Round Robin parlays vs. Normal parlays

[Arnold]

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.

Well, I said that I bet them the night before. That's far from being closing lines. Although, I think you can make profit on any lines. It's all in how you look at the game.

Indeed, although you will likely have less money than if you quantified your edge and bet Kelly.

I think the opposite is true for most Kelly players. This is based on the fact that most people don't have a proven formula to figure out an edge. And for those that do, I don't know why are they still going to work every morning.

[donjuan]

Well, I said that I bet them the night before. That's far from being closing lines. Although, I think you can make profit on any lines. It's all in how you look at the game.

Sorry, I misread your post. Betting openers is definitely better than closing lines if you are purely handicapping.

I think the opposite is true for most Kelly players. This is based on the fact that most people don't have a proven formula to figure out an edge. And for those that do, I don't know why are they still going to work every morning.

Sorry, I meant among people who have a clue.

[durito]

And for those that do, I don't know why are they still going to work every morning.

Finding and quantifying edges is a lot of work.

I don't know anyone who is successful doing this that doesn't work quite hard.

[Arnold]

Finding and quantifying edges is a lot of work.

I don't know anyone who is successful doing this that doesn't work quite hard.

I meant a normal day job, not the 2nd shift handicapping job. I would say that if you can tell exactly the chance you have on a bet, it shouldn't take much time. All you need is a computer and computer programming skills, since it's all mathematical and based on past data.

[imgv94]

Arnold let's start posting these winning plays of yours.. Start a thread and post your plays in it and update it with a record.

Thanks

[Ganchrow]

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.

It might "more than pay for itself" in terms of the personal enjoyment that a player extracts from betting in this manner, but in terms of the "house take" there's no question as to which is more expensive on a percentage basis (the parlay).

That said, assumes the comparision of bets on a dollar-risked basis. If a player were to bet significantly less on a parlay than on a straight bet, then in terms of net dollar vig, the parlay could be comparable to, or even represent a significant savings over the straight bet.

For example a $100 straight bet at -110/-110 would implies juice of about $4.55, while a $100 4-team parlay (assuming identical hold on the singles) would imply juice of $16.98.

If however, a player were to bet $25 on the 4-team parlay, then he'd only be spending $4.24 in vig, slightly less than the vig on teh $100 straight bet.

So it really comes down to how a recreational bettor structures his bet sizes. If he tended to risk the same amount on parlays as on singles he'd be spending much more on vig for each parlay than on vig for each single.

So just be careful. While a straight bet at -110 might have the same payout odds as 5 big favorites parlayed at -725, then assuming hold of 4.55%, risking $100 on the parlay will bet more than 4.5x times as expensive as risking $100 on the straight bet.

[Ganchrow]

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.

What I'm saying is that by betting singles you're paying the house less money per dollar risked in terms of vig than when betting parlays.

That said, an advantage player could certainly increase his expected return (at the expense of highly increased risk) by betting parlays in preference to singles. Nevertheless, this is not generally recommended on a large-sclae due to its adverse effect on bankroll growth.

[Ganchrow]

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.

Even if you assume the same edge on every bet you can still use Kelly to structure your bet sizes.

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.

If you're wagering on independent events then this sort of analysis is useless. Just because you may have won or lost bets in groups of (say) 2 or 3 in the past, in no way implies you'll continue to do so in the future.

As I've said before, a recreational or hybrid bettor looking to enjoy himself by placing a few wagers should by all means bet as many parlays and round robins as he suits his temperament. Nevertheless, such bettors need be very mindful of the added bankroll volatility that will necessarily result when betting parlays (notably as longer odds). Furthermore, a rec bettor needs to be especially wary of the greater vig expense entailed by parlays and should be sure to adjust his wager size accordingly.

An advantage bettor, on the other hand, unconcerned with extracting enjoyment from his wagers, should invest time and effort into adopting a sensible staking strategy. With such a strategy uncorrelated parlays should play but a limited role, a role solely determined by the underlying mathematics.

[Ganchrow]

Moneyline favorite RR's are by far, the easiest way to make coin. It is just ungodly slow.

Were you claim true it would necessarily imply that the same money line favorites that you'd include in a round robin would also be +EV when wagered as straight bets.

