- Status
Z
I have not received anything, you will have to forward your email to Sportsavant and he can forward it to me like we did last week.
sportsavant@gmail.com
Please title it ZGB7 Email for Wilheim.
Thank you, wilheim..
I have not received anything, you will have to forward your email to Sportsavant and he can forward it to me like we did last week.
sportsavant@gmail.com
Please title it ZGB7 Email for Wilheim.
Thank you, wilheim..
At what point were they considering these parlays correlated?
Pointspreads over 10 with the total?
Over 20 with the total?
Were they consistent?
I would be more convinced if their rules said:
"A bettor cannot parlay a pointspread which is 10 or more points with the total in the same game".
Pointspreads over 10 with the total?
Over 20 with the total?
Were they consistent?
I would be more convinced if their rules said:
"A bettor cannot parlay a pointspread which is 10 or more points with the total in the same game".
An article I just found...
December 30, 2005
Columnist Jeff Haney on beating the odds by using correlated parlays on this weekend's NFL games
Jeff Haney's sports betting column appears Monday, Friday (gaming) and Wednesday (poker). Reach him at (702) 259-4041 or haney@lasvegassun.com.
•••
ODDS 'N' ENDS
It's usually difficult to make a case for betting a two-team parlay -- a wager involving two separate events in which both must win for the ticket to cash.
Most sports books pay out winning two-team parlays at odds of 13-5, even though the actual odds of the two events happening are 3-1 against. That gives the casino an advantage of 10 percent -- about twice the edge the house enjoys in roulette.
An exception comes if you can find a parlay in which the two events are not totally independent, but rather linked, or "correlated," in some way.
Bettors call these "correlated parlays" and actively seek them out for a pretty obvious reason: A solidly correlated parlay will give the gambler the "best of it" -- that is, it takes the advantage from the house and gives it to the bettor.
In his book "Win More, Lose Less," sports bettor Don Peszynski uses the example of a storm bringing snow and high winds that's expected to hit Cleveland and Pittsburgh -- both of which happen to be hosting NFL games. A parlay involving the "under" in both games could be correlated, and advantageous for the bettor.
If there's normally a 25 percent chance of both games going "under" (odds of 3-1 against), Peszynski estimates that even an extra five percentage points (from 25 percent to 30 percent) can turn the play into an expected winner.
Another form of correlation involves playoff implications. This can often be found at the end of the NFL season -- including this weekend's card.
The Kansas City Chiefs, for instance, can clinch a playoff berth Sunday -- but only with a win against the Cincinnati Bengals, a loss by the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday and a loss by the San Diego Chargers on Saturday.
So if the Chargers beat the Denver Broncos on Saturday, the Chiefs' playoffs hopes are wiped out, meaning Kansas City will have little to play for as an 8-point favorite against the Bengals.
I see a correlation between the Chargers winning outright against the Broncos and the Bengals' chances as an underdog against the Chiefs.
I'm not suggesting the Chiefs will fail to "play hard" if the Chargers win. The players on the field for Kansas City will be trying their best to win. It's just that the entire dynamic of a game can change when there's a playoff spot at stake.
And the oddsmakers evidently agree. Once Saturday's Chargers-Broncos game kicks off, most if not all Las Vegas sports books will stop taking bets on Sunday's Chiefs-Bengals game. Then, once the result of the Chargers game is known, they'll resume taking wagers on the Chiefs game, possibly after adjusting the point spread.
If there is no correlation, why bother taking the game off the board?
Here's how I'm playing it: Give me a two-teamer pairing the Chargers on the money line (that is, to win outright regardless of the point spread) with the Bengals plus 8 points. That would pay a total of about $225 on a $100 wager.
You could also pair the Chargers money line with the Bengals money line ($415 for a $100 wager); or even the Broncos money line with the Chiefs money line (about $700 for a $100 wager).
Other possibly correlated parlays to consider this weekend, based on the playoff picture sorting itself out:
Pittsburgh plays Detroit on Sunday, but the Steelers can clinch a wild-card berth if the Chargers win Saturday. Give me a two-teamer of San Diego on the money line with the Lions plus 13 1/2 points ($225 for a $100 wager). You could also try the San Diego money line with the Detroit money line ($900 for a $100 wager).
Dallas, which plays St. Louis on Sunday, needs a win along with a loss by either Carolina or Washington to qualify for a wild-card berth. So give me a three-teamer: the Panthers money line, the Redskins money line and the Rams plus 12 1/2 ($380 for a $100 wager). Or turn it around and play Atlanta on the money line (against the Panthers) with the Cowboys, either on the money line or laying 12 1/2. I believe it's correlated either way.
Tampa Bay plays New Orleans on Sunday, but the Buccaneers can clinch a playoff berth if the New York Giants win Saturday. So give me the Giants money line with the Saints plus 14 ($240 for a $100 wager).
Problems or questions?
Read our policy on privacy and cookies.
All contents © 1996 - 2007 Las Vegas Sun, Inc.
