[NicksPicks]

I found this info on the site below. I have also heard that many sportsbooks don't accept these wagers, although on BetJam I seem to be able to place them on spreads and totals.



Anyone know whether it is a good idea to use them?


http://www.madjacksports.com/nolan/article1012.shtml


The correlation theory summed up in the following axiom of logic: If A happens, then B is likely to happen, also.

By "correlated" I mean the following: Look for parlays where IF things go according to prediction, THEN both wagers will probably win. A good example of this would be to bet Indianapolis (minus the points) when it plays a far weaker team. Also, bet the OVER on a two-team parlay (which can include totals), since the Colts are expected to score lots of points if they cover the spread. So, the parlay payoff at 13-5 (while theoretically the actual payback odds) is in a practical sense overcome, since most bettors would agree that if the Colts score in the 30s or 40s, they will -- (a) usually cover the spread, and (b) the total will go OVER. Another correlated parlay might be Baltimore and the UNDER, since many Ravens games are low-scoring and if the Ravens defense plays well -- (a) Baltimore usually covers, and (b) the game goes UNDER. There are just two of the most obvious examples. I'm not suggesting to parlay these teams and situations very week, only that some teams and totals seem to go hand-in-hand (i.e. are "correlated").

If you can parlay "proposition" bets, this angle is much stronger. High-profile games often have additional wagering possibilities -- such as most rushing yards, most passing yards, first team to score, and so forth. Last year's Super Bowl had something like 150 proposition bets. In his book. "Sharp Sports Betting" Stanford Wong brought up a wonderful correlated parlay from last year's Super Bowl. Wong parlayed the FIRST TEAM TO KICK A FIELD GOAL proposition with TEAM TO KICK LONGEST FIELD GOAL prop. Wong reasoned that, since the first field goal could very well be the ONLY field goal of the game, that might end up being the LONGEST field goal, as well. After all, about a quarter of the time, one team will not achieve a field goal in a game. Wong parlayed the FIRST FG with LONGEST FG and FIRST FG with SHORTEST FG (two parlay tickets). While the odds were not exactly 13-5 because the sportsbooks shaved the prop numbers to include variance in vig (i.e. having to lay perhaps -120 or -130 on the prop), both parlays seemed to be +EV situations. NOTE: Some books currrently will not allow you to parlay closely-related propositions (they are catching on to this angle). But you can still parlay "semi-correlated" props. An example would be -- FIRST TEAM TO SCORE with TEAM A TO WIN THE GAME (pick the same team obviously). Since it goes to reason that if TEAM A scores first, that means it will have a better chance of covering the spread. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds of situations where "correlated parlays" and "semi-correlated parlays" can be profitable. But, you must also be somewhat selective.

What about "correlated teasers?" This applies to taking both the side and total of a single game. It applies to 2-team teasers only. While I usually advise against 6-point teasers on NFL totals (the 6-point added are not significant enough to make a difference in most games), there are situations where a correlated teaser is a wise bet. Let's use the Baltimore Ravens as an example once again. Suppose the Ravens are playing the Cleveland Browns in a December game in Cleveland. Temperatures are expected to be very cold. The total on a game like this might be in the 33 range. Ravens would probably be a 8-9 point favorite (go with me here to prove the point). While you might not have enough confidence in Baltimore to lay 8 points on the road and the total doesn't seem to provide much of an advantage -- what about correlating the teaser? What if you could tease Baltimore down to -2 and tease the total up to 39? That might be worth a look. Of course, one could also look at different angles -- such as teasing the Browns +14 with the UNDER, which might be just as strong a wager. Every game is unique. You get the idea.

The important thing to remember is that most parlay bets are a terrible investment. But when they are correlated, parlays can be very strong wagers indeed (with positive expectation -- assuming your handicapping methods are solid). Teasers on their own can be profitable because they take advantage of picking up "key" numbers, which is critical in football handicapping. Correlated teasers can be just as profitable, because if the game goes according to prediction, the teaser on the side and total provides a sense of insurance for both wagers.

In conclusion, I will repeat once again why correlated bets are much wiser than parlays and teasers that are based on independent events (separate games):

[IrishTim]

Yes they can be profitable. Use the search function or look through the old threads in the think tank (not an overwhelming amount). There are a few good threads on correlated parlays.

And BetJam has rejected plenty of my correlated parlays. Do you remember any of the ones who placed that you thought might not get accepted?

[Justin7]

No book will knowingly take these. Many take them, not realizing they are correlated. If a book lets you parlay props, you can bury them.

Teasers are nothing more than parlays. In nearly all cases though, you won't gain enough to make teasing the total worthwhile.

[IrishTim]

Didn't mean to come across as an ass in the previous post, just get tired of seeing the same things asked week after week. The Think Tank is the best free resource for serious quantitative handicapping (that I've found) on the internet and most of us come here for original information and to talk with the few other people who know what the hell they're doing in this game.

With regard to correlated parlays, yes you can make money on them. If a book let you parlay the Colts -5.5 and moneyline -200, would you do it? Of course. If you were going to take the Colts -5.5 anyway, you're not incurring any extra risk by parlays it with the Colts ML but you've improved your payout odds substantially. No book would let you make this bet because it is 100% correlated.

Now say in college football, you have Alabama favored by 45 over Chattanooga St. and the total of the game is 47.5. This game is obviously very strongly correlated and the favorite/over dog/under parlays would be blindly profitable. Now you need to start working backwards and find the point where they are no longer blindly profitable. I think Justin7 said in one of his videos that the magic number for NCAAF is 2.6.

Here's a good place to start:

http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/handicappe...d-parlays.html
http://www.sportsbookreview.com/forum/handicappe...ays-video.html

[blix177]

My best correlated parlay was back in college. My friend wanted to be a bookie, so couple of us gave him somaction. It was Miami Florida vs Duke or Temple, Miami Fav by like 44 points and the over was like 52. He took the action, I lost lol.

[NicksPicks]

I won my first attempted correlated parlay ever tonite
Rutgers/Marquette over 139 -110 for Game
Marquette -17½ -110 for Game
Yay me!

[Desert Tortoise]

Lots of books will let you make correlated parlays if the correlation isn't strong enough to beat them. For example, in baseball the home team moneyline is correlated to the under but not correlated enough to beat the books betting blindly. Still, if you like the home team moneyline and you like the under it's better to parlay them.

[NicksPicks]

So guys, is it better to play one bet on each pick and then a 3rd bet on a parlay of both?
Also, suggested unit size?
THANKS