mathematically parlays arent worth it.
whats your justification for parlaying fights?
whats your justification for parlaying fights?
-
-
well for me
when i see three "locks" on a fight card, i know the parlay is almost as good as free money.
but more importantly, how else would u make money off heavy favorites?
they arent as bad as they seem, u just gotta be good at picking!Comment -
I learnt after the first Penn vs Edgar fight that straight parlays aren't the best option. BJ was deemed a 'lock' going in to that fight and I can admit unfortunately that I fell for it as well even though Franky Edgar is my favourite fighter, and as a result had Penn in at least 3 different parlays. All three parlays would of cashed if Penn had of won so I was rather gutted to say the least on lost about 2.5 units as a result. I also made similar mistakes in thinking that P.Thiago was a ‘lock’ against Kampmann, Marquadt over Sonnen, King Mo over Cavalcante, Simpson over Leben and most recently Pearson over Cole Miller. All five of those favourite were at least -250 favourites so as you say ‘should win because they are the favourites for a reason’ but clearly this isn’t the case. Although I didn’t lose anything drastic on all of those parlays as I usually put less than 0.5 units on any parlays luckily, it shows that in the long term parlays will probly lead to you losing money, unless you just do one parlay, win big, then never bet again, or just do very low risk, low chance, high reward bets for a substantial period. If I do a parlay now, I only do doubles or do 2 out of 3 folds, 4 out of 5 folds, 5 out of 7 folds so as to ensure that I get something back at the very least if one or two fights don’t go as expected. I also always include at least one decent value dog. This has worked for me so far in last couple events that I’ve placed parlays such as these. For instance, my current pending one is 3 out of 4 folds including Faber, Mendes, Jabouin and Sotiropolous.Comment -
I very rarely make parlays. However, in the past when I was less disipline and knowlegdable, I justified them on the basis of risk. Even if I thought a -400 had value, I was not in a position to risk the amount required for my min. win (the amount that I was satisfied justified actually making a play), so parlaying two heavy favs together got me my desired win amount, without the risk to my bankroll that could send me on tilt if I had lost.
Or, I was just straight up gambling, not forecasting. Basically, like playing the lottery.
But, like you said, mathematically, it is not worth it unless you have a correlated parlay on the same fight which you are not going to get away with.
Nothing wrong with playing big favs straight up if line is off.Comment -
i`ve heard the "parlays lose in the long run" argument before....for me it`s total bullshit....at least in combat sports....
there are lots of reasons for parlaying...minimizing risk/loss....bankroll management.....the diversity it offers...it allows me to play faves i would normally not be able to play due to the exorbitant risk involved.....
obviously,if you make a habit of doing 3 and 4 play parlays,your percentages are seriously reduced.....but if you keep things tight,you can do well with parlays...
theres a guy on a site i frequent that wagers on football...picking nothing buy big faves and occasionally buying big points...it worked for awhile...but inevitably,he`s hit a rough patch and it will take him a long,long time to dig out...if he`s lucky.....that`s not for me...
i haven`t deposited money into an account in a very long time...not saying i`ve won big money(that`s not why i gamble on mma and boxing...i do it because ii enjoy it)... ..but i`m relatively consistent...
i`m conservative...and that means i seldom lay odds...no huge ups or downs...slow and steady win s the race,imo...
no offense intended,but,the "you`re a dope if you parlay" meme is a tad arrogant...if you carry the argument to it`s logical conclusion,anybody that bets on certain sports and pays a vig is an idiot...
not all gamblers are the same...and not everyone that doesn`t gamble the way others think they should is a dummkopf.....Comment -
I love parlaying fights with a good dog that am very confident in. Like a 3 fight parlay with one dog and two favs around -200 to -250.Comment -
the only "true" reason to parlay fights is to circumvent limits
there are smaller more exotic reasons such as a having a low balance at a particular book and no way to get more money in.Comment -
trixtrix...i found your post to be a bit absolutist and (no offense) a bit arrogant...there are multiple reasons to parlay...and they are different for different folks....
btw...did you post this?...
"again this is a OUTRIGHT LIE from the sportsbook, I already sent my entire parlay wagering history to justin7 and he can verify. my net winning from all parlays played was 4.3k, i have my full wagering log to back up this number."
those are some excellent winnings from parlays...you apparently parlay very successfully......congrats...
