quick and easy way is to convert to decimal system and multiply them. -110 = 1.909
so 2 teamer = 1.909*1.909 = 3.644
3 = 6.95
4 = 13.28
i believe that betinfinity still pays 7:1 on 3 teamers so that is actually a bit better than 'true odds' on -110
some places pay true odds on better than -110, canbet comes to mind, true odds on -107.
so 2 teamer = 1.909*1.909 = 3.644
3 = 6.95
4 = 13.28
i believe that betinfinity still pays 7:1 on 3 teamers so that is actually a bit better than 'true odds' on -110
some places pay true odds on better than -110, canbet comes to mind, true odds on -107.
atx, i have never played them for anything remotely considered big money, so couldn't really say about payouts. they sponsored madjacks football contest last year and their cs was very helpful in tracking down a problem with crediting my prize money.
as far as correlated or semi-correlated, pretty sure that did not fly there.
as far as correlated or semi-correlated, pretty sure that did not fly there.
ATX- when you say parlay 2nd halves are you talking about correlated within the same game or separate games betting on the 2nd half?
What do you consider a "semi correlated side and total thrown in"?
The numbers don't lie, if you're going to bet football at -110 or 1.909 odds you would be better off taking the parlay @ 7/1 or 8.0 odds
I might have to give it a try this yr.
What do you consider a "semi correlated side and total thrown in"?
The numbers don't lie, if you're going to bet football at -110 or 1.909 odds you would be better off taking the parlay @ 7/1 or 8.0 odds
I might have to give it a try this yr.
I love to script. Which means I used to love taking 2nd half ML's parlayed to totals parlayed to sides in which a team was strong in the first half. Then middle the 3rd leg (weighted) on 2nd half lines for a guarantee if the first two hit. I'm not a bitch that takes shots on bad lines, but I would like the opp. to parlay a 2nd half side and total to a late game. I'm referring to a +6.5, under 20 type of situation, they dont offer ML's on 2nd halves outside of the playoffs too much anymore, at least not that I know of. 7 to 1 is just asking for trouble IMO, the vig is begging for sharp action.
Maybe this is noobish, but for you who don´t know how to calculate the decimal price:
-125:
225/125 = 1,80
(add 100 to the first number and then divide with the origin)
Then if you have -125, -140 and -110 you get 1,80 , 1,71 and rounded 1,91 (1,909), then you multiply 1,80 * 1,71 * 1,91 = rounded 5,88. (which is 1 to win 4,88)
It´s easy. Otherwise search for "parlay calculator" in google.com or other search engine.
Hagel.
-125:
225/125 = 1,80
(add 100 to the first number and then divide with the origin)
Then if you have -125, -140 and -110 you get 1,80 , 1,71 and rounded 1,91 (1,909), then you multiply 1,80 * 1,71 * 1,91 = rounded 5,88. (which is 1 to win 4,88)
It´s easy. Otherwise search for "parlay calculator" in google.com or other search engine.
Hagel.
I always knew the 10-1 odds on a 4 team parlay was a ripoff, as you could take the 3 team parlay money and then place it on a straight wager for a bigger profit. Ex. $100 3 teamer pays 600, Take the $700 and place a straight wager, 700 to win 636 = 1336. As opposed to getting 1100 back (100 + 1000). 236 dollars less!
Why don't more books offer 11, 12 or 13 to 1? I kno, more $ for them, and less risk, but sucks for us, so don't play 4 teamers!
Joe Pool
Why don't more books offer 11, 12 or 13 to 1? I kno, more $ for them, and less risk, but sucks for us, so don't play 4 teamers!
Joe Pool
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mjred:
quick and easy way is to convert to decimal system and multiply them. -110 = 1.909
so 2 teamer = 1.909*1.909 = 3.644
3 = 6.95
4 = 13.28<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, you left out the last step in the calculation -- you have to subtract 1 (i.e., your stake) from the numbers above.
2.645 to 1 is the equivalent of -110 for a two-team parlay
5.958 to 1 is the equivalent of -110 for a three-team parlay
12.283 to 1 is the equivalent of -110 for a four-team parlay
With the standard payout of 6 to 1 on 3-teamers you're actually paying less juice than on a straight bet.
quick and easy way is to convert to decimal system and multiply them. -110 = 1.909
so 2 teamer = 1.909*1.909 = 3.644
3 = 6.95
4 = 13.28<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, you left out the last step in the calculation -- you have to subtract 1 (i.e., your stake) from the numbers above.
2.645 to 1 is the equivalent of -110 for a two-team parlay
5.958 to 1 is the equivalent of -110 for a three-team parlay
12.283 to 1 is the equivalent of -110 for a four-team parlay
With the standard payout of 6 to 1 on 3-teamers you're actually paying less juice than on a straight bet.
winbet, I am talking about this football season, taking 3-team parlays at 8.0 instead of three separate bets at 1.909 odds. Of course, it won't always work out where I'll bet 3 games or multiples of 3 every weekend, so I'd have to deviate. Can you tell me why this is a bad idea?
quote:
"stay away from multiple bets, or parlays as you call them, they are a recipe for disaster"
quote:
"stay away from multiple bets, or parlays as you call them, they are a recipe for disaster"
I think the problem is that most posters understand their systems etc and have a good knowledge of betting, however have little idea of a bookmakers perspective. What might look good to you in theory will be a godsend to a bookie in reality.
Bookmakers are forever thinking new ways to make us turn one bet into two etc. Which would you rather, a person who has one bet a week or a person who has to win 3 games to collect?.
Something I do if I am not confident enough with a bet, is back it small and have the winnings on the next choice, maybe 1 or 2 weeks later, but not all in 1 week as the bookies would have you do. Pick your times , not the bookies.
