Hold Percentage on a 3 team Parlay

[PanAmSam]

Can anyone help...

I was trying to calculate the hold % of a three team parlay that pays 6 to 1. I get 11.11% Can anyone coroborate?

Thanks Sam

By the way, this is my first post and I am hoping that all my posts (like this one) remain uncontroversial... at least that's my goal.

Thanks Shrink for the great site

 

[BallRash]

panamajack now that's a cool name

 

[PanAmSam]

Frankly I actually thought Ball Rash was a great name... But I didn't have the %$&^s to use it... Sam

 

[8isenough]

Whats cracking Ball Rash?

 

[WalkofLife]

Read here, PanAmSam:

Parlays Part I – Fixed Odds taken from OnThePunt.com

BTW, your name is so hype...

Check it out, 2 of the H.I.P. masters. What you up to mofos?

 

[PanAmSam]

Thanks Walk and Ball... about the name... I figured if I pretended to be other than I am, someone might bust my balls for that. But then again, the last thing I truly care about is hype. I'm way past that one. I just assune change the handle out of the box right now so please advise.

Thanks Sam

 

[TheGeneral+]

Welcome aboard Sam.

Hope to see you posting alot.

 

[8isenough]

walk of Life - Am I seeing things or is that really a post from Ball Rash??

Nice to see him back in da casa!


POSSE UP!!!!!

 

[WalkofLife]

Yup brother the one and only Nuttsack Master in person.

I've been wondering about the latest happenings of the island chapter of the H.I.P.

Hope all is well, B.R.

 

[dimeplayersonly]

hold % on a three-teamer that pays 6-1..............well my friend........as a bookmaker you WANT to hold all of it.......lol.......sorry couldnt resist

 

[sickgambler]

Pan,

Figuring out hold % is easy. If you bet a 3 team parlay at 6-1 odds, this is how you do it. The 3 team parlay hits 1 in 8 tries. So if you are playing for 100 each parlay, then 7 times you will lose 100 and 1 time you will win 700 including your stakes. So that means you lose 100 clear out of every 800 you risk. So now you divide 100 into 800, thus getting you 12.5% disadvantage.

Betting straight up is much better for the player. If you risk 110 per game, then you should win 100 once, and lose 110 the other time, at 50% of course. So you have risked 220 and cleared 100, correct? Now you divide 100 into 220 and you get a disadvantage of only 4.55%, as opposed to 12.5% in a 3 team parlay.

This is why I'll NEVER understand why people bet parlays for. It is silly. The hold is almost 3 times more on a 3 team parlay than it is for a straight up bet. And 4,5 and 6 team parlays are even worse than 3 teamers for the player. I have NOT bet a parlay in 21 years, but then again, I am a loser anyways, so what's the difference....

 

[PanAmSam]

Thanks guys... I see the math, looks pretty straight forward. Sam

 

[PatrickMcIrish]

I agree with Sick no reason to bet parlays. At times if you can gain some correlation between the events that is a different story. To bet on 3 different events hoping all win to garner a 6-1 payout is not to the players advantage. I think the lure to some is to put up a small amount and try and win a "big" amount.

BTW does anyone remember the book that was allowing correlated parlays? You could bet something like the over in the 1st quarter, over in the 1st half and over for the game, all in the same 3 team parlay. LOL. Now if you could bet those that would be to the players advantage. ;

 

[pmck]

6-1 is equal to decimal line 7.0, -110 is equal to decimal line 1+10/11=1.9091

Your picks have 50% chance:
- Straight bet @ -110: 1.9091*0.50 = 0.9545, i.e. 4.55% disadvantage
- 3 team parlay @ 6-1: 7.0*0.50*0.50*0.5 = 0.8750, i.e. 12.5% disadvantage

Your picks have 55% chance:
- Straight bet @ -110: 1.9091*0.55 = 1.0500, i.e. 5% advantage
- 3 team parlay @ 6-1: 7.0*0.55*0.55*0.55 = 1.1646, i.e. 16.5% advantage

Parlays just multiply your disadvantages or advantages. It might be difficult to find the best lines at the same book and you don’t win as often as when betting straight, but I wouldn’t say that betting parlays is always silly.

 

[IntuitionBET]

PanAmSam - Nice to see you posting again

Sick & Patrick - What you say may be so. BUT many gamblers love to bet parlays (especially 2 team) for the Excitement of possible hitting one.

 

[PanAmSam]

pmck... now that's the math I was looking for. This really helped. Thank you very, very much... Also, that's a great example of why betting parlays isn't stupid afterall as long as the bettor can acheive a certain level of win %. I cannot thank you enough for the math and I tried to complicate it so that's waht threw me off. Amazing how simple it is...

Now for my next request... Teasers? Sam

 

[ATX]

pmck, excellent post.

Has anyone seen many bettors that consistently win exactly 50% over time? I haven't, and that leads me to believe that on many events there is a right side and a wrong side proposition to wager into.

I just dont understand using the standard 50% probability for these types of scenarios. What is relevant is one's own particular win% as well as perceived value offered, in order to determine a possible advantage, IMO. It is also relevant to track how one's parlays perform over time. If you dont know your own win%, you are either lucky or losing. I dont have much of an advantage using parlays (I dont use them often either) but for me they have usefulness. In baseball I wont play many favorites over -140, and on heavy favorites that offer no value on a RL or win a lot of games by exactly 1, I would normally pass. If I find 2 or 3 of these favorites instead of passing I limit exposure by parlaying. This is in addition to the correlated sides and totals that for me occur a lot more often early in seasons. If this strategy didnt show profit, I would pass.