what do you think

[OnWisconsin]

as i'm sitting on the porch light, enjoying the cool weather and lack of nut biting bugs, i wondered:

what do the more experienced bettors think about making 2 team parlays their main bet? say for instance, forget about juice, the typical 2 teamer pays around 2.6 to 1. i'll round it to 2.5 to 1 to keep the math simple for me.

so you do 10 2 team parlays at $100 a pop. 3 wins would = $750, while the 7 losses would equal -$700, giving you a gain of 50 bucks. 30% winners and you show a profit. better than having to hit 53% on the straight bets to simply break even.

what do ya'll think? or should i just call it a night while it's still dark?

 

[Illini]

It's all in the math. There is a lot more house edge in a 2 team parlay than there is in a straight bet. Especially when you figure that you can bet almost every straight bet at reduced juice. Unless the parlay bet is correlated, it cannot be more advantageous than betting straight plays.

 

[barman]

SD, I've been using 2TPs as my primary vehicle (about 80% of my wagers) since early this year and I've had my best success.

I personally focus on moneyline prices and getting at least a 3.0x1 payout...though it ranges from about 2.8 to 4.0

1) Helps reduce my exposure per wager since I cannnot lose more than one Unit per play (as opposed to playing say, a couple of -140 faves...losing twice and being down 2.8 units)

2)It does take a modified mindset because even if I'm doing well with my overall selections, I can lose three, four, five...eight (?) consecutive parlays. But then if I win three of the next four, I'm right back to Even.

Or better example....If I'm getting 3.2x1 per winning 2TP and I only win once in twelve times, I'm +9.6 and -9.0

Thus a profit, but I lost 75% of my wagers. That's what I mean by it takes a different mindset and a patient attitude.

I personally do not expose more than 5% of my Available Balance so it's very challenging to burn it down before I win a couple and either come back to Even or move ahead a bit


Finally, my unit "size" remains constant for at least 30 parlays.

This is to help assure that I don't have say, 4 wins and 8 losses (+4.8 net) and then I jack my unit size and go 1 win 6 losses and I'm behind.

Best to you however you elect to proceed

 

[barman]

All of the above is most helpful for those of us who are relatively small stakes players ($50 or less per wager)

With a larger bank, you can be a bit more methodical and have a bit more room to absorb slumps so as ILLINI correctly notes, the overall percentages tip to your favor by relying on Straight Bets at no more than -120 and using 2TPs is likely a needless chipping off your end percentages

 

[OnWisconsin]

i hear you bar, i went through a stretch where i was hitting around 50% parlaying nba sides and totals and was showing a nice gain, but i got away from that when i got greedy. i have found a lot of times when i have a good read on a side, i have a good read on the game as a whole.

as far as the house edge, i don't know. if i win 30% (assuming -110 or better) of my bets, i win money, compared to having to win 52.8% to break even on straight wagers if i'm flat betting. i'm thinking this is how i will approach the remainder of the baseball season, but will stick with totals where the juice is much more consistent.

 

[OnWisconsin]

All of the above is most helpful for those of us who are relatively small stakes players ($50 or less per wager)

With a larger bank, you can be a bit more methodical and have a bit more room to absorb slumps so as ILLINI correctly notes, the overall percentages tip to your favor by relying on Straight Bets at no more than -120 and using 2TPs is likely a needless chipping off your end percentages

but why do the bankrolls matter? i mean, if you're an action junkie, i could see where straight betting -165 and -140 would be more profitable than parlaying at those odds, but i'm talking mainly -105 to -115, where you will get paid for the parlay. that's why i don't like teasers -- you wind up getting a few extra points but have to win 2 games and pay a higher price than a single straight bet.

 

[valueman]

It's all in the expectation. The maths and juice are irrellevant.

If you know your analysis gives you an edge every time you bet doing parlays multipllies your edge. I would say there are very few people that know they have an edge every time they bet however hence this approach isn't employed by many.

 

[Illini]

i hear you bar, i went through a stretch where i was hitting around 50% parlaying nba sides and totals and was showing a nice gain, but i got away from that when i got greedy. i have found a lot of times when i have a good read on a side, i have a good read on the game as a whole.

as far as the house edge, i don't know. if i win 30% (assuming -110 or better) of my bets, i win money, compared to having to win 52.8% to break even on straight wagers if i'm flat betting. i'm thinking this is how i will approach the remainder of the baseball season, but will stick with totals where the juice is much more consistent.

You have 25% chance of winning a 2-team parlay, on average. It should pay 3-1, but it only pays 2.6/1.

You have a 50% chance of winning a straight bet. It should pay 1 to 1, but it pays 10/11, or 20/21 at reduced juice.

The house keeps a lot more on a 2 team parlay.

 

[gynecologist]

Might find it hard to connect winners via parlays, so the chance of prolonged losing streaks increase immensely.

 

[Illini]

House edge is 10% on a two-team parlay, assuming it's not a moneyline. For example, 4 guys bet the 4 different outcomes of a 2-team parlay, each for $100. The house takes the $400, pays out $360 to the guy that wins, and keeps $40.

