[Optional]

Why do some books pay less than true odds for parlays if they are such sucker bets?

It's not to stop stupidly high liability, as they set maximum payouts to protect against that.

Surely if parlays are -EV by nature the books would not discourage playing them?


I asked this in a thread elsewhere on the forum and got no logical suggestions as to why.

[skrtelfan]

Parlays are not -EV by nature at true odds, but most bettors play them suboptimally. The most obvious reason is because the person betting is probably not shopping for the best line. Offering less than true odds is another reason parlays can be sucker bets. Your question essentially answers itself.

[Optional]

Parlays are not -EV by nature at true odds, but most bettors play them suboptimally. The most obvious reason is because the person betting is probably not shopping for the best line. Offering less than true odds is another reason parlays can be sucker bets. Your question essentially answers itself.

Am I being unclear? Thankyou, but this is the same sort of irrelevant response I got elsewhere.

I'm interested in why books would discourage playing parlays by offering them at less than true odds. If they are money makers for them overall as a bet type.

Does anyone have a comment or theory on that question?

[Peregrine Stoop]

parlays are sucker bets because the books pay so much lower than true odds

If the parlays paid better than true odds, they wouldn't be sucker bets

[shari91]

Optional, if you really want to know, here you go. As always, most of the answers that any of us are ever looking for are already in the ThinkTank... usually involving a certain someone by the name of Ganchrow.

Parlays are only sucker bets for the suckers who don't bother learning when they're effective.

http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/handicappe...1-parlays.html

http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/handicappe...-good-bad.html

[Optional]

Thanks Shari. I've read and quoted the first post by Ganchrow a couple of times. But I don't think either post answers the question unless you are saying they are proof parlays are +EV for punters as a bet type?

The common wisdom still seems to be 90% thinking the opposite. I was basically ridiculed for daring suggest they must be profitable if books juice them up, and was just starting a discussion to see if any of the brainy nerds in here thought they were -EV and had an explanation for the books actions in that light.

parlays are sucker bets because the books pay so much lower than true odds

If the parlays paid better than true odds, they wouldn't be sucker bets

That's funny.

And what if they pay exactly true odds? Sucker bet or not?

[shari91]

Thanks Shari. I've read and quoted the first post by Ganchrow a couple of times. But I don't think either post answers the question unless you are saying they are proof parlays are +EV for punters as a bet type?

The common wisdom still seems to be 90% thinking the opposite. I was basically ridiculed for daring suggest they must be profitable if books juice them up, and was just starting a discussion to see if any of the brainy nerds in here thought they were -EV and had an explanation for the books actions in that light.





That's funny.

And what if they pay exactly true odds? Sucker bet or not?

The common wisdom applies for those of us who are basicall break-even bettors. As Ganchrow said, it's when you get to the 55% range, although I think it was LT who suggested it begins when you get to about 53% or better. Those are the people books want to deter from betting parlays by reducing the payout odds because they're the ones who hurt books. Not the average break-even or worse schmo. Their contributions by betting parlays add money to the book but they'd bet them regardless of what the odds are. And yeah, I can see why you'd get ridiculed in other areas of the forum but I don't think many will give you that same response in here.

[Optional]

Think it's finally sinking in where the issue is now. I've never been able to quite get my head around the yells of sucker bet about all parlays, logically.

I kinda knew most I played were good bets, but just not sharp enough yet to know it for sure.

So to paraphrase. Parlays are not sucker bets, it just happens a lot of people play them like suckers. But not enough to offset the sharps.

[Wrecktangle]

I was working 1/2 point football parlay cards at the Sunset Casinos in 1999 since the 3 teamer payouts were at true odds and the sheets were not updated by the end of the week.

By the end of the season the odds had radically changed in favor of the casino. When I asked one of the window monkeys what had happened, he said: the suits are pissed that we were tagged hard by the syndicates.

Parlays are NOT for suckers. If you know your game win%s you can easily find winning situations.

[skrtelfan]

Am I being unclear? Thankyou, but this is the same sort of irrelevant response I got elsewhere.

I'm interested in why books would discourage playing parlays by offering them at less than true odds.

