Here's what I don't understand... We get these stupid threads all the time.
1) Why bet parlays? They're stupid. The Bellagio was built with this sort of shit.
2) Why bet a parlay if you intend on hedging it if you win the first couple legs? That defeats the purpose and also gives vig to the books.
3) Why bet a parlay when you don't have the funds to hedge it available?
I mean seriously, we see this crap all the time. I've never seen a parlay player be anything but a super square, unless it's a round robin player... in which case, round robin players aren't "hedging" out of anything. Sharp bettors are smart enough to know that it's hard enough to beat the books at -105 or -110, let alone at these numbers compounded together.
3 out of 4 in every parlay: Broke
3 out of 4 in straight plays: Rich
Remember you need to hit 1 out of 13 of these 4 team parlays to actually make money. If you're a 53% capper (which most AREN'T, but 53% straight wagers makes you a mint in the long haul), you're talking an 8% chance to hit a 4-team parlay. If all things are considered equal, you've got a positive advantage of less than a quarter of a percent. If you straight bet the same plays, you've got an advantage of 1.3%.
Why does no one consider this? Sorry, you get what you deserve.