Correlated Parlays College Football?

[gamblinggoose]

Hey guys. Need some help here, will provide points for any great ideas. My bookie allows all parlays, including ones that are highly correlated (he has no idea).
His 2 Teamer Pays out 2.5:1 ( I know, not great)
His 4 Teamer Pays out 10:1 (not that great either)
I am just curious if it would be better to have a lot of 2 teamers or a couple 4 teamers....for example (not neccesarily these two, just using examples):

4 Teamer: $50 to win $500
Ohio St (-30) and Over 44.5
Alabama (-23.5) and Over 57.5

There are about 4 of these that I want to do, also should I do the Underdog and Under as well or just hope the Over and Favorite hits?

or just to have them seperate? Also do you guys know if the Favorite and Over hits more or the Underdog and Under hits more? Any advice is greatly appreciated on this topic. In a big hole and looking to get any advantage I can. Let me know of any suggestions too fellas!!!

[dante1]

[quote=gamblinggoose;6417725]Hey guys. Need some help here, will provide points for any great ideas. My bookie allows all parlays, including ones that are highly correlated (he has no idea).
His 2 Teamer Pays out 2.5:1 ( I know, not great)
His 4 Teamer Pays out 10:1 (not that great either)
I am just curious if it would be better to have a lot of 2 teamers or a couple 4 teamers....for example (not neccesarily these two, just using examples):

4 Teamer: $50 to win $500
Ohio St (-30) and Over 44.5
Alabama (-23.5) and Over 57.5

There are about 4 of these that I want to do, also should I do the Underdog and Under as well or just hope the Over and Favorite hits?




My advice is stay away from 4 team parlays, correlated or not. You do realize the math involved here right.
You have one chance in 16 of winning a 4 team parlay, not including pushes. So with 15 possibilities that lose it is a very poor bet.

Oh yeah, they are fun, but not for big money. And certainly not for an attempt to get out of a huge hole.

Just my two cents. And I play them, but never expect to win, so when I do it is a bonus. My play on a 4 team parlay is rarely more than $20. And I don't play too many of them. Just not a huge return.

[BiffTFinancial]

yeah, i think that if you're looking to crawl out of a hole, the best way to do it is with single straight wagers and avoiding parlays. books automatically count 4-team parlays as a loss in their ledgers before the first game even starts for a reason. correlated parlays, where available, can offer good value, but i'd recommend sticking with 2-teamers for those.

[kiln]

Parlays = sucker bets.
The house advantage increases with every additional team you add. As dante1 points out, on 4 team parlay you have a 1 in 16 chance of winning but it only pays at 10 to 1. A two team parlay gives you a 1 in 4 chance, but it only pays 2.5 to 1. Money management AND NEVER CHASING is how one get's out (and stays out) of holes.

[gamblinggoose]

Yeah I get it but what I am saying is that these are correlated. so its not 16 individual outcomes, if ohio state covers 31 there is a strong chance of going over 44 and if alabama wins by 24 there is a good shot of it going over 58? are you guys also saying that even if there are correlated, 10:1 odds is still not worth it? a 20 bet wins 200? let me know and thanks for any help!!!!

[dante1]

Yeah I get it but what I am saying is that these are correlated. so its not 16 individual outcomes, if ohio state covers 31 there is a strong chance of going over 44 and if alabama wins by 24 there is a good shot of it going over 58? are you guys also saying that even if there are correlated, 10:1 odds is still not worth it? a 20 bet wins 200? let me know and thanks for any help!!!!

the math doesn't change.

[kiln]

Yeah I get it but what I am saying is that these are correlated. so its not 16 individual outcomes, if ohio state covers 31 there is a strong chance of going over 44 and if alabama wins by 24 there is a good shot of it going over 58? are you guys also saying that even if there are correlated, 10:1 odds is still not worth it? a 20 bet wins 200? let me know and thanks for any help!!!!

That's specious thinking. When I was still new to this many, many, many years ago (well, maybe not that many but long enough ago) I thought similarly to what you're thinking now. LSU was -42' and the o/u was 45'. Final score? LSU 45, Southwest Louisiana (now UL Lafayette) 0.

And correlated plays aren't so rare as you might think. I've used as many as five books at one time and each of them allows correlated parlays (except, usually, in soccer).

[gamblinggoose]

So you are saying very little advantage to a 4 teamer but a 2 teamer is solid?

[kiln]

So you are saying very little advantage to a 4 teamer but a 2 teamer is solid?

Oh my goodness: you are bound and determined to find someone who will tell you that parlays are a good idea, aren't you?

Parlays = fail.
Parlays = sucker bets.

[bigcat1]

striat wager=winner
parlay=loser

[gamblinggoose]

hahaha yes.....but I guess i will layoff

[Flight]

The advice in here is 100% dead wrong.

