Open Parlays

[jjgold]

Way better than parlays because you do not have to fill them at the same time as the first bet. I think Carib offers them online

[ShamsWoof10]

Yeah I like these a lot better then regular parlays.. I won't play a regular parlay if the book I play at has those... Cris has it too I believe....

[DrunkenLullaby]

[jjgold]

Not committing to the second leg of a parlay is a nice edge to a player and I think some places let you have an parlay open fopr like 6 months.

[moses millsap]

Open parlays make NO sense whatsoever unless it it is used to circumvent the limits of the book.

[ProlinePlayer]

I don't get it?

Why not just bet the game straight up and then if you win bet whatever you want on the 'to-be-filled-in' part?

[DrunkenLullaby]

Open parlays make NO sense whatsoever unless it it is used to circumvent the limits of the book.

Of course they don't, but don't let a little factual math rain on JJ & Sham's party!

[ShamsWoof10]

Of course they don't, but don't let a little factual math rain on JJ & Sham's party!

Hey dude I never said it made sense I just said I like to play them once in a while... I also said I would rather play them as opposed to regular parlays... In terms of math no it doesn't make sense but I never said it did... 95 percent of my bets are straights but I like to f*ck around once in a while...

[moses millsap]

I don't get it?

Why not just bet the game straight up and then if you win bet whatever you want on the 'to-be-filled-in' part?

Because most parlay players don't even realize what a parlay is.

[Ganchrow]

Open parlays make NO sense whatsoever unless it it is used to circumvent the limits of the book.

Or if you expect you'll be selecting a fill-in game that's likely to start prior to the completion of the initial game.

[raiders72002]

Open parlays make NO sense whatsoever

Open parlays can be a great bet. If you don't like a team or line at the same time of the first bet then you can wait until later.

[moses millsap]

Open parlays can be a great bet. If you don't like a team or line at the same time of the first bet then you can wait until later.

Only if the start times coincide though Raiders, otherwise simply just place the bet as a single and then roll that over on the 2nd game, whether it's days or weeks later.

[WileOut]

I don't get it?

Why not just bet the game straight up and then if you win bet whatever you want on the 'to-be-filled-in' part?

I don't understand what you are getting at here. An example would help. Like the straight version vs. the parlay version.

Say you wanted to bet the Phillies (-200) today along with the Yankees (-200). To win $100 on the Phillies you would have to risk $200. If you won that, you would have to risk another $200 to win $100 on the Yankees. So if you wanted to win $200 on the 2 bets you would have to risk $400.

Whereas if you did a parlay, you would only have to risk less than $200 to win $200.

It's 2 completely different things (parlays and straights).

[WileOut]

Only if the start times coincide though Raiders, otherwise simply just place the bet as a single and then roll that over on the 2nd game, whether it's days or weeks later.

Parlays and straights are 2 completely different things. You are talking like you can accomplish the same thing with straight bets that you can with parlays. When you can't.

[raiders72002]

Only if the start times coincide though Raiders, otherwise simply just place the bet as a single and then roll that over on the 2nd game, whether it's days or weeks later

good point

[MaxDemo]

BetJam and SBG Global also have open "if" bets. And they are great if you 1st play a game straight up. Then add another "if" bet while the straight is in action and so forth.

[ShamsWoof10]

Because most parlay players don't even realize what a parlay is.

Well first of all to make the second bet you bet the rollover amount OUT OF YOUR BANKROLL whereas it would be made from the first win and original stake in a parlay.... As the post above me mentions..

Second of all you can take a shot at a middle... Let's say you see a game at one place -5.5 and another at -6... Insert -5.5 on one end of the parlay and +6 straight on the other...

[LT Profits]

Parlays and straights are 2 completely different things. You are talking like you can accomplish the same thing with straight bets that you can with parlays. When you can't.

HUH?

Of course you can! In your previous example using two 2-1 favorites, you would need to bet a $160 parlay to win $200. To accomplish the EXACT same thing using straight bets, you would bet $160 on the Yankees, then if they win bet the entire $240 returned on the Phillies. The return is the exact same thing as a parlay.

[jjgold]

I wonder why they offer open parlays if you can just bet straight and roll it over then

[ShamsWoof10]

I wonder why they offer open parlays if you can just bet straight and roll it over then

Speaking in terms of math they may be the same but there are other factors like if both games start either at the same time or before the first one ends.. Another factor is if you are limited in your bankroll... Rolling over your second bet in a straight wager increases the amount at risk by quite a bit...why expose your bankroll..? So open parlays do make sense in real terms...

[ShamsWoof10]

Open parlays make NO sense whatsoever unless it it is used to circumvent the limits of the book.

No they don't make cents they make dollars...

[LT Profits]

On a total side note, I used to love doing "parlays" at pinnacle with straight bets when I liked a day game and a night game, as it was a GREAT way to get around the fact that their games are at full juice in conventional parlays.

Well, maybe not "full" juice, but higher juice. For example, they have 10-cent MLB Sides and 20-cent Totals in parlays, while I got the 8-cent sides and 10-cent totals my way.

[ShamsWoof10]

Of course they don't, but don't let a little factual math rain on JJ & Sham's party!

I suggest taking your math over to the books and tell them that a two team parlay is the same as a straight then rolled over into another straight.. Then ask them why do you NOT take correlated parlays but will take each separately.?