Is that an argument you're prepared to make? In other words, do you believe that, in general, money line favorites are +EV? If so, do you believe that this applies to all sports/leagues, or just to select ones?

[Arnold]

Arnold let's start posting these winning plays of yours.. Start a thread and post your plays in it and update it with a record.

Thanks

Why? I know exactly what my record is and who I picked, because I keep it all in my database. I don't need a thread to keep track of it. I also post my opinions/picks in other users' threads many times. I'm not gonna start a personal thread just to prove someone something.

What I'm saying is that by betting singles you're paying the house less money per dollar risked in terms of vig than when betting parlays.

That said, an advantage player could certainly increase his expected return (at the expense of highly increased risk) by betting parlays in preference to singles. Nevertheless, this is not generally recommended on a large-sclae due to its adverse effect on bankroll growth.

So if I understand you correctly, you win more $ betting parlays, but also need a slightly better winning % on parlays in order to cover the vig? Same as betting single bets of -110, you need a 52.3% to cover up the vig. Is this right? It's hard to understand when you see more $$$ when betting parlays versus single bets.

Even if you assume the same edge on every bet you can still use Kelly to structure your bet sizes.

It's something I would need to put more thought and research/testing into. I can't make a decision right now.

If you're wagering on independent events then this sort of analysis is useless. Just because you may have won or lost bets in groups of (say) 2 or 3 in the past, in no way implies you'll continue to do so in the future.

I know, the sample is too small. But it gives me some hope for now.

[BigOrangeTitans]

Were you claim true it would necessarily imply that the same money line favorites that you'd include in a round robin would also be +EV when wagered as straight bets.

Is that an argument you're prepared to make? In other words, do you believe that, in general, money line favorites are +EV? If so, do you believe that this applies to all sports/leagues, or just to select ones?

I'm talking merely basketball. Given anyone can lose at any time. But in say college baskets regular season you can often find teams that are unbelievable at home (memphis, tenn, wisc, duke, etc). You can find teams like this on almost every card. If a team is 49-3(wisc midseason. At home under Bo ryan) and say at -350. You know that this is probably one of the best bets you could make, but paying 3.5 to 1 odds isnt going to be something you would want to pay. But if you find 2 or 3 teams like this, and parlay/rr them you are going to get +Ev or near parlay odds. This has worked very well for me. I know that I am paying extra to do this, but the reward far outways the initial loss of vig.

[Ganchrow]

So if I understand you correctly, you win more $ betting parlays, but also need a slightly better winning % on parlays in order to cover the vig? Same as betting single bets of -110, you need a 52.3% to cover up the vig. Is this right? It's hard to understand when you see more $$$ when betting parlays versus single bets.

By betting parlays you aren't changing your required (average) breakeven rate.

If you're profitable betting singles you'll be more profitable (EV-wise) betting parlays. If you're unprofitable betting singles you'll be even less profitable betting parlays.

Nevertheless, there's much more to successful long-term advantage betting than simply maximizing EV (i.e., money management).

[BigOrangeTitans]

Ganch,
Are you trying to say that over time you would more successful betting SU on ML faves? I thought my post disproved this...

[Ganchrow]

I'm talking merely basketball. Given anyone can lose at any time. But in say college baskets regular season you can often find teams that are unbelievable at home (memphis, tenn, wisc, duke, etc). You can find teams like this on almost every card. If a team is 49-3(wisc midseason. At home under Bo ryan) and say at -350. You know that this is probably one of the best bets you could make, but paying 3.5 to 1 odds isnt going to be something you would want to pay. But if you find 2 or 3 teams like this, and parlay/rr them you are going to get +Ev or near parlay odds. This has worked very well for me. I know that I am paying extra to do this, but the reward far outways the initial loss of vig.

Whether or not it's worked well for a given a individual (or 10) in the past is largely irrelevant.

For an advantage bettor the strategy you're espousing generally corresponds to a high-risk, suboptimal money management framework and as such is likely antithetical to optimal bankroll growth.

No matter how much it might "seem" otherwise, advantage bettors unconcerned with "having fun" when betting should for the most part completely avoid uncorrelated parlays unless doing so as part of a sound and disciplined money management strategy (or in order to circumvent limits/discourage line movements).