Comment -
if you can share relevant mathematical underpinnings to parlaying fights instead of betting them in straight wagers other than to inflate exposure, i'll be happen to listen.
yes, i did post the above, except those parlays had nothing to do w/ fights. there is a correlation component that exist in same game wagers that does NOT exist in mma fights, feel free to take it out of context as much as you want, but there is absolutely no mathematical justification for parlaying fights unless kelly staking or br constraints demand it. feel free to prove me wrong.Comment -
i have wagered mma successfully for 5 years now and i can honestly say parlays have a huge factor in that. lets be honest the question raised is a valid one, to answer it we again need to be honest and all admit wagering MMA and BOXING is not the same as wagering NFL,NHL,MLB etc. they are completely different animals. we would never take teams -250 to -400 time and time again like we do in fight wagers.
also lets remember the volume for plays in fights and the movement in fights. lets focus on ufc and go back and track how often an underdog wins in the ufc, last 5 years
614wins favs 69%
271wins dogs 31%
**average odds are about +180**
bottomline for me years back was i approached mma like nhl and mlb always looking for that dog value and lower ml value. when mma started it was easier to pick dogs, books were often off and lines rarely moved, now things are different and in 2 years they will be shaper than ever. my success has come from looking for fighter value now. i don't care if its -350, for me its picking the winners understanding the favs win more often than not and the biggest dog value is found in +500 fights in ufc and in championship fights. if u are knowledgable and research and watch fights and know camps etc i suspect u have a better chance at winning a 2 fighter parlay than picking that 1 dog of the 3 dogs that will win that given ufc night.
parlays in my threads are used often, favs are used often, so i take a different approach to my bankroll and adjust. my biggest thing with parlays is setting up hedges. i love to make parlays using diffent events for 1 example my latest ufc 122(noke-saddollah and ufc 123 sotiiopoluolus) i love that i get almost 2-1 for this parlay if i continue or i can hedge and guarantee a pay out.
also mma-boxing is different again in setting up straddles and middles etc. again making wise early bets could lead to a profitable hedge. mma-boxing is looked at differently and needs to be approached open minded. i never track my parlays but my mma is 61% +11.50* with 65W, i would guess atleast 25W of those are parlays for atleast 35% of my overall winnings, my loses are 41L with probably 13L being parlays. there a must for me and i gauge them just as important as any play, and look at that very much in the eys of value and edge, and for ME and my theory in capping MMA_BOXING its about value, edge,bankroll management and research.
well i rambled and probably made no sense, i guess what i'm saying is fight wagering is a different beast and needs to be approached differently then mainstream sports, parlays are a tool and like any tool and be valuable when u need that particular toolComment -
going on memory here but ufc 122 had 3 dogs winning(sosynksi +105/okami +175/ludwig +270) there were about 3 fights were both were favoured and 1 fight cancelled.
u cannot prove parlay success here, but what we established again was 30% dogs win as 11 fights total, 1 cancelled so 7 favs. so after i view the lines, make my own lines i have a great chance the way i see and approach fights on picking that 2 to 3 fight parlay that wins me half, to even to 2 or 3-1, and win about 65 to 75% of the time.Comment -
this is dependent on whether you were using opening or closing odds, soszinski didn't close as a dog (was pick'em), however siver did.
