[Ralphie Halves]

I've had great success with this in the past month, and would love to see if it's something that's ++EV in the long run. I have people I outsource certain work to in India and Bangladesh, but they won't grasp this one, I know from experience. Need advice or if anyone has a program that can look this stuff up, I think we can all profit from it.

In the NHL, when you either have the public hammering an under, or even better if you have a capper or two that hits totals very well and is on a particular under, you parlay that with the dog if said dog is over +200. My odds doing this have ranged anywhere between +400 to +625 IIRC, and lately I've been hitting over half of them. It's been fantastic. The idea behind it is if the under should be hitting anyway, the dog's chances of pulling out the win increase significantly, and getting odds like that for it to occur seems like a gift.

Now I know there's no way to track some of the cappers I tail and their unders to factor that in, but I'd love to see if simply starting with unders that ended up at least -130 paired with dogs +200 or better and see what the results have been this season. Anyone have access to a sheet or program that could figure this out?? I imagine this would be the place to ask.

[illfuuptn]

Yeah that probably wins more than 50% of the time. Most system +600 parlays do, right?

[Ralphie Halves]

Yeah that probably wins more than 50% of the time. Most system +600 parlays do, right?

Yes, the sportsbook has officially been beaten.

No, read where I said it was just recently that I've tried it and had immediate success overall. I would like to see how this angle played out over the 2010-11 season. I think there are factors in our favor here though, albeit minor ones...

1) Books pay less attention to hockey overall, so ideas like this have likely been talked about, but never given much credence on their side.
2) IMO NHL dogs have better chances in low-scoring games as opposed to similar lines like baseball and NBA MLs. With shootouts factored in as well, it's a lot more of a coin-flip if you can get there.
3) Books don't scrutinize many two-team correlateds here as often either, to where they're all over it in soccer. More opportunities IMO.

Just wanted to see if anyone has a way to quickly run the numbers here.

[Tackleberry]

I have nothing to say about your angle but the worst thing you can ever do if you find something super simply like this that is profitable is to make the info public. If there is an edge it will dissapear in a hurry.

[Ralphie Halves]

I have nothing to say about your angle but the worst thing you can ever do if you find something super simply like this that is profitable is to make the info public. If there is an edge it will dissapear in a hurry.

Which did cross my mind, but we're such small potatoes here in this sub-forum, nobody of importance would even bother to look much less care. Once I have hard numbers, there's no need to carry on with it in public.

[Borat38]

I don't play the NHL, but this sounds almost like the correlated parlay concept in NCAA Basketball. Over favors the fave, Under favors dog covering/winning outright. Btw, correlated parlays are not accepted just about everywhere. It was a legit angle that historically hit about 60% if I remember right.

[wintermute]

I used to play this angle but no one accepts these bets anymore. They are profitable in the 15-20% ROI range.

[wintermute]

BTW - this is profitable no matter what the under line is.

[That Foreign Guy]

I'll let you parlay the dog and the under on a total of 0.5. I'll even give you 10 to 1.

[wintermute]

Foreign guy, why would you want to give 10 to 1? If the dog is +200 it's going to win 1 out of every three games. If the under is -110, it's going to be a winner half the time. So fair odds, if the bets are uncorrelated would be 5 to 1. And the bets are HIGHLY correlated. That's why the books won't take them.