If bet?? Question

sourtwist · 01-15-13, 05:43 PM

If he loses first bet...action on others is dead.

RG3ING · 01-15-13, 05:48 PM

So what if he wins the first 2 games an loses the last one??

LT Profits · 01-15-13, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by RG3ING

So what if he wins the first 2 games an loses the last one??

win 50 + win 50 + lose 60 = WIN 40

LT Profits · 01-15-13, 05:53 PM

And if first game loses, he gets $5 back. It cost $60 to cover the second bet if first game pushes (or is cancelled).

easyliving · 01-15-13, 05:54 PM

means if he losses the first bet and hits the other 2 still losses money as the other 2 are no action. Prefer straight bets.

face · 01-15-13, 05:55 PM

As with parlays, the general rule regarding "if" bets is:

DON'T, if you can win more than 52.5% or more of your games. If you cannot consistently achieve a winning percentage, however, making "if" bets whenever you bet two teams will save you money.

For the winning bettor, the "if" bet adds an element of luck to your betting equation that doesn't belong there. If two games are worth betting, then they should both be bet. Betting on one should not be made dependent on whether or not you win another. On the other hand, for the bettor who has a negative expectation, the "if" bet will prevent him from betting on the second team whenever the first team loses. By preventing some bets, the "if" bet saves the negative expectation bettor some vig.

To understand how this works, here is a chart of the four possible results of a coin toss involving any two teams, and the money won or lost by two Straight Bets or with an "IF" bet:

Result	Straight Bet Win/Loss	"If" Bet Win/Loss
Both Win	+$200	+$200
Both Lose	- $220	- $110
Team A wins, Team B loses	- $ 10	- $ 10
Team A loses, Team B wins	- $ 10	- $110
TOTALS	- $ 40	- $ 30

The $10 savings for the "if" bettor results from the fact that he is not betting the second game when both lose. Compared to the straight bettor, the "if" bettor has an additional cost of $100 when Team A loses and Team B wins, but he saves $110 when Team A and Team B both lose.

In summary, anything that keeps the loser from betting more games is good. "If" bets reduce the number of games that the loser bets.

The rule for the winning bettor is exactly opposite. Anything that keeps the winning bettor from betting more games is bad, and therefore "if" bets will cost the winning handicapper money. When the winning bettor plays fewer games, he has fewer winners. Remember that the next time someone tells you that the way to win is to bet fewer games. A smart winner never wants to bet fewer games. Since "if/reverses" work out exactly the same as "if" bets, they both place the winner at an equal disadvantage.

Exceptions to the Rule - When a Winner Should Bet Parlays and "IF's"

As with all rules, there are exceptions. "If" bets and parlays should be made by a winner with a positive expectation in only two circumstances::

When there is no other choice and he must bet either an "if/reverse," a parlay, or a teaser; or
When betting co-dependent propositions.

The only time I can think of that you have no other choice is if you are the best man at your friend's wedding, you are waiting to walk down the aisle, your laptop looked ridiculous in the pocket of your tux so you left it in the car, you only bet offshore in a deposit account with no credit line, the book has a $50 minimum phone bet, you like two games which overlap in time, you pull out your trusty cell 5 minutes before kickoff and 45 seconds before you must walk to the alter with some beastly bride's maid in a frilly purple dress on your arm, you try to make two $55 bets and suddenly realize you only have $75 in your account.

As the old philosopher used to say, "Is that what's troubling you, bucky?" If so, hold your head up high, put a smile on your face, look for the silver lining, and make a $50 "if" bet on your two teams. Of course you could bet a parlay, but as you will see below, the "if/reverse" is a good substitute for the parlay if you are winner.

For the winner, the best method is straight betting. In the case of co-dependent bets, however, as already discussed, there is a huge advantage to betting combinations. With a parlay, the bettor is getting the benefit of increased parlay odds of 13-5 on combined bets that have greater than the normal expectation of winning. Since, by definition, co-dependent bets must always be contained within the same game, they must be made as "if" bets. With a co-dependent bet our advantage comes from the fact that we make the second bet only IF one of the propositions wins.

It would do us no good to straight bet $110 each on the favorite and the underdog and $110 each on the over and the under. We would simply lose the vig no matter how often the favorite and over or the underdog and under combinations won. As we've seen, if we play two out of 4 possible results in two parlays of the favorite and over and the underdog and under, we can net a $160 win when one of our combinations comes in. When to choose the parlay or the "reverse" when making co-dependent combinations is discussed below.

Choosing Between "IF" Bets and Parlays

Based on a $110 parlay, which we'll use for the purpose of consistent comparisons, our net parlay win when one of our combinations hits is $176 (the $286 win on the winning parlay minus the $110 loss on the losing parlay). In a $110 "reverse" bet our net win would be $180 every time one of our combinations hits (the $400 win on the winning if/reverse minus the $220 loss on the losing if/reverse).

When a split occurs and the under comes in with the favorite, or over comes in with the underdog, the parlay will lose $110 while the reverse loses $120. Thus, the "reverse" has a $4 advantage on the winning side, and the parlay has a $10 advantage on the losing end. Obviously, again, in a 50-50 situation the parlay would be better.

With co-dependent side and total bets, however, we are not in a 50-50 situation. If the favorite covers the high spread, it is much more likely that the game will go over the comparatively low total, and if the favorite fails to cover the high spread, it is more likely that the game will under the total. As we have already seen, when you have a positive expectation the "if/reverse" is a superior bet to the parlay. The actual probability of a win on our co-dependent side and total bets depends on how close the lines on the side and total are to one another, but the fact that they are co-dependent gives us a positive expectation.

The point at which the "if/reverse" becomes a better bet than the parlay when making our two co-dependent is a 72% win-rate. This is not as outrageous a win-rate as it sounds. When making two combinations, you have two chances to win. You only need to win one out of the two. Each of the combinations has an independent positive expectation. If we assume the chance of either the favorite or the underdog winning is 100% (obviously one or the other must win) then all we need is a 72% probability that when, for example, Boston College -38 ½ scores enough to win by 39 points that the game will go over the total 53 ½ at least 72% of the time as a co-dependent bet. If Ball State scores even one TD, then we are only ½ point away from a win. That a BC cover will result in an over 72% of the time is not an unreasonable assumption under the circumstances.

As compared to a parlay at a 72% win-rate, our two "if/reverse" bets will win an extra $4 seventy-two times, for a total increased win of $4 x 72 = $288. Betting "if/reverses" will cause us to lose an extra $10 the 28 times that the results split for a total increased loss of $280. Obviously, at a win rate of 72% the difference is slight.

Rule: At win percentages below 72% use parlays, and at win-rates of 72% or above use "if/reverses."

RG3ING · 01-15-13, 06:06 PM

Thanks a lot