[DrunkenLullaby]

I wonder why they offer open parlays if you can just bet straight and roll it over then

I would guess it's because they're in business to make money and they can make more money by offering open parlays to fools than hoping those fools roll over their straight bets.

[DrunkenLullaby]

I suggest taking your math over to the books and tell them that a two team parlay is the same as a straight then rolled over into another straight.. Then ask them why do you NOT take correlated parlays but will take each separately.?

Oh my, you really should listen to yourself sometimes.

[DrunkenLullaby]

I suggest taking your math over to the books and tell them that a two team parlay is the same as a straight then rolled over into another straight.. Then ask them why do you NOT take correlated parlays but will take each separately.?

Technically, a straight THEN rolled over into another straight is slightly superior to a two team parlay (assuming "traditional" juice on both).

Correlated parlays involve the same game, are necessarily concurrent and hence two correlated events could never be involved in a two-team parlay that was left OPEN and SUBSEQUENTLY closed.

Thus, events placed into an OPEN parlay are, by necessity, uncorrelated....and thus any open parlay is inferior to a sequence of straight bets (unless used to circumvent limits as mentioned by another poster.)

[Ganchrow]

Technically, a straight THEN rolled over into another straight is slightly superior to a two team parlay (assuming "traditional" juice on both).

Correlated parlays involve the same game, are necessarily concurrent and hence two correlated events could never be involved in a two-team parlay that was left OPEN and SUBSEQUENTLY closed.

Thus, events placed into an OPEN parlay are, by necessity, uncorrelated....and thus any open parlay is inferior to a sequence of straight bets (unless used to circumvent limits as mentioned by another poster.)

Well, there is a canonical example of theoretically correlated outcomes involving non-overlapping games (I believe either Santo or Justin already brought it up in either this thread or the IF bet thread).

The example is based on the situation where Team A will make the playoffs if and only if it win its next game AND Team B loses its next game. Now if Team B plays (and completes -- just to make the discussion easier) its game prior to Team A's game, then one might potentially expect correlation between the two games -- if Team B wins, then Team A has less incentive to win.

Now insofar as this correlation actually exists and is sufficiently substantial, sharp books won't allow these two to be combined in IF bets or parlays. Now if this is the case, then even if the two games are completely noncontemporaneous (the first game ending before the second game begins), one could not take advantage of this correlation using straight bets alone. The reason is because a win or loss by Team B in the first game would then respectively raise or lower the payout odds on Team A to win the second game.

So in other words:

1. Correlated bets do not need to be based on simultaneous events.
2. One can not necessarily duplicate the economic outcome of IF-bets or parlays of noncontemporaneous events using straight bets alone.

[DrunkenLullaby]

Well, there is a canonical example of theoretically correlated outcomes involving non-overlapping games (I believe either Santo or Justin already brought it up in either this thread or the IF bet thread).

The example is based on the situation where Team A will make the playoffs if and only if it win its next game AND Team B loses its next game. Now if Team B plays (and completes -- just to make the discussion easier) its game prior to Team A's game, then one might potentially expect correlation between the two games -- if Team B wins, then Team A has less incentive to win.

Now insofar as this correlation actually exists and is sufficiently substantial, sharp books won't allow these two to be combined in IF bets or parlays. Now if this is the case, then even if the two games are completely noncontemporaneous (the first game ending before the second game begins), one could not take advantage of this correlation using straight bets alone. The reason is because a win or loss by Team B in the first game would then respectively raise or lower the payout odds on Team A to win the second game.

So in other words:

1. Correlated bets do not need to be based on simultaneous events.
2. One can not necessarily duplicate the economic outcome of IF-bets or parlays of noncontemporaneous events using straight bets alone.

Ganch, you are the poster I respect the most on this board, but unless I misunderstand your premises (or you misunderstand mine), I disagree.

Implicit in my argument is the assumption that event B in the open 2-team par is filled in only after event A has gone FINAL. I am stating that in that case there can be no possible edge to the open parlay versus simply rolling over the original investment plus winnings from a straight bet on event A.

Since event A's results are publicly known, the line available on event B will have already adjusted (if necessary) to compensate for the impact of result A.

In an if-bet the line for event B would already be previously locked in, so your argument would hold water there, but in an open parlay it doesn't - agreed?

[RickySteve]

Ganch, you are the poster I respect the most on this board, but unless I misunderstand your premises (or you misunderstand mine), I disagree.

Implicit in my argument is the assumption that event B in the open 2-team par is filled in only after event A has gone FINAL. I am stating that in that case there can be no possible edge to the open parlay versus simply rolling over the original investment plus winnings from a straight bet on event A.

Since event A's results are publicly known, the line available on event B will have already adjusted (if necessary) to compensate for the impact of result A.

In an if-bet the line for event B would already be previously locked in, so your argument would hold water there, but in an open parlay it doesn't - agreed?

You're saying the same thing, except he's coherent.

[Ganchrow]

Implicit in my argument is the assumption that event B in the open 2-team par is filled in only after event A has gone FINAL. I am stating that in that case there can be no possible edge to the open parlay versus simply rolling over the original investment plus winnings from a straight bet on event A.

Since event A's results are publicly known, the line available on event B will have already adjusted (if necessary) to compensate for the impact of result A.

In an if-bet the line for event B would already be previously locked in, so your argument would hold water there, but in an open parlay it doesn't - agreed?

We are not in disagreement.

[DrunkenLullaby]

We are not in disagreement.

Or, in sentential logic terms, ~~A--->A