Find out why Fezzik believes moneyline parlay bets are suspect by going to the RX home page at www.theprescription.com
Charlie
Charlie
Baseball aside for a moment, money lines in the point spread sports imo. can be of significent value to a handicappers who look to bet what a lot of people call "Live Dogs". My definition of a live dog is one that can win outright on the field, floor or ice. Take the NBA for example I might like a 3.5 point underdog, which affords me two options, take the 3.5 and lay -110 (or less juice at some outs) or take around plus 160 to 165 and no points on the ML. I know a lot of cappers will have the mathmatical comparisions between 3.5 points minus juice and plus 160 with no points, I am not here to dicuss the differences. I have more success with the ML than taking the small points. The NFL is probably the best sport for the pick the winner school of handicapping. My rule of thumb with low point spreads is lay the points and as little juice as possible with favorites, and take the plus juice on the ML with dogs. As far as ML parlays go, dog parlays in baseball can be a lot of fun for the smaller recreational player, I see nothing wrong with a 3 team $25 all dog parlay, eg. a 3 teamer with plus 185, 165, and 170 will pay $485 for a $25 laydown. Great action for very small money. Serious bettors are a different story for a different day.
wil.
wil.
Don't want to stir anything up as the writer is probably pals with a lot of guys here... I just think it's poorly written. I had to reread a few sentences to figure out what he's saying. That second paragraph is a doozer, lol. No worries, don't expect any Pullitzer-calibre writing here.
Furthermore, his argument seems to be based on intuition rather than math. I'd like to to see some data to support it.
I'd be inclined to believe that one gets more value playing the moneyline with parlays as you get true odds on the multiplier, unlike ATS parlays where you get 2.6-1, 6-1, 10-1 crap.
If you're going to argue otherwise, please provide data to support it.
Furthermore, his argument seems to be based on intuition rather than math. I'd like to to see some data to support it.
I'd be inclined to believe that one gets more value playing the moneyline with parlays as you get true odds on the multiplier, unlike ATS parlays where you get 2.6-1, 6-1, 10-1 crap.
If you're going to argue otherwise, please provide data to support it.
I have gone around and around about deciding how to make the most of the bets. One thing I do a lot of that takes both the money line and taking the points-when betting dogs is by taking action points. Action points are the ideal bet in a situation where you think the dog may kick some tail and on the flip side you are very comfortable with the dog atleast holding their own and not being blown out.
Ok this is why it is a poor argument. Let's say you are getting +105 on a 50% proposition and you parlay two of these together. Your odds are now +320 and your expected return is 5.06%.
Let's say that instead of parlaying them, you line shop and find the two bets at +109, instead of +105. Your expected return, betting them individually, is 4.5%.
Therefore, parlaying offers a higher expected return even though the line shopping may prodice a better line. Of course there are some examples where line shopping will produce a greater expected return but it depends on the difference between the parlay lines and the "shopped" lines.
Let's say that instead of parlaying them, you line shop and find the two bets at +109, instead of +105. Your expected return, betting them individually, is 4.5%.
Therefore, parlaying offers a higher expected return even though the line shopping may prodice a better line. Of course there are some examples where line shopping will produce a greater expected return but it depends on the difference between the parlay lines and the "shopped" lines.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dngu047:
Ok this is why it is a poor argument. Let's say you are getting +105 on a 50% proposition and you parlay two of these together. Your odds are now +320 and your expected return is 5.06%.
Let's say that instead of parlaying them, you line shop and find the two bets at +109, instead of +105. Your expected return, betting them individually, is 4.5%.
Therefore, parlaying offers a higher expected return even though the line shopping may prodice a better line. Of course there are some examples where line shopping will produce a greater expected return but it depends on the difference between the parlay lines and the "shopped" lines.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Depends on how you are splitting up the bets. You need to realize, that in your case of +105 dogs, you are betting $100 to win $105 on the first game and $205 to win $215.25 on the second. You cannot compare that with betting $100 on separate bets, because that is not the same "risk" per wager. A "true odds" parlay does not increase the value on any individual wager...it is exactly the same as if you had let your money ride. So you cannot say that a parlay (at true odds) offers added value because it is exactly the same return if you bet it the same.
Ok this is why it is a poor argument. Let's say you are getting +105 on a 50% proposition and you parlay two of these together. Your odds are now +320 and your expected return is 5.06%.
Let's say that instead of parlaying them, you line shop and find the two bets at +109, instead of +105. Your expected return, betting them individually, is 4.5%.
Therefore, parlaying offers a higher expected return even though the line shopping may prodice a better line. Of course there are some examples where line shopping will produce a greater expected return but it depends on the difference between the parlay lines and the "shopped" lines.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Depends on how you are splitting up the bets. You need to realize, that in your case of +105 dogs, you are betting $100 to win $105 on the first game and $205 to win $215.25 on the second. You cannot compare that with betting $100 on separate bets, because that is not the same "risk" per wager. A "true odds" parlay does not increase the value on any individual wager...it is exactly the same as if you had let your money ride. So you cannot say that a parlay (at true odds) offers added value because it is exactly the same return if you bet it the same.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You cannot compare that with betting $100 on separate bets, because that is not the same "risk" per wager. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can compare them. You do this by calculating the return per dollar risked, which is what I did above.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So you cannot say that a parlay (at true odds) offers added value because it is exactly the same return if you bet it the same. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's a mathematical fact that, if you have two positive expectation bets, putting them together in a parlay will offer a greater return per dollar risked than betting them individually. It's simple, indisputable arithmetic. Further a parlay is not the same as letting your money ride, because you can parlay events simultaneously, where when you "let your money ride" you need events to happen in a certain chronology.
You can compare them. You do this by calculating the return per dollar risked, which is what I did above.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So you cannot say that a parlay (at true odds) offers added value because it is exactly the same return if you bet it the same. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's a mathematical fact that, if you have two positive expectation bets, putting them together in a parlay will offer a greater return per dollar risked than betting them individually. It's simple, indisputable arithmetic. Further a parlay is not the same as letting your money ride, because you can parlay events simultaneously, where when you "let your money ride" you need events to happen in a certain chronology.
"......I didn't know English teachers made enough to make bets........"
no, but after reading enough of them you get an idea of what a good article is. and this one is pretty bad. stop brown nosing. you know it sucks. lol. i like Fezzik's stuff, i always read it. im sure he will bounce back and wow us with the next one.
no, but after reading enough of them you get an idea of what a good article is. and this one is pretty bad. stop brown nosing. you know it sucks. lol. i like Fezzik's stuff, i always read it. im sure he will bounce back and wow us with the next one.