fav parlays payout are dependent on their moneyline, you can hit 3 -1000 favs 75% it will no garner you profit, in any case, the contrasting argument is why you cannot have simply bet those 3 favs individually to each yield 1 unit profitComment -
Mathematically betting on N straight bets sequentially i.e. not simultaneously, where each bet is made after the next from the resulting bankroll is equivalent to betting on all possible straights and parlays at certain fractions of your initial bankroll simultaneously. This turns out to mean that when you bet on a number of straights from an initial bankroll simultaneously, excluding parlays can lead you to over exposure and serious over exposure if you bet big. So mathematically speaking parlays are definately worth it for simultaneous betting.Comment -
thats why i mentioned in my reply i focus on 2-3 fighter parlays to generate profit in the range of say 0.25 to win 0.15 0r 0.25 0r 0.50*, again using parlays as a tool based on your betting style, theory and money management. when i look at the fights i just determine how do i get the best value and edge to win. if that means a parlay then thats an option i will exploit. we r all in this i think to win, no one can ever really tell someone how to win, u just have to really sets foundations and work to step on them. responsible parlaying if i could use that term is a big foundation in my mma-boxing betting so i work hard on ensuring they give me the results i hope for, they get just as much thought and research as a wager on a dog or a big fav etc.Comment -
1.) when do you have simultaneous fights? bookmaker/pinny/matchbook all offer fights on main cards until the moment fighter step into the ring
2.) simultaneous kelly staking does involve a small component to be risked on parlays, but main bets on still on the independent eventsComment -
Simultaneous betting doesn't mean the fights happen simultaneously it just mean you bet on a bunch of events from an initial bankroll, i.e. you don't bet an initial fight wait for the result, then make the next bet from the resulting bankroll, then wait for the outcome and bet the next etc... For example if you were to stake a fraction of f(1) on event 1, then after it occured stake a fraction f(2) on event 2 from the resulting bankroll. Betting like this is exactly exquivalent to betting f(1)*(1-f(2)) on event 1, betting f(2)*(1-f(1)) on event 2 and betting f(1)*f(2) on the parlay of event 1 and event 2, all from your initial bankroll. Whatever the outcome of each event the final bankroll in the simultaneous betting case and the sequential case is the same. This is also why simultaneous kelly betting is the same as sequential kelly betting. It means that you can do crazy things like from an inital bankroll bet 75% on an event then another 75% on the next event, all from an initial bankroll by using a parlay. Also if you were to bet say 20% of your bankroll on each of 5 events, instead of wagering 100% of an initial bankroll you reduce the exposure down to 1 - (1-0.2)^5 ~= 67% of your initial bankroll. When a bunch of events happen in 1 night and you want to bet large amounts on each 1 you don't have to wait till after each has occured to make your new bet, you can just make them all at once from your initial bankroll. Then you can take advantage of better lines etc...Comment -
Don't know why but my browser doesn't allow spaces, sorry for that.Comment -
i understand the difference, my pt was that unless under very rare circumstances, you don't have to worry about simultaneous staking b/c the large bookmakers will grade and allow you to wager on the next fight in real time
in any case, i do agree that w/ kelly staking there is a small component that should be risked on the parlay, i classified that under exotic circumstances in my first post and made more explicit in the 2nd postComment -
Fair enough, semantics i guess. Well that means you gotta either be at your computer when they happen or call them up internationally (in my case). Also you can't take advantage of good lines early, you gotta wait till late. I only do it rarely but when I do it's usually because i'm putting large amounts down on a single guy and I want to bet on others too. A few months ago I wanted to put a large pile on Schaub against Tuch and next event a massive amount on Jones against Maty, I wanted to take advantage of the early lines as Jones was floating around -550 so instead of doing it sequentially and worrying about Jone's price getting worse I just bet simulatneously with the parlay so I could lock myself into a good line and not have to worry about over exposure... I think it has it's place.Comment -
Parlays can be just as "mathematically" worth it as straight bets. You just have to understand what a parlay is before placing one. If you have a parlay with 4 fighters what you are doing is betting each individual fight then risking your initial bet and the earnings of that bet on the next fight. A parlay is pretty much a series of straight bets. When you place a parlay you have to understand that. For instance, if you have a 4 fight parlay for $100 to win $1500 and you're last bet is +100, you have to understand that you are risking $800 on the last fight. If this is not something you would normally do, then the parlay isn't "mathematically" worth it, but if you have no problem risking that money then the parlay holds the same value as a straight bet.Comment -
condolences....serious question....were you aware of wagerweb`s rep and decided to roll the dice with correlated pars(i`m surmising that`s what was done...if i`m wrong,i apologize) hoping that they weren`t sophisticated enough to catch it?....
because,from what i`ve been told,the more reputable books(5 dimes/pinny/the greek) have the software installed to reject these high risk wagers......