[Ganchrow]

Are you trying to say that over time you would more successful betting SU on ML faves?

A recreational bettor would on average do better betting SU vs. MLs.

The average professional bettor would also do better betting SU vs. MLs.

(Note that the two statements above are not identical.)

[donjuan]

But if you find 2 or 3 teams like this, and parlay/rr them you are going to get +Ev or near parlay odds.

Please get your terminology straight. +EV refers to bets with a positive expected value, not even money odds. From the sounds of it, you are just parlaying a bunch of teams who "can't lose" to get to near even money. Unless all of these bets individually have +EV, you should consider this an entertainment bet and not one you expect to be profitable.

[BigOrangeTitans]

I do not understand how this is not a better way to bet -350 or better faves. Given the example i showed, i do not understand how a parlay or RR would not be the better way to go when betting these.
You parlay two -350 faves.
You bet 350 on team a at -350 which yields 100.
you bet 350 on team b at -350 which yields 100.
If one loses you would lose 250. But if you parlay those and drop you bet size to where you would win 200, you would have to wager less upfront. How is this not a better option?

[donjuan]

You aren't giving enough information, such as the expected value of each wager.

[LT Profits]

donjuan.

In BOTs last post, suppose he gave each of the -350's an 80% probability (fair line -400).

[Dark Horse]

Best 25 bucks you'll spend on this topic is the book 'win more, lose less.' (available from gamblersbook.com)

As donjuan says, you do need to have a very accurate winning expectation per bet. Otherwise, don't bother.

[donjuan]

In BOTs last post, suppose he gave each of the -350's an 80% probability (fair line -400).

Then it depends on whether your goal is to maximize EV or EG. If you want to maximize your EV, just bet your whole roll on the parlay. If you want to maximize EG, use Ganch's Kelly calculator.

[Shark79]

Just had to mention this is a very good thread ... best thread this month IMO ... some real knowledge .. none of that mamboyambo that is brought in daily ....

Thanks again

[LT Profits]

So BOT,

If you have a $5,000 roll and you have two -350 favorites with an 80% probablity of winning, Full Kelly says to risk $450 straight on each and a $50 parlay.

[Ganchrow]

So BOT,

If you have a $5,000 roll and you have two -350 favorites with an 80% probablity of winning, Full Kelly says to risk $450 straight on each and a $50 parlay.

While a more manageable quarter-Kelly would imply $125 on each single and $3 on the round robin.

[Ganchrow]

I do not understand how this is not a better way to bet -350 or better faves. Given the example i showed, i do not understand how a parlay or RR would not be the better way to go when betting these.
You parlay two -350 faves.
You bet 350 on team a at -350 which yields 100.
you bet 350 on team b at -350 which yields 100.
If one loses you would lose 250. But if you parlay those and drop you bet size to where you would win 200, you would have to wager less upfront. How is this not a better option?

Because while this methodology might seem intuitively appealing it nevertheless has little to do with determining the "best" outcome for an advantage bettor.

Perhaps you could provide some estimates of either win probability or edge on these bets, explicitly spell out your goals, and then we could try to determine what the most effective manner would be for you to attain these.

[BigOrangeTitans]

Because while this methodology might seem intuitively appealing it nevertheless has little to do with determining the "best" outcome for an advantage bettor.

Perhaps you could provide some estimates of either win probability or edge on these bets, explicitly spell out your goals, and then we could try to determine what the most effective manner would be for you to attain these.

Well, heres what I do. For ML favorites I never bet them SU. I will bet between 1-5 units depending on how strong the advantage is. At 70% 1 unit. At 90+% 5 units.

Because as I said, theres a lot of risk involved when betting these. Lets say your at 80% advantage. If you bet 10 ML faves at -300 SU over a period of time at 1 unit($100). The max winning amount of that is 300$. If put into a RR, you win 622(more than double).
If 8 win that is $240. But with the two that lost you end up only being up $40.
Now if you RR those at $17.78 per round robin(risking 800 as opposed to 1000) and lose two, you would still make 84.95. That is double of what you made risking 1000.

