Why do so many people do parlays?

[TommieGunshot]

Quuestion for math gurus:

Oct 31, 2021 12:04 AM

Parlay

$50.00

$78.20

Win

Soccer - 117014 Rangers -312 for Game Soccer - 114014 Feyenoord -222 for Game Soccer - 107019 Inter Milan -295 for Game

This is a parlay I played last night that won this morning.

Tell me how I could have won more if I bet each game individually. What should I have bet on each game individually to win the same and risk less?

What was the probability to win each of those games? If you can answer that question, it is easy to see the difference between parlay bets and non-parlay bets. If you cannot answer that question, then they are likely bad bets, and being in a parlay doesn't magically change that.

[pavyracer]

What was the probability to win each of those games? If you can answer that question, it is easy to see the difference between parlay bets and non-parlay bets. If you cannot answer that question, then they are likely bad bets, and being in a parlay doesn't magically change that.

Rangers is leading the league facing a mid to bottom level team. Probability to win in my view 92.45%.

Feyenord top of table team facing a lower table team but in a local derby. Probability to win in my view 76.35%.

Inter Milan top of table team facing mid table team. Probability to win in my view 85.71%.

[TommieGunshot]

Rangers is leading the league facing a mid to bottom level team. Probability to win in my view 92.45%.

Feyenord top of table team facing a lower table team but in a local derby. Probability to win in my view 76.35%.

Inter Milan top of table team facing mid table team. Probability to win in my view 85.71%.

So the probability of winning all three was 60.50%. If using maximally aggressive betting (ie full Kelly), there was an expected growth of 9.79%.

If betting them without parlays, and maximally aggressive, there was an expected growth of 10.11% on just the Rangers game alone.

I'm getting these numbers by using this: https://www.sportsbookreview.com/bet...ly-calculator/

But really, with that much of an edge, just fire as many max bets as possible in all combinations of two and three team parlays, and non-parlays, until the lines move closer to the true probabilities.

[pavyracer]

So the probability of winning all three was 60.50%. If using maximally aggressive betting (ie full Kelly), there was an expected growth of 9.79%.

If betting them without parlays, and maximally aggressive, there was an expected growth of 10.11% on just the Rangers game alone.

I'm getting these numbers by using this: https://www.sportsbookreview.com/bet...ly-calculator/

But really, with that much of an edge, just fire as many max bets as possible in all combinations of two and three team parlays, and non-parlays, until the lines move closer to the true probabilities.

Thanks. That was my only regret. I should have bet much more. Will keep it in mind next time.

[GunShard]

Won my parlay. I got the Rams games line early before too much of the public pushed the line to -17 which was a loss for many bettors.

[pavyracer]

Won my parlay. I got the Rams games line early before too much of the public pushed the line to -17 which was a loss for many bettors.

Another benefit is you get better lines when betting early so you won't get killed by the steam later.

[LT Profits]

One thing I will add here that applies to me is that there are +EV bets I pass on simply because it is not in my DNA to lay more than -150 on any bet. So I can understand is someone puts say a +EV -200 favorite in a parlay without betting it straight.

[stevenash]

One thing I will add here that applies to me is that there are +EV bets I pass on simply because it is not in my DNA to lay more that -150 on any bet. So I can understand is some puts say a +EV -200 favorite in a parlay without betting it straight.

That's the only way I bet parlays (if I can't get a correlated bet down)
I'll play for example a two team MLB money line parlay with say a -190 stud pitcher with another, say -170 type team or pitcher.

[icon]

I play parlays because its fun. I can have action all day on Sunday for $20 with the chance to maybe cash out a couple hundo.

[SteveKerrsJunk]

People don't understand or care about the probability of multiple events hitting and why you're much better off buying a TD up in one game as opposed to playing multiple events even at higher odds. Instead of playing the over and chiefs just buy the chiefs up to -17 for similar payouts. In the end you're much better off making plays like this having one outcome if you want your "parlay." Nothing the bookies love more than some guy coming up to the booth with a 4 team ML parlay, all favorites.

[pavyracer]

You should see the look on my bookie when I show up to cash a 4 team parlay all favorites. He spits his guts out.

[StackinGreen]

People don't understand or care about the probability of multiple events hitting and why you're much better off buying a TD up in one game as opposed to playing multiple events even at higher odds. Instead of playing the over and chiefs just buy the chiefs up to -17 for similar payouts. In the end you're much better off making plays like this having one outcome if you want your "parlay." Nothing the bookies love more than some guy coming up to the booth with a 4 team ML parlay, all favorites.

Getting 2 or more results in a game (unless very sure about the capping with fav and over or dog and under) is not only brutal on your nerves, it is unwise - for the reason Kerr states. Even teasers can be brutal with extra points and only 2 outcomes. Same game parlays are a different story if you like a team and a player prop, for example, but not this first TD scorer or other crazy -EV stuff. We're talking receptions, yards, QB throwing for TDs, etc.

[Gaze73]

Rangers is leading the league facing a mid to bottom level team. Probability to win in my view 92.45%.

Feyenord top of table team facing a lower table team but in a local derby. Probability to win in my view 76.35%.

Inter Milan top of table team facing mid table team. Probability to win in my view 85.71%.

Your model is way off. There is no way that a team that opens at -250 and closes at -330 has a 92.45% chance to win in a major league game. FWIW my model says 83%. Feyenoord won with a goal in 92'. 60% at best. For Inter I had 73%.

If it were as simple as picking the top 3 teams in each league, everyone would be rich. Most of the time, when you see odds that are too good to be true, it's caused by missing players. League leaders rarely use the full A squad against the bottom feeders. And even if they do, they often underestimate them, mess around, and concede stupid goals. That's why no team makes a profit at -300. Parlaying big favorite MLs is the squarest thing there is. But hey, maybe you have the best model in the world and should get rich in no time.

[jjgold]

lets be honest parlay only way to make a score

[pavyracer]

Your model is way off. There is no way that a team that opens at -250 and closes at -330 has a 92.45% chance to win in a major league game. FWIW my model says 83%. Feyenoord won with a goal in 92'. 60% at best. For Inter I had 73%.

If it were as simple as picking the top 3 teams in each league, everyone would be rich. Most of the time, when you see odds that are too good to be true, it's caused by missing players. League leaders rarely use the full A squad against the bottom feeders. And even if they do, they often underestimate them, mess around, and concede stupid goals. That's why no team makes a profit at -300. Parlaying big favorite MLs is the squarest thing there is. But hey, maybe you have the best model in the world and should get rich in no time.

Actually I don't mind my book thinking I make square plays when I don't have an edge in probabilities. The book will more likely not hesitate to pay on time a square player and will not lower his limits. So I like to fly under the radar as someone who makes bad bets that are mathematically wrong but win.