teamers and 6:1 on 3-teamers. Only your variance will change (you will have bigger swings up and down in bankroll).
No, the parlay better at 13-5, 6-1 will do much, much worse than the straight better.
The reason is that you are defining "fair odds" as laying -110 on the game.
Avid shoppers will get extra 1/2 points on almost every straight bet, or vig at well below -110. So "fair odds" are really NOT 6-1 but more like 6.5-1. The average shopping bettor would be pretty indifferent between three teamers paying 6.5-1 or betting each game straight and shopping like a madman. Note, true odds of 7-1 only apply to random betting, and really are not a significant part of the discussion.
Bottom line, pick 52% winners ATS and you
1) Win straight betting
2) Lose parlay betting.
Those picking 54% will argue they will make more parlaying. They are wrong. When properly bet sizing, using Sharpe ratios/etc. it will show that you can safely bump up your wager size so much higher straight betting that you will make more in every case PROVIDED you are paying less vig/or getting better betting numbers.
So if you parlay vs. the board, you are either
1) Recreational betting or
2) Betting non optimally.
You can say you are having fun. But no serious mathematical discussion will conclude that 13/5 or 6/1 parlays have any place in a pro's bag.
Now 14/5 is a different story..............
The reason is that you are defining "fair odds" as laying -110 on the game.
Avid shoppers will get extra 1/2 points on almost every straight bet, or vig at well below -110. So "fair odds" are really NOT 6-1 but more like 6.5-1. The average shopping bettor would be pretty indifferent between three teamers paying 6.5-1 or betting each game straight and shopping like a madman. Note, true odds of 7-1 only apply to random betting, and really are not a significant part of the discussion.
Bottom line, pick 52% winners ATS and you
1) Win straight betting
2) Lose parlay betting.
Those picking 54% will argue they will make more parlaying. They are wrong. When properly bet sizing, using Sharpe ratios/etc. it will show that you can safely bump up your wager size so much higher straight betting that you will make more in every case PROVIDED you are paying less vig/or getting better betting numbers.
So if you parlay vs. the board, you are either
1) Recreational betting or
2) Betting non optimally.
You can say you are having fun. But no serious mathematical discussion will conclude that 13/5 or 6/1 parlays have any place in a pro's bag.
Now 14/5 is a different story..............
Fezzik- You're a stud among lesser studs, what can I say?
I am definitely a recreational bettor, and it sure is sweet to hit a 3-teamer! So I agree with what you're saying, but I will continue to play the parlays, along with straight bets. Do you ever play parlays, such as when you have 3 games that you feel all have a tremendous edge? Like Michigan State last year over Penn St? Will we ever again see a line that is that far off?
