Correlated Parlays?

[dante1]

An assumption that the over in a parlay with the high
favorite and the under with the dog in that same parlay is
a better play than the other two possibilities I think is
considered a correlated parlay. The reasoning is that
when a game has a high total and the favorite is a high
favorite than those two above examples will give you a higher rate of return than 25% each. Naturally 25% is the number that is related to your chances of winning a normal parlay.
Each possibility has one chance of winning, one out of four.
Every small advantage is helpful but is this advantage
significant? And if it is you still must decide what one of the two advantageous parlays to select.

Any help or more explanation on this by any of you guys??
Thanks. I realize that it is possible my assumptions are not
valid. Oh and btw, you math guys how about explaining this
so us non math guys can understand. I worked with a ton of
great math minds, problem was many of them couldn't teach it. haha

[raiders72002]

You are correct. Parlay over with big favorite or under with big dog.

Reason is if the total goes under, less points are scored making the likelihood better that the dog covers and vice versa.

[dante1]

You are correct. Parlay over with big favorite or under with big dog.

Reason is if the total goes under, less points are scored making the likelihood better that the dog covers and vice versa.

Raiders, thank you. I understand that part. But, is it significant? If it increases odds to say 25.8 or even 26% on either side is that enough to make a difference in your
cappin strategy?

[raiders72002]

yes, it makes a difference. Maybe Ganch can set up a chart showing each line and then the corresponding total where it would be worth it to make a correlated parlay.

I mean if you play a dog at +10. At what total would this be profitable to correlate it to the under. 51? 48? 37?

[dante1]

Thanks that would help, hope he does it.
GL

[HedgeHog]

D1

The more correlated your parlay is the better your win% will be. An NFL strategy I use hits just over 30% winners on 2-team parlays.

[dante1]

D1

The more correlated your parlay is the better your win% will be. An NFL stategy I use hits just over 30% winners on 2-team parlays.

HH thank you. What do you use to determine how to judge
the strenth of correlation in a parlay? Is there a chart?

[HedgeHog]

In the NFL, look for games that have a favorite of 7.5 or more and a Total of less than 40. Make two parlays, one with the Fav/Over and the other with the Dog/Under. Also, shop for lines, because you don't have to put both pars at the same place.

[pokernut9999]

Would not have worked too good yesterday.

[HedgeHog]

Would not have worked too good yesterday.

Wrong. There were an unusually high 5 games that qualified yesterday (Buff/Pitt, JV/Atl, NYJ/Balt, Oak/Den, KC/Chi). I made 5 bets with the Fav/Over and 5 with the Dog/Under. I had 3 winning parlays. They were Atl+10/U34.5, NYJ+9.5/U33.5, and KC +12/U34.5). $1000 bet ($100 per par)and $1080 returned. No windfall I agree, but still a profit.

[pokernut9999]

I missed the 40 point total part, i had 2 more games in the equation my bad

[dante1]

Wrong. There were an unusually high 5 games that qualified yesterday (Buff/Pitt, JV/Atl, NYJ/Balt, Oak/Den, KC/Chi). I made 5 bets with the Fav/Over and 5 with the Dog/Under. I had 3 winning parlays. They were Atl+10/U34.5, NYJ+9.5/U33.5, and KC +12/U34.5). $1000 bet ($100 per par)and $1080 returned. No windfall I agree, but still a profit.

Thank you my friend. Makes more sense now. I might experiment this weekend. I am assuning college is okay too. And I am assuming you could tweak this and play a little more on the parlay you like, or is that a no-no?

[pokernut9999]

That was a $1000 dollar risk for a $80 profit. Others have math formulas where 55% winners come out ahead on 2 teamers. I have broke it down in real terms and you have to hit 60% or greater. Not too many people in the course of a year can hit that %.

[HedgeHog]

Thank you my friend. Makes more sense now. I might experiment this weekend. I am assuning college is okay too. And I am assuming you could tweak this and play a little more on the parlay you like, or is that a no-no?