On a straight bet, two guys bet to win $100 on opposite sides of a game. House takes $110 from each player, pays out $210 and keeps $10. House edge of 4.55%.

Which bet do you think the book wants you to make? Nevermind the fact that you can lay -105 or -102 at Matchbook on straight wagers.

 

[OnWisconsin]

It's all in the expectation. The maths and juice are irrellevant.

If you know your analysis gives you an edge every time you bet doing parlays multipllies your edge. I would say there are very few people that know they have an edge every time they bet however hence this approach isn't employed by many.

it's not about having an edge every time you bet -- even when i seriously feel like i have an edge, i might be lucky to win 50% of the time. but when my analysis does prove correct, then chances are i'm on the right side on the side and total.

and i really feel the odds are in my favor. before making the bet however, check the public numbers and make sure you're not on the same side on both. the public is horribly 50/50.

 

[OnWisconsin]

House edge is 10% on a two-team parlay, assuming it's not a moneyline. For example, 4 guys bet the 4 different outcomes of a 2-team parlay, each for $100. The house takes the $400, pays out $360 to the guy that wins, and keeps $40.

On a straight bet, two guys bet to win $100 on opposite sides of a game. House takes $110 from each player, pays out $210 and keeps $10. House edge of 4.55%.

Which bet do you think the book wants you to make? Nevermind the fact that you can lay -105 or -102 at Matchbook on straight wagers.

fuck the book. i've been known to do what someone else wants only to end up with a very unwelcome result....

 

[OnWisconsin]

Might find it hard to connect winners via parlays, so the chance of prolonged losing streaks increase immensely.

i agree with that considering my current run in baseball. going to stick with just totals.

 

[Illini]

fuck the book. i've been known to do what someone else wants only to end up with a very unwelcome result....

All I'm saying is that unless you can bet a correlated parlay, which you really can't anymore, you are better off playing both bets straight. By parlaying them, you are giving the book more of an advantage. That means it's harder to show a profit over the long term. And it's very difficult to overcome the book's edge as it is on straight bets.

I can see where +260 sounds better than -110. But it's not.

 

[gynecologist]

O's/White Sox over 8.5 tomorrow.. Are you on this one sir?

 

[valueman]

Soonerdawg "it's not about having an edge every time you bet ".

Successful betting is EVERYTHING about have an edge every time you bet. If you know on average over many seasons of analysis that every bet you do will gain you a profit ie you are a long term winner. Maybe you have analysed this and determined that there is a 2% profit for every $ you bet then doing a parlay of two teams multiplies your theoretical profit.

The juice etc of the parlay are irrelevant. For a loser agreed it multiplies your loss. Agreed also that your cash flow may not be as consistent.

 

[OnWisconsin]

O's/White Sox over 8.5 tomorrow.. Are you on this one sir?

haven't even looked at it yet.

this was just something i was thinking about. like i said, i had success doing this in the nba, but it was short term and i got greedy and lost my 'roll making stupid bets.

ace ace has a thread dedicated to him not losing 7 in a row. i think i may make my own thread saying i can get at least 30% winners and still make money. what do yo think?

 

[gynecologist]

I say post the thread, I for one would be very interested in how you fare with it..

I hope you try it out, if anything it will be a lesson.

 

[Illini]

haven't even looked at it yet.

this was just something i was thinking about. like i said, i had success doing this in the nba, but it was short term and i got greedy and lost my 'roll making stupid bets.

ace ace has a thread dedicated to him not losing 7 in a row. i think i may make my own thread saying i can get at least 30% winners and still make money. what do yo think?

You still have to be almost a 55% capper to hit 30% of your 2-team parlays. 55% cappers print money betting straight bets.

 

[OnWisconsin]

Soonerdawg "it's not about having an edge every time you bet ".

Successful betting is EVERYTHING about have an edge every time you bet. If you know on average over many seasons of analysis that every bet you do will gain you a profit ie you are a long term winner. Maybe you have analysed this and determined that there is a 2% profit for every $ you bet then doing a parlay of two teams multiplies your theoretical profit.

The juice etc of the parlay are irrelevant. For a loser agreed it multiplies your loss. Agreed also that your cash flow may not be as consistent.

i don't think it is about having an edge. there are times when you feel strongly about a side -- or someone you have a lot of respect for is on a side -- but more often than not you wind up sweating your nuts off at the outcome. if i feel like i have a serious advantage on a side, my money's going in the pot and there's no parlaying it cause i don't wanna fuck it up.

more often than not, whatever edge i might think i have is nothing more than the flip of a coin. if i was God's gift to handicapping i'd be praising Jesus with my 15 virgins right now.

thing is, when i'm right, a lot of times it's like "shit, i knew they were gonna hit that bastard and score some runs, shoulda parlayed it". what i'm trying to say, when i feel like i have an edge, it's roughly 50/50. when i'm right, it seems to be both ways. i'm just trying to figure out how to help my bottom line.