[StackinGreen]

Has anyone looked at the differences in variance or edge when you consider 4 team RR (with 4,3,2) as opposed to doing just similar teams or crossover parlays (different sets) with just 3 teams max per set, if that? Or maybe it's always better to just hit 2 team parlays with your selected combos? I'm wondering about the best in terms of risk and variance, obviously 'cappin comes in to play hugely here as parlay ROI goes exponential the greater edge you have on any given game(s).

TL;DR
Is it better to play 3 team RR (3,2) or different groups of 3 team RR, or just RR utilizing your selections but only with 2 team parlays?

If you think just all plays at different risk levels (ML for example) is the best, indicate that. I imagine some people believe that your top side isn't as high, obviously, but the variance is absorbed best by just placing straight plays.

Thanks.

[Larkman]

Not 100% sure what you're asking, my fault, not yours, American gambling terminology is utterly inpenetrable to me.

I'm assuming what you have is 4 hypothetical EV+ bets, and you want to know the best way to combine them in order to maximum expected returns? i.e. all combinations of 2, all combinations of 3 etc.

If so, intuitively I'd think that singles alone would win out, while creating multiples of EV+ bets increases your edge, the decrease of probability of the bet hitting decreases EV when using optimum Kelly staking unless the edge is >=20%, at which point some multiples offer greater value. The chances of finding one bet with a 20% edge let alone multiple makes that kinda moot.

Would this trend hold when making combination bets rather than simple multiples? my guess would be yes, but I wouldn't be 100% certain. I could have a crack at working it out but at the moment I'm not sure if the question is even the one you're asking lol

[StackinGreen]

It sounds to me that you never bet parlays then, because parlays pronounce your edge if you in fact have an edge on particular bets; you just don't trust that you know this. I tend to think that's likely the case after all these years of action. Or, it could just be that even when you're "hot" handicapping, long term you'll lose less if you stick with your single game strategies vs. the volatility of parlaying, etc.

Thanks.