Certainly you want to bet more on the pars that are more likely to hit. I believe the Dog/Under pars do somewhat better, because the general public tends to bet favorites and overs. Linemakers know this and adjust accordingly. Also, bet more on the games that have lower variance between the line and total. This week the best play involved KC/Chi with a 22.5 difference (Line 12,Total 34.5).

For colleges, you would want to look for lines of 14 points or more with a difference of 34 points or less from the total (i.e. Line 17,Total 49 has a 32 point variance). But you will have much difficulty betting these, because most places have their systems set to deny these parlays.

[Doug]

If the spread is very large, very few places will allow it to be parlayed to the total of the same game. It will come back as "invalid selection".

Good luck getting a college game like:

Fav-22 and over 41

[HedgeHog]

That was a $1000 dollar risk for a $80 profit. Others have math formulas where 55% winners come out ahead on 2 teamers. I have broke it down in real terms and you have to hit 60% or greater. Not too many people in the course of a year can hit that %.

Poker:

I agree that straight betting is almost always the way to go. However, correlated parlays are a totally different animal. One side influences the other. Take a game that has a line of 14 and total of 34. If the favorite covers 14, then the chances of the game going over 34 is greatly enhanced. Similarly, a game that is under 34, greatly improves the chances of a 14-point dog covering. I assure you that at least 30% winners can be made on Fav/Over and Dog/Under pars with these circumstances.

[pokernut9999]

I look at it this way, for a single game.

2 wagers for a $100 each = $200 at risk

You can only hit 1 of the 2 parlays

so bottom line is either a $200 loss or a $160 profit.

I see that as negative return on my money.

would rather risk $220 to win $200 on sraight bet

[atakdog]

Assuming arguendo that Hedgehog's numbers (+7.5, u40) are approximately profit-maximizing, I wonder what the corresponding points are for NCAA.

Also: which books allow these parlays?

[atakdog]

Pokernut: if you're confident about the pointspread advantage, you could always bet only that parlay, not the other direction. I think Hedgehog's presenting a strategy that (he alleges) works if you have no particular feeling about the game.

As he says, not a hugely profitable venture, but if it's predictable it would be worth looking into. I'm interested.

[pico]

You are correct. Parlay over with big favorite or under with big dog.

Reason is if the total goes under, less points are scored making the likelihood better that the dog covers and vice versa.

pittsburg covered, i think it went under as well

[pico]

You are correct. Parlay over with big favorite or under with big dog.

Reason is if the total goes under, less points are scored making the likelihood better that the dog covers and vice versa.

also clevland dog won, and it went wayyy over 96 pts i think

[dante1]

If the spread is very large, very few places will allow it to be parlayed to the total of the same game. It will come back as "invalid selection".

Good luck getting a college game like:

Fav-22 and over 41

Doug: In that case couldn't you just do a if win bet, same thing as a parlay if done properly.

Pokernutt: I agree with your reasoning, but some people claim these plays give a slight advantage. I don't know but I will investigate. I always believed that when the favorite covers with a high line you have a better chance of over. Conversely with the dog. I am not positive about that and I don't like playing two parlays. But, I won't say never until I investigate it. The knowledge from all the players on this forum I think is only a positive. Not a ton of bs but some really good stuff.

[BigDaddy]

Doug: In that case couldn't you just do a if win bet, same thing as a parlay if done properly.

Pokernutt: I agree with your reasoning, but some people claim these plays give a slight advantage. I don't know but I will investigate. I always believed that when the favorite covers with a high line you have a better chance of over. Conversely with the dog. I am not positive about that and I don't like playing two parlays. But, I won't say never until I investigate it. The knowledge from all the players on this forum I think is only a positive. Not a ton of bs but some really good stuff.

if the software doesnt allow the parlay to go through it most likely will not allow the if bet to go through


try doing an if bet with ML and Side and you notice it wont accept it

correlated parlays are no good i would suggest not even thinking of playing them

[raiders72002]

correlated parlays are no good i would suggest not even thinking of playing them

agree 100%, they are sucker bets.

[HedgeHog]

Picoman: You're right about the Pitt/Buff game, both pars lost, same as in the Den/Oak game. That's going to happen a lot when you're parlay goal is "just" 30%. But you're example in the the Cin/Clev game is way off because the line was 7 (not 7.5), and even if you found the hook, the total was clearly over 40.