Yes, parlays are sucker bets in general, but, like you said, if you can find correlation, you have a +EV wager on your hands. Anytime a single variable manipulates the outcome of two events, there is correlation. In this case, if one teams offense performs abnormally well, there is good chance they cover the spread and the game goes over. Conversely, there is even stronger correlation that if the dog plays good defense and the game remains tight, the under and the dog have a good chance of winning together.

Take a look at this thread in the think tank, or try searching the think tank for correlated parlay.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/handicapper-think-tank/644411-how-much-advantage-correlated-parlay.html

I have ran database queries on this exact thing several times both NFL and NCAA, and the Dog/Under bet has a high chance of winning historically, well over 30%, which beats the required 27.78% required win rate on +260 odds (of course, you need to beat 28.57% on +250). Favorite/Over has a slightly lower win rate, but from what I can tell, it still beats the +260 break even point of 27.7%.

Now, to compare the 2 team and 4 team parlays from a shopper's perspective, use the SBR parlay calculator:

http://www.sbrforum.com/Betting+Tools/Parlay+Calculator.aspx

The 2 team parlay of 2.5:1 has a 12.5% premium vs the standard 10% paid for 2.6:1
The 4 team parlay of 10:1 has a 31.25% premium vs the standard 18.75% for 12:1

Stick to the 2 teamer, because the premium is lower, and I doubt you could find a correlation between 4 simultaneous events.

Note that books charge a premium because they can often be exposed by very long odds so they do this to protect themselves (and to keep their theoretical hold very high). I know several sharp players that unload on 2 team moneyline underdog parlays at very long odds (think +700 and higher). It works well when dealing with free plays and bonus's, not necessarily cold cash.

[bigjonson]

How about 6.5 tease?

Play it over 2-3 teams.

Odds drop significantly.

But all in all parlays lead to trouble.

It is hard enough to get 3 straight ML bets right now kick 4 lines????

[TheAccountant]

The advice in here is 100% dead wrong.

Yes, parlays are sucker bets in general, but, like you said, if you can find correlation, you have a +EV wager on your hands. Anytime a single variable manipulates the outcome of two events, there is correlation. In this case, if one teams offense performs abnormally well, there is good chance they cover the spread and the game goes over. Conversely, there is even stronger correlation that if the dog plays good defense and the game remains tight, the under and the dog have a good chance of winning together.

Take a look at this thread in the think tank, or try searching the think tank for correlated parlay.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/handicapper-think-tank/644411-how-much-advantage-correlated-parlay.html

I have ran database queries on this exact thing several times both NFL and NCAA, and the Dog/Under bet has a high chance of winning historically, well over 30%, which beats the required 27.78% required win rate on +260 odds (of course, you need to beat 28.57% on +250). Favorite/Over has a slightly lower win rate, but from what I can tell, it still beats the +260 break even point of 27.7%.

Now, to compare the 2 team and 4 team parlays from a shopper's perspective, use the SBR parlay calculator:

http://www.sbrforum.com/Betting+Tools/Parlay+Calculator.aspx

The 2 team parlay of 2.5:1 has a 12.5% premium vs the standard 10% paid for 2.6:1
The 4 team parlay of 10:1 has a 31.25% premium vs the standard 18.75% for 12:1

Stick to the 2 teamer, because the premium is lower, and I doubt you could find a correlation between 4 simultaneous events.

Note that books charge a premium because they can often be exposed by very long odds so they do this to protect themselves (and to keep their theoretical hold very high). I know several sharp players that unload on 2 team moneyline underdog parlays at very long odds (think +700 and higher). It works well when dealing with free plays and bonus's, not necessarily cold cash.

The logic and math is sound in all arguments here. However, exploiting advantages of correlated parlays is unlikely to be effective if you are simply picking large favorites and playing the over. If you hang around here, you can find some highly correlated plays that are correlated by much more than a large spread number. Unfortunately, it takes patience and research to find these plays. Read up on some think tank articles - and if you are in a big hole, tread carefully. BOL my friend!

[antifoil]

haha the people saying parlays are bad are just regurgitating what they here on these forums. they dont understand what a correlated parlay is

[kiln]

The advice in here is 100% dead wrong.

Yes, parlays are sucker bets in general, but, like you said, if you can find correlation, you have a +EV wager on your hands. Anytime a single variable manipulates the outcome of two events, there is correlation. In this case, if one teams offense performs abnormally well, there is good chance they cover the spread and the game goes over. Conversely, there is even stronger correlation that if the dog plays good defense and the game remains tight, the under and the dog have a good chance of winning together.

