[rsigley]

I always thought the stake was to risk and not to win for minus odds, but I just got this result and it doesn't make any sense to me:

Six bets at -165, -195, -150, -140, -150, -145
The total stake was 26.4924%

but the expected profit was 54.9533% and the expected growth was 27.5763%

how can the expected profit and growth be more than my stake if i'm wagering at negative odds?

[Ganchrow]

I always thought the stake was to risk and not to win for minus odds, but I just got this result and it doesn't make any sense to me:

Six bets at -165, -195, -150, -140, -150, -145
The total stake was 26.4924%

but the expected profit was 54.9533% and the expected growth was 27.5763%

how can the expected profit and growth be more than my stake if i'm wagering at negative odds?

The "stake" is always what you're risking.

You are correct that the expected profit of a single bet may never be greater than the amount wagered times the decimal odds of that bet minus 1 (EV ≤ wager × (odds-1)).

In this case, however, you're dealing with multiple bets all of which are, in the optimal solution, parlayed with one another.

If the individual win probabilities are sufficiently large than due to the leverage implicit in parlays it is completely possible for the EV to surpass the stake.

[rsigley]

Ah thanks, I didn't notice that the expected growth/profit included all the parlay stakes as well, that was the problem. Thought if you had the single stake tab highlighted it only computed the expected growth for the single stake and if you clicked all it would do that

thanks for the reply and for making the calculator