How to define the stupidity in this wager?

[Wunderbar]

Looking at the leans so far on the board, it looks like a lot of momentum for the unders (also reflected in the payout odds). Grand Salami is one full goal higher than the addition of the (already discounted because of the payout odds) individual game totals. So the bet is the under the grand salami.

Because of the inherent crapshoot nature of the Salami, I then decided to hedge by taking all single game overs. Theoretically, I am betting that any "overs" will be less over than the unders will be under, with a 1 goal margin already based on the salami number. It is not hard for me to imagine a scenario with pushes or wins on the individual games and a win on the Salami, increasing the win. If the Salami loses, then I know that I must have won 2 or 3 of the other games minimum.

Way overthought, and with too many assumptions? Or somewhat logical (on the premise that the unders are stronger plays in the individual games).

Bet screenshot attached.

Thanks

[keyboarding]

If all your games go over, you win $505 in game bets, and lose $550 on the grand salami, taking a loss of $45.
If they all go under, you lose $505 on game bets, and win $550 on the grand salami, taking a profit of $45.

Your ideal outcome is hitting the under on the grand salami because one of the 6 goal games goes 1-0, and all the other games go over.

LA 5 NYR 2 (Win $100)
PIT 1 CAR 6 (Win $105)
NSH 4 DAL 3 (Win $100)
EDM 1 CHI 0 (Lose $100)
MIN 4 ANA 2 (Win $100)
Grand Salami Total 28 (Win $500)

[Flight]

I would throw a couple round-robin and double reverse bets on the overs just in case. Watch this video to really get a good idea of all the ways a pro would play this.

[EaglesPhan36]

My head hurts.

[keyboarding]

It's going pretty well so far.

[keyboarding]

Unless something insane happens, this risky play worked out quite nicely for you. Well done.

[Wunderbar]

Thanks. I made the bet, then posted, then tried to think about it. Completely the wrong way to go about it. For the record, it ended up straight bets 3 wins, 2 losses (+100), won the grand salami (+500), won 600. That was almost absolutely the best outcome. What could have easily happened was 2 wins 3 losses (-100), lost the grand salami (-550), lost 650. So I guess there is really no hedging happening, it is basically just a series of string bets that happens to have more possible outcomes.

The other option, bet straight up on the grand salami, had lower upside but lower downside as well, in addition to being much easier to understand and to tolerate. So much for trying to outhink the books.

Thanks for helping work through the thoughts, and for the posts.

[drfunkmaster]

good job

[crackerjack]

This was not a good idea. You should feel lucky that you came out uncathed. What if you there had been a 7-6 type game and all the others were 3-2? You'd have lost around $900. In fact, one more goal in any of the three games that went over and you'd have lost about $400. Glad it worked out for you this time... A much better option in hedging a big bet on the GS would have been to take the Minnesota game to go over. At that point in the night, it looked like only a 7 or 8 goal game would have killed your GS bet and you could potentially have won both the GS bet and the hedge but not lose both. Turns out 6 goals in that game was all that was needed to kill the GS...

[Irish Lumberjack]

Don't worry about it you cashed it in! Nice Work! Remember it's only a bad bet if you lose!