[ClimbSomeRocks]

Say you deposit a small amount into a book such as $50. Bet the entire wager on one game. Now with your $100, you bet it all on a single wager. Winning brings you to $200. Finally you place this wager on your a 3rd game. Payout is $400, instead of the 3-1 payout that a parlay would bring. I realize that I'm ignoring juice here, so it would be closer to $350. Regardless, the payout is higher than a 3-1 payout would be. Can someone point out a hole in my logic here?

Winning 3 bets in a row is not necessarily hard to do. If it's paying out 7-1, it just means that it needs to be done 1 out of 7 times. This seems to bypass the fair value of a ''parlay''

[Peregrine Stoop]

yes... that is why most parlays/teasers are considered 'sucker' bets

[hutennis]

After paying the juice you will have $347.90 after third win. Deduct you initial $50 stake and you will end up with $297.90 profit which is exactly how much 3 team -110/-110/-110 parlay will pay you.

So the hole in your logic is that you forgot to deduct your initial stake from payout.

Plus, where did this

Regardless, the payout is higher than a 3-1 payout would be.

come from?

[ClimbSomeRocks]

dang. Every time I think I'm on to something