Now lets say same scenario you go 6 out of 10. Still 60%, but 6 wins = 180$. 4 losses = -400. Therefore you lose $220.
If that is done in a RR, you lose 320.

Now given that, if i can make double going out 8 out of ten if put in a RR, and only lose 100 more than if wagered straight up, lose 4, and only hitting my 80% advantage at 60%. Wouldnt it be advantageous to RR these on purely the numbers alone?

Any given night you can find -300 ML faves that are at a 80% advantage or better. Why then, if you average 80% + in ML faves, would you not bet anything but a RR or parlay?

[tomcowley]

Any given night you can find -300 ML faves that are at a 80% advantage or better. Why then, if you average 80% + in ML faves, would you not bet anything but a RR or parlay?

Why aren't you a millionaire? You could bet these practically any which way you wanted and get rich in no time.

[BigOrangeTitans]

Why aren't you a millionaire? You could bet these practically any which way you wanted and get rich in no time.

Tom, that is what we are debating. There is a downfall, but where? You would need quite a bit of time do to this with a starting bankroll of 5k, as you would only do 3-4 teams at most a night(to maintain 80% advantage).

[donjuan]

There is a downfall, but where?

Because you are overestimating your edge.

[BigOrangeTitans]

Because you are overestimating your edge.

Are you telling me you couldnt hit 80% with a -300 home fave consistently? Are you nuts?

[donjuan]

Are you telling me you couldnt hit 80% with a -300 home fave consistently? Are you nuts?

Yes, that is exactly what I'm telling you.

Making straight bets, after 1000 bets with a $5000 bankroll, betting half-Kelly your median bankroll would be over $1 million.

[Ganchrow]

For what it's worth some of your calculations were slightly off. Corrections below.

FYI, when you refer to an 80% advantage you really mean win probability.

Because as I said, theres a lot of risk involved when betting these. Lets say your at 80% advantage. If you bet 10 ML faves at -300 SU over a period of time at 1 unit($100). The max winning amount of that is 300$ $333.33. If put into a RR, you win 622 $777.78 (more than double).
If 8 win that is $240. But with the two that lost you end up only being up $40 $66.67.
Now if you RR those at $17.78 per round robin(risking 800 as opposed to 1000) and lose two, you would still make 84.95. That is double 127% of what you made risking 1000.

Now lets say same scenario you go 6 out of 10. Still 60%, but 6 wins = 180$ $200. 4 losses = -400. Therefore you lose $220 $200.
If that is done in a RR, you lose 320 $325.93.

Now given that, if i can make double 127% going out 8 out of ten if put in a RR, and only lose 100 more than if wagered straight up, lose 4, and only hitting my 80% advantage at 60%. Wouldnt it be advantageous to RR these on purely the numbers alone?

This just isn't how an advantage player should be evaluating a staking strategy.

By considering only the most positive outcomes you're completely neglecting any notion of the bettor's expectation (let alone his risk). You can't look solely at the cases where the bettor wins 8 or more games, wave your hands, and then declare the round robin superior. That's not how one should proceed even with the most rudimentary of expected value analyses.

Now there's nothing "wrong" with analyzing recreational bets in the manner you've chosen manner, but with all due respect your outlined methodology would be essentially useless within an advantage betting framework.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but while you clearly seem genuinely interested in the subject matter it's a little difficult to explain these concepts when you seem stuck on this particular form of analysis. Might I suggest seeking a slightly better understanding of how to gauge expectation probabilistically? To this end you might this post helpful: http://forum.sbrforum.com/players-ta...ical-hold.html

When you get a better feeling for this you can then start looking at bets in terms of expected value, which provides an objective (although quite flawed) yardstick for comparison. Once you have a fuller understanding of expectations, you can then begin thinking in terms of bankroll/risk management, which tends to lead most advantage bettors to Kelly staking.

[greek]

i dont dont see a round robin BUTTON ON 5 DIMES !!so how do i do it?

[tomcowley]

Do it like a parlay, then after you select games, there's a dropdown menu at the bottom left asking what combinations you want.

[INVEGA MAN]

They are tough to hit. Any parlay is tough and thats why we keep bookies smoking those $50 cigars