Dante: If you're going to limit the pars to one choice, and this is more than acceptable, go with the Dog/Under for reasons already stated.

Poker: I don't think you get the concept of a correlated parlay as you keep saying why straight beats pars (you're preaching to the choir). This thread is about correlated (co-related) parlays. They exclusively involve same game pars (side and total) and are much different than regular pars. Let me give you an extreme and unrealistic example to illustrate co-related pars. Say you have a completely correlated game, USC is 62.5 favored over Igotnutn U (a.k.a. Notre Dame) and the oddsmakers, knowing ND's offense, put the Total at 62.5 also. Poker, you can make any straight bet you want for $200, but I'll take my two $100 pars on USC/Over and ND/Under for a guaranteed $160 profit.

Now the above example will never happen, because books have become sharp to heavily correlated college games--as Doug correctly points out. I'm only trying to explain the notion of correlation. Luckily, the Books are more lax in the NFL, allowing almost all parlays. And I'll make the point for the final time, the less the difference between the same game's line and total, the more the game is correlated--increasing parlay payouts for the Fav/Over and Dog/Under player. Perhaps the math guy "Ganch" can explain this better. I'm really trying to keep it simple.

[BigDaddy]

" but I'll take my two $100 pars on USC/Over and ND/Under for a guaranteed $160 profit."


hey pal thats not guaranteed profit of anything

and if you want to bet let me know how much?

[HedgeHog]

" but I'll take my two $100 pars on USC/Over and ND/Under for a guaranteed $160 profit."


hey pal thats not guaranteed profit of anything

and if you want to bet let me know how much?

Did you read the hypothetical and unrealistic example, idiot. The line is 62.5 and the total is 62.5. By definition, if the favored covers, the game has to go over. Likewise, if the game goes under, the underdog is a 100% winner. I think some of you need to read the title of the thread--it's about "co-related parlays" not regular ones (which in general are sucker bets) .

[raiders72002]

The line is 62.5 and the total is 62.5. By

65-15 loses both.

[BigDaddy]

hedge i will give you a line of -62.5 and 62.5


you bet FAV over and dog under


its not a free $160


it could go Dog Over

did i call you an idiot? even though you are one

thank you

[BigDaddy]

65-15 loses both.

thanks i shouldnt even be wasting my time replying to these idiots and let them continue to make these bad bet

i know you understand raiders

[HedgeHog]

65-15 loses both.

My bad, you're right! There are better ways to hedge this, like with a straight bet to hedge the parlay. Got a little carried away...thanks for calling me on it Raiders. Apologies to Big Daddy.

[HedgeHog]

Big D.

Truly sorry. I got frustrated explaining the notion of correlated parlays. In the example I gave, you could even play the 3rd parlay of Dog/Over, guaranteeing a profit on the sure one winner. Offsetting with a straight bet against your favorite par might be better. And, yes, I'm the idiot , not you. I'm done posting on this thread. Do the research and decide for yourself; I've been squeaking a small profit on this method for years. Prove me wrong with stats. It's easy to say these are sucker bets (Raiders) without stating facts. You make one stupid mistake, and your entire argument is dismissed. "Ganch" where are you,?

[Doug]

Doug: In that case couldn't you just do a if win bet, same thing as a parlay if done properly.

Pokernutt: I agree with your reasoning, but some people claim these plays give a slight advantage. I don't know but I will investigate. I always believed that when the favorite covers with a high line you have a better chance of over. Conversely with the dog. I am not positive about that and I don't like playing two parlays. But, I won't say never until I investigate it. The knowledge from all the players on this forum I think is only a positive. Not a ton of bs but some really good stuff.

The If bet can be caught by the software, or worse yet, voided after it wins.

These correlated parlays with big spreads are hugely profitable, but few will accept it. If you find an out, and post it, you will lose that out.

[Doug]

Is this RX Dante ?

[RickySteve]

Is this RX Dante ?

It was established in another thread that, no, he isn't.