Which one is better? I'm playing normal parlays, but now I decided to take a look at round robins. They seem to pay more if you hit all your teams, and still reward you a bit if you lose one. I usually play a 3 team parlay and either hit it all or miss just 1. Rarely I miss 2. Should I start playing round robin parlays instead? Is there a catch?
-
-
First off, I hope you've checked out my Round Robin Calculator.Originally posted by Arnold
All a round-robin is, is a collection of 3 or more parlays. So by asking which of a round-robin or a parlay is "better", it's a little like asking, "Which is better, 1 apple or 3 apples?"
To which I'd reply, "I don't know, how much do you like apples?"
(I don't mean to be dismissive here, but if you really want a meaningful answer you're going to have to explicitly define your understanding of the word "better" as well as give some indication as to the bets you're placing.)Comment -
Originally posted by Ganchrow
I am just starting to do RR parlays Arnold...it gets old losing 3 and 4 team parlays by 1 team so I am willing to risk a little more to have the 1 team safety net.
Comment -
I like three or four team round robins, always by 2. I never parlay more than two teams in an individual parlay.Comment -
Yeah, I did play with it. It seems like too good to be true. That's why I'm wondering if there's a catch.Originally posted by Ganchrow
Btw, there is a bug in your calculator. Whenever you change "Number of Games" or "Parlay Size", it Restores my browser window. I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.12, if that matters.
Better is something that makes you more money. Same as +110 odds are better than -110. The bets I'm placing can be anything in the NBA/NHL betting on ML, ATS, Totals. I don't really have a parlay system written in stone that I bet. It's all very flexible.(I don't mean to be dismissive here, but if you really want a meaningful answer you're going to have to explicitly define your understanding of the word "better" as well as give some indication as to the bets you're placing.)
Exactly. I think we should get rewarded for our good effort even if we lose just 1 game.Originally posted by diogee
I am just starting to do RR parlays Arnold...it gets old losing 3 and 4 team parlays by 1 team so I am willing to risk a little more to have the 1 team safety net.Comment -
Thanks for bring that to my attention. It's been fixed.Originally posted by Arnold Let me know if you find any other problems.
If all you cared about were your expectation then were you an advantage player your "best" option would be combine every game you liked like into a single big parlay and then betting every dollar you hadon it.Originally posted by Arnold
But expectation almost certain isn't all you care because (well because if so you'd almost certainly be broke -- or dead) like most of us you're probably risk averse (meaning you value the avoidance of risk in addition to the securing of profit). If so, then you might want to look into the Kelly Criterion, which provides a framework for balancing risk and reward. As a part of Kelly you'll be wagering a small portion of your bankroll on round-robins (assuming all bets are at the same edge and odds) or on collections of many different parlays (assuming bets are at different odds and/or edge). The latter will be similar to a round-robin except you'll be betting varying amounts on the underlying parlays instead of the same amount on each as with around robin.
If, OTOH, you're not an advantage player then it would be clearly inaccurate to define "better" as "something that makes you more money" insofar as your "best" option would then be not to bet at all.
The point is that round robins provide differently textured payouts than flat bets and single parlays. For most advantage bettors round robins with bankroll unconstrained by maximum bet sizes should generally play but a limited role in one's betting arsenal.
For recreational or hybrid players, however, the situation can be different. Round robins provide players positively skewed payouts (implying limited downside but a small probability of making a relatively large amount of money) while also providing a player with varying outcomes highly dependent on the number of games won (unlike with say, a 4-team parlay where it doesn't whether you win 0, 1, 2, or 3 games). This serves to continue to provide a player with "action" even after a game has already been decided against him. Many players like this net impact of these two particular characteristics.
Like all parlays, however, round robins are rather expensive in terms of juice, with juice continuing to increase as parlay size increases. This can serve to eat through a bankroll quickly so bettors need always use additional caution when betting parlays.Comment -
I only use RR's for ML favorites. Say you have 5 or 6 teams at -250 or better you want to parlay. You can RR these 5 or 6 faves in 3/4 team parlays and more oft than nought lock in a profit or at least break even. I dont have the exact numbers, but at least One of those should win. If only one of your high vig faves lose, you still make a profit.Comment -
When you say "high vig" you're aren't really referring to vig at all but rather to the magnitude of the money line.Originally posted by BigOrangeTitans
A -110 bet off a -110/-110 market is higher vig (4.545%) than a -500 bet off a -500/+425 market (2.326%).