Bookmakers are forever thinking new ways to make us turn one bet into two etc. Which would you rather, a person who has one bet a week or a person who has to win 3 games to collect?.
Something I do if I am not confident enough with a bet, is back it small and have the winnings on the next choice, maybe 1 or 2 weeks later, but not all in 1 week as the bookies would have you do. Pick your times , not the bookies.
Parlays.
In theory whether a parlay is good value or not depends on your estimation of the true odds for each individual component.
If the bookie's offering you worse than the true odds(say 10/11(52.4%) about a true 50% chance) then in a 3 team parlay you're getting 6/1 about a true 7/1 shot.You're in effect multipling the bookies advantage.
However if you consider each 10/11 shot has a true 55% chance,then in a 3 team parlay you're multipling your advantage & this time you're getting 6/1 about a true 5/1 shot.
The only flaws in this thinking is that you're trying to impose longterm probabilities into shortterm time frames & more importantly your 55% chance assessments may be wrong.
P.
In theory whether a parlay is good value or not depends on your estimation of the true odds for each individual component.
If the bookie's offering you worse than the true odds(say 10/11(52.4%) about a true 50% chance) then in a 3 team parlay you're getting 6/1 about a true 7/1 shot.You're in effect multipling the bookies advantage.
However if you consider each 10/11 shot has a true 55% chance,then in a 3 team parlay you're multipling your advantage & this time you're getting 6/1 about a true 5/1 shot.
The only flaws in this thinking is that you're trying to impose longterm probabilities into shortterm time frames & more importantly your 55% chance assessments may be wrong.
P.
Potter or anyone else who can answer--
Just hypothetically say I could hit exactly 55% on games with odds of 10/11. As you said, over the long term I would be better off playing 3 teamers than individual games, even more so if getting 7/1.
Using that 55% what would the standard deviation be, and how many parlays could I possibly lose in a row? Say I played 50 parlays over the football season how much could I be up or down and what's the average?
Just hypothetically say I could hit exactly 55% on games with odds of 10/11. As you said, over the long term I would be better off playing 3 teamers than individual games, even more so if getting 7/1.
Using that 55% what would the standard deviation be, and how many parlays could I possibly lose in a row? Say I played 50 parlays over the football season how much could I be up or down and what's the average?
Hi Bullchitna,
a couple of thoughts.
You could lose 50 straight 3 team parlays,but it'd be around 9,000/1 this happening.
If you want to look at a range of possible scenarios/standard devs etc you really need to try something like a monte carlo simulation & record your profit(or loss) after each series of 50 bets.
A bag of coloured beads,a paper & pencil & a few hours to kill would probably serve just as well.
The key is that even if your estimations of the true probabilities are correct then it's only over a long series of bets that the actual proportions of winners & loser tend towards these true figures.Even a fair coin can go 7-3 over the first 10 bets,but after 10,000 spins then the proportions are pretty close to the theoretical 50/50.
Worth considering the staking issues as well.
The expected value on the "value" treble is better than the one on the corresponding "value" single...if you bet to level stakes.But the situation is not as clear cut if you vary the stakes.
You could calculate stakes so that you make the same profit on the parlay as you would on a straight single bet.In which case the stakes on the parlay will be significantly smaller than for the single.And this of course would impact on the amount of winnings returned.
Probably the most mathematicall correct course would be to calculate the kelly stake based on your theoretical advantage in each case & then see which course of action gives you the higher bank growth rate.
Sticking a foot into the real world of betting.
Bookies certainly encourage parlays.
Probably because (as a result of the vig or overround)they are fairly confident that they have the odds shorter than the true odds.And more importantly even if they get one game wrong,the chances of them getting two others wrong...& someone spotting them is unlikely.
If you pick one value bet & pair it up with two non value selections,you kill your advantage,long term.
It's never a good idea to dismiss anything in betting,so if you're confident you can cap to 55% & higher I'd definitely keep parlays open as an option.
If you keep records(even of paper trades)then you've at least got some data to work with.
all the best,P.
a couple of thoughts.
You could lose 50 straight 3 team parlays,but it'd be around 9,000/1 this happening.
If you want to look at a range of possible scenarios/standard devs etc you really need to try something like a monte carlo simulation & record your profit(or loss) after each series of 50 bets.
A bag of coloured beads,a paper & pencil & a few hours to kill would probably serve just as well.
The key is that even if your estimations of the true probabilities are correct then it's only over a long series of bets that the actual proportions of winners & loser tend towards these true figures.Even a fair coin can go 7-3 over the first 10 bets,but after 10,000 spins then the proportions are pretty close to the theoretical 50/50.
Worth considering the staking issues as well.
The expected value on the "value" treble is better than the one on the corresponding "value" single...if you bet to level stakes.But the situation is not as clear cut if you vary the stakes.
You could calculate stakes so that you make the same profit on the parlay as you would on a straight single bet.In which case the stakes on the parlay will be significantly smaller than for the single.And this of course would impact on the amount of winnings returned.
Probably the most mathematicall correct course would be to calculate the kelly stake based on your theoretical advantage in each case & then see which course of action gives you the higher bank growth rate.
Sticking a foot into the real world of betting.
Bookies certainly encourage parlays.
Probably because (as a result of the vig or overround)they are fairly confident that they have the odds shorter than the true odds.And more importantly even if they get one game wrong,the chances of them getting two others wrong...& someone spotting them is unlikely.
If you pick one value bet & pair it up with two non value selections,you kill your advantage,long term.
It's never a good idea to dismiss anything in betting,so if you're confident you can cap to 55% & higher I'd definitely keep parlays open as an option.
If you keep records(even of paper trades)then you've at least got some data to work with.
all the best,P.