No, my answer is completely relevant. Apparently you don't realize the average dope betting his random 5 teamer doesn't care what odds he's getting. He'll just as soon bet the parlay at "parlay chart odds" as he will at true odds.

[Optional]

No, my answer is completely relevant.

It still sounds like you haven't even read the question. But so long as you believe that.

[That Foreign Guy]

parlays are sucker bets because the books pay so much lower than true odds If the parlays paid better than true odds, they wouldn't be sucker bets

Exactly. It's mostly the odds being worse than the true probability that make them sucker bets.

If you can find neutral / +EV legs then there is a potential problem with overbetting since optimal stake on parlays is surprisingly small.

Books offer less than true odds on parlays not to discourage people playing them but because they offer less than true odds on everything.

[Bongo]

It still makes me shake my head when I see someone post that they bet a 4-team parlay (all at -110) and they are only getting paid 10-1 odds! I really think books should do away with these ripoff odds and offer true odds, instead of using the "bettors should know better" excuse.

[Optional]

Exactly. It's mostly the odds being worse than the true probability that make them sucker bets.

If you can find neutral / +EV legs then there is a potential problem with overbetting since optimal stake on parlays is surprisingly small.

I think you're mixing up true parlay odds and fair odds. Paying true odds means simply multiplying the straight prices offered on each leg. It's nothing to do with if the lines are fair or not. Not that I disagree with the proposition itself. Of course getting paid better than either true or fair odds is +EV.

Books offer less than true odds on parlays not to discourage people playing them but because they offer less than true odds on everything.

5 Dimes pays true odds. Greek pays true odds. Every Australian book I've ever dealt with in my life pays true odds.

It's only some books who discount it. Do you think these books are actually managing to lose on the 'sucker bet' parlay? Simply trying to take advantage of people? Or something else?

[Bongo]

I think the books who only payout 10-1 odds on 4 team parlays are taking advantage of the recreational gamblers. Betjamaica was. The Greek's home page still shows 4teamers payout of only 10-1 (if all legs are -110)

[Optional]

I think the books who only payout 10-1 odds on 4 team parlays are taking advantage of the recreational gamblers. Betjamaica was. The Greek's home page still shows 4teamers payout of only 10-1 (if all legs are -110)

4 x -110 does come out to 10/1... hadn't noticed that.

but here's a 4 teamer on soccer they pay true odds on...

Attachment 33173

[Bongo]

Yeah, they only screw you on the -110 odds, all others are true odds, which is why the players doing 4 team parlays at -110 odds should just buy a half a point on one leg of it to get the higher payout. Of course the books will never tell you to do this, which is why I think its there to just take advantage of those not in the know.

[That Foreign Guy]

I think you're mixing up true parlay odds and fair odds.

Maybe, I've always used the words true and fair interchangeably for betting to mean the real % of something happening. The idea of someone reducing the odds of a parlay leg is completely foreign to me.

Anyway. Why do books shade their prices for parlays more than the product of the component parts? 1) To reduce their variance 2) Because they can. 3) Because they <3 money.

[skrtelfan]

It still sounds like you haven't even read the question. But so long as you believe that.

I understood your question perfectly fine. You started with a false premise "if parlays are such sucker bets..." If I'd known you were going to be a douchebag in response to someone trying to help an obvious newbie, I'd have simply said "Parlays are not always sucker bets" and not wasted my time with a further explanation.

[Optional]

I understood your question perfectly fine. You started with a false premise "if parlays are such sucker bets..." If I'd known you were going to be a douchebag in response to someone trying to help an obvious newbie, I'd have simply said "Parlays are not always sucker bets" and not wasted my time with a further explanation.

I said thankyou for your useless input the first time. I didn't argue with you when you came back to insist you were right. And I'm the douchebag?!

I'm sorry but you clearly do not understand. "if parlays are such sucker bets..." is a proposition, not a premise. ie: I'm suggesting parlays are NOT sucker bets in full context of the subject.

And secondly... I was being as nice as possible, because you seem a little bit on the thick side (this third post seems to prove it). But go ahead and explain why this isn't irrelevant drivel if you feel like it, Captain Obvious.

"Apparently you don't realize the average dope betting his random 5 teamer doesn't care what odds he's getting. He'll just as soon bet the parlay at "parlay chart odds" as he will at true odds."