By parlaying several of these such bets together you're increasing vig substantially.
The -500 bet (off a -500/+425 line) as a single corresponds to 2.326% vig.
Parlay 2 of them together and you're looking at vig of 4.597%
Parlay 3 and you're at vig of 6.816%.
Parlay 4 and you're at vig of 8.983%.
Parlay 5 and you're at vig of 11.100%.
The point is that you don't reduce vig when you parlay multiple bets ... you increase vig.Comment -
Granted, but a lot of guys here bet mainly ML plays(imvg, stingyrivers) some really solid guys.
If the vig is more expensive in a parlay why wouldnt you just simply bet these lines individually? For instance.
$100 on a -300 = 33.33$
$100 on a -500 = 20$
$100 on a -400 = 25$
$100 on a -200 = 50$
If they all win you got 128.33 in profit. If just one loses, you lost all your profit. Two losses and your losing around 150$. All lose and you lose 400$.
With all these parlayed it comes out at +200. So if you only bet $100 and they all win you get $200, which is almost twice what you made betting straight up. Granted, your probability of hitting this is much worse, but if you missed 2 betting straight up you would lose more than you would missing 1 or all 4 in the parlay.
If you do a 2 team RR with 100 total invested, your max win is 74$. If you lose 1, you lose 7$. Lose 2 and you lose $66.
3 or more and you lose 100.
Therefore, even though you are paying for the vig, I believe it more than pays for itself.Comment -
All of the RR numbers are situational and depend on which bets lose, but that is the best average i could come up with.Comment -
Oh, where is my last post? I wrote one today at work and it's not here. Probably forgot to hit "post"
OK, then I'll just quickly summarize what I wanted to say to Ganchrow's reply. I can't use Kelly, because I don't have a fancy formula that calculates exact edge. I only know who I want to bet on, but that's about it. That's why I stick to flat-betting.
I also went through my parlay history and compared the results vs. round-robin parlays. I was 5-8 overall in parlays, all 3-teamers, except one 4-team and one 5-team parlay. Both 4-5 teams parlays lost. In the end, round-robin showed a 146% profit over single parlays. I'd like to note, that losing 4-5 team parlays set me back more playing them round-robin (in a group of 2's as suggested by LT), than playing them as singles. And it pretty much convinces me that round-robins are the way to go. Placed today my first couple 3-team round-robins. Both parlays went 2-1. Thanks to the new strategy, I won a little bit on 1, and lost less than I would on single parlays on my 2nd parlay. Also won another 2-team parlay.
I agree with BigOrangeTitans here. Ganchrow, are you saying that it's better to bet single straight up bets, rather than parlaying them together? I used to ignore all the big NBA favorites, but now since I started parlaying, they are the real gold. They are easy to hit, and they add some handsome value if you parlay a few of them with one -110 bet, to get a larger payout. Basically, you hit your -110, and then all the < -300 is easy money.Comment -
I did a 4 team RR by 3's today...risked 1 unit total. 1 leg lost and ended up gaining .75 unit. Of course the one downside is that if you do go 4 of 4 on a RR parlay with 1 unit risked then you are getting 6 units in return instead of the 11 units in return of the 4 team parlay...in the end I am sure it more than makes up for the deficit.Comment -
Moneyline favorite RR's are by far, the easiest way to make coin. It is just ungodly slow.Comment -
I'm going to give it a shot BOT
Profit is profit no matter how you make it or how fast.
Comment -
Very true bud.Originally posted by diogeeI'm going to give it a shot BOT
Profit is profit no matter how you make it or how fast.