it`s a damned shame(and a bit of a surprise) that they did what they did after the fact...first time i`d heard that...Comment -
parlays are good as long as you dont count on them winning.betting small amounts of cash and sometimes winning is always a bonus.Comment -
Only straight bets when I play for real. I play parlays mostly for fun. Usually 5 or 6 fighters because you can risk $10 and get back $2000. Plus if you get the first 4 right and start to get scared you can buy the last two fights and still make a decent profit.Comment -
correlated parlays are not a magical parlay that is guaranteed profit, how well the parlay does is dependent on how strong the underlying correlation is.
in this case, the correlation is relatively light and majority of those parlays can be found at betjamaica and greek, i was initially down 10k+ betting them, before having an upturn and finished up net 4k+.
i didn't expect to have the balance stolen b/c wagerweb at the time had actually cared about the reputation when engaged by sbr. additionally, i know that wagerweb have paid out on stronger correlated parlays on soccer in the past.
wagerweb/betj/pinn/greek all have the software in place to guarded against overtly correlated parlays, which these are not. the lightly correlated parlays most rec books allow it so the public don't whine about being cut off from doing any parlays. the only difference is wagerweb STEALS the funds 3 months after the bets were settled, greek/betj pays them out and then limit your action.Comment -
im pretty sure everyone in this thread understands what a parlay is. no offense intended, but what im getting at is that as you mentioned: parlays do not increase your expected value BUT do increase your variance which for mathematical purposes is bad given that as a player, you do not have infinite money/time, while a casino (theoretically) does and thus can recover over time.
in any case, i love hearing about all of the reasons you all parlay and how you justify it.
i personally like to parlay because i get dazzled by the huge amounts of money i COULD win. lol.
the argument that gambling itself is not mathematically sound though is not solid to me though, i personally gamble online to win. I try my best to do research and pick to MAKE money.Comment -
dream1 basically summed it all up for me
betting mma and basketball are completly different, and the parlay u wud bet on mma as opposed to basketball or watever are completly different.
favorites win 70% of the time in combat sports, not like in football where every weekend a super power franchise loses to a scrub team i.e. giants and cowbboys
if your good at picking fights, might as well pick them together
granted, like my man up top said about bj losing to edgar. you will lose parlays sometimes, but most of the time if u ride favorites in parlays u wont. think about it, we all site edgar beating BJ as an exmaple to not take favorites, but what about the 5 fights before that where BJ crushed his opponents. he was a favorite then too. gsp will lose someday, but i have no problem riding his hot streak untill he eventually does.
o and i dont bet real money cuz im still a poor college student, but sbr points, fantasy bucks, watever its irrealvent. i 5-1 calling fights at ufc 122, and im always winning free dvds from ufc.com...i know the game of mma, just maybe not the betting side as much. im new to handicapping.
also, is a round robin better than a parlay, some dude told me that? just wondering. and what are wedges, doubles, and middles???
o and plz dont take belfort, kos, grispi. thats just donating money to ur bookiesComment -
also king mo and nate the great were never locks imo, same with leben. just sayinggg, king mo likes to bang and feijao does it best, there was a good chance he'd lose. but thats the past watever. thanks for the insight tho. wat does circumleavant limits mean??Comment -
These are what I'm talking about in my previous post and tend to do whenever I do a parlay (except doubles). I call them "two out of three folds" or "three out of four folds" rather than "Round Robins" and "wedges" etc...
Basicly similar to taking "each-way" in horse betting as your guaranteeing at least some return from your stake. So one of the pending parlays that I have is the Faber, Mendes, Jabouin and Sotiropolous one which I mentioned is a 3 out of 4 folds bet (or 'trebles'). I have 0.6 units total at stake which means 0.15 units per line. Faber, Mendes and Jabouin have all already won so I'm guaranteed a return of about 0.65 units (including the 0.15 unit stake) even if Sotiropolous loses to Lauzon. If Sot does win I'll have a return of about 2.5 units (1.9 units profit plus the full 0.6 units stake). So I'm in a win-win situation pretty much as I wont be losing any money even if Sot loses on Saturday night.Comment -
speaking of this, why does the SBR sportsbook not allow MMA parlays anymore??Comment -
Because they are a cash COW, and sbr book is just for recreation. Hockey -1.5 PL's and mma props/fights together can make for some very juicy odds if parlayed properly.Comment -
parlays are the way to go in mma, especially if you dont have enough money to bet on the big favorites straightComment