Take a look at this thread in the think tank, or try searching the think tank for correlated parlay.

http://forum.sbrforum.com/handicapper-think-tank/644411-how-much-advantage-correlated-parlay.html

I have ran database queries on this exact thing several times both NFL and NCAA, and the Dog/Under bet has a high chance of winning historically, well over 30%, which beats the required 27.78% required win rate on +260 odds (of course, you need to beat 28.57% on +250). Favorite/Over has a slightly lower win rate, but from what I can tell, it still beats the +260 break even point of 27.7%.

Now, to compare the 2 team and 4 team parlays from a shopper's perspective, use the SBR parlay calculator:

http://www.sbrforum.com/Betting+Tools/Parlay+Calculator.aspx

The 2 team parlay of 2.5:1 has a 12.5% premium vs the standard 10% paid for 2.6:1
The 4 team parlay of 10:1 has a 31.25% premium vs the standard 18.75% for 12:1

Stick to the 2 teamer, because the premium is lower, and I doubt you could find a correlation between 4 simultaneous events....

The advice can't be simultaneously "100% dead wrong" yet be correct "in general." Nevertheless, in this case I will defer to the data. But how large is the data set with which you're working? Also, it seems to me tautological to say "if the dog plays good defense and the game remains tight, the under and the dog have a good chance of winning together." No one, I don't think, is suggesting that isn't the case. What's at question here is how often the two happen in the same game, not if the two happen in the same game.

I wonder if you have access to data that would answeer his question: if the correlated par. in your example hits 30% of the time, how often does neither leg hit? Depending on that number it might still be more profitable to make two separate wagers over a large n set. I can't figure out the math right now, but I'd think it'd be easy to do. If we know that we're going to win both wagers 30% of the time then if we knew we would lose both wagers fewer than ~25% of the time I think we'd have a winning system. No?

[Flight]

To the OP:
In your situation, look at the Spread/Total Ratio (STR). STR for Ohio St (-29.5/O45.5) is 0.65. STR for Alabama -23.5/O57.5 is 0.41. There are others on the board around 0.45. If your guy allows you to do these, the best bet this week is Ohio/Ohio St. It's up to you what side to take, but I would personally take Ohio +29.5/U45.5.


To Kiln:
I would not recommend playing both sides of the parlay. Theoretically you are +EV on both wagers, but guaranteed to lose one. It depends on your investment goals and objectives. If your bookie allows you to do these, I'm sure he'll start to wonder why you're parlaying both sides of every game on the board. Maybe not, maybe they really are that stupid.

If you have no edge, or you have not handicapped the game, parlay the dog and the under and you are +EV or at least better off than a 50/50 play where you are -4.5% EV. Dog/Under hits at a better rate than favorite over, using NCAA data since 2000.

Taking this a step further, correlated parlays do much better if the player is an advantaged player already. For example, if you have already determined the dog +35 is your play and you have a good edge, and the total happens to be 53, you may want to take a look at parlaying your play with the under for even greater expectation.

I do have access to lots of data, but I don't need to use it here. Correlated parlays have been discussed in depth. They are proven to be effective by some very good experts. (if used correctly!)

The foundation is based in mathematics. I give you Ganchrow:

General parlay discussion

http://forum.sbrforum.com/handicapper-think-tank/2071-parlays.html

Correlation discussion

http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-talk/34584-correlated-parlays.html

[misterjesus]

at what pct of correlation would you consider a bet to be "correlated"?

[wwraymond]

haha the people saying parlays are bad are just regurgitating what they here on these forums. they dont understand what a correlated parlay is

No sportsbook will allow you to bet them. It is a players advantage and the player will crush the book in the long run.

[wwraymond]

Yeah I get it but what I am saying is that these are correlated. so its not 16 individual outcomes, if ohio state covers 31 there is a strong chance of going over 44 and if alabama wins by 24 there is a good shot of it going over 58? are you guys also saying that even if there are correlated, 10:1 odds is still not worth it? a 20 bet wins 200? let me know and thanks for any help!!!!

Both would be worth betthing since they are correlated but one only at 41%.

Unload on the 70% correlated parlay of Ohio state for the max on both sides the book will take. You will destroy him in short time.

[1teamparlay]

No sportsbook will allow you to bet them

Thats not true at all. I regularly do the under tied to taking the points. (my 1 team parlay...)

Books often don't let you take the correlated parlay in football if the line gets too large. For a 40 point favorite, if the under hits the favorite almost certainly didn't cover the spread. For the OP, You should DEFINITELY take advantage of this at the start of the next college football season.

Where I think the OP is making a mistake is trying to parlay 2 correlated parlays together. WHy do that? If you like a correlated parlay then just go ahead and take it. No need to tie 2 completely unrelated bets together.

And if for some reason your bookie would let you do a first half line parlayed to the whole game line then thats a very strong correlation. But I can't imagine he would do that.

And you should never parlay 2 games that are on separate days or when one is going to be finished before the other starts. You get better odds by just taking all the money you get if the first one hits and rolling it all into the second bet.