December 30, 2005
Columnist Jeff Haney on beating the odds by using correlated parlays on this weekend's NFL games
Jeff Haney's sports betting column appears Monday, Friday (gaming) and Wednesday (poker). Reach him at (702) 259-4041 or haney@lasvegassun.com.
•••
ODDS 'N' ENDS
It's usually difficult to make a case for betting a two-team parlay -- a wager involving two separate events in which both must win for the ticket to cash.
Most sports books pay out winning two-team parlays at odds of 13-5, even though the actual odds of the two events happening are 3-1 against. That gives the casino an advantage of 10 percent -- about twice the edge the house enjoys in roulette.
An exception comes if you can find a parlay in which the two events are not totally independent, but rather linked, or "correlated," in some way.
Bettors call these "correlated parlays" and actively seek them out for a pretty obvious reason: A solidly correlated parlay will give the gambler the "best of it" -- that is, it takes the advantage from the house and gives it to the bettor.
In his book "Win More, Lose Less," sports bettor Don Peszynski uses the example of a storm bringing snow and high winds that's expected to hit Cleveland and Pittsburgh -- both of which happen to be hosting NFL games. A parlay involving the "under" in both games could be correlated, and advantageous for the bettor.
If there's normally a 25 percent chance of both games going "under" (odds of 3-1 against), Peszynski estimates that even an extra five percentage points (from 25 percent to 30 percent) can turn the play into an expected winner.
Another form of correlation involves playoff implications. This can often be found at the end of the NFL season -- including this weekend's card.
The Kansas City Chiefs, for instance, can clinch a playoff berth Sunday -- but only with a win against the Cincinnati Bengals, a loss by the Pittsburgh Steelers on Sunday and a loss by the San Diego Chargers on Saturday.
So if the Chargers beat the Denver Broncos on Saturday, the Chiefs' playoffs hopes are wiped out, meaning Kansas City will have little to play for as an 8-point favorite against the Bengals.
I see a correlation between the Chargers winning outright against the Broncos and the Bengals' chances as an underdog against the Chiefs.
I'm not suggesting the Chiefs will fail to "play hard" if the Chargers win. The players on the field for Kansas City will be trying their best to win. It's just that the entire dynamic of a game can change when there's a playoff spot at stake.
And the oddsmakers evidently agree. Once Saturday's Chargers-Broncos game kicks off, most if not all Las Vegas sports books will stop taking bets on Sunday's Chiefs-Bengals game. Then, once the result of the Chargers game is known, they'll resume taking wagers on the Chiefs game, possibly after adjusting the point spread.
If there is no correlation, why bother taking the game off the board?
Here's how I'm playing it: Give me a two-teamer pairing the Chargers on the money line (that is, to win outright regardless of the point spread) with the Bengals plus 8 points. That would pay a total of about $225 on a $100 wager.
You could also pair the Chargers money line with the Bengals money line ($415 for a $100 wager); or even the Broncos money line with the Chiefs money line (about $700 for a $100 wager).
Other possibly correlated parlays to consider this weekend, based on the playoff picture sorting itself out:
Pittsburgh plays Detroit on Sunday, but the Steelers can clinch a wild-card berth if the Chargers win Saturday. Give me a two-teamer of San Diego on the money line with the Lions plus 13 1/2 points ($225 for a $100 wager). You could also try the San Diego money line with the Detroit money line ($900 for a $100 wager).
Dallas, which plays St. Louis on Sunday, needs a win along with a loss by either Carolina or Washington to qualify for a wild-card berth. So give me a three-teamer: the Panthers money line, the Redskins money line and the Rams plus 12 1/2 ($380 for a $100 wager). Or turn it around and play Atlanta on the money line (against the Panthers) with the Cowboys, either on the money line or laying 12 1/2. I believe it's correlated either way.
Tampa Bay plays New Orleans on Sunday, but the Buccaneers can clinch a playoff berth if the New York Giants win Saturday. So give me the Giants money line with the Saints plus 14 ($240 for a $100 wager).
Problems or questions?
Read our policy on privacy and cookies.
All contents © 1996 - 2007 Las Vegas Sun, Inc.
Another update -
Contrary to the earlier statement - the losing parlays were also 'no actioned' from the beginning. I'm not sure how that was not relayed to the people making the statements - a real lack of communication going on.
I was told this earlier today by Sportsbook.com, and then I confirmed it with one of the customers involved.
Just wanted to pass that along.
Thanks
Rick
Contrary to the earlier statement - the losing parlays were also 'no actioned' from the beginning. I'm not sure how that was not relayed to the people making the statements - a real lack of communication going on.
I was told this earlier today by Sportsbook.com, and then I confirmed it with one of the customers involved.
Just wanted to pass that along.
Thanks
Rick
If true, this is a pretty big update, probably deserves it's own thread.
Voiding bets no action when a player violates the TOA is completely different than confiscating all the funds in the account.
However, were they grading losing parlays no action as well or just the ones that won?
- Status