I would suggest doing 5 ML faves and splitting them into three's. Check the odds, your a much greater advantange with 5 into threes, just reduce the risk per size.Comment -
Sounds like an A+ strategy to me.Comment -
Are you sure about this? RR parlays payout more. Just use the RR calculator. You get $23.83 on $1 RR parlay vs. $12.28 on single parlay (-110 odds).Originally posted by diogeeComment -
On the $1 RR parlay if all 4 hit you would get $23.83 but you are risking $1 on 4 different parlays so therefore you are risking $4 to win $23.83...if risking that same $4 on a 4 teamer the payout would be $44 at 11:1 odds.Originally posted by ArnoldComment -
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: if you can't reasonably quantify your edge, what makes you think you have an edge in the first place?OK, then I'll just quickly summarize what I wanted to say to Ganchrow's reply. I can't use Kelly, because I don't have a fancy formula that calculates exact edge. I only know who I want to bet on, but that's about it. That's why I stick to flat-betting.Comment -
My profits.Originally posted by donjuanComment -
Over what sample size? And how about before reaching a reasonable sample size?My profits.Comment -
I don't want to brag, but believe me, it's not 20-30 or even 100 games. I bet EVERY NBA game ATS & Totals. I got into it more seriously since Feb 9/08. That's over 400-500 bets. My NHL picks are doing well too. I've done too much research and digging, to know, that a couple winning weeks of 1-2 bets per day don't mean anything. I so hate when I see some tout brag about his 11-3 run or whatever. It makes me want to kill them.Originally posted by donjuan
Thinking that you can profit only when you know exactly the edge in % is very ignorant. I flat-bet, and that's why for me it doesn't really matter whether I know or not the exact edge. All I need to know is whether there is one or not. Over time my results speak for themselves.
PS. My NFL season was profitable too.Comment -
400-500 bets is still small. And betting every NBA game ATS and O/U is a very bad idea.Comment -
How big is a large sample?Originally posted by donjuan
I figure you don't bet every game; therefore, I can't imagine you having at least as many bets as your "large sample size".And betting every NBA game ATS and O/U is a very bad idea.
I don't think betting every game is a very bad idea. If for you it's bad, that doesn't automatically make it bad for others.Comment -
Don ... do u think RR are a bad play/wager?Comment -
Is there someone who actually claimed this?Originally posted by ArnoldComment -
Shark,
RRing simultaneous wagers are fine, and indeed part of your optimal stake when using the Kelly criterion. But they should be only part of that stake, not the entire thing.
Arnold,
A few thousand would be a good start.
You think I've only been doing this since February? Come on.I figure you don't bet every game; therefore, I can't imagine you having at least as many bets as your "large sample size".
No, betting every game is pretty much an awful idea, especially if you are betting them anywhere near the close and not finding off market numbers on them.I don't think betting every game is a very bad idea. If for you it's bad, that doesn't automatically make it bad for others.Comment -
A “round robin” simply refers to a set of parlays. For instance, if you intend to bet a parlay of A + B, another of A + C, and another of B + C, instead of making three separate wagers, some software (and phone clerks) allow you to bet it as a “round robin” of all 2-team combinations of A, B and C. This can save considerable time, especially if we’re talking about, say all the 4-team combinations possible for six selections.
But all it is is a terminological difference, a streamlined procedure for making the same bets.
A round robin cannot be “better” or “worse” than betting parlays. It is betting parlays.Comment -
Alright, then by the end of the next NBA season, we'll know for sure.Originally posted by donjuan
A few thousand bets is around 2000-3000. If you make around 100 bets per NBA season, you'll need around 20-30 years to reach this number. That's a long time. Of course, if it's something totally mathematical and automated that requires no human interaction, then you can simply check your formula over each season in your database.You think I've only been doing this since February? Come on.
Most of my bets are placed the night before the game - that's when I cap my games. I still don't see why it's awful, unless you're a losing bettor. 55% over 1000 games is better than 80% over 100 games.No, betting every game is pretty much an awful idea, especially if you are betting them anywhere near the close and not finding off market numbers on them.Comment -
I think donjuan tried to say that.Originally posted by TLDComment -
It is betting parlays, but it is definitely a different strategy than betting single parlays. That's why I believe it's not the same thing.Originally posted by TLDComment -
No, he didn't.Originally posted by Arnold
If you are finding advantage plays and flat betting, there is no doubt you will be profitable in the long run.Comment -
Small bets (depending on your bankroll) in the lung run will have a better outcome than wagering a higher percentage of your bankroll? Is this kinda where we're getting too?Comment -
Closing lines are generally most efficient. If you are betting closing lines on every game on the board, I find it extremely unlikely that you are making advantage bets.Most of my bets are placed the night before the game - that's when I cap my games. I still don't see why it's awful, unless you're a losing bettor. 55% over 1000 games is better than 80% over 100 games.
Indeed, although you will likely have less money than if you quantified your edge and bet Kelly.If you are finding advantage plays and flat betting, there is no doubt you will be profitable in the long run.Comment -
Depends how you define small and what your edge is. Also, I assume by better outcome you mean your bankroll is larger.Small bets (depending on your bankroll) in the lung run will have a better outcome than wagering a higher percentage of your bankroll? Is this kinda where we're getting too?Comment
